Wrong with French aircraft carrier "Charles de Gaulle'

[uniroad]

NAVAL AVIATION: French Carrier Disaster Gets Very Strange

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/gaulle/images/gaulle1110.jpg


December 4, 2003: France is considering quietly retiring their new nuclear powered aircraft carrier and 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 of the same design. Britain is building two 50,000 ton conventionally powered carriers, at a cost of $2.5 billion each. France would order a third of this class, and bring down the cost of all three a bit. The new French nuclear carrier "Charles de Gaulle" has suffered from a seemingly endless string of problems. The 40,000 ton ship has cost over four billion dollars so far and is slower than the diesel powered carrier it replaced. Flaws in the "de Gaulle" have led to the use of propellers from it predecessor, the "Foch," because the ones built for "de Gaulle" never worked right. 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, and 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. 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, one can blame the British.

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTNAVAI.HTM

[wholagun]

Tax payers gotta be PISSED :fork: and the company that made the aircraft carrier,, huh.. well I can see it getting a contract any time in the near future...thats capitalism for ya eh....

French buying British Aircraft carrier.. Joen of Arc is probably going :cantbeli:

;)

[wholagun]

If its any consolation.. :petting: .. it sure does look pretty. If only looks could kill

[jdbjdb]

Its a nice looking ship, I think the problem is the name
de Gaulle They should model them after the American carriers.
http://www.1000pictures.com/aircraft/carrier/Carrier-2.jpg

[wholagun]

Its a nice looking ship

It is isn't it :( ... **** such a nice ship and gone to waste

There is no way they can just scrap it, I mean all that time and money gone to waste for nothing, they have to do something productive with it, im usre it has many good aspects about it. I mean come on, you can't spend that much money and not get something useful out of it. Besides French tech isn't all that shabby, it can hold its own.

[Uncle Chô]

December 4, 2003: France is considering quietly retiring their new nuclear powered aircraft carrier and 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 of the same design. Britain is building two 50,000 ton conventionally powered carriers, at a cost of $2.5 billion each. France would order a third of this class, and bring down the cost of all three a bit. The new French nuclear carrier "Charles de Gaulle" has suffered from a seemingly endless string of problems. The 40,000 ton ship has cost over four billion dollars so far and is slower than the diesel powered carrier it replaced. Flaws in the "de Gaulle" have led to the use of propellers from it predecessor, the "Foch," because the ones built for "de Gaulle" never worked right. 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, and 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. 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, one can blame the British.

Unbelievable... :cantbeli: :cantbeli:

I usually consider myself as impartial when it comes to domestic affairs. I think I am able to sort out the good things from the bad things.

But this time, I have never read so much BS in a single article ...that I don't know if I should laugh or cry in despair :cantbeli:

All the facts that are listed are either wrong, biaised or exagerated. This is clearly disinformation or a total lack of knowledge about the issue. :fork:

The only true information is the French are interesting in sharing experience with the Brits (and vice versa) when it will come to build a new aircraft carrier for both the French and the Royal Navy. The problem is not the ship herself but the airplanes. French airplanes need to be catapulted and wire arrested. The RN will use both upgraded version of the Harrier and the future VTOL F-35 that only need a "jumping deck" to take off. This would lead to a different design.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

(start bastardchilds delusional rant of the day)
They can always sell it to us Canadians :P Im sure it would fit in perfectly with the other ships we have.
(end bastardchilds delusional rant of te day)

[ivandebono]

What the hell do you expect from a site like strategypage.com? Tha article is full of bloody lies.
The truth is that the Charles de Gaulle was the only European carrier to take part in Operation Enduring Freedom, with its aircraft carrying out missions over Afghanistan. No other European carrier or naval aviation has such a capability. Not only is France NOT retiring the Charles de Gaulle, but the Defence Ministry announced this year that they are building a second carrier. Wouldn't you pundits think it was better if you got your information straight from the source? Regarding French/UK cooperation, it's about time these two countries joined forces.

[wholagun]

So then its not true? I know **** all about ships, so I can't be criticle.

[tooms]

NAVAL AVIATION: French Carrier Disaster Gets Very Strange




December 4, 2003: France is considering quietly retiring their new nuclear powered aircraft carrier and 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 of the same design. Britain is building two 50,000 ton conventionally powered carriers, at a cost of $2.5 billion each. France would order a third of this class, and bring down the cost of all three a bit. The new French nuclear carrier "Charles de Gaulle" has suffered from a seemingly endless string of problems. The 40,000 ton ship has cost over four billion dollars so far and is slower than the diesel powered carrier it replaced. Flaws in the "de Gaulle" have led to the use of propellers from it predecessor, the "Foch," because the ones built for "de Gaulle" never worked right. 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, and 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. 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, one can blame the British.

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTNAVAI.HTM

like said above, its full of bull****s

and the journalist should learn that the company which will design british new aircraft carrier is french, THALES company
so if there are any problems with the French designed ship, they will blame the french

the charles de gaulle is slower than the foch but they knew it before it was build

and i wonder too how they will do to put french planes on it, its designed for Vtols

[specialairservice]

The truth is that the Charles de Gaulle was the only European carrier to take part in Operation Enduring Freedom, with its aircraft carrying out missions over Afghanistan.

HMS Illustrious and HMS Ocean were used in Enduring Freedom.

[Seoulstriker]

why didn't they name it the Napolean?

[California Joe]

So? Does it work or not? Did it cost that much? Is it a giant floating goatf*ck or what?

[cut]

The truth is that the Charles de Gaulle was the only European carrier to take part in Operation Enduring Freedom, with its aircraft carrying out missions over Afghanistan.

HMS Illustrious and HMS Ocean were used in Enduring Freedom.

nah that was op. telic (Iraqi freedom) I think it was only Hms Ocean (and other ships and submarines, but no fixed-wing aircraft carrirers) that was used in Enduring Freedom.

[stateofequilibrium]

I remember a similar article in what was it.. Time magazine or US News.. I forget.. but it mentioned pretty much the same things about the French aircraft carrier.

I'm just waiting for the US to come out with it's first Stardestroyer by the time Europe builds their first supercarrier woot

[wholagun]

They can always sell it to us Canadians Im sure it would fit in perfectly with the other ships we have

It would go greatly along side our used British Deseil Subs. :cantbeli: Who buys desiel subs in today's age? :cantbeli:
Good jobs Brits. Could you have recked those things even more, leaking and everything. **** we need those subs to last us another 60 years.. if not more on top of the 30 years you already used them.... :cantbeli:

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

".....with a displacement of 40,600 tonnes and an air wing of 24 aircraft the Charles De Gaulle was plagued by problems in its early days, including a flight deck too short to operate the E-2C AEW aircraft, the loss of one propeller and the need to improve reactor cooling. The lost propeller will be replaced this year but as an ad hoc arrangement a spare from the decommissioned Clemenceau was installed, but this reduced the top speed from 28 to 23 knots. In all fairness, it must be said that the teething problems were hardly avoidable, given the fact that the programme had been started, then dropped, its engineers dismissed, restarted and altered several times in tune with Frances changing governments. The propellers for instance had been left abandoned in a yard for years.
To sustain French or European power another carrier, PA 2, is required. There are three studies being conducted; the Charles De Gaulles builders, DCN, are examining a sister ship as well as being part of a consortium with Alsthom, Eads and Thales looking at a conventionally powered ship. Lastly Thales is considering offering its CVF design to the French Navy. The idea of a joint programme with britain has been much mooted but the reality is that the requirements are very different and there is little prospect of aligning the new french carrier programme with the CVF........."

Renaissance for the Aircraft Carrier

by Ted Hooten with input from Eric H. Biass

Armada International August/September 2003

Reportedly the De Gaulle cost in the region of 3.3 Billion $US

And its a Swiss magazine too.

[California Joe]

Sounds like a 3.3 billion dollar piece of ****e.

[cut]

The Charles De Gaulle is a 38,000 ton, nuclear powered French aircraft carrier launched in May 1994 The ship operates a fleet of 40 Rafale M combat aircraft, the Super Etendard and three E-2C Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft. The ship also supports the AS 565 Panther and Dauphin helicopters. There are two lifts, measuring 19 x 13 m, which have a load capacity of 36 tons. The hangar has a floor area of 140 x 30 metres and a height 6.1 metres. It accommodates 20 to 25 aircraft. The main deck consists of a main runway angled at 8.5 degrees to the ship's axis and an aircraft launch area forward of the island. The runway and the forward launch area are each equipped with a USN Type C13 catapult rated to handle aircraft up to 22 tonnes and capable of launching one aircraft per minute. The runway is 195 metres long and the whole deck measures 260 x 64 metres.

The ship's weapons are managed by a Senit Combat Management System, CMS Model 8. The system has the capacity to track up to 2,000 friendly and hostile targets. The weapon control system consists of two Sagem Vigy 105 optronic directors. The ship has two Sagem Vampir search and track systems. The ship is fitted with the Aster 15 surface-to-air missile launchers, Sylver vertical launch systems, installed on the edge of the deck, with two launchers (16 cells) on the starboard side forward of the bridge and two launchers on the port side aft of the bridge. The ship has two six-cell Sadral launching systems for the Mistral missile positioned on the edges of the main deck about 45 metres (starboard side) and 36 metres (port side) aft of the Aster missile launchers. The ship is also equipped with eight Giat 20F2 guns and four decoy launchers are installed, two on either side of the ship firing chaff to 8 km and infra-red flares to a range of 3 km.

Charles de Gaulle nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is the largest fighting ship ever built by a European shipyard. Designed to operate 40 Rafale M aircraft, it will be the main unit of the French Navy's surface fleet. The Charles de Gaulle was officially handed over to the French Navy on 28 September 2000.

The Charles de Gaulle is the most sophisticated, highest performance warship ever built in Europe. She offers massive air power, a highly-integrated combat system, and impressive endurance. Deploying 40 modern combat planes plus early-warning aircraft, she can conduct 100 air missions a day. As the center-piece of a carrier group, she can perform vital duties in any waters.

Two catapults accelerate aircraft (Rafales, Hawkeyes, and modernized Super Étendards) to over 300 km/h in just 75 meters. The flight deck can launch one aircraft every 30 seconds or handle a mass landing of 20 aircraft in just 12 minutes. Data links (to NATO standards L16 and L11) allow Hawkeye early-warning aircraft to transmit tactical situation data in real time to naval units and combat aircraft.

The Senit 8 CMS enables CIC officers and the OTC to monitor 2,000 tracks in real time and engage air, naval and shore targets in fully-integrated mode. As part of one of the most modern systems of its type ever deployed, Aster 15 hyper-agile anti-air missiles provide protection against attacking aircraft and missiles. The aircraft carrier acts as the hub of an extensive communications network exchanging data over 50 simultaneous links with naval and air units plus shore-based command centers.

The Satrap stabilization system system offers exceptional performance. At 20 knots with the rudder at 30°, heel is just 1°. Reduced platform motion means the flight deck can handle 25-ton aircraft up to sea state 6.

In addition to state-of-the-art stabilization, communications and automation — including the Senit 8 CMS and the Shipmaster IPMS — all onboard facilities were designed and developed using the latest technologies, including CAD and virtual reality. All basic concepts correctly foreshadowed the design and construction of warships now at the proposal stage.


source: globalsecurity.org

[California Joe]

Your quote deals with it's potential and a list of it's perfect world capabilities.

How does it perform in the real world?

[cut]

it doesn't..

[cut]

and the journalist should learn that the company which will design british new aircraft carrier is french, THALES company
so if there are any problems with the French designed ship, they will blame the french



in relation to the British CVF


The MOD carefully reviewed the work carried out by BAE Systems and Thales UK in the Assessment Phase, and concluded that BAE Systems had demonstrated a better understanding of the programme and its complexity and had developed a good relationship with the key shipyards. Thales UK had provided a robust technical solution and a strong flexible design.

The MOD therefore approached both BAE Systems and Thales UK to discuss a possible alliance with the MOD on the programme. Both companies have accepted the logic of the approach. Detailed contractual discussions will now start to determine formally how the Alliance will operate.
Defenately not a french project.

[Operation Ivy]

How many Aircraft Carriers does the US have, French have and the British have?

[cut]

the British have 3 Invicible class carriers and are going to build 2 larger ones to replace them.

the French have Charles de Gaulle, Foch and Jeanne D'arc

the US has 12 but are building another one, USS George H W Bush

[cut]

There is also HMS Ocean for us brits but that is a helo carrier, despite being bigger than the Invicible class carriers..

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/ocean-988636571f-s.jpg (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/ocean-988636571f.jpg)

[Ratamacue]

The US has 9 commisioned Nimitz-class carriers (and 1 under construction), and 3 individual classed carriers (2 of which are steam-powered). We also have 12 Amphibious Assault Carriers (LHA/LHD) and 1 planned for construction.

[Ballistic]

The US has 9 commisioned Nimitz-class carriers (and 1 under construction), and 3 individual classed carriers (2 of which are steam-powered). We also have 12 Amphibious Assault Carriers (LHA/LHD) and 1 planned for construction.

Those Amphibious Assault Carriers.... are they used primarily by the Marines ? And what aircraft are stationed on them plus troops numbers ?

I think Australia was interested in getting perhaps 1 or 2 of them sometime ago, perhaps an updated version though, Im not sure though. Can you give me the details or link me to details on them ??

[Ratamacue]

There are two different classes, Wasp (7 ships) and Tarawa (5 ships). The Wasp is more recent (USS Wasp was commissioned in 1989, USS Tarawa in 1976) and thus is better armed. Specifications for each class (according to http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-lha.html)

Wasp Class
Powerplant - Steam
Length - 844ft (256m)
Beam - 106ft (32m)
Speed - 20+ knots
Aircraft - 12 CH-46, 4 CH-52, 6 AV-8B, 3 UH-1N, 4 AH-1W
Marines - Approx. 1,900

Tarawa Class
Powerplant - Steam
Length - 820ft (248m)
Beam - 106ft (32m)
Speed - 24 knots
Aircraft - 12 CH-46, 4 CH-53, 6 AV-8B, 3 UH-1N, 4 AH-1W
Marines - Approx 1,900

Of course, the ships also carry tanks/AAV's/LAV's, LCAC's (landing hovercraft), Humvees, etc.

[Ballistic]

Thanks heaps for that. I think it was the Wasp Class that the Australian Navy was interested in getting, but I think thats all it was...interest. Nothing else has been said about it as far as I know. But the Australian Military definately needs a transport ship of such size with such a compliment if it's to continue operating the way it is, in an expeditionary type force.

[AFACadet]

I just read in Janes Defense Weekly today (or a mag like it), that you guys are going to be ordering some amphib ships. I just glanced at the headline though because I was looking for something else.

[Ballistic]

Thanks for the heads up AFACadet !! Will have to have a look around for info on it.

[tooms]

and the journalist should learn that the company which will design british new aircraft carrier is french, THALES company
so if there are any problems with the French designed ship, they will blame the french



in relation to the British CVF


The MOD carefully reviewed the work carried out by BAE Systems and Thales UK in the Assessment Phase, and concluded that BAE Systems had demonstrated a better understanding of the programme and its complexity and had developed a good relationship with the key shipyards. Thales UK had provided a robust technical solution and a strong flexible design.

The MOD therefore approached both BAE Systems and Thales UK to discuss a possible alliance with the MOD on the programme. Both companies have accepted the logic of the approach. Detailed contractual discussions will now start to determine formally how the Alliance will operate.


escuse me but THALES UK is just a subdivision of thales, a french company....
Defenately not a french project.

[tooms]

if you are talking about amphibious carriers, the french are building 2 BPC,

[LongWayToTheTop]

Lol british making stuff for the french? .... tax payers will be pissed just because the idea it was going to go to the french

[Uncle Chô]

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/embarque/galerie/heracles/images/pa_tribord_avant_horizontale2.jpg

OK, I would like to clarify the situation. Like " California Joe " said, there is the "perfect world capabilities" catalogue and the "real world".

But the reality is also quit different from what the strategypage.com "journalist" wrote...

I e-mailed the Editor with my corrections. He laconically answered : " We still disagree ". All right. If they want to deny verified facts, it's their problem.


NAVAL AVIATION: French Carrier Disaster (what a sexy headline !) Gets Very Strange

December 4, 2003: France is considering quietly retiring their new nuclear powered aircraft carrier[/b]

Why would France do that ? During “ Enduring Freedom”, the French Navy was the only non American Navy to launch daily air strikes (more than 270 combat missions) to Afghanistan from an aircraft carrier that stayed 6 months on site. This is nonsense. Never heard or read that info from any serious source (ie a Parliamentary report)

and joining with Britain to buy a new carrier of British design.

Wrong. It is not “buying a carrier of British design” but working together to see if we could built some kind of a sister ship and share the cost.

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 reluctant to build a second of the same design.

Wrong. It is a question of cost. A CVN is expensive to build and operate. Building a similar CVN (or smaller) is the best value you can get for the money because you will benefit from experience with the first one. The French Parliament is going to give is go ahead in the coming months.

Britain is building two 50,000 ton conventionally powered carriers, at a cost of $2.5 billion each. France would order a third of this class, and bring down the cost of all three a bit.

Wrong. The Royal Navy is building a CVF with no catapult because their aircraft fleet doesn’t need it (Harrier & VSTOL F-35). The French Navy is using the same nose wheel tow system as the US Navy for their aircrafts. Reducing the size of the ship will reduce the size of the hangars thus reducing the aircraft capacity to 25 / 30 conventional aircrafts which is a too low figure.

The new French nuclear carrier "Charles de Gaulle" has suffered from a seemingly endless string of problems.

The French CVN is unique in its design and should be considered as a prototype. For example the flight deck is stretched to the maximum to accommodate a small hull. This small hull size was required by the limited drydocks availability in France. The internal space is therefore cramped. When the US Navy built the CVN-65 Enterprise in the early 60’s, they had tons of problems to solve because it was a new design. So did they. So did the French Navy with the “ CdG” carrier that is now fully operational.

The 40,000 ton ship has cost over four billion dollars ($3.2 to be precised) so far and is slower than the diesel powered carrier it replaced.

True but this argument is pointless. The diesel powered “Foch” & “Clemenceau” were designed 45 years ago. A slower speed was chosen from the beginning of the project because the “CdG” shares the same nuclear power plant than the strategic submarines already in service (this solution was chosen for lower cost). To compensate the lack of speed, the catapults were extended so that the launched airplane could safely reach the take off speed. And it works well.

Flaws in the "de Gaulle" have led to the use of propellers from it predecessor, the "Foch," because the ones built for "de Gaulle" never worked right.

True they use the “Foch” props but it has nothing to do with the design. The story is a bit different of what is written here. One blade of one of the two “CdG” propellers broke of during the shakedown cruise. It was later discovered that the private company that casted it made a mistake during the process. Some individuals that were responsible for quality controls were trialled and found guilty of negligence. The casting of a propeller that huge (19 tons) is a long process and two new propellers are being fitted right now.

Worse, the nuclear reactor installation was done poorly, exposing the engine crew to five times the allowable annual dose of radiation.

Wrong. The nuclear reactor installation was done in compliance with international standards against radiations at the beginning of the program (mid 80s). The standard since changed in 1998 (raising the safety level) thus leading to a retrofit of the nuclear cell. Work completed in 1999. Nobody was in danger.

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.

True but you should mention this problem was solved 5 years ago (well before operational deployment) by adding 4 meters to the flight deck length. This was not a critical issue because it affected only 5 % of the E-2C operations (the radius turn of the Hawkeye on the deck after disengaging the hook from the Nr 3 arresting cable was found limited for safety reasons under certain rough sea circumstances).

Many other key components of the ship did not work correctly,

Give us credible example.

and the carrier has been under constant repair and modification.

If you quote scheduled overhauls as “constant repair and modification “ why not ? Then think again of the CVN-65 in the early 60’s.

The "de Gaulle" took eleven years to build (1988-99) and was not ready for service until late 2000.

True but biased again. It should be mentioned it has nothing to do with engineering or technical problems. After the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the end of the Gulf War, military credits have been reduced by the Socialist Government(s) again and again and the program went slow because of no sufficient funding.

It's been downhill ever since.

How come ? Give us details.

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.

Laughable.

The British have a lot more experience building carriers,

Wrong. The British naval industry only built conventional small “light class carriers” (like the “Invincible” or “Illustrious”) without catapults.

and if there are any problems with the British designed ship, one can blame the British.

Sure... Since the Brits carriers are being designed by THALES UK -a subsidary of the European THALES Defence Group (which includes several French companies), this is a smart remark.


The "CdG" program suffered from the beginning from the shillyshallying of the different Governements (a typicall French attitude), the French naval and nuclear industry lobbies who imposed "their" solutions, the workers unions that refused the ship could be built by a civil contractor thus leading to a smaller hull and expensive solutions to "fit" everything in.

But in the end, the ship is now fully operational, with state of the art on board systems and a growing fleet of the latest generation fighters (Rafale Marine).

Finally, an update about the future amphibian ships (21,000 ton). Two ("Mistral" and "Tonnere") are going to enter into service in 2005 and 2006 respectively. They will replace 35 years old similar ships.

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/navires/batiments/mistral/images/dcn.jpg

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/navires/batiments/mistral/images/ext3.jpg

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/navires/batiments/mistral/images/ext5.jpg

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/navires/batiments/mistral/images/mistral02.jpg

Season's Greetings from the R-91 "Charles De Gaulle " ;)

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/embarque/galerie/heracles/evenement/noel/images/noel01.jpg

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/embarque/galerie/heracles/evenement/noel/images/noel08.jpg

[aktarian]

It would go greatly along side our used British Deseil Subs. :cantbeli: Who buys desiel subs in today's age? :cantbeli:


All who don't produce them themselves and don't operate nuclear submarines (which is large majority of navies)

[marktigger]

the Foch has been taken to spai for scrapping.

I know there have been problems with the CdeG :D .
I would say the CVF UK project will have the same problems and will never see water as the Labour Govt goes into another round of defence cuts. Thus we will have a huge amphibious fleet and little or no surface escorts or air support to make it useable so we will have to rely on our European allies to provide the rest under the flag of an EU navy. Which is what 'president' Blair wants.

As to diesel subs the RN wasn't happy giving up that capability. They are smaller than nuclear boats which make them useful to work closer inshore or int gathering and landing SF with out having to use expensive mini subs that have to piggy back on the bigger boats causing degradation in performance and stealth by increasing noise.
Since most of the worlds fleets use diesel/electric boats they were also useful for training for the SSK(N), surface and air assets. to carry this out now the Royal navy have to hire SSk's from netherlands, germany or norway again at more expense. I'm glad to see the Upholder class getting a new lease of life and hope the Canadians aren't having the same problems the RN had with them.

[stephane from Paris]

Well put Uncle Chô, you was faster than me!
It's a fact that French government needs to ordered 2 smaller aircrafts carriers using as helicopters platforms.
The CDG project suffered some problems like the V22 Osprey hybrid plane/helo in the USA!
The CDG due to its limited serie have a great cost at a time that french military forces waits more Leclerc, the new Tiger and NH90, new surface ships, the future infantry combat vehicle, Rafale, balistic missiles, cruise missile, infantryman new equipments.....
Tons of billions to spend for all these new projects, that will give a step beyond for our forces! So if we could do some project with other europeans countries it will be far better for taxers!
Stephane

[NcDeuce]

Who needs these big ships that cost billions?

In Operation Prime Chance, we used civilian tankers, any flat platform. Hehehe.

[tooms]

Uncle Chô delivered a good speech

;)

[Eviscerator]

Nice speech, but wrong on some parts:


Wrong. The British naval industry only built conventional small “light class carriers” (like the “Invincible” or “Illustrious”) without catapults.

The British Naval industry has built a great deal more carriers than just the Invincible and Illustrious, and to say that only two british carriers have been built is laughable, a short search on google found these british aircraft carriers, and all of these are conventional carriers, and even this list doesnt include some of the more modern carriers:

HMS Acavus
HMS Activity
HMS Adula
HMS Albion
HMS Alexia
HMS Amastra
HMS Ameer
HMS Ancylus
HMS Arbiter
HMS Archer
HMS Argus
HMS Ark Royal
HMS Ark Royal
HMS Atheling
HMS Attacker
HMS Audacious
HMS Audacity
HMS Battler
HMS Begum
HMS Bulwark
HMS Campania
HMS Centaur
HMS Chaser
HMS Colossus
HMS Courageous
HMS Eagle
HMS Eagle
HMS Emperor
HMS Empire MacAlpine
HMS Empire MacAndrew
HMS Empire MacCabe
HMS Empire MacCallum
HMS Empire MacColl
HMS Empire MacDermott
HMS Empire Mackay
HMS Empire MacKendrick
HMS Empire MacMahon
HMS Empire MacRae
HMS Empress
HMS Fencer
HMS Formidable
HMS Furious
HMS Glorious
HMS Glory
HMS Hercules
HMS Hermes
HMS Hermes
HMS Hunter
HMS Illustrious
HMS Implacable
HMS Indefatigable
HMS Indomitable
HMS Khedive
HMS Leviathan
HMS Magnificent
HMS Miralda
HMS Nabob
HMS Nairana
HMS Ocean
HMS Patroller
HMS Perseus
HMS Pioneer
HMS Powerful
HMS Premier
HMS Pretoria Castle
HMS Puncher
HMS Pursuer
HMS Queen
HMS Rajah
HMS Ranee
HMS Rapana
HMS Ravager
HMS Reaper
HMS Ruler
HMS Searcher
HMS Shah
HMS Slinger
HMS Smiter
HMS Speaker
HMS Stalker
HMS Striker
HMS Thane
HMS Theseus
HMS Tracker
HMS Triumph
HMS Trouncer
HMS Trumpeter
HMS Unicorn
HMS Venerable
HMS Victorious
HMS Vindex
HMS Warrior

Also, although no catapult will be installed on the CVF initially, they are built "for, but not with" catapults, they are made to be modified easily into conventional take off carriers. And, although the design for the carrier is a Thales UK design, the Prime Contractor of the CVF is British Aerospace who are responsible for the program and the construction of the ship, BAe is very much in the driving seat for the CVF project with Thales taking a back seat.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/index.html
http://www.mod.uk/dpa/projects/cvf.htm

[cut]

haha TOLD!


also the catapult and two runway shape on carriers are both British inovations.

[aktarian]

Who needs these big ships that cost billions?


You are of course right. This is clearly seen in recent decision by USN to scrap their carriers as useless and too expensive. :cantbeli:

[Uncle Chô]

Who needs these big ships that cost billions?

In Operation Prime Chance, we used civilian tankers, any flat platform. Hehehe.
"Prime Chance" (Operation "Earnest Will" for the Navy) saw the use of barges (Hercules and Wimbrown VII), not tankers. Do not mix up with Kevin Costner's movie " Waterworld" ;)

This was the right tool for that specific naval interdiction mission. Never used since.

BTW, isn't the US NAVY receiving its 11th CVN ??

[cut]

BTW, isn't the US NAVY receiving its 11th CVN ??



Secretary of the Navy Gordon England officially named the Navy's 10th Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, CVN 77, in honor of World War II naval aviator and former President of the United States George Herbert Walker Bush during a ceremony Dec. 9, 2002 at the Pentagon.

The future USS George H.W. Bush is presently under construction at Northrop Grumman Newport News in Virginia. USS George H.W. Bush is expected to join the fleet in 2009


The 10th and final Nimitz-class carrier will be the most advanced carrier of the class....

[Uncle Chô]

Nice speech, but wrong on some parts:

The British Naval industry has built a great deal more carriers than just the Invincible and Illustrious, and to say that only two british carriers have been built is laughable.
I know all that. You could even trace the English shipbuilding well into the 17th century ;)

It should not turn in another endless "pissing" contest. Don't take my words out of the context. I was writting about "modern" carriers (those last 40 years) to someone who partially doubts about the current engineering and industrial capacity of the French shipyards.

Nothing more. :)

[cut]

Invincible class carriers are only about 25 years old, the first one was launched in 1977

[Uncle Chô]

[quote=Uncle Chô]

BTW, isn't the US NAVY receiving its 11th CVN ??

Secretary of the Navy Gordon England officially named the Navy's 10th Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, CVN 77, in honor of World War II naval aviator and former President of the United States George Herbert Walker Bush during a ceremony Dec. 9, 2002 at the Pentagon.

The future USS George H.W. Bush is presently under construction at Northrop Grumman Newport News in Virginia. USS George H.W. Bush is expected to join the fleet in 2009

Roosevelt Class = 6
Nimitz Class = 3
Enterprise (one of a kind) = 1

Total : 6 + 3 + 1 = 10 ...not 11 :oops:

Do am I correct ? ;)

[cut]

aucune idée

[marktigger]

also add to the development the

angled flight deck
mirror landing sight

[marktigger]

the problem with having big carriers is they also need a big escort group. what is the size of the escort group for a Nimitz?

[aktarian]

the problem with having big carriers is they also need a big escort group. what is the size of the escort group for a Nimitz?

Smaller carriers need as much protection than big ones. Or even more as they can't operate long range interceptors and must relly on SAMs from escorts.

I think it's some 4 escorts, 1 supply ship and 1 SSN nearby.

[He219]

also the catapult and two runway shape on carriers are both British inovations.

The first aircraft catapult launch was in Kitty Hawk. The first steam aircraft catapults were called Damferzeuger (http://users.skynet.be/unclegoose/What/launch.avi). Designed by the Walther company, the explosive mixing of hydrogenperoxide and pottasium manganate to create steam was capable of accelerating the 2 tonne V1 pulse-jet to 245 m.p.h., and clear of the mobile ramp in under 1 second.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/aetius/Images/V1/dampferzeuger.jpghttp://perso.wanadoo.fr/aetius/Images/V1/rampe01.jpg
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/aetius/mur/v1a.htm

Carrier History:

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/ely-take.gif

Nov. 14, 1910 - Eugene Ely, 24, a civilian pilot, took off in a 50-hp. Curtiss plane from a wooden platform built over the bow of the light cruiser USS Birmingham (CL-2). The ship was at anchor in Hampton Roads, Va., and Ely landed moments later on Willoughby Spit.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/ely-land.gif

Jan. 18, 1911 - At 11:01 a.m., Eugene Ely, flying a Curtiss pusher, landed on a specially built platform aboard the armored cruiser USS Pennsylvania (ACR 4) at anchor in San Francisco Bay. At 11:58 a.m., he took off and returned to Selfridge Field, San Francisco. The arresting lines consisted of ropes attached to sandbags.


http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/mustin.gif

Nov. 5, 1915 - Lieut. Cmdr. Henry C. Mustin made the first catapault launching from a ship. He flew an AB-2 flying boat off the stern of USS North Carolina (ACR 12) in Pensacola Bay, Fla.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/cv36a2.gif

Jan. 12, 1953 - Test operations begin on USS Antietam (CVA 36) which emerged in Dec. 1952 from the New York Naval Shipyard as America's first angled-deck aircraft carrier. The first landing was made by the ship's commanding officer, Capt. S.G. Mitchell, in an SNJ. The HMS Centaur became the first British ship to be fitted with an Angled Flight Deck, in 1953, followed shortly by HMS Ark Royal.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/cva-19a2.gif

June 1, 1954 - Operational testing of the C-11 steam catapult begin. USS ******* (CVA 19) had been recommissioned Feb. 15, 1954, Capt. W. S. Butts in command. She was the first carrier of the U.S. Navy with steam catapults capable of launching high performance jets.


Feb. 24, 1955 - The CNO directed that the term "angled" be used describe the deck of aircraft carriers in which the landing runway was offset from the line of the keel. Other terms which had been used were "canted", "slanted", and "flamed".
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/cv-hist4.html


Britain's contribution to carrier development came with the Mirror Projector Landing Sight. Invented by Commander N Goodhart, it consisted of a gyro controlled mirror facing aft to project a 'ball' of light for approaching aircraft to detect their attitutde with respect to the datum line.

[NcDeuce]

Who needs these big ships that cost billions?

In Operation Prime Chance, we used civilian tankers, any flat platform. Hehehe.
"Prime Chance" (Operation "Earnest Will" for the Navy) saw the use of barges (Hercules and Wimbrown VII), not tankers. Do not mix up with Kevin Costner's movie " Waterworld" ;)

http://www.specialoperations.com/Images_Folder/library4/tankers.jpg

160th Black Hawk carries Navy SEAL team onto civilian tanker.

[NcDeuce]

Who needs these big ships that cost billions?


You are of course right. This is clearly seen in recent decision by USN to scrap their carriers as useless and too expensive. :cantbeli:

:cantbeli:

I did not know it was that hard to recognize sarcasm.

:cantbeli:

[cut]

Britain's contribution to carrier development came with the Mirror Projector Landing Sight. Invented by Commander N Goodhart, it consisted of a gyro controlled mirror facing aft to project a 'ball' of light for approaching aircraft to detect their attitutde with respect to the datum line.

What about the angled deck? I was more certain about that one..

[He219]

Britain's contribution to carrier development came with the Mirror Projector Landing Sight. Invented by Commander N Goodhart, it consisted of a gyro controlled mirror facing aft to project a 'ball' of light for approaching aircraft to detect their attitutde with respect to the datum line.

What about the angled deck? I was more certain about that one..

You also sounded certain about the catapult.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/cv36a2.gif


Jan. 12, 1953 - Test operations begin on USS Antietam (CVA 36) which emerged in Dec. 1952 from the New York Naval Shipyard as America's first angled-deck aircraft carrier. The first landing was made by the ship's commanding officer, Capt. S.G. Mitchell, in an SNJ. The HMS Centaur became the first British ship to be fitted with an Angled Flight Deck, in 1953, followed shortly by HMS Ark Royal.

In 1948-49 the British experimented a 'flexible deck' on the HMS Warrior for landing undercarriage-less jet aircraft. The 'flexible' deck was in effect a huge three and a half inch thick rubber carpet was superimposed on the existing flight deck, extending from the aft end of the island to a line 150 feet from the round down.

http://www.hmswarriorr31.co.uk/mediac/400_0/media/rdlanding.GIF

In the forenoon of 12th Novenber 1948 the first landing took place, a Vampire jet piloted by the RN Chief Test Pilot Lt.Cdr. Eric (Bomber) Brown. He made one low pass, then went round again and came in with no undercarriage down. He picked up the arrester wire which was propped up on two pieces of wood about two inches long, and skidded along the rubber. The pilot jumped out, a naval airman jumped in and the crane lifted the plane up, the undercarriage was lowered and the plane was then lowered onto the steel flight deck and wheeled away for'd.

Out of this trial, Capt Dennis Cambell sketched a 'flexible deck' angled 10 degrees from center line, allowing aircraft which missed the arrestor wires to circle for another landing attempt without crashing into any aircraft parked forward.

The canted adaption without a flexible deck was applied in by the British on the The HMS Centaur in 1953. Trials on the HMS Triumph, with the flight deck's landing line being repainted 10 degrees off the center, were limited to touch and go because the arrester wires were not altered. The HMS Ark Royal was currently under construction and became fitted with the 'angled' principle. The first implementation came with the USS Antietam through technological lessons gained during WWII. An angled deck was fitted after testing on the USS Midway in 1952 and an enclosed hurricane bow added in chages marking the development of the first attack carrier (CVA).


The ability to adapt to new technologies, systems, platforms, and operational needs is nowhere better exemplified than in the design and 50-year operational history of the USS Midway (CV-41). The Navy Research Lab performed tests of captured German V-2 rockets, and launched one from the deck of USS Midway on 06 September 1947. The successful firing was the first launch of a large bombardment rocket from a ship at sea. Test pilots were exposed to a simulated angled deck on the USS Midway in 1952.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cv-41.htm

During May 26-29, 1952, the USS Midway (CVA-41) tested the feasibility of an angled flight deck concept demonstrated by Naval Air Test Center pilots using both jet and prop aircraft.

http://www.synergeez.com/ship-history/Midway.php/Midway/CVB-41_CVA-41_CV-41


In January 1952, Midway made her fifth Mediterranean cruise with Air Group Six embarked. During this cruise, Midway participated in Operation GRAND SLAM, a multi-national English, French, Italian and U.S. exercise. Upon completion of this exercise, she operated in the eastern Mediterranean before returning to Norfolk in May 1952. From 26 to 29 May 1952, the feasibility of the angled deck concept was demonstrated in tests conducted on a simulated angled deck aboard Midway by Naval Air Test Center pilots and Atlantic Fleet pilots in both jet and prop aircraft.

http://members.tripod.com/Cymru_Am_Byth/midway/history.html

'Don't mean to rain on your parade, cut.
;)

[AOCBravo2004]

http://www.specialoperations.com/Images_Folder/library4/tankers.jpg

160th Black Hawk carries Navy SEAL team onto civilian tanker.

That's actually a Navy Seahawk, not a Blackhaw, you can tell by the undercarriage configuration ;)

George

[aktarian]

Who needs these big ships that cost billions?


You are of course right. This is clearly seen in recent decision by USN to scrap their carriers as useless and too expensive. :cantbeli:

:cantbeli:

I did not know it was that hard to recognize sarcasm.

:cantbeli:

Nothing in your post indicated you weren't serious.

[Loco]

First of all, I´d like to congratulate all you because this thread, it began with a fake information of www.strategypage.com, and goes on in an interesting revue about history of carriers, and I love this old pictures and carriers too. About Charles de Gaulle carrier, is well know it had some problems of design, but as I now, and I haven´t any privileged source, they were resolved fairly well, and french naval aviation is today by today the first of europe and probably the 2º of the world.
And I´d like to satisfy my chauvinism a bit too, in Spain we did our little contribution to naval aviation with the first use of gyro/helo type aircrafts on board of carriers. In 1934 an autogiro driven by Juan de la Cierva took on in the wooden deck of Dedalo, a hydrocarrier of spanish navy, needing only 8 meters and after that he took off needing 18 meters for that.
http://www.infonegocio.com/dagafox/autogiro/images/dedicato.jpg
http://www.infonegocio.com/dagafox/autogiro/images/dedalo.jpg

http://www.infonegocio.com/dagafox/autogiro/dedalo.htm
http://usuarios.lycos.es/autogiros/exito.htm

[fantassin]

If Thales UK has added a "UK" behind its name it is only to show it's the UK branch of a French company; if you look at the french phone book, you'll find "Ford France"; still, nobody pretends Ford is a french company...

This is an excerpt from their home page:

Established in France more than a century ago, Thales is a global electronics company serving Aerospace, Defence,
and Information Technology markets worldwide.

With operations in more than 30 countries and 65,000 employees, the Thales Group generated 11.1 billion euros in revenues in 2002.

To know more:

http://www.thalesgroup.com/ga/profile/profile.htm