Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Uh huh.
Add the 2 French Mistral and we´re already at 12. And that´s not counting the new Spanish "Juan Carlos I" mentioned in the post.

Robert Farley back in 2006 had a post about "the increasing focus of the world's navies on "expeditionary" ships".

The amphibious assault ship spree is somewhat reminiscent of the drive, around 1910, of a number of major and minor powers to purchase or build dreadnought battleships. Countries that had no business owning major modern units, like Brazil and Argentina, spent enormous sums on modern vessels for reasons of national prestige. However, the Defense News article suggests a more rational purpose to the purchases. As major warfare operations have increasingly become coalition expeditionary efforts, states with small militaries want a way to contribute. An amphibious assault ship gives a country like Spain, the Netherlands, or Canada a way to involve itself in an expeditionary operation without being excessively dependent on one of the major naval powers. Like their armies, the navies of these countries are becoming less focused on the traditional forms of territorial defense and more on the need for policing, peacekeeping, and other forms of expeditionary warfare. Also, amphibious assault ships are easier to sell to defense-spending averse European publics (and legislators) because they can be portrayed as more flexible and less "aggressive" than traditional naval vessels.

Still, I wouldn't discount a constructivist explanation focused on national prestige and "appropriateness". If Portugal has an LPD, then what does it say about Canada that they lack one?

by Detlef (Detlef1961_at_yahoo_dot_de) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 02:04:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series