Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
It is indeed th explanation for building ship for the navy.. it was int he news some years ago...

what I do not know is why this type of carrier precisely and not any other one... maybe cheaper and more useful.. well actually useful...

So it either has to do with work load per unit of investment or something with the NATO.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 12:04:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... why the push toward either big carriers or amphibious assault vessels, instead of SCS? The big carriers can slot into a rotation shared with US carriers, and the amphibious assault vessel can be added to a group of amphibious assault vessels for the NATO ally's "contribution" to the landing force.

Looking ahead to the day when the US inevitably does not have the seapower to control sea lanes plus fight all the wars our militarists will wish to fight with our big carriers ... that's outside the frame, but when it comes, Europe can rest assured that the prioritizing will be in terms of the sealanes that are seen as strategic for the US.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 12:31:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series