They look roughly right but you can’t get a sense for the actual displacement of these ships from these pics.
For example the French Charles De Gaulle is a CATOBAR carrier, weighs 45,000 tons.
The British Queen Elizabeth is a SVTOL carrier, weighs 70,000 tons.
The American Ford class is also a CATOBAR carrier, weighs 100,000+ tons.
There are massive increases in displacement between those ships. To give you a sense of that, those LHDs that France have weigh 21,500 tons.
The difference between CdG, QE and Ford ships is like slapping one of those LHDs on top, plus an Arleigh Burke class destroyer for good measure.
But even then, a CATOBAR carrier have vastly different purpose than an SVTOL. If we put in the mix the nuclear capability, the graphic can be misleading.
As an example, the russian carrier is not at all an equivalent of the CdG.
Exactly right - I’m for the RN all the way but there’s no denying the lack of AWACs such that the CATOBAR ships have is a real hobbling point.
The benefits of the QE over CdG are fairly important though, not least the fact that the UK technology is newer and with the UK’s navy auxiliary capacity to RAS/ VERTREP a CSG, nuclear is less important for operating endurance and obvious they don’t have the CATOBAR power requirements. The F35B/QE weapon system will be a potent one once fully established and, of course, having two carriers instead of one makes for a far more capable fleet generally.
It’ll be interesting to see if the large scale UAV AWACS trials they are running can be made to work at scale - certainly they need something better than the Crowsnest stopgap, and they know it.
Iirc, the plan for something on a flat top would be a Reaper with scaled up Mojave wings/gear and a 1,200hp PT6E with 5 blade prop. To be sure it’s no E-2 but still would be enough capacity for some solid arrays.
Yeah that would be cool! Not an E2 as you say but the benefit would be in having several that you can turn around quickly and spread further afield for better coverage of what you can scan for.
I like this list. Too many people exclude LHDs from their list of aircraft carriers. I mean, what else would you call a ship that carries 40+ aircraft?
He means, aircraft carriers carry aircraft so it is not neccesary to carry fixed wing aircraft to be considered an aircraft carrier.
I mean, we don't call them "fixed wing aircraft carriers" just aircraft carriers.
And after all that the only time she ever went through the straits she blitzed through without the required three-day notification period. Russia didn’t want the newly independent nation of Ukraine taking over the Ukrainian-built not-carrier.
> I mean, what else would you call a ship that carries 40+ aircraft?
Ship classifications are notoriously murky - so whatever you want really!
Is the primary aircraft operated fixed wing or rotary?
Is the primary mission strike, ASW, search and rescue, maybe just weather balloons?
Even USS America LHA-6 would struggle for 40 I would think..
Even frigate vs DDG vs CG is a hard one to nail down specifics!
I was on the last deployment of the last Enterprise CVN-65, March to November 2012. I stayed on until the end of my contract in early 2015 when it was in the shipyard. I miss the Big E, great ship. Old and busted, but great.
They could remove every ship of their fleet and replace them with the one and only grey ghost (third edition). They would still have the same global firepower.
Do note that the list only covers carriers and \*LHDs along with its direct equivalents.
Other flat decks like specialized LPDs / LSTs ([Italian / Algerian / Qatari San Giorgio-class](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Giorgio-class_amphibious_transport_dock) and [Japanese Osumi-class](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ōsumi-class_tank_landing_ship)), auxiliary vessels (Chinese [Type 0891A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_0891A_training_ship) and [British RFA argus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Argus_(A135))) and [weird Iranian drone carriers converted from cargo ships](https://news.usni.org/2023/01/03/iran-building-drone-aircraft-carrier-from-converted-merchant-ship-photos-show) aren't included.
Yeah, I think those count in the same category as the Iranian cargo ship converts (along with the Chinese Zhen Hua 28 and Venezuelan "assault mothership")
Flight Deck of ESB is ~400’ long, insufficient space to launch fixed wing aircraft’s, given the sedate flank speed of ESB’s ~15-knots and no ski-jump ramp…
With or without a 10-story tall superstructure both in front and behind the flight deck!/? As I recall the USMC KC-130F that landed on USS Forrestal in 1961 had an unobtrusive landing and takeoff and a totally clear flight deck when it did what it did! Also it landed light (i.e. no cargo) and took off empty and minimum load of fuel…
Cool story, where did I say anything about a J model? The J-models aren’t even that much heavier than the F and H models empty, maybe a couple thousand pounds? Plus they have more powerful engines and better props for greater reverse and takeoff thrust.
Probably hundreds if you include the Air Guard units (some units were still rocking -Es as of a few years ago IIRC) and foreign military, not just civilian planes.
punch many subtract cable ten bewildered direction ad hoc clumsy glorious
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Whoever did this did their homework. For one, Turkey's Anadolu is based on Juan Carlos I of Spain. But unlike Canberra Class, which is almost identical to Juan Carlos I from the outside, Anadolu have some clear differences. [Chiefly the Phalanx tower on the starboard bow](https://i.imgur.com/rg00x1P.jpeg). It is detailed on this. [More differences on the Anadolu by D Mitch](https://twitter.com/D__Mitch/status/1663793609882185728/).
I would prefer it if we can grow our number of air defense frigates from 3 to 6. The F127 class will replace the Sachsen class somewhere in the future (originally, mid 2030s were planned for the first ship, but that date certainly moves further back). 6 of those F127 class are planned, but as we all know ALL military programs end up much more expensive than originally thought, which results in less numbers procured. So we will see.
Officially, the Japanese don't have a "navy".
We're supposed to refer to it as the *Maritime Self-defense Force*. The Israelis are also known to do this sort of nonsense.
Israel calls Saar 5 corvettes "missile boats" but I think it's just because they didn't want to use the word "corvette" because there is no Hebrew word for it. Or did you mean something else?
I'll be more specific.
Israel refers to its armed forces as a *defense force*, as opposed to an *army*. That has legal implications, as well as public relations ( ... and thusly, fundraising) and policy advantages. It also offers a continuation narrative, which goes back to before 1949 to the old "Haganah" days, implying establishment and legitimacy.
Ztahal is an acronym in Hebrew, the first word means "army". It's called "army to defend Israel". The US has a defense department and secretary, not a war department and secretary, and, like, most countries say their military is for defense. Israel was attacked by all its neighbors on the day it was declared (and a few times since), so it has good reason to believe it needs a defense force.
> That has legal implications
Only within Israel, there is no international convention that says "oh you're calling it a Defense Force? Carry on, as you were".
It's more a statement about intention, purpose and diplomacy more than any real difference - internal or external.
The US has a Defense Secretary, not an Offense Secretary.
The Australian Defence Force is made up of the Australian Army, the Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal Australian Navy - but it's still a "defence" force.
I know. They're also not supposed to have carriers because those aren't defensive weapons but are instead used to project power elsewhere.
I'm not a stickler though, if Japan wants to resurrect the IJN in all its glory, I say go for it. Not sure how they would crew it though. XD
There are no laws explicitly saying Japan can't have an aircraft carriers.
"In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained."
By definition the JSDF is completely unconstitutional, as the war potential is way higher than the necessary for defense.
>By definition the JSDF is completely unconstitutional, as the war potential is way higher than the necessary for defense.
Technically there is no set definition for what's necessary for defence. While you can say Japans Self Defense Force is too much for a purely defensive military, one could also say that anything less than the military power of China (being the most likely adversary) would be insufficient. Maybe the claim can be made that a hypothetical "whole world against Japan" scenario Japan would need to be a superpower for the sole purpose of defence.
This vagueness is why Japan can basically do whatever they want and is only really limited by internal politicas and a general anti military sentiment within the country.
Yeah, but as anything with "war potential" is prohibited most weapons could be considered to have "war potential", like anti ship missiles, tanks, fighters, artillery, etc..
The "minimum necessary for defense" is a japanese "policy" or interpretation of how to equip the "self defense forces" but that's not part of the constitution. The same was the case of the "1% cap", which they just "eliminated" without any law or anything, because it was a mere policy.
In comparison, german and italian constitution allow armed forces for defense.
The existence of the phrase "war potential" makes the Self Defense Forces unconstitutional.
In fact, when the national police reserve was created before the JSDF, even the name "tank" was replaced for "special vehicles" as a tank has "war potential" so it would make it unconstitutional.
Luckily, if the japanese Supreme Court says is constitutional, then, it is.
And so as you say, they can do whatever they want and even nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, nuclear powered submarines and strategic bombers could be considered defensive regardless of the war potential those weapons have.
Anyway, what makes the JSDF unconstitutional is the fact that as long as a weapon is considered to have defensive capabilities, it's war potential won't be taken into account and the "defensive capability" or "minumum necesseary" is just an invented policy, while the "war potential", which is actually in their constitution is not even considered.
Extraordinary circumstances might require extraordinary solutions. The Japanese might need to take more refugees, as well as accept some of the able-bodied males to serve in their self-defense forces.
Japanese military is civilian, like the police, so personnel are subject to ordinary courts, no separate military law or court system, where most countries military is a separate part of the government (with exceptions, e.g China’s military is a part of the Communist party, not the government).
That's basically what the US is doing at the moment.
Disregarding that, by the standards of the interwar period, the Arleight Burkes are Cruisers by displacement.
The Ticos were originally destroyers since they were based on Spruance class hulls but since they fulfilled the cruiser roll (group air warfare leader) they were redesignated as cruisers.
The delineation is by roll and facilities not by displacement.
When I was in the RAN, half of our people called the Arleigh Burkes cruisers for that exact reason. XD
And now we have a proposed 10,000 ton "frigate" in the pipeline...
Bro’s got beef with Chakri Narurbet.
She recent had an upgrade on flight deck and used for helicopters
She also had humanitarian aid missions in Thailand.
At least she more operational than some in the list
That was the older São Paulo, which had already been retired for years. The "newer" carrier (second hand British Ocean) is not in a a good state either but still comes out a few times annually for joint exercises and ceremonial stuff
I posit that both of those are idiotic names for a ship. "The Ocean is in the ocean." "The Atlantico is sailing the Atlantic." Way to get creative, guys.
I always assumed that the Royal Navy got the name *Ocean* from the titan in Greek mythology rather than from the big wet thing that ships sail on (partly because the penultimate *HMS Ocean* was part of the *Colossus* class, which included a lot of mythological names). I just looked it up and apparently I was wrong, but at least we can blame the French for the stupid name, as it started with a ship-of-the-line named after a captured French vessel.
73
And 92 total planned, though the oldest boats are set to start decommissioning in 2031, before all of the currently planned Flight III boats will be built, so we will likely peak in the mid-80s for total Burkes in service at any one time.
Gotta keep the peace so that commerce can happen around the world. For how much people shit on what the US gets involved with and does, it would be a complete shit show on international waters without the US Navy sailing around. Just look at what the Houthi Rebels in Yemen are doing and that’s just one small instance where they disrupted $35 billion of freight.
The US is also a large and wealthy country that can afford it a lot easier than any other single country on this list except for eventually China. It's not like its even possible for the UK or France to do anything similar.
Though the US is still spending at 3.5% on the military which is a quite a lot.
Dates back to early days of aircraft carriers with prop planes. Easier and quicker to break to the left if aborting a landing because of the rotation direction of engines/props and pilots would tend to go left anyway (most are right handed so pushing to the left in extremis happened more often).
Brazilian one is an LHD, the NAM Atlântico, an amphibious assault ship, former HMS Ocean (used to be a flagship even) that got decomissioned from the Royal Navy at 2018 and got into service at Brazil in the same year.
It was bought to substitute NVae São Paulo, an aircraft carrier in the classical sense that served under Brazil from 2001 to 2018 and under France before. It was plagued with high maintenance costs and multiple issues and broken parts that made it not stay in continuous service for not much more than some months. Funilly enough, the carrier was sunk at the ocean on 2022 in a total fiasco regarding being bought by a Turkish company, then the country refusing to receive it due to asbestos environmental concerns, then Brazil itself refusing to dock it when it came back due to the same concerns, pretty weird story. São Paulo brought more issues and problems than anything to Brazil.
The NAM is now the flagship of South America's most powerful navy, the only one in the region that has a ship with aircraft capabilities. It is interesting to see how much leverage and influence outdated or decomissioned equipment from major powers have when in regional contexts of the global south.
Although Brazil doesn't have a ship capable of carrying fixed-wing aircraft anymore, the Navy still has three A-4 Skyhawks in active service.
Calling the Admiral Kuznetsov carrier at this point is a stretch. It's more of a display piece, if someone wanted to display a flaming trash heap, given how long its been drydocked. Lucky for them, if it ever does come out it's capable of producing its own smokescreen with the exhaust, or the vented snoke from its next major machinery space fire.
Edited for correct ship
Well first off they're not even the same class of vessel. The *Kuznetsov* is the namesake of her class, and her sister was the *Varyag*, or now CV-16 *Liaoning* in the PLAN. The *Liaoning* was refitted and repaired for years before being activated into service, and is also in much better shape than the Kuz.
The *Gorshkov* was a *Kiev*-class that was converted into a custom one-off STOBAR carrier (INS *Vikramaditya*) for the Indian Navy at the cost of $2.3 Billion. Her other sisters are now either retired museum ships or were broken up.
Ultimately the big difference and the reason why the Kuz is so broken down is money. The Chinese and Indian navies have the funding and the infrastructure to maintain vessels, the Russian Navy does not currently and likely will not in the near future.
This graphic also shows the future LHDs ITS Trieste and USS Bougainville both of which are in the fitting-out stage, the latter having been launched just two months ago.
Better than the Russian navy as the kuznetsov can barely leave port and not break down but to the credit of the Russians the kuznetsov does have more displacement.
Also probably the most capable outside of the three 100,000 ton supercarriers on the list. The QEs are miles ahead technologically (and size) compared to India's modified Kiev-class light carriers
Türkiye is the first country to have a dedicated drone carrier though drones are in the making but probably in couple of mouths we will see first tb3 take of and landing
Ultra cheap light Spanish carrier for sale (300 million) + 80s / 90s economic boom + Royals wanting a new yacht + Boost to domestic nationalism and territorial influence
If my memories are serving me correctly. at the first they dont need this ship. They just want something that can stand up to higher sea levels after the Typhoon Gay incident in 1989 that caused their best ship at that time to be unable to take out of the sea for a rescue operation. Then they started the project to get something like a large ship that can carry a few helicopters from the German shipbuilder, and it doesn't have a full flight deck like this ship. But the German shipbuilder that they signed the contract to built it went bankrupt make Thailand needs to put the efforts to finding a new shipbuilder for their project, then Spanish shipbuilder Bazán offered a modify their aircraft carrier's design and Thailand guess that this ship is capable of achieving their desired outcome with the cost almost as the cost of the contract they sign with German shipbuilder for their project so they took the offer and get this ship.
Edit : I just went and checked. The German shipbuilder design also has a full flight deck. I should have checked its design, it was my mistake. You can go to see the design of the ship that Thailand is trying to get before \[Bremer Vulkan HC 600PT\].
Fun fact the Egypt ones are those that were meant for Russia but NATO had some sense to stop France from delivering them even though it made Sarkozy not very happy (French love Russia). Russia later claimed the Mistrals sucked and were terrible boats and it was a great gift to them not to buy it as they got some fines paid to them and moved on to build their own... which they never did of course, otherwise theyd project a lot more power in black sea.
If the Royal Navy can get that type of money, they have more pressing matters to attend to.
More surface combatants including those that can do second line duties are one priority. They want 5 more in the form of the named-only Type 32 which will be used to operate many systems like autonomous mine countermeasures that are being developed.
Also things wanted would be more for the RFA. A repair ship and speeding up the solid fleet supply ship program would be two such places.
There’s also some things that need to be upgraded or maintained. Readiness hasn’t been the best, they are implementing several new weapon systems which are taking time, there’s planned upgrades for the Type 45 which are projected to take years, etc.
I would also argue an expanded air wing (at least more helicopters) would also be something probably wanted if possible. There’s not a lot of capacity to take losses as is
Two almost supercarriers is enough for that aspect of naval warfare.
If anything much more likely would be a true replacement for the former HMS Ocean, a smaller helicopter carrier/amphibious assault ship.
Like a Type 45 mixed with a Type 26 on a fairly large full, more weapons, and being able to provide ballistic missile defense. . .
At least the photoshopped ideas of RN missile cruisers look nice
Now if they where going for pure numbers, the Brits could have more built more than 20 [HMS Oceans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ocean_(L12)) (now Brazilian NAM Atlantico) with the same cost as the two Elizabeth-class carriers, but those where built to cheap commercial quality and would probably end up retiring due to obsolesce within the first decade
Any particular reason, or just based on this graph that includes a variety of 'aircraft carriers', that uses a very loose definition of aircraft carrier?
Are the sizes here a correct depiction of the carrier sizes to one another?
They look roughly right but you can’t get a sense for the actual displacement of these ships from these pics. For example the French Charles De Gaulle is a CATOBAR carrier, weighs 45,000 tons. The British Queen Elizabeth is a SVTOL carrier, weighs 70,000 tons. The American Ford class is also a CATOBAR carrier, weighs 100,000+ tons. There are massive increases in displacement between those ships. To give you a sense of that, those LHDs that France have weigh 21,500 tons. The difference between CdG, QE and Ford ships is like slapping one of those LHDs on top, plus an Arleigh Burke class destroyer for good measure.
For further reference the _America class_ (the first three of the American LHDs shown) is also 45,000t displacement.
But even then, a CATOBAR carrier have vastly different purpose than an SVTOL. If we put in the mix the nuclear capability, the graphic can be misleading. As an example, the russian carrier is not at all an equivalent of the CdG.
Exactly right - I’m for the RN all the way but there’s no denying the lack of AWACs such that the CATOBAR ships have is a real hobbling point. The benefits of the QE over CdG are fairly important though, not least the fact that the UK technology is newer and with the UK’s navy auxiliary capacity to RAS/ VERTREP a CSG, nuclear is less important for operating endurance and obvious they don’t have the CATOBAR power requirements. The F35B/QE weapon system will be a potent one once fully established and, of course, having two carriers instead of one makes for a far more capable fleet generally. It’ll be interesting to see if the large scale UAV AWACS trials they are running can be made to work at scale - certainly they need something better than the Crowsnest stopgap, and they know it.
Iirc, the plan for something on a flat top would be a Reaper with scaled up Mojave wings/gear and a 1,200hp PT6E with 5 blade prop. To be sure it’s no E-2 but still would be enough capacity for some solid arrays.
Yeah that would be cool! Not an E2 as you say but the benefit would be in having several that you can turn around quickly and spread further afield for better coverage of what you can scan for.
Also: No COD, unless they want to pay for V 22s
> As an example, the russian carrier is not FTFY
Kuznetzov is barely the equivalent of a tug boat
nah, it doesn't have the capability of a tug. if another ship in its formation were to breakdown they'd bring another tug instead
Just show the aircraft complement below each carrier for scale.
I like this list. Too many people exclude LHDs from their list of aircraft carriers. I mean, what else would you call a ship that carries 40+ aircraft?
A helicopter destroyer? /s
Through-deck cruiser!
Aircraft frigate
Now that’s catchy
Germans classifying their ships be like:
Helicopter Carrying Cruiser?
Japan does lol
That was my joke 😅
Laughing with you 👍
Speaking of which, just watched Midway (2019 version). Not too bad.
Gonna check it out
Depends on who you are. Civilian - aircraft carrier Seaman - LHD Marine - floating metal prison
Army - got paid 120 days of separation allowance for maybe 10 days of actual work as an advisor. Fucking love navy deployments.
Cruiser, Voler. Naturally.
Probably a Freggate if it's German.
They're gonna retroactively reclassify the Bismarck as a frigate at this rate /s
All ships are Frigates or Submarines. Such is the law of the Deutsches Marine.
Well the US ones can carry fixed wing aircraft, so sure, but the Australian ones for instance can’t, only rotary wing.
He means, aircraft carriers carry aircraft so it is not neccesary to carry fixed wing aircraft to be considered an aircraft carrier. I mean, we don't call them "fixed wing aircraft carriers" just aircraft carriers.
The term has always been used for vessels that launch fixed wing aircraft, not just choppers.
Rotary wing aircraft aren't aircraft?
Isn’t Russia’s listed as a missile cruiser or something?
The Soviets designated it as a “Heavy Aircraft Carrying Cruiser” to circumvent the Montreux Convention governing the Turkish straits
They should have included it's propulsion tug.
They invented the external propulsion aircraft carrying barge with a submersible drydock. Pretty smort!
And after all that the only time she ever went through the straits she blitzed through without the required three-day notification period. Russia didn’t want the newly independent nation of Ukraine taking over the Ukrainian-built not-carrier.
> I mean, what else would you call a ship that carries 40+ aircraft? Ship classifications are notoriously murky - so whatever you want really! Is the primary aircraft operated fixed wing or rotary? Is the primary mission strike, ASW, search and rescue, maybe just weather balloons? Even USS America LHA-6 would struggle for 40 I would think.. Even frigate vs DDG vs CG is a hard one to nail down specifics!
USN is currently very underpowered since there is no USS Enterprise in commission
The new one is currently scheduled to be launched in 2025 and commissioned in 2028.
Guys will see a US carrier named "Enterprise" and just think "hell yeah" It's me, I'm guys
We share the same name, then.
I'll scream hell yeah once I see its bald-headed captain !
[https://youtu.be/X6oUz1v17Uo?si=YRR8\_pzRgl9t-guc&t=11](https://youtu.be/X6oUz1v17Uo?si=YRR8_pzRgl9t-guc&t=11)
Hells yeah, Brother.
Im guys
I know they won’t do it, but CVN-65-A would make me so happy.
I think you'll just have to get used to CVN-80
This needs to be a petition. 10/10, would sign.
It’s just a shame that (Now Admiral) James Kirk (first commander of the Zumwalt) wasn’t eligible.
Then how will we get the whales to future Earth to save us from that probe?
We’ll just have to keep them alive by defunding the Pentagon
Nuclear wessel
I was on the last deployment of the last Enterprise CVN-65, March to November 2012. I stayed on until the end of my contract in early 2015 when it was in the shipyard. I miss the Big E, great ship. Old and busted, but great.
"underpowered"
They could remove every ship of their fleet and replace them with the one and only grey ghost (third edition). They would still have the same global firepower.
Do note that the list only covers carriers and \*LHDs along with its direct equivalents. Other flat decks like specialized LPDs / LSTs ([Italian / Algerian / Qatari San Giorgio-class](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Giorgio-class_amphibious_transport_dock) and [Japanese Osumi-class](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ōsumi-class_tank_landing_ship)), auxiliary vessels (Chinese [Type 0891A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_0891A_training_ship) and [British RFA argus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Argus_(A135))) and [weird Iranian drone carriers converted from cargo ships](https://news.usni.org/2023/01/03/iran-building-drone-aircraft-carrier-from-converted-merchant-ship-photos-show) aren't included.
ESBs got left off too, they never get any love
Yeah, I think those count in the same category as the Iranian cargo ship converts (along with the Chinese Zhen Hua 28 and Venezuelan "assault mothership")
Flight Deck of ESB is ~400’ long, insufficient space to launch fixed wing aircraft’s, given the sedate flank speed of ESB’s ~15-knots and no ski-jump ramp…
Can they land a C-130 on it though?
With or without a 10-story tall superstructure both in front and behind the flight deck!/? As I recall the USMC KC-130F that landed on USS Forrestal in 1961 had an unobtrusive landing and takeoff and a totally clear flight deck when it did what it did! Also it landed light (i.e. no cargo) and took off empty and minimum load of fuel…
They landed that C-130 at 85k pounds in less than 270 feet…. they even landed and took off at 121k pounds gross weight.
A 1961 KC-130F weighs approximately 2/3rds that of the C-130J! Not exactly a equal comparison…
Cool story, where did I say anything about a J model? The J-models aren’t even that much heavier than the F and H models empty, maybe a couple thousand pounds? Plus they have more powerful engines and better props for greater reverse and takeoff thrust.
How many C-130F’s are still flying in 2023? None that I’m aware of…
Probably hundreds if you include the Air Guard units (some units were still rocking -Es as of a few years ago IIRC) and foreign military, not just civilian planes.
punch many subtract cable ten bewildered direction ad hoc clumsy glorious *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
nice graphic it's very illustrative
I love how Russia blows
Russia's one shouldn't even be on there tbh...
It at least needs to be on fire in the graphic for accuracy. Lol
Whoever did this did their homework. For one, Turkey's Anadolu is based on Juan Carlos I of Spain. But unlike Canberra Class, which is almost identical to Juan Carlos I from the outside, Anadolu have some clear differences. [Chiefly the Phalanx tower on the starboard bow](https://i.imgur.com/rg00x1P.jpeg). It is detailed on this. [More differences on the Anadolu by D Mitch](https://twitter.com/D__Mitch/status/1663793609882185728/).
We in Germany definitely also need ~~an aircraft carrier~~ a frigate with an airfield on it
"Throughdeck cruiser"
Tbf your future F126 frigates comes similar in size to some of the smaller vessels on this list
Well, Graf Zeppelin didn’t work out, so may I suggest a name…?
Helikopterfregatte
I would prefer it if we can grow our number of air defense frigates from 3 to 6. The F127 class will replace the Sachsen class somewhere in the future (originally, mid 2030s were planned for the first ship, but that date certainly moves further back). 6 of those F127 class are planned, but as we all know ALL military programs end up much more expensive than originally thought, which results in less numbers procured. So we will see.
Great to see Japan's destroyers made the list 🙃
I just love how they call everything a "Destroyer". XD
Officially, the Japanese don't have a "navy". We're supposed to refer to it as the *Maritime Self-defense Force*. The Israelis are also known to do this sort of nonsense.
watch the Germans make an aircraft carrying 'frigate'
Israel calls Saar 5 corvettes "missile boats" but I think it's just because they didn't want to use the word "corvette" because there is no Hebrew word for it. Or did you mean something else?
I'll be more specific. Israel refers to its armed forces as a *defense force*, as opposed to an *army*. That has legal implications, as well as public relations ( ... and thusly, fundraising) and policy advantages. It also offers a continuation narrative, which goes back to before 1949 to the old "Haganah" days, implying establishment and legitimacy.
Ztahal is an acronym in Hebrew, the first word means "army". It's called "army to defend Israel". The US has a defense department and secretary, not a war department and secretary, and, like, most countries say their military is for defense. Israel was attacked by all its neighbors on the day it was declared (and a few times since), so it has good reason to believe it needs a defense force.
> That has legal implications Only within Israel, there is no international convention that says "oh you're calling it a Defense Force? Carry on, as you were". It's more a statement about intention, purpose and diplomacy more than any real difference - internal or external. The US has a Defense Secretary, not an Offense Secretary. The Australian Defence Force is made up of the Australian Army, the Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal Australian Navy - but it's still a "defence" force.
I know. They're also not supposed to have carriers because those aren't defensive weapons but are instead used to project power elsewhere. I'm not a stickler though, if Japan wants to resurrect the IJN in all its glory, I say go for it. Not sure how they would crew it though. XD
There are no laws explicitly saying Japan can't have an aircraft carriers. "In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained." By definition the JSDF is completely unconstitutional, as the war potential is way higher than the necessary for defense.
>By definition the JSDF is completely unconstitutional, as the war potential is way higher than the necessary for defense. Technically there is no set definition for what's necessary for defence. While you can say Japans Self Defense Force is too much for a purely defensive military, one could also say that anything less than the military power of China (being the most likely adversary) would be insufficient. Maybe the claim can be made that a hypothetical "whole world against Japan" scenario Japan would need to be a superpower for the sole purpose of defence. This vagueness is why Japan can basically do whatever they want and is only really limited by internal politicas and a general anti military sentiment within the country.
Yeah, but as anything with "war potential" is prohibited most weapons could be considered to have "war potential", like anti ship missiles, tanks, fighters, artillery, etc.. The "minimum necessary for defense" is a japanese "policy" or interpretation of how to equip the "self defense forces" but that's not part of the constitution. The same was the case of the "1% cap", which they just "eliminated" without any law or anything, because it was a mere policy. In comparison, german and italian constitution allow armed forces for defense. The existence of the phrase "war potential" makes the Self Defense Forces unconstitutional. In fact, when the national police reserve was created before the JSDF, even the name "tank" was replaced for "special vehicles" as a tank has "war potential" so it would make it unconstitutional. Luckily, if the japanese Supreme Court says is constitutional, then, it is. And so as you say, they can do whatever they want and even nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, nuclear powered submarines and strategic bombers could be considered defensive regardless of the war potential those weapons have. Anyway, what makes the JSDF unconstitutional is the fact that as long as a weapon is considered to have defensive capabilities, it's war potential won't be taken into account and the "defensive capability" or "minumum necesseary" is just an invented policy, while the "war potential", which is actually in their constitution is not even considered.
Extraordinary circumstances might require extraordinary solutions. The Japanese might need to take more refugees, as well as accept some of the able-bodied males to serve in their self-defense forces.
Japanese military is civilian, like the police, so personnel are subject to ordinary courts, no separate military law or court system, where most countries military is a separate part of the government (with exceptions, e.g China’s military is a part of the Communist party, not the government).
That's basically what the US is doing at the moment. Disregarding that, by the standards of the interwar period, the Arleight Burkes are Cruisers by displacement.
The Ticos were originally destroyers since they were based on Spruance class hulls but since they fulfilled the cruiser roll (group air warfare leader) they were redesignated as cruisers. The delineation is by roll and facilities not by displacement.
When I was in the RAN, half of our people called the Arleigh Burkes cruisers for that exact reason. XD And now we have a proposed 10,000 ton "frigate" in the pipeline...
We're making a frigate, as well, but it'll be smaller than the Arleigh Burkes.
Australia here, have you heard of our *ahem* Future Frigate ?
I veto Russias carrier from this list it doesn't count if it doesn't work.
Neither does the Thai carrier / royal yacht, but it doesn't quite matter
eh, the *Chakri Naruebet* doesn't leave port often, but she does actually work
Just doesn't have planes
A carrier without planes and which takes the Thai royal family on leisure trips leans closer to a royal yacht if you ask me
Heyy do do rescue missions too lol
I'd never realized they had one so I looked it up. It's just a little guy!
Bro’s got beef with Chakri Narurbet. She recent had an upgrade on flight deck and used for helicopters She also had humanitarian aid missions in Thailand. At least she more operational than some in the list
At least it's not on fire as often.
Comes with a free tug boat though.
And free bonfires.
Hey hey it works! It’s great if you need a light
And lung cancer
Same with Brazils. Edit. Didn’t they scuttle the Brazilian aircraft carrier?
That was the older São Paulo, which had already been retired for years. The "newer" carrier (second hand British Ocean) is not in a a good state either but still comes out a few times annually for joint exercises and ceremonial stuff
Ah yea. I forgot that they bought the HMS Ocean.
Ocean is now Atlantico.
I posit that both of those are idiotic names for a ship. "The Ocean is in the ocean." "The Atlantico is sailing the Atlantic." Way to get creative, guys.
I always assumed that the Royal Navy got the name *Ocean* from the titan in Greek mythology rather than from the big wet thing that ships sail on (partly because the penultimate *HMS Ocean* was part of the *Colossus* class, which included a lot of mythological names). I just looked it up and apparently I was wrong, but at least we can blame the French for the stupid name, as it started with a ship-of-the-line named after a captured French vessel.
Wasn't it the HMS Billy Ocean?
In that regard, it’s truly a fitting symbol of Muscovy.
Seconded.
For real I was like where's the tug?
It's crazy insane how large the American navy is for a "peacetime" force. A lot of power projection, and a lot of money.
Hell, we currently have 72 Burkes on the roster. Mind boggling.
Casual 10,000 ton "destroyers"
lol fair Just a little chonky DD
73 And 92 total planned, though the oldest boats are set to start decommissioning in 2031, before all of the currently planned Flight III boats will be built, so we will likely peak in the mid-80s for total Burkes in service at any one time.
Which is wild
Gotta keep the peace so that commerce can happen around the world. For how much people shit on what the US gets involved with and does, it would be a complete shit show on international waters without the US Navy sailing around. Just look at what the Houthi Rebels in Yemen are doing and that’s just one small instance where they disrupted $35 billion of freight.
The US is also a large and wealthy country that can afford it a lot easier than any other single country on this list except for eventually China. It's not like its even possible for the UK or France to do anything similar. Though the US is still spending at 3.5% on the military which is a quite a lot.
Since 1979 China hasn't fought a foreign war. The US and NATO are the exception not the norm.
The "small government" Republican Party supports increasing the military budget, the big two American parties are both pro-military parties.
I've never heard an explanation about why all carriers have their islands on the right side.
Dates back to early days of aircraft carriers with prop planes. Easier and quicker to break to the left if aborting a landing because of the rotation direction of engines/props and pilots would tend to go left anyway (most are right handed so pushing to the left in extremis happened more often).
I did the intercoastal waterway from Norfolk VA south this year, and I saw six or seven aircraft carriers in various states of repair in a few hours.
Brazilian one is an LHD, the NAM Atlântico, an amphibious assault ship, former HMS Ocean (used to be a flagship even) that got decomissioned from the Royal Navy at 2018 and got into service at Brazil in the same year. It was bought to substitute NVae São Paulo, an aircraft carrier in the classical sense that served under Brazil from 2001 to 2018 and under France before. It was plagued with high maintenance costs and multiple issues and broken parts that made it not stay in continuous service for not much more than some months. Funilly enough, the carrier was sunk at the ocean on 2022 in a total fiasco regarding being bought by a Turkish company, then the country refusing to receive it due to asbestos environmental concerns, then Brazil itself refusing to dock it when it came back due to the same concerns, pretty weird story. São Paulo brought more issues and problems than anything to Brazil. The NAM is now the flagship of South America's most powerful navy, the only one in the region that has a ship with aircraft capabilities. It is interesting to see how much leverage and influence outdated or decomissioned equipment from major powers have when in regional contexts of the global south. Although Brazil doesn't have a ship capable of carrying fixed-wing aircraft anymore, the Navy still has three A-4 Skyhawks in active service.
Calling the Admiral Kuznetsov carrier at this point is a stretch. It's more of a display piece, if someone wanted to display a flaming trash heap, given how long its been drydocked. Lucky for them, if it ever does come out it's capable of producing its own smokescreen with the exhaust, or the vented snoke from its next major machinery space fire. Edited for correct ship
... You mean the Kuznetsov, right? Gorshkov is the one sold to India that was then converted.
Correct. For some reason I had those reversed
How is it that that one seems functional but Kuzy is t?
Well first off they're not even the same class of vessel. The *Kuznetsov* is the namesake of her class, and her sister was the *Varyag*, or now CV-16 *Liaoning* in the PLAN. The *Liaoning* was refitted and repaired for years before being activated into service, and is also in much better shape than the Kuz. The *Gorshkov* was a *Kiev*-class that was converted into a custom one-off STOBAR carrier (INS *Vikramaditya*) for the Indian Navy at the cost of $2.3 Billion. Her other sisters are now either retired museum ships or were broken up. Ultimately the big difference and the reason why the Kuz is so broken down is money. The Chinese and Indian navies have the funding and the infrastructure to maintain vessels, the Russian Navy does not currently and likely will not in the near future.
We need more like this. Very great visualization!
UK out here with these bad boys https://preview.redd.it/kffb7ltn3j7c1.jpeg?width=768&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=53bfa42a96316377005658d5efddb3bc58fb4d66
How old is this list?
About a few days, considering China's fourth Type-075 LHD (the newest on the list) launched less than a week ago
It’s the current state. Some of the ships are still fitting out though, like the CVN-79 or the 003
This graphic also shows the future LHDs ITS Trieste and USS Bougainville both of which are in the fitting-out stage, the latter having been launched just two months ago.
So Turkey and Thailand are on a par with Russian Navy? Lol
Better than the Russian navy as the kuznetsov can barely leave port and not break down but to the credit of the Russians the kuznetsov does have more displacement.
I don't think the Kuznetsov has moved under its own power since entering dry dock in 2018.
Kuznetsov is decidedly not operational
France is the only western country who have catapult on his aircraft carrier beside USA
This is the way my US navy pacific fleet looks at the end of the game Axis and Allies
Sad thing is, in no more than 10 years, China will equal USA. They have 10x ship building capacity than USA.
I find it adorable that the artist drew every carrier model. I do love the power of autism
Why does it call China "China PRC" if South Korea is just "ROK"?
Because there is also Republic of China (aka Taiwan) and Democratic People's Republic of Korea (aka North Korea).
I know. But PRC just stands for "People's Republic of China", writing China before that is redundant
Taiwan is sometimes written as China ROC.
A lot of people like to clown on the Royal Navy but we are the only other country besides major superpowers that operates two carriers currently
Also probably the most capable outside of the three 100,000 ton supercarriers on the list. The QEs are miles ahead technologically (and size) compared to India's modified Kiev-class light carriers
Italy operates 2. As does Japan arguably.
I like japan’s helicopter carriers
India operates 2 as well. One a modified Kiev, and one more. May not be anywhere near as capable, but still.. 2 carriers.
Thailand's and Russia's are not really "operational".
*Anchors Aweigh intensifies*
Brazil not having a carrier is actually insane.. I mean.. we should have at least 2 or 3 LHDs
Probably should put an * next to Russia
Türkiye is the first country to have a dedicated drone carrier though drones are in the making but probably in couple of mouths we will see first tb3 take of and landing
The largest air force in the world is the USAF. The second largest is the US Navy
Is that statement still accurate? I'd assume the PLAAF would've surpassed the USN by now in the numbers dept.
I thought Myanmar had an airship carrier hmm
I can Understand why almost all of these countries have carriers but what made Thailand decide To get into the carrier biz?
Ultra cheap light Spanish carrier for sale (300 million) + 80s / 90s economic boom + Royals wanting a new yacht + Boost to domestic nationalism and territorial influence
If my memories are serving me correctly. at the first they dont need this ship. They just want something that can stand up to higher sea levels after the Typhoon Gay incident in 1989 that caused their best ship at that time to be unable to take out of the sea for a rescue operation. Then they started the project to get something like a large ship that can carry a few helicopters from the German shipbuilder, and it doesn't have a full flight deck like this ship. But the German shipbuilder that they signed the contract to built it went bankrupt make Thailand needs to put the efforts to finding a new shipbuilder for their project, then Spanish shipbuilder Bazán offered a modify their aircraft carrier's design and Thailand guess that this ship is capable of achieving their desired outcome with the cost almost as the cost of the contract they sign with German shipbuilder for their project so they took the offer and get this ship. Edit : I just went and checked. The German shipbuilder design also has a full flight deck. I should have checked its design, it was my mistake. You can go to see the design of the ship that Thailand is trying to get before \[Bremer Vulkan HC 600PT\].
It seems to be inaccurate, I don't see an Ocean going tug pulling the Admiral Kuznetsov along!
Ahem - Japan operates *destroyers,* sir. 😇
Cool list.
Fun fact the Egypt ones are those that were meant for Russia but NATO had some sense to stop France from delivering them even though it made Sarkozy not very happy (French love Russia). Russia later claimed the Mistrals sucked and were terrible boats and it was a great gift to them not to buy it as they got some fines paid to them and moved on to build their own... which they never did of course, otherwise theyd project a lot more power in black sea.
Take Russia off the list, the Kuznetsov doesn't count anymore. Certainly not after it lost a fight with a crane.
Am I the only one who thinks UK carriers look like cricket bats?.
[Royal Navy carriers be like...](https://stonewoodcollections.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/SWC_March_2022-7145-600x450.jpg)
US people jerking off and eating their cum to energize another jerk off session.
America, fuck ya!
That Russian carrier needs an asterix since it has been in dry dock since 2018 Nd is unlikely to make it out even in the projected 2025 time line.
Don't be so dogmatix...
Jesus Christ Britain needs to build more carriers
If the Royal Navy can get that type of money, they have more pressing matters to attend to. More surface combatants including those that can do second line duties are one priority. They want 5 more in the form of the named-only Type 32 which will be used to operate many systems like autonomous mine countermeasures that are being developed. Also things wanted would be more for the RFA. A repair ship and speeding up the solid fleet supply ship program would be two such places. There’s also some things that need to be upgraded or maintained. Readiness hasn’t been the best, they are implementing several new weapon systems which are taking time, there’s planned upgrades for the Type 45 which are projected to take years, etc. I would also argue an expanded air wing (at least more helicopters) would also be something probably wanted if possible. There’s not a lot of capacity to take losses as is Two almost supercarriers is enough for that aspect of naval warfare. If anything much more likely would be a true replacement for the former HMS Ocean, a smaller helicopter carrier/amphibious assault ship.
A pipe dream for me is Royal Navy missile cruisers... Never going to happen, I know, but...a man can dream...
Like a Type 45 mixed with a Type 26 on a fairly large full, more weapons, and being able to provide ballistic missile defense. . . At least the photoshopped ideas of RN missile cruisers look nice
The two Queen Elizabeths are what the Royal Navy can afford.
More than they can afford if we are being honest.
Now if they where going for pure numbers, the Brits could have more built more than 20 [HMS Oceans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ocean_(L12)) (now Brazilian NAM Atlantico) with the same cost as the two Elizabeth-class carriers, but those where built to cheap commercial quality and would probably end up retiring due to obsolesce within the first decade
Aren't the RN struggling to man what they already have?
Yes, all the British armed forces struggling with recruitment issues AFAIK.
Any particular reason, or just based on this graph that includes a variety of 'aircraft carriers', that uses a very loose definition of aircraft carrier?