French Navy in Direct Competition with the UK for most expensive Carrier
Thread Starter
French Navy in Direct Competition with the UK for most expensive Carrier
France is considering joining with Britain to buy a new carrier of British design. Actually, the French had planned to built a second nuclear powered carrier, but they are having so many problems with the first one that they are quite reluctant about building a second like the troubled "Charles de Gaulle". Britain is building two 50,000 ton conventionally powered carriers, at a cost of $2.5 billion each. Under the proposed plan, France would order a third of this class, and bring down the cost of all three a bit. This project might not come off, because France wants a lot of the work to be done in French shipyards.
The new French nuclear carrier "Charles de Gaulle" has suffered from a seemingly endless string of problems since it was first conceived in 1986. The 40,000 ton ship has cost over four billion dollars so far and is slower than the steam powered carrier it replaced. Flaws in the "de Gaulle" have led it to using the propellers from it predecessor, the "Foch," because the ones built for "de Gaulle" never worked right and the propeller manufacturer went out of business in 1999. Worse, the nuclear reactor installation was done poorly, exposing the engine crew to five times the allowable annual dose of radiation. There were also problems with the design of the deck, making it impossible to operate the E-2 radar aircraft that are essential to defending the ship and controlling offensive operations. Many other key components of the ship did not work correctly, including several key electronic systems. The carrier has been under constant repair and modification. The "de Gaulle" took eleven years to build (1988-99) and was not ready for service until late 2000. It's been downhill ever since. The de Gaulle is undergoing still more repairs and modifications. The government is being sued for exposing crew members to dangerous levels of radiation.
The cause of the problems can be traced to the decision to install nuclear reactors designed for French submarines, instead of spending more money and designing reactors specifically for the carrier. Construction started and stopped several times because to cuts to the defense budget and when construction did resume, there was enormous pressure on the builders to get on with it quickly, and cheaply, before the project was killed. The result was a carrier with a lot of expensive problems.
So the plan is to buy into the new British carrier building program and keep the "de Gaulle" in port and out of trouble as much as possible. The British have a lot more experience building carriers, and if there are any problems with the British designed ship, the French can blame the British.
After Iraq....reckon the US Navy would sell the French one of our designs?
The two latest US carriers CVN-75 and CVN-76 cost about 5 Billion Dollars each to build.
The new French nuclear carrier "Charles de Gaulle" has suffered from a seemingly endless string of problems since it was first conceived in 1986. The 40,000 ton ship has cost over four billion dollars so far and is slower than the steam powered carrier it replaced. Flaws in the "de Gaulle" have led it to using the propellers from it predecessor, the "Foch," because the ones built for "de Gaulle" never worked right and the propeller manufacturer went out of business in 1999. Worse, the nuclear reactor installation was done poorly, exposing the engine crew to five times the allowable annual dose of radiation. There were also problems with the design of the deck, making it impossible to operate the E-2 radar aircraft that are essential to defending the ship and controlling offensive operations. Many other key components of the ship did not work correctly, including several key electronic systems. The carrier has been under constant repair and modification. The "de Gaulle" took eleven years to build (1988-99) and was not ready for service until late 2000. It's been downhill ever since. The de Gaulle is undergoing still more repairs and modifications. The government is being sued for exposing crew members to dangerous levels of radiation.
The cause of the problems can be traced to the decision to install nuclear reactors designed for French submarines, instead of spending more money and designing reactors specifically for the carrier. Construction started and stopped several times because to cuts to the defense budget and when construction did resume, there was enormous pressure on the builders to get on with it quickly, and cheaply, before the project was killed. The result was a carrier with a lot of expensive problems.
So the plan is to buy into the new British carrier building program and keep the "de Gaulle" in port and out of trouble as much as possible. The British have a lot more experience building carriers, and if there are any problems with the British designed ship, the French can blame the British.
After Iraq....reckon the US Navy would sell the French one of our designs?
The two latest US carriers CVN-75 and CVN-76 cost about 5 Billion Dollars each to build.
Suspicion breeds confidence
The C de G has had more than her fair share of problems as the feature points out. She's now firmly middle aged and still does not have her planned airgroup. This in part led to a loss of confidence in DCN who built her and now we have the strange case of France buying into to a UK carrier design.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Now compare the manpower required for each. The USN was going for a new design for CVN-78 but backed away for various political reasons. Don't just look at the procurement, look at the running costs.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Charles De Gaul has got to be the worst performing warship in the history of the world.
I know nothing of the ship but if the French are even considering buying a British warship then it MUST be bad.
I know nothing of the ship but if the French are even considering buying a British warship then it MUST be bad.
Thread Starter
Orac,
One should also consider capability along with cost.
One should also consider capability along with cost.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Accepted, but neither we, nor the French, could afford or be able to find the manpower to man a Nimitz class CVN.
Nimitz class CVN: Crew: 3350 - Air Wing 2480 - Total 5830
Elizabeth class CVF: Crew 600 - Air Wing 800 - Total 1400
Nimitz class CVN: Crew: 3350 - Air Wing 2480 - Total 5830
Elizabeth class CVF: Crew 600 - Air Wing 800 - Total 1400
Last edited by ORAC; 21st May 2006 at 15:27.
Thread Starter
ORAC,
If the RN bought two Nimitz class carriers, you could move the RN and RAF front line forces to the carriers with room to spare and thus do away with a lot of land bases. Those cost savings would greatly mitigate the operating cost of the carriers or use the USN method of embarking the Squadrons when the ships go to sea for workups or operations. It would require the RAF to learn how to operate of carriers.
If the RN bought two Nimitz class carriers, you could move the RN and RAF front line forces to the carriers with room to spare and thus do away with a lot of land bases. Those cost savings would greatly mitigate the operating cost of the carriers or use the USN method of embarking the Squadrons when the ships go to sea for workups or operations. It would require the RAF to learn how to operate of carriers.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
So now we'd have replace all the GR4s, Eurofighters, Nimrods, E3Ds, Astor etc etc. Err, in fact, the only bases we might, possibly, close are Wittering/Cottesmore - but we still need a home base and OCU so that doesn't work either.
What time is it where you are.....
What time is it where you are.....
Thread Starter
Tornado's are obsolete and are going to be replaced by the Typhoon which is supposed to be able to be Navalized with a very small cost. E3's are not carrier aircraft however E2D's are coming off the production line and are Carrier aircraft.
A Nimitz carrier Air Wing is made up of 80-85 aircraft of various types.
Create one Typhoon OCU, build all the Typhoons to Navy standard and that takes care of the Eurofighter fleet in one go with two carriers, with plenty of room for the Harriers, Merlins, SeaKings, Lynx's and Chinooks, E2D's.
You then have true interoperability between US and RN/RAF carriers and aircraft.
The one real obstacle to all this would be the "Turf Protection" by each service. The RAF will never accede to the RN having such airpower. The RN will never accept the RAF being the airpower for the RN. The British politicians would not accept going that "American" for national prestige reasons.
That and the fact the UK would not cough up the money.
A Nimitz carrier Air Wing is made up of 80-85 aircraft of various types.
Create one Typhoon OCU, build all the Typhoons to Navy standard and that takes care of the Eurofighter fleet in one go with two carriers, with plenty of room for the Harriers, Merlins, SeaKings, Lynx's and Chinooks, E2D's.
You then have true interoperability between US and RN/RAF carriers and aircraft.
The one real obstacle to all this would be the "Turf Protection" by each service. The RAF will never accede to the RN having such airpower. The RN will never accept the RAF being the airpower for the RN. The British politicians would not accept going that "American" for national prestige reasons.
That and the fact the UK would not cough up the money.
Priceless!
Now I know why they did the C130 deck landings and explain the Nimrod R1 in the water!
The AAR boys are in for a shock too!
Edit: I knew someone would beat me with the C17 picture!
Now I know why they did the C130 deck landings and explain the Nimrod R1 in the water!
The AAR boys are in for a shock too!
Edit: I knew someone would beat me with the C17 picture!
Last edited by Just This Once...; 21st May 2006 at 16:10.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless
Tornado's are obsolete and are going to be replaced by the Typhoon
Originally Posted by SASless
Typhoon which is supposed to be able to be Navalized with a very small cost.
Originally Posted by SASless
with plenty of room for the Harriers, Merlins, SeaKings, Lynx's and Chinooks, E2D's.
Originally Posted by SASless
you could move the RN and RAF front line forces to the carriers with room to spare and thus do away with a lot of land bases.
I can see what you are getting at SASless and I agree that it would be just wonderful for the RN to get a couple of Nimitz carriers
But the ways in which we may go about getting such a capability that you have suggested in your last couple of posts is, IMHO, just a little bit silly! 
Thread Starter
It cannot be Westie....remember the "Admirals Mutiny" over the B-36, the Air Force's strategic role, and the Super Carrier? Ugly days those were.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carriers?
Is the role of the United Kingdom's armed forces to defend the Kingdom against foreign invaders, or is it to cruise the world projecting British power? Though we long ago decided that the world is not our oyster and disassembled the Empire, our present government seems to enjoy its brief moments of glory on the world stage. As the British armed forces shrink smaller and smaller, the ambitions of the politicians grow larger and larger. Tony is in Wonderland and its easy to tell which bottle he has been drinking from....
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blacksheep - What the ??? are you talking about?!
The CDG is actually starting to do the business now. The Brits have just sent a delegation of carrier boys aboard and they were mightily impressed with all aspects of the ship - so any other "opinion" is merely uneducated speculation.
The French already have a huge finger in the CVF pie via Thales, therefore it's perfectly logical for them to consider the 3rd ship. Thales were the preferred bidder anyway, but politically BAE had to get the lead.
Standfast the Army, the RAF/RN turf-wars are nigh over by comparison to yesteryear.
SB
The CDG is actually starting to do the business now. The Brits have just sent a delegation of carrier boys aboard and they were mightily impressed with all aspects of the ship - so any other "opinion" is merely uneducated speculation.
The French already have a huge finger in the CVF pie via Thales, therefore it's perfectly logical for them to consider the 3rd ship. Thales were the preferred bidder anyway, but politically BAE had to get the lead.
Standfast the Army, the RAF/RN turf-wars are nigh over by comparison to yesteryear.
SB
All is not necessarily as it seems. CdG has had her share of problems, the majority of which have been overcome - she is currently exercising in the IO and performing reasonably well, (HMS Lancaster is part of her TG). I believe the reason the CAG is short is due to delays in Rafale production & delivery, rather than anything wrong with the ship. SASless, don't believe a word on Typhoon navalisation - it is FAR from simple and would not be cheap.
The reason the French bought into CVF is essentially because they had such a nightmare building the only non-US CVN, they decided to go non-nuclear for the second. This needed a whole new design and the easiest way to get that was to get aboard CVF (design by Thales Naval, ex Thomson CSF - actually by BMT for most of it). However, this is only feasible because we have the ability to put cats and wires into the ship. Had we gone pure STOVL, then none of this would have come to pass.
If we would only have the balls to put them in from the off and buy the CV variant of F-35 Dave / Ken / Barbie, we would have interoperable airgroups. If (as alluded to elsewhere) we are still putting aircrew in fast jets in twenty years time to replace GR4, then whatever that Fast Jet becomes should be designed to operate off a flat-top from the off - still owned by RAF if necessary, just more flexible in deployment.
The reason the French bought into CVF is essentially because they had such a nightmare building the only non-US CVN, they decided to go non-nuclear for the second. This needed a whole new design and the easiest way to get that was to get aboard CVF (design by Thales Naval, ex Thomson CSF - actually by BMT for most of it). However, this is only feasible because we have the ability to put cats and wires into the ship. Had we gone pure STOVL, then none of this would have come to pass.
If we would only have the balls to put them in from the off and buy the CV variant of F-35 Dave / Ken / Barbie, we would have interoperable airgroups. If (as alluded to elsewhere) we are still putting aircrew in fast jets in twenty years time to replace GR4, then whatever that Fast Jet becomes should be designed to operate off a flat-top from the off - still owned by RAF if necessary, just more flexible in deployment.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blacksheep - What the ??? are you talking about?!
So what's it all about?
Its us and the French and our aircraft carriers I'm talking about...
