It comes back every year - the discussion about a German aircraft carrier! Has Germany's security situation and its importance in the world changed to such an extent that a national carrier capability is necessary? Why should Germany invest a lot of money and effort - it takes around 20 years to fully develop a carrier capability - in a capability that is already available in Europe? Incidentally, it is quite revealing that in such discussions there is usually talk of only one German carrier as if the supporters already realised that there was no money for more than one ship. Prestige and reputation are not arguments, by the way.
Aircraft carrier eats fleet
Not only the construction of a Aircraft carrier costs an enormous amount of money, the mere operation of which tears deep holes in the defender's coffers - our European neighbours can tell you a thing or two about it. The ship itself is not enough, aircraft and weapon systems have to be procured and pilots have to be trained, and this has to continue for decades. The current procurement of the F-35C, the carrier version of the F-35 Lightning II, by the Royal Navy is causing the British an enormous headache. Operating a carrier comes at the expense of other platforms and capabilities: Carrier eats fleet!
These circumstances have meant that France and the UK have, until not so long ago, been seriously considering the possibility of Aircraft carrier to procure and operate jointly. These considerations have since been shelved, ultimately because the foreign and security policy objectives of both countries occasionally diverge. National interests therefore stand in the way of such cooperation - for now!
The European solution
The fact that security with aspiration is the Aircraft carriers and support groups should be clear. Since European interests are indeed global, there is also a need for a carrier capability in European hands. Even if the European mills grind more slowly than some would like and we are still a long way from a truly European understanding of security, something will happen and the integration of the European armed forces will be one of the catalysts.
Pooling & Sharing was not just a topic at the NATO conference in Chicago; in view of the tight European and British budget situation, it has become a necessity. The budgetary pressure will unleash unimagined creativity! Consider that France and the UK, unlike Germany, have not yet made the necessary adjustments to their armed forces to reflect the reality of their budgets (!).
European consolidation will therefore come from this direction, and Germany could contribute in various ways:
- Why not German aircraft on American, British or French carriers, depending on the situation and mission? The Eurofighter is also available as a carrier version!
- Aircraft carrier are always accompanied, Germany could concentrate on providing the escort ships.
- In any case, Germany could contribute to the costs, as we are getting used to it at other construction sites. But it is also true that those who pay, also decide!
Instead of Germany laboriously acquiring a new capability for itself, existing European structures should be utilised sensibly. This would enable Germany to make an essential contribution together with our European and alliance partners.
Germany does not need Aircraft carrier! What we need is a true European understanding of security that recognises the need for European Aircraft carriers then derives by itself. And of course Germany could and should make a contribution here!
Post Scriptum
Incidentally, the Federal Republic of Germany already had a carrier: it was called "Schleswig-Holstein", was largely stationary and, with around 120 aircraft on two runways in Eggebek and Jagel, was very powerful! Back then, naval warfare was still practised and practised from the air. A small insertion for the Luftwaffe: naval warfare from the air is more than just flying over water! But that's another story.
English 
German
Personally, I think that an aircraft carrier is certainly needed. Only this makes it possible to think of global air strikes independently. On the other hand, I could also imagine that a similar capability could be achieved with a large guided missile destroyer. Theoretically, you could also design a warship that has 100 VLS (Vertical Launching Systems MK41). These would be equipped with cruise missiles. That would be comparably good and would only cost a fraction of an aircraft carrier. If Germany wanted to buy an aircraft carrier, I would simply order it in the UK and have a Queen Elizabeth class built. You could then call it the Konrad Adenauer.
German politicians are demanding that the Bundeswehr deploy its air force to "friendly" foreign countries for combat missions. What works excellently in the EU, evacuation missions in Libya and ECR missions in Yugoslavia, went wrong in Turkey. The airmen had to interrupt their mission, the infrastructure had to move to Jordan with an interruption of 3 months. This experience makes it clear that an aircraft carrier is unavoidable when the Bundestag demands it of the troops. 1.6 hectares of airfield under German sovereignty means that no "friendly" state will grant or withdraw take-off and landing rights to the aircraft as it sees fit. In addition, the aircraft can be moved quickly with all the logistical capabilities that such a ship offers. The deployment of the Typhoons in Australia in the summer has shown that there is an immediate problem when 1 aircraft gets into trouble. On an aircraft carrier, the aircraft lands and is immediately received and repaired by the maintenance teams on the hangar deck. Flying in mechanics and spare parts, as well as air refuelling, is also cost-intensive and is completely unnecessary with a floating air force base. Aircraft carriers are simply irreplaceable for strategic aircraft transport and the deployment of troops in distant areas. This is demonstrated by France, the United Kingdom, the USA, China, India, Thailand, Russia and Brazil. If Germany continues to make demands on its armed forces beyond national defence in the future, it will not be able to do without one or even two carriers. When calculating security in the Arctic Ocean, a German carrier would be on site in Spitsbergen, for example, two weeks before an American or French carrier. In other words, if there is a crisis, this is also of decisive importance for the Alliance. If a non-NATO EU state is overrun or attacked by another "friendly" state in the Mediterranean, it is only possible to support the air sovereignty and then the invasion in island situations with aircraft carriers. In the EU, such a task cannot be assigned to Luxembourg, Slovakia or the Czech Republic. Even Hungary would be left out. In other words, if the EU wants to stand on its own two feet in terms of defence policy, it cannot do without aircraft carriers. And who else should provide the carriers if not the EU's G5 (Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Poland). Europe's largest economy can't afford to back down, even if the costs aren't exactly discounted.
1. germany is one of the richest nations in the world
2. germany NEEDS a strong navy
3. aircraft carriers are a deterrent
either 2-3 STOBAR would make sense:
- similar to INS Vikramaditya / INS Vikrant (2022): 285m; 50kt; 1200men; 24x F-35B + 10-12 helicopters // 5bn construction + 650mio maintenance
OR
- similar to Giuseppe Garibaldi (551): 220m; 18.5kt; 12° ski-jump; 600 men; 12x F-35B + 4-6 helicopters // 1bn construction + 280mio maintenance
why STOBAR? cheap, safe, easy to learn and maintain - and NO a STOBAR takeoff does not reduce the max TO weight (cppcms STOBAR ski-jump simulator)
these 2-3 carriers then each use 1x F-124 (or successor) + 1x K-130 + 1x EGV + 1x U-212A as escort
AND(/OR as minimum solution)
for the naval battalion we NEED 3x ships like the San Giorgio class
~150m; 8.5kt; 400 men; 6 helicopters: 2-4x NH90 NFH + 0-2x H145M + 2-4x Tiger MK3; 3 tenders: 3x Buster or CB90 // 500mio construction and 200mio maintenance
these would need internally 1x class 520 (successor) for 2x Puma & 1x Lynx 120 (=105t)
why? cheap, don't need an escort, can be used for landings/coastal defence/humanitarian operations AND carry helicopters (also combat helicopters - good for CAS during landings etc.)
ERGO Marine alignment:
4x F-123
3x F-124 (escort carrier)
4x F125
4x F-126
4x F-127
4x F-124 successor
15x K-130
12x U-212A
6x U-214
6-9x 423 Oste (Nato is happy about that)
4x 332B
6-8x EGV 702
6x 704 Tanker
8-10x 404 Tender
9x 725X Tow tractor
6x 738 Bottsand
3x 711 crane (or successor)
5x 905 safety boats (sea room keel for firing practice)
However, the British fly the F-35B, not the F-35C.
That was Count Zeppelin and not Schleswig Holstein.
Sailor Peter, assignment: feed the internet search engine with the term "metaphor" (attention: do not provide food!). Sorry, had to do it, even if it was almost four years ago.
Obviously, this article is still of great interest. Nevertheless, I politely ask whether there might be a new article on aircraft carriers. There are many reasons for this, because various nations are working on new carrier programmes and don't see it the same way as the previous speaker here. I have just found an article (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/2185081/china-will-build-4-nuclear-aircraft-carriers-drive-catch-us-navy) that China is building four new nuclear carriers. What do the experts say about this?
wonders
the sailor
Aircraft carriers are the armoured knights of the Middle Ages. Relics that have fallen out of time and only serve a distorted sense of prestige.
One question is, of course, how such a carrier should look and what it must be able to do!
–
And the other question is to what extent Germany needs a large land army in the middle of the EU.
Our problem areas probably lie outside the immediate land borders
As a reading tip, I recommend the following article, which takes a critical look at the future tasks of US carriers: http://cimsec.org/age-strike-carrier/30906. Deployment over land, i.e. classic power projection, is hardly realistic any more. At the same time, the role of carriers in naval warfare is becoming more important again. Enjoy reading
wishes
the sailor
Thank you, Meer verstehen, for this clarification. Germany must finally realise that it can no longer hide behind an alleged lack of sovereignty and allied reservations. Anyone who writes something like this is backing those in politics who want to shirk uncomfortable responsibility. We alone decide whether we want an aircraft carrier or not. For good reasons (see above), we have so far kept our hands off it,
Welcomes
the sailor
We are the economically strongest country in Europe. It's not about whether we can afford a carrier. We can, even if we throw money away on refugees. The economy is booming and tax revenues are reaching record levels. France and the UK each currently have an aircraft carrier and a couple of helicopter carriers. The British will put two more aircraft carriers into service in the next few years.
Let's speak plainly! Even if Germany wanted to, it must not have aircraft carriers or nuclear weapons. Why? Because we are not a sovereign state and will not get the approval of the Allied victorious powers of the Second World War. We are not even allowed to own cruisers or destroyers.
That is the truth and all other explanations are window dressing!
Hello Mr May, the Federal Republic of Germany is (and has been for almost three decades now) a sovereign state and is of course allowed to own anything it deems necessary for the defence of the country! The current discussion in parliament is about the MKS180, a multifunctional ship with a displacement of approx. 9500 tonnes; a cruiser could be hiding behind it! THAT is plain language!
In addition to my comment below and the article by Meer verstehen, a few facts:
- When we were really still subject to WEU regulations, we had destroyers, then came (much larger) frigates of more modern classes
- France has an aircraft carrier, but no helicopter carriers
- The UK currently has helicopter carriers, but no aircraft carriers (and from next year no missiles for its surface ships). It is unclear when the new carriers with aircraft will be operational.
Outstanding post, you have pointed out some fantastic points, I as well think this is a very great website. kagaebgbbebegdae
A carrier for the navy is also useless in terms of technology, so it is better to move more in the direction of Class 206 submarines with state-of-the-art technology at the highest global level
Class 206?, built 1969 - 1975, state-of-the-art technology, at the highest global level?
Seriously meant, wonders
the sailor
Germany is the fourth largest economic power in the world. In fact, it is actually the third largest. To then only ever dock onto others (economically and financially weaker ones) is starting to look pathetic. This does considerable damage to Germany's international reputation. This is why Germany has long been disparagingly referred to within NATO as a GIANT BABY HIDDEN BEHIND SMALLER BABIES. Even Italy has two carriers. And this country is really not a country of abundance. Instead of senselessly sinking tens of billions every year on Greek prosperity and wealthy refugees, we should invest in security in line with our importance. Instead of constantly pointing at others and asking them to do something: YOU DO IT, WE'LL CHIP IN A BIT. Rather the other way round. And one with character.
Germany is indeed allowed to build and own aircraft carriers. However, there were and are many factual and political reasons against it. In the meantime, the world is changing and things can change. The fundamental question of whether Germany needs more capabilities to operate over land from the sea could soon arise anew if Turkey were to throw out the German Tornados.
Looking forward to an uncertain future
the sailor
Germany is allowed to build such large ships. Since Germany, unlike Austria, has only one basic law and ship tonnage was, I believe, not an issue in the reunification process.
The article was written a few years ago and with the current crisis situations, the construction of an amphibious assault ship could become topical.
Germany will probably not be able to support a pure aircraft carrier in the medium term.
But an amphibious assault ship in the style of the USS WASP class or the new USS America class with a large well deck would be an alternative solution.
The US American version is between 250-258 metres long. The German variant could be 270-280 metres long. Germany could finance and maintain such US variants on its own. The FRG/(NATO) would need 2 of them.
Especially now after Brexit, Germany must become more involved militarily.
We shouldn't play world police a la USA, but we can't guarantee our security without the military.
2 amphibious assault ships of the aforementioned US American variant could be used to transport troops and heavy equipment.
Or they could be used in humanitarian disasters such as in Haiti to provide rapid assistance. Or in West Africa during the Ebola crisis, people could have been brought on board and isolated/treated.
On the German variant, which is perhaps 280 metres long, you could build an infirmary twice as large as on the US variants.
The 280 metre long German variants would be even longer than the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. And would probably be cheaper to maintain.
Such ships could be used to take people out of the Mediterranean or Syrian civil war refugees could be picked up directly from Lebanon and Jordan by helicopter.
There are many arguments in favour of buying/building US American amphibious assault ships!
I don't know about Germany, but in the state treaty (after the Second World War) Austria was forbidden to build aircraft carriers.
Hello and first of all, thank you for your detailed and interesting discussion of this question.
I agree with you that there probably won't be a German aircraft carrier in the foreseeable future. However, I also don't believe that there will be a jointly planned European aircraft carrier in the foreseeable future. It is worth considering whether it makes sense to invest in this type of weapon at all, considering the ratio of vulnerability to development costs. On the other hand, however, this means that we will be relying on the USA as the world's policeman until the day we die....
What is so fundamentally wrong with taking prestige reasons into account? Perhaps in another twenty years or so the possibility will be reconsidered. After all, Germany is quite successful with (non-nuclear) submarines. In the long term, I could imagine that there might at least be helicopter carriers made in Germany or with German co-operation.
Moin, kommissarkoester, if the system has counted correctly, your comment was the 50th on this topic! It seems to stimulate people's minds, even though or precisely because it is so far removed from reality. Everyone has an idea of what you could do with such a carrier or a large amphibian, if only you had it. Not everything is sensible or clever, but it's good that the great potential of maritime action is illuminated in this way by so many authors from different perspectives,
is looking forward to Christmas
the sailor
Germany should think about a multifunctional carrier that can operate amphibians and has a flight deck on which helicopters and perhaps F 35s can land. This could be done on a 280 metre ship, as described in an article above. This could also be built in Germany without any problems. With 2 such ships plus an escort fleet, Germany would have a
very strong and multi-mission capable navies. Our frigates and submarines would also fit well into such formations and be able to operate under very realistic conditions. Even the armament could come from Germany, with the exception of the F 35. However, Airbus could also make more of an effort and develop a vertical take-off and landing fighter aircraft. From a financial point of view, Germany should be able to do this easily.
We could use aircraft carriers as the situation between the EU and Russia intensifies.
The Bundeswehr's cost-cutting plans and reorganisation measures and the wishful thinking of our politicians from the 1990s have little in common with today's Bundeswehr.
The G36 assault rifle is an assault rifle that may look good, but it is unsuitable for operations that come to a head.
Germany has battle tanks, but for martial reasons and because of our past, no battle tanks are deployed We afford expensive training for tank crews, but they are not deployed. Battle tanks might have been able to clear the camps at the tanker lorry. Before the German commander in Kunduz had requested US fighter planes.
You could have driven up in a Leo 2. They could have reconnoitred with the infrared system, fogged the tanker or fired warning shots with the machine gun before many innocent people lost their lives.
But we are told that a Leo 2 could not be used in the former German theatre of operations.
Even though Switzerland owns Leo2s and carries out manoeuvres in the Gebiurge. And Greece has more Leo2 battle tanks than the BW has in its inventory. Greece has more battle tanks in its inventory than a nation of 80 million!
According to our politicians, the Bundeswehr should be an alliance army.
But then the BW must also be equipped for this. It cannot be that there are not enough tanks available for them. And tanks have to be transported from A to B so that armoured battalions can carry out exercises.
It is unacceptable that we, the politicians, send our soldiers on missions with poor and outdated technology. Why should I volunteer when I know that if the situation comes to a head, I first have to call Berlin to see if I can shoot back to defend myself?
The Bundeswehr is only an alliance army to a limited extent.
There are hardly any necessary transport aircraft available. Transport helicopters are standing around because they have received a software update.
Millions of euros are being invested in the Orion maritime reconnaissance system instead of new aircraft....
At least our new submarines seem to be working smoothly.
If Germany wants to have an alliance army, the BW must be equipped accordingly and more money must be made available.
As far as equipment is concerned, it is not necessary to build 1 or 2 carrier fleets. It would be enough if the politicians were to buy amphibious assault ships. For example, the Mistral class or the new America class of the US Navy.
Such amphibious assault ships could be used to sail off the coast of Haiti and provide humanitarian aid. Or they could have travelled off the coast of West Africa and brought people to shore and provided them with medical care. As there are operating theatres on such ships as well as 1 infirmary.
Such amphibious landing ships would significantly increase the radius of the BW. Such ships would also be helpful in the fight against pirates, as soldiers can be brought ashore to pursue the pirates if necessary.
In the fight against the pirates, however, it would make more sense if the Somali coastguard received sufficient funding to buy fuel for its ships.
Would the Bundeswehr be able to stop a rebel uprising a la Ukraine, which is supported by the neighbouring state?
Despite more modern equipment, today's Bundeswehr would hardly be able to do this.
For those with big marine plans, the Mistrals are back on the market: http://n-tv.de/politik/Hollande-und-Putin-einigen-sich-article15662616.html
Have fun dreaming
wishes
the sailor
And with that, the dream is over again: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/frankreich-verkauft-mistral-kriegsschiffe-nach-aegypten-a-1054381.html,
states
the sailor
Interesting how little idea most people have...
The Bundeswehr is on its last legs and since the beginning of reunification, all sensible armaments projects have been postponed, abandoned or slimmed down to such an extent that we have only bought junk with our tax money...
Example: the G11 was not introduced, but later the much cheaper G-36 was, which has now turned out to be rubbish...
The Leopard 3, which was commissioned, also fell victim to the whole thing with the end that they are now clamouring to build a successor but lack the know-how....
Helicopter... the Tiger was built but the German version is generally known to be rubbish, for many reasons, only the French and Spanish versions are good...
The Teurofighter... a great aircraft for the 90s, already outdated when it entered service and even technically slimmed down to make it cheaper...
And an aircraft carrier is the starting point for a nation that wants to play along internally... Germany always wants to have a big say but can contribute "nothing" militarily and has not really done so so far, anyone who claims otherwise either has no idea or is simply a loud-mouthed gobshite...
And we couldn't protect an aircraft carrier either, because I wouldn't have the right escort ships for this either, e.g. a missile attack and defence cruiser...
Our frigates are just about NATO standard, the British and especially the Americans just laugh about it... the only cool thing we have are our submarines because they are small and manoeuvrable and can slip through a defensive net and damage or even sink a capital ship e.g. aircraft carrier but that's it, they can neither be used to transport commando units nor for missile attacks...
And on the subject of transport... the A400M... well the next pile of rubbish is too small... at most it could be used as a personnel carrier for paratroopers but it is not a transport aircraft... the Bundeswehr itself actually wanted a C17 Galaxy or its Russian counterpart (which would have been pretty embarrassing if we had bought an aircraft from the Russians...)
The Bundeswehr must first make up for 20 years of mismanagement caused by political corruption in the troops....
And if you want to be a global player, you need an aircraft carrier, and when I say aircraft carrier, I mean an aircraft carrier and not a variant that would probably be built because we in Germany have a cost-cutting frenzy that always ends up being more expensive than if we had planned for the long term from the outset and spent money accordingly...
Lots of words, but they are anything but convincing!
The last few months in particular (Russia) have shown that "the wish for "peace, joy and pancakes" is an unrealistic dream from which it is hard to wake up and arrive in reality. The German politician class has completely honed everything according to this scheme as soon as certain circumstances arose (tanks, bunkers, fuel depots, alarm sirens, border control facilities...). As recent developments have shown, this was not intelligent foresight, but naively stupid. Other countries were more realistic in this respect and waited and mothballed everything first and can fall back on it. They were therefore not only less naive and more prudent, but also more budget-friendly and therefore more people-friendly than Germany, which has to spend a lot of money to buy everything new (Leopard2 buyback, new tank in planning). And please don't naively believe that this is simply due to our love of peace, no, in the private sector our politicians are playing the same games: persuade the population that they no longer need it > destroy the stock > wait and see > oh shock, we have too few > build new ones. Case in point: sale of tens of thousands of flats by public housing companies for e.g. 1 euro and now housing shortage. There are many examples of this kind.
Germany has not adapted its expenditure to reality, but has criminally reduced it (including internal security = police) and has not saved the money, but has thrown it out with full hands elsewhere (e.g. hidden subsidies from corporations...) In recent years in particular, it has become clear that Germany is (and could be) in a much better financial position than others, especially France, which you concede the operation of carriers (not just one) and also that of the escort fleets. Your objection "Who pays is also unrealistic": Germany really does pay a lot almost everywhere and determines... that's right: nothing! The slogan "stupid German money" is only openly uttered abroad. The European solution is also unrealistic, while Europe is already crumbling again (England, Scotland, Basques, Greece, former Eastern bloc countries...) and we can't even agree on peanuts. And do you really want Europe to decide where Germans fight and die? Then "avoiding" a Gulf War a la Schröder would no longer be an option. Your proposal for participation with aircraft or escort ships is also out of this world. "Eurofighter in the carrier version" > do you really mean this armament stillborn, which is more on the ground? Laughable, nobody really wants it to land on its carrier! And how long did you actually want to wait for its delivery? And escort ships? Which ones please, we don't have any. We never had any of the necessary calibre after WW2 and, what's more, all of our existing small units were not replaced at all, only in smaller numbers or by even smaller units when they were decommissioned in the recent past. By the way, who will protect German waters if you want to have our handful of mini-submarines and corvettes travelling the world's oceans as carrier protection? This also contradicts your other argument that a carrier "eats the fleet" > which one, because we have already eaten our fleet ourselves without building carriers. If your argument were correct, we would have to have more or at least as much remaining fleet without carriers as France, the UK, Italy, Spain, India, Brazil, Thailand...(Russia, USA, China, let's exclude them). No way! We have by far the smallest fleet of all (fleet is an oversized term anyway). On the other hand, we are a real superpower in terms of tenders and task force supply ships, which are now far too large and too numerous for our mini-navy. So the only thing left for us to do anyway is to make others happy with our tenders and give them free fuel...but that doesn't give us anything to say afterwards. The fact that we only recently afforded to build 3 superfluous giant Berlin-class pots while Canada only procures 2 of them as replacements for its constantly growing navy speaks volumes. Actually, the three "Berliners" could have been turned into "Mistrals", but other (friendly) countries had something against it, who have been making sure for decades that German ships only remain in a harmless mini-calibre. If we are willing to spend an insane 650 million on a new frigate, we naturally also have the money to put the French out of their misery and buy the two Mistrals for 1.2 billion. A deal that could solve many problems at once...if it weren't for our flaw that we shouldn't/mayn't have such big pots.....
400ooo refugees x 355€/month x 12 x 20 years PLUS accommodation and food (cheap pork excluded!!!)
what does the sumarum give?
2 carriers and Flinten-Uschi could have the G36 dropped from the M400s over the boats
Germany would be in a position to do this.
But the fact is: we don't need one, we have the money, the crew and the escort ships but we only have to defend the North Sea and if there is a war we will have (build) one in time;-).
Both England and France still have islands and colonies that are far away from the mother country and need to be protected if necessary. That is why these two countries also need aircraft carriers.
But Germany has none of these, so why would we need aircraft carriers at all?
The reasons mentioned here for the possession of aircraft carriers were (the numbering is not an order of precedence, but only helps to better refer to them):
1. deployment of the capabilities of an FT in the event of German civilian ships being hijacked or captured
2. support for assignments abroad
3. humanitarian aid
4. showing power of force
The main question here is whether these 4 points justify an expensive aircraft carrier and its maintenance at all.
Re 1: How often does that happen? It rarely happens, and if it does, then a frigate with a helipad should be enough. Besides, it takes a lot more time to get a single carrier to the place where it is needed. Time that the abductees probably don't have.
In such cases, the Americans can intervene quickly with their own civilian ships because they have a large number of aircraft carriers spread around the world, which makes the distance a carrier has to travel to the deployment site short.
If we only built 1-2, we wouldn't have this capability yet.
So I don't think this argument is sufficient. Especially not if you have to weigh it up against the annual maintenance costs and the time when you really need something like this. A small, buoyant operational aircraft that can be transported to any point in the world in just a few hours would make much more sense and would also be cheaper.
This floats nearby and the last few metres to the ship in question can then be covered by boats, which the floating aircraft has to tow along.
Re 2.
We are leaving Afghanistan. And in Afghanistan, such a carrier would not have been any help because Afghanistan is not on the water. And then we should ask ourselves the question of the purpose of such foreign missions. Why should we participate in such missions at all? We don't have islands and colonies and just because we are economically strong doesn't mean that we have to get involved militarily in such conflicts.
It is simply not our job to intervene in foreign countries to play world police there, because that would be the job of the UN, but it doesn't need carriers because it has enough members so that you can always find some neighbouring country where you could station UN troops. What would be necessary at best would be an expansion of the UN troops, but this would not be done with national troops, but with money, paid mercenaries and the supply of the appropriate technology.
With regard to Afghanistan, that was a NATO operation and in such cases we can rightly fall back on our allies, because that is the purpose of an alliance.
Re 3.
If that's all it's about, you could just as easily carry out such a task with a civilian ship. The UN could also build this as part of its tasks and a civilian ship does not need a fleet for defence, but only a landing deck and appropriate medical equipment with operating theatres below deck.
In purely civilian form, such a civilian aircraft carrier would also be much cheaper to build and maintain, and since only helicopters are needed for humanitarian missions anyway, a small flight deck would suffice.
If longer distances have to be flown, then you can also use the UN countries for a civilian UN aircraft carrier and then fly the remaining distance to the civilian carrier by helicopter.
So on this point, too, Germany does not need an aircraft carrier.
Re 4.
What for? Where and why should we be able to show our military strength somewhere far away from Germany? What is the point? I don't see the point.
But even if you had some reason to be far away from Germany.
Just showing strength is not enough; if you rattle your sabre, you have to be able to use it in an emergency and also want to use it politically. When the USA goes to war, it doesn't just do so with a single aircraft carrier, but with an entire army and very large fleets that are assembled from many points around the world.
THAT is power of force. But Germany would not even have these capabilities, and a single aircraft carrier would not be enough. If necessary, you also need sufficient ground troops and even long-range bombers.
And here, too, I would like to point out once again that the other countries mentioned here. In other words, the USA, England and France also have islands far from their homeland and therefore need these capacities. But we have no island far from home and no colony to protect.
And then there is another aspect that should be considered. The countries that are taken seriously on the military-political stage all have nuclear weapons. This also applies to North Korea, because since they have had the bomb, this country has been treated with kid gloves, whereas Iraq was simply invaded.
In fact, nuclear weapons would be better suited to demonstrate power of force, but you can't seriously want the arms race.
Therefore, nuclear weapons cannot be a solution, and neither can aircraft carriers.
So you can see from these four points that Germany simply does not need aircraft carriers.
It would be a waste of money.
And as for Santoine's comment above regarding the point that submarines were not useful because they had huge losses in WW2 and that they were therefore not successful is simply not correct and a completely flawed conclusion.
The cause of the huge losses were others, which I will come to in a moment.
With regard to the success of the U-boat weapon type, this weapon type was so extremely successful that it was precisely for this reason that the Germans significantly expanded this weapon in the Second World War, precisely because it was able to achieve serious success.
This meant that large quantities of tonnage could be seriously sunk, thus significantly restricting England's supply of replenishment goods.
The problem back then was completely different.
When the USA entered the war, they simply built so many transport ships that the Reichsmarine couldn't keep up with sinking them because it had too few submarines.
And later on, the Enigma machine, which the German submarines used for encrypted messages, was captured and the encryption process was cracked without the Germans realising it. As a result, the Allies always knew where the German submarines were meeting up with the supply ships (which, incidentally, were larger submarines built solely for this purpose) and could then immediately attack them with aeroplanes, which meant that the submarines could no longer be properly supplied and this was precisely what led to the exorbitant losses towards the end of the war.
So the submarine war did not fail because of the submarine weapon, but because of the encryption technology and the mass and number of transport ships.
In itself, the U-boat weapon was extremely successful and much feared by the Allies, even more successful than any surface ship, because they sank very few compared to the U-boats.
And then, if you are still of the opinion that submarines are useless, you should also take note.
A comparison of the old submarines with today's submarines is actually out of the question simply because the type of warfare with today's submarines is completely different from that with those from the Second World War
In WW2, they went to sea depth to launch a fan of several torpedoes at a distance of a few miles, in the hope that one of them would hit.
A modern submarine, on the other hand, listens passively in the water to determine the distance, speed, position, direction of travel and even the type of ship of the enemy vessel in order to then fire either a missile or a wire-guided torpedo at the enemy ship from many miles away.
The wire-guided torpedo has the characteristic that the torpedo can still be controlled once it has left the submarine. That's why a single torpedo is enough to sink a ship.
The periscope is no longer needed at all. The mission profile is therefore completely different and nowadays a submarine with its capabilities is even more dangerous than before.
And even if a destroyer switches on its active sonar, a modern submarine can escape the destroyer by simply diving below the thermal layers. This is a layer at depth with different water temperatures which, roughly speaking, means that the sonar ping emitted by the destroyer no longer provides any useful results in the water layer with the temperature difference. In other words, below this layer a destroyer can no longer see the submarine and to get below this layer you simply have to be able to reach this depth. Modern submarines can do this. With the old ones, it all depended on where and at what depth this layer was located.
Modern submarines are therefore the most feared and dangerous weapon currently available on the world's oceans and the only enemy that is seriously effective against submarines are aircraft such as helicopters, which lower a sonar device into the water and then listen to the area above the thermal layer with an active ping.
PS: Sorry for the double post. It came under the wrong comment. I meant to put it directly under the thread, not under a comment.
I can fully understand when on other forumsFora a carrier is occasionally also called for carriers, quote John Mahan, without making comments like the taxpayer must.... I'm not saying it would be militarism, but from a technical perspective it would be incredibly curious to see. HY100 steel, then SVOTL or electric magnetic catapult see Transrapid all things and things that in theory Germany easily produces Made in Germany. This is not about nuclear bombs, but a carrier in the Baltic Sea and one in the North Sea does not make much sense militarily. It's good to know that Germany is technically capable of building such weapons if it wants to. Nevertheless, the pilots are all T1s, because even the Luftwaffe pilots are T1s in the Eurofighter. The navy will also need T1s. But if at some point in 2020 the British put Elizabeth into service even against some non-democracies, Falkland 82 was also surprisingly against arg military dictates. France only nuclear catapult DCNBrest Charles de Gaulle exception USA with Rafale Dassault then Germany Leo2 KrausMafWeg and air force cheaper and more useful. Everyone actually knows how superior the technology and engineers of German industry are, also in the field of weapons, but it is kept quiet because it is seen as negative. Others would buy a lot, India could use a lot of Germany. Asia South America needs Germany. They need technical know-how. Australia Pacific and South East Asia need Germany. Africa cannot yet afford Germany. If a German shipbuilding company gets a contract legally, then they can consider whether to accept such a contract after a decision in the Federal Security Council. India first had DCN do the design 27000 tonnes, then Italy 34000 tonnes. Then the Indians had no Hy 80 steel and Hy100 was from the USＡ ｎｉｃｈｔ ｚｕ ｋａｕｆｅｎ． Ｒｕｅｓｔｕｎｇｓｇｕｔ
Ｒｕｓｓｌａｎｄ ｈａｔ ｖｏｎ １８０００ｔ Ｈｙ １００ Ｓｔａｈｌ ８０００ｔ ａｎ Ｉｎｄｉｅｎ ｇｅｌｉｅｆｅｒｔ， ｄｅｒ Ｒｅｓｔ ｍｕｓｓ Ｉｎｄｉｅｎ ｋｒａｔｚｅｎ． Ｄａｎｎ ｋａｕｆｔｅ Ｉｎｄｉｅｎ ｕｅｂｅｒｔｅｕｅｒｔ Ｇｏｒｓｈｋｏｖ ｍｉｔ ｄｅｍ Ｇｅｌｄ ｋａｎｎ ｍａｎ Ｎｉｍｉｔｚ ｋａｕｆｅｎ． Ｄａｓ Ｇｅｌｄ ｂｅｋａｍ Ｒｕｓｓｌａｎｄ， ａｎｄｅｒｅ ｋｏｅｎｎｅｎ ｆｕｅｒ ｄａｓ Ｇｅｌｄ ａｕｃｈ ｂａｕｅｎ．
The whole issue can be analysed from very different points of view. In any case, the fact is that aircraft carriers have been, are and will continue to be a very important means of exerting pressure to assert interests for the foreseeable future.
Without the US aircraft carriers, military strikes against IS would not be possible at all and operations on land are also much more difficult to carry out successfully without air cover.
Without your own carriers, you make yourself totally dependent on the USA, but who wants to be dependent? England does its own thing and cannot be seriously considered as a partner for Germany, as history has proven several times. It's not much different with France, the national interests are too different in detail to be able to rely on English or French support in the event of hardship.
Sure, such a carrier is expensive. Both in terms of purchase and maintenance. The author of the article 200% is right about that. But you also get a lot of military power in return and anyway - how does the USA solve the problem? The USA's defence expenditure is gigantic; after all, it currently maintains 12 carriers and 2 for training purposes. During the Cold War there were at least 16 active carriers ... .
I don't remember this being to the detriment of the American people's standard of living. Despite these gigantic defence expenditures, the USA was and still is the world's number 1 in economic and technological terms. Most films come from the USA, the USA also dominates the world culturally and the Americans stand by their country. So the Americans can't do that much wrong.
Germany is economically very efficient and could afford 2-3 carriers - if only it wanted to do so POLITICALLY. What would be the benefits?
1. effective air support for German troops abroad.
2. independence from US carriers when supporting German troops abroad.
3. enables Germany to become more politically self-confident.
4. if necessary, Germany could enforce national interests worldwide by military means (hostage rescue, pirates in the Horn of Africa, etc.)
5 Europe is only as strong as the sum of its individual member states. If Germany were militarily stronger, it would also be Europe.
6. carriers are always a technological challenge and these technologies can also be used for civilian purposes. This would be good for our economy.
7. more military independence from the USA. It is unhealthy to rely too much and too much on just one partner. If this partner were to break away - you never know - you would have a real problem.
8. strengthening national self-confidence.
Disadvantages:
1. high acquisition and running costs.
You can certainly write and argue a lot more about this. There are always pros and cons. I think it is very important to hold the idea of pluralism and diversity of opinion very high, EVERYONE should be allowed to express their opinion, that is what characterises a true democracy. This should be practised in all situations in life, including in this comment function. 🙂
@Asa Void: Don't worry, we all know the not always funny results of autocorrect by now.
But now to the topic: The two Mistrals naturally stimulate the imagination when it comes to procuring the two Joint Support Ships approved in principle for the Navy as quickly as possible. In fact, the Mistrals can do everything the JSS is supposed to do. I like the idea of operating them in a European network. Joint logistics, i.e. with the operator of the other ships in the French class, would save a lot.
Other nations could participate in the operation. Of course, for reasons of international law, someone has to hoist their flag and thus take responsibility. The commander must belong to this nation, but mixed crews could be tried out. In addition, it is less about the ship and more about the resources embarked, i.e. troops, medical services, supplies, etc.. These could come from different nations depending on the mission.
Within Europe, the readiness of these and similar ships could be harmonised in a coordination cell in order to be able to act at any time. This does not require a new command, but one or two operators in an existing service,
believes
the sailor
Here is a proposal for joint European use, which I do not consider practicable: http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/medienbeitraege/140908_SZ__Mistral_EU_Mjr_Interview.pdf
However, it shows that the topic is being discussed in the security policy scene,
noticed
the sailor
The situation has changed somewhat. Even before the Hansa Stravanger was hijacked off Somalia and the Americans did not allow the KSK to use the USS Boxer, the discussion about a helicopter carrier has been underway. Hardly anyone is in favour of a Nimitz-class carrier. Now that France is probably not delivering the two Mistral-class carriers to Russia and has to pay back 1.2 billion euros, people are already starting to calculate whether Germany could rent one.
Personally, I think it would be better to have a Shared Navy Command Europe and base it in the Netherlands or Belgium. Mistral-class carriers are also ideally suited as floating hospitals. The Ebola outbreak in West Africa would be a good use for them and flights with Ebola patients to Europe would no longer be necessary. These pose a risk - more for the patient than for us in Europe.
Sorry for my many stylistic errors. I wrote it on my mobile phone and the autocorrect is driving me crazy. I heard the German Navy did training for Superpumas on the Tonnerre.
Guys, this is about the ECONOMY!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE BRITISH ARE BUILDING 2 AIRCRAFT CARRIERS!!!?!! The money is there anyway.......! Nobody believes debt blah blah blah. The USA has over 20 aircraft carriers, 5-6 of which are sitting around in the harbour. Aircraft carriers are never easy targets in life....The Americans have up to 20 escort ships with them (destroyers, frigates, submarines) Anyone who dares to attack the Americans will be flattened immediately. They can destroy any target in the world from home at the touch of a button. While the German people argue pointlessly, the German government transfers billions to the EU.
To put it bluntly, I think this article is very unobjective. It is not true that the Americans have 20 carriers, each protected by up to 20 escort vessels. There are only ten or eleven real carriers left, plus a few amphibious ships with flight decks. And it's not true that there are always some lying around in the harbour. Of course, ships and crews (!) have to go into harbour from time to time, but not to lie around, but to be repaired and restored to operational readiness. And if you could destroy all the targets in the world from home at the touch of a button, why would you still need aircraft carriers?
wonders
the sailor
The article is written rather flatly, but in essence he is right. The carriers are very well protected and enable the US military to carry out operations that it could never do without carriers. The carriers are a very important part of the military power of the USA and therefore also of the western world.
Sure, the USA also does a lot of things wrong. But I still much prefer the Americans to the Arabs and the whole of Islam.
Heiko, I sign that 100%
where for an aircraft carrier when we have capable guided missile destroyers and frigates ?
Apart from that, where would the crew come from? Then we would have to put some ships in the reserve fleet.
May I know which guided missile destroyers these are supposed to be?
the sailor
One thing would be to invest technical and planning expertise in new military systems. The next thing would be who defines the underlying strategies. For the USA the matter is relatively clear, they see themselves in the role of world police force, that is the positive view, the realistic view would be world domination. And so they are always working on coming up with new weapons systems so that they can always play first fiddle.
There is no question that others can do the same, but the world is coming to terms with the status quo.
So if someone is thinking about new weapons systems of their own, the big question is: why?
Do they want to be US helpers with the hope of sharing in the fruits of world domination as juniors? The British are following this historically derived path, but it is extremely difficult for the UK, as the last few years have shown.
The British went into the Falklands War 30 years ago, partly to show the world that they could militarily guard the remnants of the former colonial empire. To this end, aircraft carriers are currently a key component in asymmetric conflicts.
However, when it comes to visionary conflicts in which a power with superior capabilities wants to destroy aircraft carriers, the weakness of these systems becomes apparent.
It is certainly at least 1-2 orders of magnitude cheaper to achieve the ability to safely destroy aircraft carriers on the basis of current capabilities than to build, maintain and equip these formations, let alone deploy them worldwide and provide the necessary logistical and security architecture.
It is high time for Europe to move towards genuine democratisation on a federal basis, EU citizenship and integrated EU security. The British, French and some others are clearly having psychological problems with this.
European integration is far more important than hypotheses about aircraft carriers.
Dear Hans!
The visibility of a carrier is particularly useful because such an appearance sends out a signal that you "could" if you "wanted to".
Regarding the submarines: as far as we know, there were huge losses among the submarines in the last World War, and the military benefit was close to zero.
PS: a submarine of comparable size costs much more - and would have to be nuclear.
Today's aircraft carriers are yesterday's battleships, they are obsolete.
Only recently, China developed a missile that can sink an entire Nimitz-class aircraft carrier with a single hit, we (Germany) proved in a NATO manoeuvre that such a US aircraft carrier is an easy target for our submarines and the Americans themselves are about to equip their warships with railguns that can shoot at a speed of Mach 5 at ranges of over 200 miles and against which no armour can withstand due to their kinetic energy. And then you think about an aircraft carrier that plays the immobile target in the water?
That is absurd!
Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks and easy targets with future weapon technologies and if only one is sunk, you lose a lot.
I therefore propose a different strategy.
We should build what we do best. The development of the German submarine weapon.
During the Second World War, Japan had plans to build carrier submarines for aeroplanes.
Aeroplanes are of course too big for this, but with drones, which are 1/3 smaller than normal aircraft, it would be perfectly practicable.
I therefore vote in favour of an underwater aircraft carrier for drones, which doesn't need huge convoys, is smaller anyway and therefore cheaper to maintain.
With enough water between the carrier and the enemy weapon, you also have sufficient armour protection against Chinese missiles and American railguns.
And the best protection against submarines is to be a submarine yourself.
So for a start, you could think about building a submarine with a longer range.
Regarding I like air craft carriers: the Graf Zeppelin was a very modern carrier at the time, the navy leadership at the time recognised the benefits of aircraft carriers too late and was too impressed by the success of the submarines. Later the funds for completion were lacking, according to the Z-plan of 1939 even 4 carriers were planned.
Nowadays you first have to ask yourself what international strategy you want to pursue. Aircraft carriers are absolutely essential if you really want to play in the concert of the big players, as they alone offer the possibility of large-scale and longer-lasting airspace control.
For limited missions, however, smaller fleet carriers such as those of the British or French, for example, with around 30 - 50 aircraft would be sufficient. It would then make sense to expand the carrier fleet with helicopter carriers. Strategically it makes sense to procure 2 aircraft carriers and 2 - 3 helicopter carriers, as an alternative to the helicopter carriers you could also consider the Spanish Juan Carlos class. However, the greatest consideration should also be given to the restricted German navigation conditions, so that the carriers should not be larger than the old American Wasp or Shangri La, for example, and the helicopter carriers should not be more than 200 metres long and 30 metres wide, as there must also be shipyards for the maintenance / servicing of these ships.
Incidentally, it might make more sense not to want to defend Germany in the Hindu Kush or in Africa, but to take a closer look at who you bring into the country and to be more restrictive ... remember ... bombs are also multi-cultural, they take everyone with them to their deaths !!!
In my opinion, the idea of European cooperation in foreign and security policy, as explained here in the article, is somewhat naive. It's not as if the European states always agree on foreign policy and it doesn't really matter who has which military capabilities.
The Royal Navy sees itself primarily as the British navy and not as a European navy from which the Germans also benefit. The navies of France and Great Britain are instruments with which the respective governments represent French and British interests, often, but not always in conjunction with the USA, and the aircraft carriers play a very important role in this (alongside other strategic units such as nuclear submarines, helicopter carriers or cruise missiles). That these things cost a lot of money is a fact of life. Nevertheless, the UK and France will continue to reserve their own strategic capabilities in the future and will certainly not share them with other countries. Of course, this doesn't rule out the possibility of German ships helping the British as escorts from time to time when it suits them.
The fact that German and French or British interests are very similar these days and that we generally pursue common goals should not lead us to believe that we as Germans have any say in the maritime strategic forces of the French or British, or that they even subordinate their navies to any common European voice.
Their strategic capabilities are an expression of their historically founded status as leading powers of the Western world, even if this status is quite modest compared to the USA today. Nevertheless, both France and Great Britain still see themselves as the victorious powers of the Second World War, as nuclear powers with veto rights in the UN Security Council and as sovereign leading powers (or historically "great powers") that can assert their interests in the world militarily if necessary, even if today they often do so together with big brother USA.
Germany has no strategic capabilities. The sharpest weapon Germany has at its disposal are the diplomatic appeals of Guido Westerwelle. The lack of strategic capabilities (e.g. aircraft carriers) is ultimately also the reason why Germany does not play a serious role in international politics, unless it is a question of the euro or mechanical engineering and vehicle construction, for example. Yet Germany is the fourth largest economy in the world after the USA, China and Japan.
The fact that we dispense with strategic capabilities and only ever refer to the leadership role of the victorious powers certainly has to do with our disastrous history. Nowadays, however, we also make it very easy for ourselves with this attitude.
Thank God, there is a very balanced relationship between the major European states today. We treat each other as equals and nobody is afraid of one occupying the Rhineland or the other demanding revenge for something. Today we have a common currency, we have opened our borders and we have even done crazy things together like banning the light bulb. We are pretty good friends today. In this respect, our latent concern that other European countries could become seriously afraid of us because we are involved internationally with strategic forces is unfounded. In my opinion, some countries are more insecure about Germany today because we make ourselves look smaller and less involved than we actually are.
In this respect, we as Germans should get off our arses and not always pretend that strategic units are only for our former liberators. And we'd rather stick to our small, modest Federal Republic and participate with small, modest means.
Graf Zeppelin also had large guns, just a deck for aeroplanes. It was simply too old even then.
I think that an aircraft carrier has no place in our organisation. As a tactical tool, it would certainly be a great thing, no question about it. Nevertheless, in various documentaries/reports you hear a lot about the costs of the air force alone. They are said to be so immensely high that various pilots are forced to stay on the ground several days a week or have their flight times greatly reduced. That alone is enough to show that no money should be made available from the German side for highly complex weapons systems of this kind.
I also believe that our NATO partners have sufficient weapons systems of this kind and that, if the worst comes to the worst (which has long been the case), they can also provide the best possible support for missions that we order.
First of all, it would probably have to be clarified when we should withdraw discreetly and when not. Perhaps the other nations would shy away from the risk of being left without escort ships or carrier aircraft in an emergency. I wouldn't trust us.
Aircraft carrier "Schleswig-Holstein"??? Surely that? The only carrier that was to be built (rebuilt) was "Graf Zeppelin".
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graf_Zeppelin_(1938)
http://volker-engler.de.tl/Flugzeugtr.ae.ger-Graf-Zeppelin–.htm
However, it was already recognised at the time that it was not really worthwhile, which is why it was never actually completed. If they had really had a use for it, they wouldn't have shut it down a few times.
Tscha besserwisser, the writer means with the airfields Jagel and Eggebeck the very narrow state of Schleswig-Holstein. There were 1 MFG each, (MFG1 Jagel / MFG2 Eggebeck) initially with Hawker Sea Hawk Mk 100 and Fairey Gannet HS Mk4 carrier aircraft and then F-104 Starfighter and later Tornado IDS
An aircraft carrier is needed to achieve the security of Germany and the whole of Europe - we are the only country with money and must therefore also fulfil our task
For this, however, there would have to be tasks that Germany/Europe would have to solve with the help of an aircraft carrier. I agree with Jopp's critical question from above as to whether classic carriers will still be useful at all in the future. In the USA, they say that the JSF will probably be the last manned combat aircraft to be developed. After that, air combat will be remote-controlled. The same applies to reconnaissance and air strikes. Humans will then only sit in transport aircraft. To get unmanned aerial vehicles into the air, you will need much smaller platforms. They are cheaper and much less vulnerable. However, we should also think about this in Germany and Europe so that we don't lose touch and fall behind, says
the sailor!
In my opinion, Germany should forget about building its own carrier capacity. Even IF the financial resources were to become available, German politicians would probably shy away from deploying such a "big stick". The funds should therefore be earmarked for other purposes from the outset.
On the other hand, globalisation is a fact of life and Germany must also become capable of independent operations outside NATO territory. Landing ships, which provide the entire infrastructure for the deployment of land forces, are ideal for this purpose. In principle, they are floating garages with accommodation.
Examples include the French "Mistral" class, the Spanish "Juan Carlos I", the British "HMS Ocean" and the Italian "San Giorgio" class. These have large flight decks for the deployment of helicopters and can therefore serve as a base for intensive operations. With their "Rotterdam" class, the Dutch have a more conventional concept with a smaller flight deck.
The spectrum of operations of such ships ranges from humanitarian missions (transport of relief supplies, evacuation of refugees) to the supply of forces on land and commando operations through to offensive actions.
It is therefore no wonder that other navies have expanded their capabilities here in recent years (see above); Russia is acquiring 4 ships of the French "Mistral" class and Australia is getting 2 "Juan Carlos I". Presumably the German Navy would also like to acquire this capability and has chosen the designation "Joint Support Ship" for it; 2 units with this designation are listed in the "Target Vision Navy 2025+".
In my opinion, it makes sense to quickly tackle the procurement of two units in the style of the "Mistral" or "Juan Carlos I".
What seems interesting about the discussion so far is the fact that nobody is questioning the future significance of aircraft carriers. Who actually says that they are not the dinosaurs of the 20th century today, like the battleships were in the Second World War?
In the future, power projection with a forward view can also be realised with highly accurate UAVs; and these on board larger landing ships. Then aircraft and carriers won't eat up the fleet. The cost of the F 35 is likely to cause considerable difficulties not only for the UK but also for the US Navy, which has to renew its strategic and fighter submarines at the same time, not to mention the continuing decline in the number of modern ships (destroyers and frigates).
Larger landing ships in Europe could be provided by the French Mistral. Germany could participate with UAVs. However, this presupposes that the Europeans finally say where and with what military means they want to protect their own security.
NATO is saying just as little about this and is not conducting a political dialogue on the future of the alliance. It's back to the roots here.
My comment above is quite critical of aircraft carriers in general. It says, among other things:
"We have learnt in recent years that it is not platforms that matter, but capabilities. An aircraft carrier is not a capability, but a platform for capabilities. Depending on what kind of aircraft are stationed on it, it can be used, for example, to combat ships, submarines or land lines, for air defence and for reconnaissance. Each individual capability can also be provided, at least to a certain extent, by other platforms. New long-range drones for reconnaissance are one example, land-based missiles on frigates and submarines are another."
This means that what a carrier can do can also be realised in other ways. This may be possible on a smaller scale, allowing smaller navies to develop potential that was previously reserved for large carrier navies.
I fully agree with the last paragraph of my "previous blogger":
"Incidentally, there is nothing wrong with sensible coordination and division of labour between the European carrier navies and the German navy as long as we have an appropriate say. We secure this through high-quality escort vessels, including air-independent submarines, which the carrier navies are increasingly losing."
The top priority will be to maintain the size of the navy at all costs in the upcoming coalition negotiations in 2013. On the contrary: a "moderate rounding up" of the navy is necessary. This debate must also be held against the interests of the army and air force.
First of all, a not entirely serious but nevertheless significant contribution on the subject of aircraft carriers in the form of a short film:
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0jgZKV4N_A&feature=player_embedded)
But seriously, we have learnt in recent years that it is not platforms that matter, but capabilities. An aircraft carrier is not a capability, but a platform for capabilities. Depending on what kind of aircraft are stationed on it, it can be used, for example, to combat ships, submarines or land lines, for air defence and for reconnaissance. Each individual capability can also be provided, at least to a certain extent, by other platforms. New long-range drones for reconnaissance are one example, land-based missiles on frigates and submarines are another.
Now to the aircraft: carrier aircraft such as the Harrier are so inefficient that they can hardly be used in any meaningful way. JSFs would be an additional jet aircraft type in the Bundeswehr, which would be extremely expensive to operate in small numbers and therefore uneconomical. In addition, the German air force would have to be married to two very different European navies (British and French), which would be another adventure. This must be set against the limited increase in capability.
I agree with Freddy Quinn: Sailor, stop dreaming. For the same money as a carrier and carrier aircraft, we could equip a number of existing or additional ships with weapons systems, sensors, helicopters and drones to realise the required capabilities. In addition, such a solution would be much more flexible because, as said above, one carrier is not enough because it is sometimes in the shipyard.
Incidentally, there is nothing wrong with sensible coordination and division of labour between the European carrier navies and the German navy as long as we have an appropriate say. We secure this through high-quality escort vessels, including air-independent submarines, which the carrier navies are increasingly losing.
I am well aware that my questions are worth discussing, but I take into account the European bureaucracy (and in a certain sense also the German political attitude and bureaucracy), which do not exactly make me enthusiastic.
My questions will certainly be raised in a slightly different form, unfortunately, sooner or later. Solutions will certainly be found, the question is what time frame is needed for this and whether they make sense?
I fear that the time frame and subsequent costs would far exceed a national solution.
I see the forum as a place for the free exchange of ideas and simply throw in any concerns or suggestions.
Here is a hint from Michael Forster's interview with Harald Kujat on 5 October 2000 (GeoPowers)
"The British land forces are indeed smaller than the German army. Well, we can do that too, but then we have to procure three aircraft carriers. I doubt whether that makes sense. The capabilities should be seen as complementary. We need to emphasise something else to make it truly complementary. If we want to have a global intervention army, then smaller land forces are quite sufficient. But then we need strategic power projection and have to procure aircraft carriers, which will be more expensive, not cheaper. You can't compare it like that, you have to see it in context. It is not the identity of the capabilities that is decisive, but the complementarity."
Now, however, the land forces are being downsized as part of the Bundeswehr reform!
My request is basically that Germany refers to the "European partners", i.e. they should become active and Germany can, admittedly in my opinion, participate in its own choice and manner, or not. In short, it is self-interests that dominate and not European security interests. Which is not reprehensible at first. But it is more domestic policy and not defence alliance capability, which should also create trust.
What is being misjudged here is that Germany is the most populous and financially strongest country in Europe. In a defence policy alliance (Europe), however, it is rowing back a little.
From the point of view of the European partner countries and European security interests, I think this German attitude is somewhat destructive today.
The protocol:
The Juan Carlos is indeed a multi-purpose ship, but according to the latest reports (Marineforum) the light carrier Principe de Asturias (16,700 tonnes) is to be decommissioned due to the costs and the Spanish Navy is considering using the Juan Carlos primarily as an aircraft carrier. (According to the English Wiki).
The Eurofighter Naval Version or Carrier Version was presented at the Aero India 2011 (and is said to have already been offered to India?), but was defeated by the French Rafale also due to its lower price.
180 Eurofighters were planned for Germany. However, Germany now "only" wants 140, while 143 have been ordered.
The question arose as to the cost of not taking delivery of the last 37 units (tranche 3B, costing approx. 3 billion). Or whether a naval version could also be possible here with a slightly reduced number of units.
Hold your horses!
I don't want to be an over-teacher, but I would like to make a few things clear:
@ FelixFS: Yes, correct, the German Navy has already participated once (!) with a class 124 frigate in a US carrier battle group. The US Navy recognised this contribution very positively, but it was also clear that when a US "national tasking" came, the US unit would turn to starboard and the German frigate would turn to port and play with itself.
We can have a big debate about this, but it is a consequence of the laws in force in our country. The deployment of the military only takes place on the basis of and within the framework of the Parliamentary Participation Act and therefore requires parliamentary approval. If you want to change this, you have to (at least) dare to change the Parliamentary Participation Act, and I don't see this happening in this legislative period.
I am happy to agree with the call for a revision of the ESS, but a European maritime strategy is much more important, and the EU has been at a standstill for over a year.
@ Small: Your questions are interesting and you could talk about them for days, talk shop and even argue fiercely. But in my opinion they are the wrong approach. Before you start talking about size, length, speed, colour, name and aircraft types, you first need to discuss much more fundamental issues.
When it comes to pooling and sharing, I would suggest that we perhaps not always start with the most complicated project (which certainly includes the issue of "European aircraft carriers"), but instead begin with small, quick and easy-to-realise projects with just a few participants. As they say in didactics: from the known to the unknown, from the easy to the difficult. This usually helps...!
For the record:
The Spanish JUAN CARLOS class are LHDs (Landing Support Ships with the ability to carry helicopters and landing craft), they are not aircraft carriers in the strict sense, although the Royal Spanish Navy does carry Harrier aircraft on them. In a tactical or operational sense, however, they are used in a completely different way to aircraft carriers. Therefore, in my opinion, the comparison with aircraft carriers is out of the question. If you want to talk about "smaller carriers" in the narrower sense, you should look at the British QUEEN ELIZABETH class, which is currently under construction, or the French CHARLES DE GAULLE.
Simply converting the last tranche of Eurofighters into a carrier-capable variant is roughly equivalent to the effort involved in constructing an off-road vehicle from a sports car. I'll leave the rest to your imagination - especially as far as the time, technical and financial dimensions are concerned.
I have a few questions about the European solution.
I suspect that when the word aircraft carrier is mentioned, the majority think of the approx. 100,000 tonne carriers of the USA.
In my opinion, these are too big for Germany, or even for Europe, and too expensive to buy and maintain, especially with the large crews. Not to mention the "nuclear propulsion".
These problems do not arise with a light carrier or escort carrier like the Juan Carlos.
Cheaper to buy than a frigate 124, apart from the aircraft.
But also less powerful.
Now, to the questions.
How big should a European carrier be? Which aircraft should, or should it be able to carry and in what quantity? And, what number of carriers is required/desired?
Which nation will provide the crew, or should they be put together according to the financial expenditure of the nations?
Which nation provides the aircraft and UAV/UCAV, or are these also put together according to the nations' financial expenditure?
How should the performance of the support vessels be valued, both financially and in terms of participation?
Germany, as the largest country in the European Union, would like to provide escort ships.
How many other countries might want to do the same?
They may therefore not want to participate financially in a carrier.
What financial contribution would Germany have to make to a "European sponsorship programme"? None?
Or, probably the biggest one after all?
And who in Germany pays for the costs? The German Navy, perhaps?
Do France and Great Britain, for example, have any interest in making themselves dependent on others, even taking into account their financial possibilities in the future?
See the Libya mission!
Does Germany have to take part in an intervention with aircraft carriers if Europe wants it?
Is there even a European military budget?
What does the Federal Constitutional Court say about this? What about sovereignty?
So I have doubts about a European carrier programme, just as I have doubts about the integration of the European armed forces.
However, it is correct to say that European interests are global and that a European carrier capability is also needed, but please (for the time being) with national reservations.
And this is where Germany also has a duty. Who other than France and the UK can afford a "medium-sized carrier" in Europe?
Carrier fries fleet only if the financial resources are not provided.
If the UK has to sell one of its new carriers, Germany should consider buying it in the European interest. The costs could possibly be in line with what Germany would have to pay for a European carrier programme (if it wanted to).
The last tranche of Eurofighters was to be the carrier version, so that the corresponding aircraft would already be available.
Some smaller European countries would certainly be able or willing to provide escort ships.
It should be possible to reach agreement with France and the UK on the availability of at least one carrier.
(whether a German "carrier" will ever visit the Falkland Islands, however, I regard as questionable)
However, there is simply no political will to provide more money for the navy or the Bundeswehr, or to reach agreements with France and the UK in the European interest.
The European Union is then simply put forward, presumably in the knowledge that nothing can come of it in the end!
Both England and France still have islands and colonies that are far away from the mother country and need to be protected if necessary. That is why these two countries also need aircraft carriers.
But Germany has none of these, so why would we need aircraft carriers at all?
The reasons mentioned here for the possession of aircraft carriers were (the numbering is not an order of precedence, but only helps to better refer to them):
1. deployment of the capabilities of an FT in the event of German civilian ships being hijacked or captured
2. support for assignments abroad
3. humanitarian aid
4. showing power of force
The main question here is whether these 4 points justify an expensive aircraft carrier and its maintenance at all.
Re 1: How often does that happen? It rarely happens, and if it does, then a frigate with a helipad should be enough. Besides, it takes a lot more time to get a single carrier to the place where it is needed. Time that the abductees probably don't have.
In such cases, the Americans can intervene quickly with their own civilian ships because they have a large number of aircraft carriers spread around the world, which makes the distance a carrier has to travel to the deployment site short.
If we only built 1-2, we wouldn't have this capability yet.
So I don't think this argument is sufficient. Especially not if you have to weigh it up against the annual maintenance costs and the time when you really need something like this. A small, buoyant operational aircraft that can be transported to any point in the world in just a few hours would make much more sense and would also be cheaper.
This floats nearby and the last few metres to the ship in question can then be covered by boats, which the floating aircraft has to tow along.
Re 2.
We are leaving Afghanistan. And in Afghanistan, such a carrier would not have been any help because Afghanistan is not on the water. And then we should ask ourselves the question of the purpose of such foreign missions. Why should we participate in such missions at all? We don't have islands and colonies and just because we are economically strong doesn't mean that we have to get involved militarily in such conflicts.
It is simply not our job to intervene in foreign countries to play world police there, because that would be the job of the UN, but it doesn't need carriers because it has enough members so that you can always find some neighbouring country where you could station UN troops. What would be necessary at best would be an expansion of the UN troops, but this would not be done with national troops, but with money, paid mercenaries and the supply of the appropriate technology.
With regard to Afghanistan, that was a NATO operation and in such cases we can rightly fall back on our allies, because that is the purpose of an alliance.
Re 3.
If that's all it's about, you could just as easily carry out such a task with a civilian ship. The UN could also build this as part of its tasks and a civilian ship does not need a fleet for defence, but only a landing deck and appropriate medical equipment with operating theatres below deck.
In purely civilian form, such a civilian aircraft carrier would also be much cheaper to build and maintain, and since only helicopters are needed for humanitarian missions anyway, a small flight deck would suffice.
If longer distances have to be flown, then you can also use the UN countries for a civilian UN aircraft carrier and then fly the remaining distance to the civilian carrier by helicopter.
So on this point, too, Germany does not need an aircraft carrier.
Re 4.
What for? Where and why should we be able to show our military strength somewhere far away from Germany? What is the point? I don't see the point.
But even if you had some reason to be far away from Germany.
Just showing strength is not enough; if you rattle your sabre, you have to be able to use it in an emergency and also want to use it politically. When the USA goes to war, it doesn't just do so with a single aircraft carrier, but with an entire army and very large fleets that are assembled from many points around the world.
THAT is power of force. But Germany would not even have these capabilities, and a single aircraft carrier would not be enough. If necessary, you also need sufficient ground troops and even long-range bombers.
And here, too, I would like to point out once again that the other countries mentioned here. In other words, the USA, England and France also have islands far from their homeland and therefore need these capacities. But we have no island far from home and no colony to protect.
And then there is another aspect that should be considered. The countries that are taken seriously on the military-political stage all have nuclear weapons. This also applies to North Korea, because since they have had the bomb, this country has been treated with kid gloves, whereas Iraq was simply invaded.
In fact, nuclear weapons would be better suited to demonstrate power of force, but you can't seriously want the arms race.
Therefore, nuclear weapons cannot be a solution, and neither can aircraft carriers.
So you can see from these four points that Germany simply does not need aircraft carriers.
It would be a waste of money.
And as for Santoine's comment above regarding the point that submarines were not useful because they had huge losses in WW2 and that they were therefore not successful is simply not correct and a completely flawed conclusion.
The cause of the huge losses were others, which I will come to in a moment.
With regard to the success of the U-boat weapon type, this weapon type was so extremely successful that it was precisely for this reason that the Germans significantly expanded this weapon in the Second World War, precisely because it was able to achieve serious success.
This meant that large quantities of tonnage could be seriously sunk, thus significantly restricting England's supply of replenishment goods.
The problem back then was completely different.
When the USA entered the war, they simply built so many transport ships that the Reichsmarine couldn't keep up with sinking them because it had too few submarines.
And later on, the Enigma machine, which the German submarines used for encrypted messages, was captured and the encryption process was cracked without the Germans realising it. As a result, the Allies always knew where the German submarines were meeting up with the supply ships (which, incidentally, were larger submarines built solely for this purpose) and could then immediately attack them with aeroplanes, which meant that the submarines could no longer be properly supplied and this was precisely what led to the exorbitant losses towards the end of the war.
So the submarine war did not fail because of the submarine weapon, but because of the encryption technology and the mass and number of transport ships.
In itself, the U-boat weapon was extremely successful and much feared by the Allies, even more successful than any surface ship, because they sank very few compared to the U-boats.
And then, if you are still of the opinion that submarines are useless, you should also take note.
A comparison of the old submarines with today's submarines is actually out of the question simply because the type of warfare with today's submarines is completely different from that with those from the Second World War
In WW2, they went to sea depth to launch a fan of several torpedoes at a distance of a few miles, in the hope that one of them would hit.
A modern submarine, on the other hand, listens passively in the water to determine the distance, speed, position, direction of travel and even the type of ship of the enemy vessel in order to then fire either a missile or a wire-guided torpedo at the enemy ship from many miles away.
The wire-guided torpedo has the characteristic that the torpedo can still be controlled once it has left the submarine. That's why a single torpedo is enough to sink a ship.
The periscope is no longer needed at all. The mission profile is therefore completely different and nowadays a submarine with its capabilities is even more dangerous than before.
And even if a destroyer switches on its active sonar, a modern submarine can escape the destroyer by simply diving below the thermal layers. This is a layer at depth with different water temperatures which, roughly speaking, means that the sonar ping emitted by the destroyer no longer provides any useful results in the water layer with the temperature difference. In other words, below this layer a destroyer can no longer see the submarine and to get below this layer you simply have to be able to reach this depth. Modern submarines can do this. With the old ones, it all depended on where and at what depth this layer was located.
Modern submarines are therefore the most feared and dangerous weapon currently available on the world's oceans and the only enemy that is seriously effective against submarines are aircraft such as helicopters, which lower a sonar device into the water and then listen to the area above the thermal layer with an active ping.
@Small
Sorry for the double post. I didn't actually mean to post under your comment, but further down, i.e. directly under the thread.
The discussion so far shows how you can have a serious debate on a blog. Keep it up 🙂
I like the three ideas behind the "bullet points". German aircraft on Allied carriers, especially with the French, would be a great idea.
As far as I know, there are also ships from other nations within US formations that take part in escort operations. I would assume that the German navy has also been involved in something like this within NATO.
We agree on the point about the European understanding of security. A revision or new version of the ESS is overdue; after all, the progress report is already four years old. Unfortunately, Europe's political elite is far too busy with other things to expect any serious impetus. And until sporadic discussions like the one here, the strategic community, if it exists, does not cover itself in glory.
I largely agree with the previous speakers and will try to paint a picture:
An aircraft carrier (at least in the form we know it so far, future developments with UAVs and UCAVs aside) is a very sharp, heavy and stable sword. Simply displaying it - provided it is not rusty or blunt - instils so much respect in the other person that they usually do or don't do the things that are expected of them.
But: It also presupposes that the person holding this sword is strong enough to hold and swing this sword and - even more importantly - is also determined to swing the sword and strike with all his strength and consistency when necessary.
An additional (German, British, European or whatever nation/region) aircraft carrier with sufficient aircraft on board (whichever TSK they may belong to) would have been a substantial contribution to burden-sharing and to the success of the mission in the Libyan war, the Afghan war or the conflict in the rest of Yugoslavia. But: hand on heart! If our nation had had such an aircraft carrier at its disposal, would it have deployed it?
To stay in the picture:
If you only use the Bi-Händer to cut herbs and medlars, it is better to buy a few (golden) sickles for all the money the Bi-Händer costs.
@ Post Scriptum:
"Swing the lamp" - stories from the good old days? What use would 50+ TORNADO aircraft in the role of "airborne naval warfare" be to the German Navy today if they are not deployed because a) they are not carrier-capable and b) the political will is lacking?
@ de Humboldt:
If the TUR Admiralty thinks it has to have such a "toy", then let's let them. The (European?) defence industry will be pleased. If the gentlemen on the Bosporus want to know how easy it is to procure a carrier (and aircraft), they should call India or China...
There is nothing more to add!
I read the 7th May issue of Defence News last week and it says on page 13:
—–
Does Turkey Need an Aircraft Carrier?
The call by the chief of the Turkish Navy for an aircraft carrier by 2032 has sparked wide-ranging debate about wether the country needs the ship to advance its security interests, and if so, if it should be developed sooner. Carrier supporters like analyst Adnan Caglayan said "20 years is a long time...A country like Turkey should develop an aircraft carrier within 20 years if its going to be a world power." [...]
—–
I stopped reading here and continued browsing.
Nice contribution. Just think about the meaning of the aircraft carrier.
Aircraft carrier = power projection
Power projection = only useful if continuous. means: at least three aircraft carriers necessary (one in training, one in use, one in the inst) (too expensive)
Power projection = part of the claim to great power
Claim to great power status = not an option for a European nation state (too expensive)
Claim to great power status = objective for a united Europe in current geostrategic development
The final statement to realise the carrier capability in Europe is therefore as accurate as it is unavoidable, so that the states of Europe can bring security policy weight to the world.
400ooo refugees x 355€/month x 12 x 20 years PLUS accommodation and food (cheap pork excluded!!!)
what does the sumarum give?
2 carriers and Flinten-Uschi could have the G36 dropped from the M400s over the boats!!!
@hahaha
Where did the 20 years and the "PLUS accommodation" come from? You don't seriously believe that the economic power of the refugees hasn't already been calculated. And the fall of the Berlin Wall has taught us how not to motivate refugees.
It is truly astonishing to see the persistence with which the construction of a carrier is repeatedly demanded in certain forums and I wonder what interests are behind such a demand. It can't be the industry, because it doesn't have the capability to build a carrier, and it can't be the navy either, in view of dwindling resources (and because of its own modesty). But the idea of "pooling and sharing", currently THE buzzword in NATO, should be filled with substance at an early stage. Germany can play a key role in shaping this! It will be interesting to see where this path leads.