Windstorm in Europe

[Fragony]

USN on the way with portable airfield and helicopters.

Good lads, chapeau

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Good lads, chapeau

It is who we are; we could do no other.

[Fragony]

It is who we are; we could do no other.

And bless you for that. Having that ship there is going to make giving water, food and medicines a whole lot easier, saves thousands of lives. Hello France and England, you also have these things, got anything better to do? Kudo's to the Americans, you guys are awesome.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And bless you for that. Having that ship there is going to make giving water, food and medicines a whole lot easier, saves thousands of lives. Hello France and England, you also have these things, got anything better to do? Kudo's to the Americans, you guys are awesome.

Frags, while -- aside from our own (sadly absent) Louis -- I am hardly a Francophile, it is only fair to note that the French and British flat tops are deployed a bit distant from the scene. China, Thailand, Korea, and Japan (sadly experienced in this work) are the others with carriers in reasonable proximity. The Ozzies won't have theirs fully operational for a bit yet.

[Fragony]

I didn't know the Ozzies had them. It should be a requirement to have at least one operational one to be a Nato member imho.

[Papewaio]

I didn't know the Ozzies had them. It should be a requirement to have at least one operational one to be a Nato member imho.

1) Aircraft carriers are expensive to operate and if you want to help with humanitarian efforts it ain't the only way. The nuclear reactors on board the US ships are very useful for power and would help with making a mobile desalination plant.

2) NATO stands for two things neither of which sum up Australia's position in this.

3) Having said that Australia has a bad history with operating aircraft carriers.

"HMAS Melbourne (R21) was a Majestic-class light aircraft carrier of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). Operating from 1955 until 1982, she was the third and final conventional aircraft carrier(I) to serve in the RAN. Melbourne was the only British Commonwealth naval vessel to sink two friendly warships in peacetime collisions.[4]" -Wikipedia

[Seamus Fermanagh]

1) Aircraft carriers are expensive to operate and if you want to help with humanitarian efforts it ain't the only way. The nuclear reactors on board the US ships are very useful for power and would help with making a mobile desalination plant.

2) NATO stands for two things neither of which sum up Australia's position in this.

3) Having said that Australia has a bad history with operating aircraft carriers.

"HMAS Melbourne (R21) was a Majestic-class light aircraft carrier of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). Operating from 1955 until 1982, she was the third and final conventional aircraft carrier(I) to serve in the RAN. Melbourne was the only British Commonwealth naval vessel to sink two friendly warships in peacetime collisions.[4]" -Wikipedia

Apparently the Spanish-based design is well thought of and, I hope, she won't be a hard luck ship like the Melbourne.

CVN's can not only power desalination facilities on shore, but carry substantial capability for same on board. I've heard it said that the crews often cut down their own water usage and skip showers to help out more locals when pulling these missions too. It can make a difference.


Edit: Btw, I think Frags was using NATO in its unofficial "first world developed nation" label rather than its official title. Oz was part of SEATO and not NATO, of course. Your lot were some of the few who fought with us in Vietnam as well -- you don't usually get the credit deserved for that support. Too much of the good that was done by our friends was forgotten in our mental efforts to put that "unpleasantness" behind us.

[Husar]

We should have at least 20 IMHO.
That way we wouldn't need to buy the rest of Europe...