New Italian Carrier

[tomahawk6]

The Cavour is a beautiful looking ship just added to the Italian Navy.

 

[Mike Baker]

Quite a beautiful ship indeed.

 

[CougarKing]

I think she kinda looks like the former HMS Hermes which is now in Indian Navy service as the INS Viraat - ski jump and all. The Cavour is also named after a World War II era Italian battleship that was sunk by British Swordfish torpedo bombers in the famous Taranto air attack in 1940.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Sigh, guess I better put one on next year's christmas list....

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Apparently she is built to mercantile standards.....dangerous thing with all that aviation fuel onboard. They can have her if that is the case.

 

[matthew_bourque]

Yeah, that sure is a pretty awesome looking rig.

 

[aesop081]

I think she kinda looks like the former HMS Hermes which is now in Indian Navy service as the INS Viraat - ski jump and all.

You will note that this is nothing new for the Italian Navy. Look up the Garibaldi just for shits and giggles.

 

[NCRCrow]

nice ship.......Canada is only 25 years behind a Mediterranean navy

 

[CougarKing]

nice ship.......Canada is only 25 years behind a Mediterranean navy

It's ironic that about over 60 years since the British Royal Navy and the Italian Navy fought for supremacy in the Mediterranean in World War II, that the Italians have carriers once again; they used to have one called the Aquila built during WW2 but which never saw service before Italy capitulated in 1943. Although the Italians have two carriers now, it is doubtful they'd want to reassert themselves as a Mediterranean naval power again or achieve Mussolini's futile WW2 dream of Mare Nostrum, especially with Rome's participation in NATO, with the USN 6th Fleet in the Med, and since the French and Spanish have carriers of their own. Or should WW2-era RN Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham be turning in his grave?

note to CDNAviator: I was well aware of the Giuseppe Garibaldi's existence even before this thread was posted.

 

[aesop081]

that the Italians have a carrier once again;

As i said, they have had a CV for some time now.

 

[Neill McKay]

Apparently she is built to mercantile standards.....

Apart from watertight separation of spaces (my assumption), what else does this imply?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Fewer watertight bulkheads, less hose stations, less capability to withstand battle damage, less likelihood of escape hatches in all spaces, do I need to go on?

 

[STONEY]

FYI  The Number of watertight bulkheads and hose stations has nothing to do with with a ship being built to mercantile standards as the designer of either ship can put into the design as many as he wants he just can't put in less. Mercantile ships have to comply with the SOLAS convention(safety of life at sea) while military ships do not and hence don't have as much lifesaving equipment.  IE : When HMCS Kootenay (built to warship standards) suffered an explosion with loss of life , the resulting board of enquiry determined that the vessel did not have near enough firefighting equipment onboard it required and that more watertight  bulkheads should be kept closed while vessel was at sea.

Cheersl

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

You board any merchant ship out there and you see fewer hose stations, fewer water tight bulkheads, fewer first aid stations, fewer damage control and fewer life rafts.

look how long ago the Kootenay was. The Canadian Navy as well as other navies throughout the world learned a lot of painful lessons from that tragedy.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

It's ironic that about over 60 years since the British Royal Navy and the Italian Navy fought for supremacy in the Mediterranean in World War II, that the Italians have carriers once again; they used to have one called the Aquila built during WW2 but which never saw service before Italy capitulated in 1943. Although the Italians have two carriers now, it is doubtful they'd want to reassert themselves as a Mediterranean naval power again or achieve Mussolini's futile WW2 dream of Mare Nostrum, especially with Rome's participation in NATO, with the USN 6th Fleet in the Med, and since the French and Spanish have carriers of their own. Or should WW2-era RN Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham be turning in his grave?

Tangent Alarm.

Not sure if it is ironic and I don't know if Cunningham would be too concerned.  Friends and enemies come and go.  After all, Cunningham interned the French squadrons at Alexandria in 1940 so I think that he was used to that sort of thing.  That being said, he did report in 1943 that "the Italian battle fleet now lies at anchor under the guns of the guns of the fortress of Malta" or something like that so he did have an aggressive streak.  He didn't approve, however, of the shelling of the French Fleet at Mers-el-Kebir.  Strikes me as a decent level-headed man possessed of great will but also nuance.  Didn't he write "It takes three years to build a ship and three centuries to build a tradition." 

The German Navy has had submarines for some time, and they were a much greater menace that the Italian fleet.  I'll wake up when the Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force changes it's name to the Imperial Japanese Navy and we get the Shokaku and Zuikako in the Persian Gulf.  Even then, we could probably use the help...

 

[jollyjacktar]

You board any merchant ship out there and you see fewer hose stations, fewer water tight bulkheads, fewer first aid stations, fewer damage control and fewer life rafts.

look how long ago the Kootenay was. The Canadian Navy as well as other navies throughout the world learned a lot of painful lessons from that tragedy.

I did have a conversation on this subject and the USN came up.  I was told that the "Official party line" and the current train of thought is that it is over engineering to build to mil spec.  They have come to the conclusion that civ spec is adequate and suitable.  ( I fear that overall there is more of a bean counter mentality behind the push for more bang for the buck decisions, but of course I am a suspicious bastard at the best of times)  It was also mentioned in the conversation that they do have more recent experience in this regard. ie USS Cole, USS Stark etc. and that was what led to this paradigm shift for them.  Sounds like waffle to me, but I for one like the thought of my home and mode of transportation to be over engineered should "shit" happen.

 

[Neill McKay]

I did have a conversation on this subject and the USN came up.  I was told that the "Official party line" and the current train of thought is that it is over engineering to build to mil spec.  They have come to the conclusion that civ spec is adequate and suitable.  ( I fear that overall there is more of a bean counter mentality behind the push for more bang for the buck decisions, but of course I am a suspicious ******* at the best of times)  It was also mentioned in the conversation that they do have more recent experience in this regard. ie USS Cole, USS Stark etc. and that was what led to this paradigm shift for them.  Sounds like waffle to me, but I for one like the thought of my home and mode of transportation to be over engineered should "crap" happen.

I read recently that Lloyd's now has a set of rules for naval vessels (which have traditionally not been classed by Lloyd's).  It would be interesting to know what the differences are.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I read recently that Lloyd's now has a set of rules for naval vessels (which have traditionally not been classed by Lloyd's).  It would be interesting to know what the differences are.

This is not my forte as I am in the engineering side of the house.  But I was of the understanding that Lloyd's was concerned about insurance issues with vessels.  We are not insured in that sense of the word and I cannot imagine any other Naval vessel anywhere that would be.  So how and why should Lloyd's be sticking their oars in the water?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Yeah I can see it now....sorry you can't go on RIMPAC as your insurance has expired (under either a NDP or Liberal regime of course)....

 

[Blackadder1916]

This is not my forte as I am in the engineering side of the house.  But I was of the understanding that Lloyd's was concerned about insurance issues with vessels.  We are not insured in that sense of the word and I cannot imagine any other Naval vessel anywhere that would be.  So how and why should Lloyd's be sticking their oars in the water?

Lloyd's of London is in the insurance market.  Lloyd's Register is a classification society.  Both owe their name to Edward Lloyd's 17th century London coffee house.  But each have different functions and (other than originating in the same coffee house and having something to do with ships) have never been connected.  In 1760, the Register Society was formed by the coffee house customers and it printed the first Register of Ships in 1764 to give underwriters and merchants an idea of the condition of the vessels they insured and chartered.  In 1834, the organisation was reconstituted as Lloyd's Register of British and Foreign Shipping and the first classification rules were published.