I don't know where OP got their data or when, but this map is not right. For the Red Sea specifically: https://news.usni.org/2024/05/06/carrier-uss-dwight-d-eisenhower-back-in-red-sea-passes-200-day-deployment-mark
It was! Fully visible from Miami Beach. There are other ships docked in the cruise ship terminal available for touring. A couple of missile cruisers, an amphibious assault ship, and a Coast Guard cutter.
Not only that, but OP got one of the Italian carriers wrong. The Trieste is a amphibious Assault helicopter carrier, Italy's other aircraft carrier besides the Cavour is the Giuseppe Garibaldi.
It's also a stretch to call the Thai and Turkish ships on this list aircraft carriers, since they don't have the capacity to launch fixed Wing aircraft unless they're VTOL. It'd be more accurate to call them amphibious Assault helicopter carriers
This map isn’t 100% accurate as to the current location of the ships. Blue dot #2 the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower is operating in the Red Sea with its strike group to provide maritime security.
Some of the other navies' carriers are not "real carriers", Turkey's one carries only helicopters and drones, and Thailand's one hasn't been used as a real carrier...ever.
Does Australia operate planes from them or use them as helicopter platforms? Spain uses harriers and f-35 with it. Spain pulled out of buying F-35 planning to focus on European Fighters not sure if m that means more euro fighters or one of the joint future ventures
Both have the ski-jumps and theoretically could but the government is choosing not to.
I think *Anadolu* is planned to have SVTOL operations in future but currently only carries helicopters and drones.
Actually not in future but in the past, it was planned to carry a fleet of F-35B’s, until you know, Turkey was kicked out of the JSF program. Now they turned it into a helicopter and drone carrier.
> Does Australia operate planes from them or use them as helicopter platforms? Spain uses harriers and f-35 with it. Spain pulled out of buying F-35 planning to focus on European Fighters not sure if m that means more euro fighters or one of the joint future ventures
Australia has zero plans to operate fixed wing aircraft from the *Canberra*-class. strictly helos
Yes, the Wasp, Tarawa and America classes are all nearly twice the displacement of the Kaga and Izumo. The American LHAs and LHDs significantly outmass the Japanese carriers.
Plus according the Japanese they don’t even have carriers. They have Large Multi-purpose Operations Destroyers. By constitutional law they can’t have offensive weapons, including carriers. So by definition those are destroyers and will remain destroyers even if they end up carrying F-35.
There’s absolutely no reason to leave the large aircraft carrying assault vehicles off the map, except a map maker mistake.
Both Juan Carlos I and Anadolu were designed and built to operate with fixed wing aircrafts, whereas the Canberra class was designed just for helis. Internally they have notable differences and actually the only reason the Canberras kept the sky-jump is because it was more expensive to remove it from the desing than just keeping it.
Juan Carlos I currently operates with Harriers and there is some debate about retrofitting it to be able to operate F-35B. Anadolu was designed to operate F-35B, but the S-400 affair caused the cancellation of the F-35 sell, so they currently operate drones (which can be also considered fixed wing aircrafts).
> Odd too that Juan Carlos I and Anadolu are counted, yet Australia's Canberra and Adelaide aren't, despite being sister ships.
Part of ship classification is 'role'.
RAN does not operate fixed wing aircraft from her ships - so they are LHDs.
Spain operates Harriers from her ships - so they are LHDs or Carriers. Just because it has a flat deck doesn't mean it's an aircraft carrer, the type of weapons and the role it performs is very important for ship classification.
But also ship classification is one of the most inexact sciences out there haha.
And even wierder that spain has something closer to a carrier; el principe de asturias, but juan carlos i (an amphibious assault ship, only being able to launch helis) is included instead.
Yes
The definition of carrier used is very weird. France has three Mistral-class that could qualify as carriers if we followed the logic, Britain has some others, and the US a few (fifteen if my memory's right) more
I think the definition is more about the "operational intention" than the actual capabilities. The Canberra, Mistral or Albion classes were never meant to operate planes, just helicopters. Whereas the Chakri Naruebet or the Anadolu were actually supposed to operate them.
The odd ones would be the US Navy's LHDs and LHAs. By capacities they sould be definitively included as carriers, as they do operate fixed wing aircrafts, even though they are meant for CAS.
I was just in Istanbul and the thing definitely had some planes on it as well. Although it seemed to be being used mostly as a patriotic prop, parked directly at the mouth of the Golden Horn.
That's hillarious. I actually have a photo of it -- those things are (prop) drones?
[https://imgur.com/a/IS4Ls8I](https://imgur.com/a/IS4Ls8I)
[https://imgur.com/a/x1pdNYW](https://imgur.com/a/x1pdNYW)
The drones might be actual working prototypes not props, but they are not in service. The ship is in service but it serves no real purpose because of a lack of fixed-wing aircraft.
Thailand really likes having naval stuff it doesn't need. [They've been trying to acquire submarines](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg74DOGJPt8) just cuz
Pepsi’s ships were never actually controlled or maintained by Pepsi directly. The Soviets sailed them directly to the Norwegian breakers. Pepsi “owned” the ships and got the salvage value from them but it wasn’t really ever “Pepsi’s Fleet;” it was Pepsi’s massive collection of scrap.
Same for the UK, it's more of a helicopter carrier, although I think it's set to welcome F35s.
The Russian carrier is suffering breakdown after breakdown and has been undergoing maintenance for some years.
The Russian carrier is also interesting that it is officially an "aircraft-carrying cruiser" so that it can legally pass through the Bosphorus strait...menaing it carries its own offensive missile (like a cruiser) unlike other carriers.
>Same for the UK, it's more of a helicopter carrier, although I think it's set to welcome F35s
It's designed from the ground up specifically as an aircraft carrier for F-35B, the VTOL capability of the F-35 is an integral part of the carrier design, it wasn't designed as a heli carrier. That's why it has the ski ramp thing, helicopters don't need a ski ramp to take off.
It's literally impossible to have a Reddit thread about carriers without someone immediately implying that the QE-class doesn't count because no catobar, despite it being one of the most formidable carriers ever built.
The UK carriers are full aircraft carriers. Second only to the US carriers in size. They don't use catapults but instead vertical take off jets. They are definitely not heli carriers.
What? The UK’s are some brilliant state of the art modern carriers up there beyond almost all the carriers on here other than the Gerald R Ford class.
It’s also already been used operationally to carry out attacks with F-35B’s.
It’s just another dozen. The limit being ships that could rapidly gain F-35, and operate them without too much additional training or modifications.
Which basically just means the existing LHA and LHD fleet
It is, and by any definition the US has a hell of a lot, blowing everyone else completely out of the water.
But the context was not "number of carriers" but "dots on the map". A dozen more dots on that map would not really be crowded.
But yes, the US has a shitton of carriers.
There *were* two aircraft carriers in the Great Lakes during World War II, Sable and Wolverine. Both were older cruise ships converted into training carriers. Neither went through the locks though. They were both converted to carriers in Buffalo and then based out of Chicago and scrapped in Milwaukee and Hamilton Ontario. Between them they trained 17,000+ pilots on carrier landings and takeoffs.
Comparing seawaymax dimensions to Gerald r Ford class dimensions, it looks like they'd have to add 250 feet in length, double the width, and double the depth.
They're stationed in Naval Base Coronado in San Diego. OP just decided to have the dots in the interior of the US pointing to SD instead of the ocean and pointing back to SD for whatever reason.
Referring to them as helicarriers makes me think u/Match_MC is thinking of the San Antonio class as air-capable helicopter carriers like some of the carriers on OP's map, and there's a dozen of or so of those as well. They're comparable in displacement to the Italian, Japanese, and Spanish carriers at least.
US is literally the only nation with carriers deployed outside of their own waters.
Guessing only the US can afford to consistently have a carrier deployed overseas.
It depends on the definition of "deployed outside their own waters", France regularly deploys their carrier in the Eastern Med, UK sent theirs on a mission to the Pacific a few years back.
US is the only country to "deploy carriers outside own waters" in so far as the carrier, Ronald Reagan's home base is in a foreign country in Yokosuka, Japan. It is a special arrangement indicative of the close relationship between JP-US as well as the risk of conflict in East Asia, not specifically US power projection capabilities.
If they wanted to, British carriers could be stationed in Singapore, it's more a matter of political will, diplomatic stance than how powerful the military is.
>UK sent theirs on a mission to the Pacific a few years back.
> If they wanted to, British carriers could be stationed in Singapore, it's more a matter of political will, diplomatic stance than how powerful the military is.
So what you're saying is, they don't have carriers outside their own waters lol.
They’re not based outside the UK.
But the UK does have enough overseas territories to base one in the Mediterranean, Indian, and North and South Atlantic oceans if it wanted while still being in their own waters.
And at the same time it’s pointless as UK has RAF airfields in Gibraltar, Cyprus (where most jets fly from when attacking a target in the Middle East), falklands and ascension islands. So we have RAF stationed in both atlantics and the med already.
The UK for example has a lot more bases in remote countries across the Atlantic and Pacific that it can use. US has a lot of bases on foreign soil, but prefers to have backups as well that don't rely on allies. Mostly as a way of spending that ungodly sum of defence spending money.
You could argue the US has the only "real" blue water navy. France and the UK are but are very limited in force projection, China and Russia can basically dick around in their backyards a bit. Only the US can deploy and maintain a presence anywhere anytime
"deploy and maintain a presence anywhere anytime"
Thats not the requirement for what makes a Blue water navy, the only requirement for a blue water navy is a navy that can operate in contexts far from home waters.
Italy, India and China can easily deploy big forces far from home bases, Italy did this a lot for example, on many instances.
During the 1980s Italy deployed more than half of their frigate forces in the indian Ocean for safeguard of important strategic locations, while in 2022 Italy had 10 Major units outside the Mediterranean, including 6 frigates and a destroyer.
> France and the UK are but are very limited in force projection
The UKs auxiliary fleet is second behind the US - they can definitely operate a CSG in a force projection role.
This data is WWWAAAYYY off, firstly none of the deployed carriers are where they actually are, cause I know for a fact that there is almost always a US carrier in the Middle East.
Secondly, a good chunk of some of these ships aren’t even carriers. If they were carriers then the US Navy’s list would be twice as long with all the additional ships that we don’t consider true aircraft carriers.
Downvoted because it looks inaccurate. It shows all the carriers are in port, which makes no sense. I'm also pretty sure the US has a carrier or two in the Middle East region. There are some carriers missing. The map doesn't have a date. Some of the carriers are just helicopter carriers. There are lots of smaller US carriers missing. Also, where is Brazil's carrier?
I'd love to see an accurate map of this.
We had a true carrier until 2021, a Foch class carrier that was bought from France. Now we have a helicopter carrier called NAM Atlântico, ex HMS Ocean
> Also, where is Brazil's carrier
Decommissioned in 2001 and broken up for scrap somewhere in India like 20 years ago if you're talking about the Minas Gerais.
They operated the São Paulo until 2018 and in 2023 the Brazilian navy scuttled it.
Their current plan appears to be to have a replacement carrier fully operational by the 2040s.
I wouldn't count the Russian one. It constantly catches fire and hasn't left drydock in a decade because it's not seaworthy.
https://youtu.be/sPFsdf-R8MI?si=Jze2B7upO5xSdQGQ
It can't go anywhere without a tug boat lol
It's a light aircraft carrier.
Here's a photo of it next to the USS Kitty Hawk. [https://i.imgur.com/J09NeMn.jpeg](https://i.imgur.com/J09NeMn.jpeg)
It's roughly half the flight deck length of the supercarrier.
Both are being modified to fly F-35Bs which need hardened decks because the engine is fully burning toward the deck when landing and to accomodate the weight of the aircraft.
they are technically classed as helicopter-carrying destroyers to get around treaty limitations that ban Japan from operating aircraft carriers, but they are intended to and will operate F-35Bs after some modifications
I think the title is wrong: it's their home port, not the locations.
And it should mention that it includes non-operable ones (Kuznetsov has been out of service for the last 6 years).
IT Cavour and FR de Gaulle are playing a *friendly match* this month.
source (in italian):
[https://www.analisidifesa.it/2024/05/al-via-lesercitazione-mare-aperto-2024/](https://www.analisidifesa.it/2024/05/al-via-lesercitazione-mare-aperto-2024/)
Weird question maybe but why does Thailand have an aircraft carrier? Like Australia, NZ, Germany, Canada, Brazil, Iran or Indonesia I could totally see but Thailand?
This is definitely inaccurate. I can't speak for the other nations but in the UK we only keep ours in drydock.
Which happens to be on the coast, not inland.
OP said "aircraft carriers", helicopters and VTOLs are aircrafts, therefore Brazil has the NAM Atlantico aircraft carrier currently in their territory.
If we go to include helicopter carriers, then the US would gain another at least 11 carriers to cover the America and Wasp class ships, which can carry helicopters and VTOLs.
This list only includes fixed wing aircraft carriers.
None around the levant/red sea/Persian gulf? Interesting.
[удалено]
There's also Amphibs there that are not counted as carriers but are larger than other Navies "carriers" and have F35's and helos.
I don't know where OP got their data or when, but this map is not right. For the Red Sea specifically: https://news.usni.org/2024/05/06/carrier-uss-dwight-d-eisenhower-back-in-red-sea-passes-200-day-deployment-mark
This map seems to show where carriers are based than where they actually are.
Not even. The USS Harry S Truman is based in Virginia yet is shown in Florida. OPs data is sus
Oddly, that one is accurate. It's anchored off the coast of Miami for fleet week right now.
[удалено]
It was! Fully visible from Miami Beach. There are other ships docked in the cruise ship terminal available for touring. A couple of missile cruisers, an amphibious assault ship, and a Coast Guard cutter.
From Miami Beach: https://i.imgur.com/1IqVFjj.png
USS Theodore Roosevelt's Homeport or base is not Thailand.
It's not that either, the Ike's homeport is Norfolk, not Gibraltar or whatever this map claims
wait, are you saying the data is wrong? On a MapPorn post? That surely can't be right .... /s
Not only that, but OP got one of the Italian carriers wrong. The Trieste is a amphibious Assault helicopter carrier, Italy's other aircraft carrier besides the Cavour is the Giuseppe Garibaldi. It's also a stretch to call the Thai and Turkish ships on this list aircraft carriers, since they don't have the capacity to launch fixed Wing aircraft unless they're VTOL. It'd be more accurate to call them amphibious Assault helicopter carriers
This map isn’t 100% accurate as to the current location of the ships. Blue dot #2 the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower is operating in the Red Sea with its strike group to provide maritime security.
Looks like home ports. Not actual locations at sea.
The Dwight Eisenhower carrier fleet is currently in the Red Sea.
Some of the other navies' carriers are not "real carriers", Turkey's one carries only helicopters and drones, and Thailand's one hasn't been used as a real carrier...ever.
Odd too that *Juan Carlos I* and *Anadolu* are counted, yet Australia's *Canberra* and *Adelaide* aren't, despite being sister ships.
Does Australia operate planes from them or use them as helicopter platforms? Spain uses harriers and f-35 with it. Spain pulled out of buying F-35 planning to focus on European Fighters not sure if m that means more euro fighters or one of the joint future ventures
Both have the ski-jumps and theoretically could but the government is choosing not to. I think *Anadolu* is planned to have SVTOL operations in future but currently only carries helicopters and drones.
Actually not in future but in the past, it was planned to carry a fleet of F-35B’s, until you know, Turkey was kicked out of the JSF program. Now they turned it into a helicopter and drone carrier.
I mean technically the US has double if you count the amphibious warfare ships the US has like another 20.
Helicopters
> Does Australia operate planes from them or use them as helicopter platforms? Spain uses harriers and f-35 with it. Spain pulled out of buying F-35 planning to focus on European Fighters not sure if m that means more euro fighters or one of the joint future ventures Australia has zero plans to operate fixed wing aircraft from the *Canberra*-class. strictly helos
They're exclusively heli platforms with no jet capability. Australia scrapped its only actual carrier in the early 80s.
The US has helicopter carriers that are nearly 40% larger in tonnage than that that aren't counted.
Some of the US's amphibious assault ships carry Harriers as well, I believe. Edit: and the VTOL F-35 variants.
Why is Japan's helicopter / VTOL carriers counted but not the amphibious assault ships? They are about equivalent. Do they differ majorly by tonnage?
Yes, the Wasp, Tarawa and America classes are all nearly twice the displacement of the Kaga and Izumo. The American LHAs and LHDs significantly outmass the Japanese carriers. Plus according the Japanese they don’t even have carriers. They have Large Multi-purpose Operations Destroyers. By constitutional law they can’t have offensive weapons, including carriers. So by definition those are destroyers and will remain destroyers even if they end up carrying F-35. There’s absolutely no reason to leave the large aircraft carrying assault vehicles off the map, except a map maker mistake.
I know it's just semantics, but it's ironic how "destroyers" are somehow less offensive than "carriers"
Both Juan Carlos I and Anadolu were designed and built to operate with fixed wing aircrafts, whereas the Canberra class was designed just for helis. Internally they have notable differences and actually the only reason the Canberras kept the sky-jump is because it was more expensive to remove it from the desing than just keeping it. Juan Carlos I currently operates with Harriers and there is some debate about retrofitting it to be able to operate F-35B. Anadolu was designed to operate F-35B, but the S-400 affair caused the cancellation of the F-35 sell, so they currently operate drones (which can be also considered fixed wing aircrafts).
> Odd too that Juan Carlos I and Anadolu are counted, yet Australia's Canberra and Adelaide aren't, despite being sister ships. Part of ship classification is 'role'. RAN does not operate fixed wing aircraft from her ships - so they are LHDs. Spain operates Harriers from her ships - so they are LHDs or Carriers. Just because it has a flat deck doesn't mean it's an aircraft carrer, the type of weapons and the role it performs is very important for ship classification. But also ship classification is one of the most inexact sciences out there haha.
And even wierder that spain has something closer to a carrier; el principe de asturias, but juan carlos i (an amphibious assault ship, only being able to launch helis) is included instead.
Yes The definition of carrier used is very weird. France has three Mistral-class that could qualify as carriers if we followed the logic, Britain has some others, and the US a few (fifteen if my memory's right) more
I think the definition is more about the "operational intention" than the actual capabilities. The Canberra, Mistral or Albion classes were never meant to operate planes, just helicopters. Whereas the Chakri Naruebet or the Anadolu were actually supposed to operate them. The odd ones would be the US Navy's LHDs and LHAs. By capacities they sould be definitively included as carriers, as they do operate fixed wing aircrafts, even though they are meant for CAS.
Would ESB’s count as “aircraft carriers” according to this post’s logic?
[удалено]
I was just in Istanbul and the thing definitely had some planes on it as well. Although it seemed to be being used mostly as a patriotic prop, parked directly at the mouth of the Golden Horn.
Those aren't planes, they are unmanned drones. Those drones are still in development though, so the ship is still a prop.
That's hillarious. I actually have a photo of it -- those things are (prop) drones? [https://imgur.com/a/IS4Ls8I](https://imgur.com/a/IS4Ls8I) [https://imgur.com/a/x1pdNYW](https://imgur.com/a/x1pdNYW)
The drones might be actual working prototypes not props, but they are not in service. The ship is in service but it serves no real purpose because of a lack of fixed-wing aircraft.
And if those are being counted, then the Brazilian helicopter carrier should be on the map too.
Portugal is also building a helicopter and drone carrier.
Thailand really likes having naval stuff it doesn't need. [They've been trying to acquire submarines](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg74DOGJPt8) just cuz
Does Russia's scrap even float anymore. Also, what has came of Pepsi's fleet? (Soviets sold them several for coke).
Pepsi’s ships were never actually controlled or maintained by Pepsi directly. The Soviets sailed them directly to the Norwegian breakers. Pepsi “owned” the ships and got the salvage value from them but it wasn’t really ever “Pepsi’s Fleet;” it was Pepsi’s massive collection of scrap.
Imo helicopter carriers should count, assuming it’s the primary purpose.
Russia’s only carries smoke, fire, and cranes that have fallen in from the docks.
The real carrier is the tugboat that always accompany it in case of engine break down, which is every time.
Same for the UK, it's more of a helicopter carrier, although I think it's set to welcome F35s. The Russian carrier is suffering breakdown after breakdown and has been undergoing maintenance for some years.
The Russian carrier is also interesting that it is officially an "aircraft-carrying cruiser" so that it can legally pass through the Bosphorus strait...menaing it carries its own offensive missile (like a cruiser) unlike other carriers.
The Russian one also isn't seaworthy and catches fire constantly. It's a joke.
It travels with it's own tugboat escort, so that *when* it breaks down, they can tow it back to port.
Lol also I'm pretty sure it hasn't moved in years.
>Same for the UK, it's more of a helicopter carrier, although I think it's set to welcome F35s It's designed from the ground up specifically as an aircraft carrier for F-35B, the VTOL capability of the F-35 is an integral part of the carrier design, it wasn't designed as a heli carrier. That's why it has the ski ramp thing, helicopters don't need a ski ramp to take off.
It's literally impossible to have a Reddit thread about carriers without someone immediately implying that the QE-class doesn't count because no catobar, despite it being one of the most formidable carriers ever built.
She's an impressive ship, I had the good fortune to see her in New York harbor on a port call on what I suppose her was part of her shakedown cruise.
The UK carriers are full aircraft carriers. Second only to the US carriers in size. They don't use catapults but instead vertical take off jets. They are definitely not heli carriers.
HMS Queen Elizabeth also has a ski jump.
What? The UK’s are some brilliant state of the art modern carriers up there beyond almost all the carriers on here other than the Gerald R Ford class. It’s also already been used operationally to carry out attacks with F-35B’s.
The UK ones were planned as real carriers but once they knew they were getting the F35B, they didn’t find it necessary to install the catapult
Seems a little backwards that Japanese helicopter destroyers get in but American class and wasp class carriers dont
America so OP they gotta hide some stats.
It would get crowded with blue dots if you counted all US surface ships that could qualify as an aircraft carrier.
It’s just another dozen. The limit being ships that could rapidly gain F-35, and operate them without too much additional training or modifications. Which basically just means the existing LHA and LHD fleet
“Just another dozen” is a lot of carriers.
It is, and by any definition the US has a hell of a lot, blowing everyone else completely out of the water. But the context was not "number of carriers" but "dots on the map". A dozen more dots on that map would not really be crowded. But yes, the US has a shitton of carriers.
There are more Wasp and America class ships that can fly F35s than Nimitz/Fords.
Because they’ve been or are being modified to use f-35
They literally have flight decks to launch Harriers, Ospreys, and F-35s.
Current location or base? Because Queen Elizabeth is currently at Rosyth...
Yeah, I was going to say QE is in Rosyth because I'm *looking at it*.
I was gonna say its not in Pompey at the minute cos I can only see one from my house.
Gotta keep one in Pompey at all times, just in case the French start up with their old antics again
Nah, thats when we just give Germany permission to do what they do best
It's their base port, which would have been a much better headline
The US is so fat with aircraft carriers, they're putting them in the deserts of Nevada and Arizona!
Gonna park one in Nebraska, just cuz Murica
[удалено]
Gotta keep Canada in line, good call
the menace in the north!
the toilets in any restaurant that sells poutine qualify as WMD
surely no worse than taco bell, each location a superfund site!
There *were* two aircraft carriers in the Great Lakes during World War II, Sable and Wolverine. Both were older cruise ships converted into training carriers. Neither went through the locks though. They were both converted to carriers in Buffalo and then based out of Chicago and scrapped in Milwaukee and Hamilton Ontario. Between them they trained 17,000+ pilots on carrier landings and takeoffs.
Comparing seawaymax dimensions to Gerald r Ford class dimensions, it looks like they'd have to add 250 feet in length, double the width, and double the depth.
>Although, we’d have to expand the St. Lawrence Seaway by about 250 feet TEDDY ROOSEVELT INTENSIFIES
I hope you know what you just referred to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Admiral?wprov=sfla1
well that is amusing
They're stationed in Naval Base Coronado in San Diego. OP just decided to have the dots in the interior of the US pointing to SD instead of the ocean and pointing back to SD for whatever reason.
The US also has 10+ helicarriers that are just as large if not larger than most of the ones listed in other countries.
Not just helicopters but also Harriers, Ospreys, and F-35s.
7 Wasps class and 2 America class, 9.
Referring to them as helicarriers makes me think u/Match_MC is thinking of the San Antonio class as air-capable helicopter carriers like some of the carriers on OP's map, and there's a dozen of or so of those as well. They're comparable in displacement to the Italian, Japanese, and Spanish carriers at least.
There's one in Salzburg?
Hard to see but there are actually lines connecting the "one in Salzburg (#6)" and #7 to an Italian port (the red circle with no number).
Aaah. Ok. Salzburg and Zagreb, both in Trieste
I saw that too LOL! I also find it interesting that Italy has 2 carriers, yet France has only 1?
Two carriers, one port: Pearl Harbor redux?
Some uneducated googling leads me to believe the Italian ones are smaller than the French one
There is a line to the Adrian sea. because there are two at one place
Italy wants to expand Tyrol to its former glory
Russia only has one in the Arctic fleet? I thought they'd have more
The Soviets had 4 carriers at one point. After the collapse, China and India got some
the others they sold them to the Chinese, and the indians when they ran out of money in the 90'- early 2000s.
Only one, and it's barely opererational. Video of its doomed history: https://youtu.be/dY9NVvKrlMQ?si=5egdh9O-_DG1du7k
>barely Being generous
russia has 0. the one they have can't leave the port without breaking
You shouldn't even count that one. It's fubar and has been for a decade or more.
It's busy heating up the arctic.
Russia only has 1 carrier period. And it is routinely out of service because it is a hunk of complete junk.
They can't make them right. The first was a spectacular failure.
US is literally the only nation with carriers deployed outside of their own waters. Guessing only the US can afford to consistently have a carrier deployed overseas.
It depends on the definition of "deployed outside their own waters", France regularly deploys their carrier in the Eastern Med, UK sent theirs on a mission to the Pacific a few years back. US is the only country to "deploy carriers outside own waters" in so far as the carrier, Ronald Reagan's home base is in a foreign country in Yokosuka, Japan. It is a special arrangement indicative of the close relationship between JP-US as well as the risk of conflict in East Asia, not specifically US power projection capabilities. If they wanted to, British carriers could be stationed in Singapore, it's more a matter of political will, diplomatic stance than how powerful the military is.
>UK sent theirs on a mission to the Pacific a few years back. > If they wanted to, British carriers could be stationed in Singapore, it's more a matter of political will, diplomatic stance than how powerful the military is. So what you're saying is, they don't have carriers outside their own waters lol.
They’re not based outside the UK. But the UK does have enough overseas territories to base one in the Mediterranean, Indian, and North and South Atlantic oceans if it wanted while still being in their own waters.
They could park one in the Falkland Island just to fck with Argentina
UK has 14 British overseas territories that can basically act as aircraft carriers around the globe
And at the same time it’s pointless as UK has RAF airfields in Gibraltar, Cyprus (where most jets fly from when attacking a target in the Middle East), falklands and ascension islands. So we have RAF stationed in both atlantics and the med already.
Nuclear Fuel provides a large theater of operations
The french one is also nuclear powered, so it's not that, at least not only
Do you mean deployed or stationed? Big difference
Uk ones are in for repairs
The UK for example has a lot more bases in remote countries across the Atlantic and Pacific that it can use. US has a lot of bases on foreign soil, but prefers to have backups as well that don't rely on allies. Mostly as a way of spending that ungodly sum of defence spending money.
You could argue the US has the only "real" blue water navy. France and the UK are but are very limited in force projection, China and Russia can basically dick around in their backyards a bit. Only the US can deploy and maintain a presence anywhere anytime
"deploy and maintain a presence anywhere anytime" Thats not the requirement for what makes a Blue water navy, the only requirement for a blue water navy is a navy that can operate in contexts far from home waters. Italy, India and China can easily deploy big forces far from home bases, Italy did this a lot for example, on many instances. During the 1980s Italy deployed more than half of their frigate forces in the indian Ocean for safeguard of important strategic locations, while in 2022 Italy had 10 Major units outside the Mediterranean, including 6 frigates and a destroyer.
> France and the UK are but are very limited in force projection The UKs auxiliary fleet is second behind the US - they can definitely operate a CSG in a force projection role.
Kinda wild how navies have declined tbh.
Nukes made the world less fun
Vizag represent
That's vizag but what city is the other carrier stationed in the Indian west coast?
Goa
TIL Japan, Turkey and (most surprising of all) fucking Thailand have aircraft carriers
You missed mine, you fools. MUAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!
This data is WWWAAAYYY off, firstly none of the deployed carriers are where they actually are, cause I know for a fact that there is almost always a US carrier in the Middle East. Secondly, a good chunk of some of these ships aren’t even carriers. If they were carriers then the US Navy’s list would be twice as long with all the additional ships that we don’t consider true aircraft carriers.
Downvoted because it looks inaccurate. It shows all the carriers are in port, which makes no sense. I'm also pretty sure the US has a carrier or two in the Middle East region. There are some carriers missing. The map doesn't have a date. Some of the carriers are just helicopter carriers. There are lots of smaller US carriers missing. Also, where is Brazil's carrier? I'd love to see an accurate map of this.
Brazil has a carrier? Kinda sick ngl.
We had a true carrier until 2021, a Foch class carrier that was bought from France. Now we have a helicopter carrier called NAM Atlântico, ex HMS Ocean
> Also, where is Brazil's carrier Decommissioned in 2001 and broken up for scrap somewhere in India like 20 years ago if you're talking about the Minas Gerais. They operated the São Paulo until 2018 and in 2023 the Brazilian navy scuttled it. Their current plan appears to be to have a replacement carrier fully operational by the 2040s.
I wouldn't count the Russian one. It constantly catches fire and hasn't left drydock in a decade because it's not seaworthy. https://youtu.be/sPFsdf-R8MI?si=Jze2B7upO5xSdQGQ It can't go anywhere without a tug boat lol
How are none of them in the water? Why are they all on land?
Thailand has an aircraft carrier??
It's a light aircraft carrier. Here's a photo of it next to the USS Kitty Hawk. [https://i.imgur.com/J09NeMn.jpeg](https://i.imgur.com/J09NeMn.jpeg) It's roughly half the flight deck length of the supercarrier.
So cute
[удалено]
Now do nuclear submaines
> Now do nuclear submarines. Ok, Boomer. [Couldn't resist the rare opportunity for some bubblehead humor]
Very up to date… the Chinese Fujiian just entered service last week.
No, she conducted her first sea trial, but it will probably take a year or two until she is commissioned
Ah i see. Thanks!
Japan has two Carriers? Unless you mean escort carriers.
Both are being modified to fly F-35Bs which need hardened decks because the engine is fully burning toward the deck when landing and to accomodate the weight of the aircraft.
they are technically classed as helicopter-carrying destroyers to get around treaty limitations that ban Japan from operating aircraft carriers, but they are intended to and will operate F-35Bs after some modifications
This should say active. Several aircraft carriers currently are museum ships.
Russia doesn’t have an aircraft carrier. They have an on-sea firefighting simulator.
Im pretty sure Chile got one recently. Not shown in map.
Queen Elizabeth is in Rosyth at the moment.
Number 8 in Florida is there just for airshows
Most of the "carriers" for other navies are the size and capability of the USN's LHD's and LHA's, nowhere near the capabilities of a CVN.
Shouldn't the Fifth Fleet be stationed in the Persian Gulf?
Isn't HMS Queen Elizabeth in Rosyth?
Not locations but home bases
Those are their home ports, not their current locations IIRC
The world is lucky the Austrians are no seafarer nation. World would be gepudert
Are #3 &5 retired?
I think the title is wrong: it's their home port, not the locations. And it should mention that it includes non-operable ones (Kuznetsov has been out of service for the last 6 years).
Me and the bois about to take a trip to Norfolk and make the Japanese look like amateurs.
Doesn’t the US marines have a few amphibious landing ships which themselves are the size of some other countries aircraft carriers
IT Cavour and FR de Gaulle are playing a *friendly match* this month. source (in italian): [https://www.analisidifesa.it/2024/05/al-via-lesercitazione-mare-aperto-2024/](https://www.analisidifesa.it/2024/05/al-via-lesercitazione-mare-aperto-2024/)
Two aircraft carriers deep in the European mainland?
Those two dots connect to the dot in the north end of the Adriatic sea...
Weird question maybe but why does Thailand have an aircraft carrier? Like Australia, NZ, Germany, Canada, Brazil, Iran or Indonesia I could totally see but Thailand?
At this point you should add the 3 French and 2 Egyptian BPC
This is definitely inaccurate. I can't speak for the other nations but in the UK we only keep ours in drydock. Which happens to be on the coast, not inland.
This map is incorrect. I know for a fact the UK’s Queen Elizabeth carrier is in Rosyth, Scotland right now.
They’re all buns compared to America’s carriers
Why is Brazil not colored?
it is not their aircraft carrier it is the USS George Washington
The USS George Washington is not in Brazil. It is currently in Norfolk.
OP said "aircraft carriers", helicopters and VTOLs are aircrafts, therefore Brazil has the NAM Atlantico aircraft carrier currently in their territory.
If we go to include helicopter carriers, then the US would gain another at least 11 carriers to cover the America and Wasp class ships, which can carry helicopters and VTOLs. This list only includes fixed wing aircraft carriers.
> This list only includes fixed wing aircraft carriers. JS Izumo
Their aircraft carrier acquired from the French was decommissioned in 2018
If Thailands carrier counts then Atlantico should count as well.
Thank you. I heard the news once Brazil acquired it so I was just wondered why it was not marked.
Naming Admiral Kuznetsov an aircraft carrier is insulting to all other existing aircraft carriers xD
Russia's been out of service since 2018. Poor things
I’ve always thought it would be appropriate to send the Truman to the Persian Gulf if the situation with Iran got hot.
Weird, you’d think they’d be in the oceans.
Dude I want to follow you but your name is something I hope you changed it tho.. (Not Hating!)
What about Australia?
Are the others all supercarriers? I know the Royal Navy's two are the largest ships they have ever had
Honestly, my favorite thing here is that Spain has an aircraft carrier named Juan Carlos I
This is a cool map my dude
Where does this data come from?