Doubts About Royal Navy,s Cvf And T 45 Future Ships

contedicavour

New Member
I severely doubt it, especially when you look at their AAW equipment. Tartar and Masurca missiles? I wouldn't want to rely upon those things for area-defence!
Ehm the Masurca were aboard 2 already deleted DDGs, the tartar aboard the 2 Cassard DDGs are in reality good old SM-1 standard missiles, which may be obsolete but can still operate until 2015 provided electronics are updated. Later on the ships will have to be updated with Aster or deleted.

On our De la Penne we added aspide launchers and 3 guided ammo 76/62, and we are updating electronics and radars, but we'll eventually have to put EMPAR and Asters if the ship is to maintain an AAW role.

cheers
 

contedicavour

New Member
dose this increses the vunrablitility of a CdG battal group with so few horions and a lack of effective AAW being made by other vessels in the group.

dose this put france at disavantage in comparison to other simlar nation as they won't always have a horizion avalible. and haven't got anything eles with a long enough range to cover the carrier they got the old DDG the laffayects and the FREEMMs if the Horizons are unavalible. none of the other ships at the time have a satifactory range.

unlike the MN which have there FREEMMs with aster 30 which allows them to use a BG with out horizons and still have decent air coverage and the spanish who have many F100s giveing them ageis coverage any day of the week it is only the french who don't seem to have though though their plan
UK will undoubtedly preserve the best AAW assets with 6 darings, ok. Though beyond the UK, Spain will have 5 AAW FFGs (though total n° of escorts is 11 which isn't big), France and Italy will have 4 AAW ships (2 horizons, 2 older DDGs for now, to be replaced by AAW FREMM), Germany 3 F124 AAW FFGs, and Holland 4 AAW FFGs of the De Zeven Provincen class.
We can help each other out in multinational missions, and most big countries have similar assets.

cheers
 

contedicavour

New Member
still don't have the range of SM-1 though all though this is made up in many other areas.
conti de cavor how do you think spain and italy navys compare with each other and how could they each be inproved
Spain's fleet is improving very fast because of big budgets. It relies on multi-mission escorts such as the OHPs and Alvaro da Bazan AAW FFGs, while the italian fleet has more escorts with more dedicated configurations (ASW Maestrale, AAW De la Penne and Doria, etc).
Italy has an advantage in the size of the Harrier and helo forces, Spain has more amphibious assets, and we have a draw on SSKs (though if the Scorpene aren't built fast Spain will only have 4 agosta today and 4 scorpene tomorrow vs a minimum 6 Sauro/U212A for Italy).
Last but not least, Italy has a large number of corvettes and big OPVHs more suitable for the Mediterranean.
Spain also needs to confirm what jets will fly off their carrier and the BPE which is building (F35 ?).
Spain's advantage in LPDs should be eroded with the planned 4th LPDH in Italy.

So overall Italy maintains a higher number of ships but Spain is growing mightily fast and, pending FREMM building in Italy, currently has an edge in AAW because of the higher number of modern AAW ships.

cheers
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
thanks for the info so you still think that italy still has the edge despite the larger amount AAW and amphibious assets.

i also think that the nansen class would be perfect for the RN if they wanted a tried and tested desine with top notch capablitys ageis and and advace sonar array or would this option be much to expencive.
 

contedicavour

New Member
thanks for the info so you still think that italy still has the edge despite the larger amount AAW and amphibious assets.

i also think that the nansen class would be perfect for the RN if they wanted a tried and tested desine with top notch capablitys ageis and and advace sonar array or would this option be much to expencive.
The Nansen are the only Aegis equipped ships in the world without area defence SAMs, only ESSMs. That makes them pretty expensive ships...

For a navy who prefers specialized ships (Type 23 ASW, Type 45 AAW, etc) such as the RN, the Nansens are too expensive multi-mission escorts.

cheers
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
The Nansen are the only Aegis equipped ships in the world without area defence SAMs, only ESSMs. That makes them pretty expensive ships...

For a navy who prefers specialized ships (Type 23 ASW, Type 45 AAW, etc) such as the RN, the Nansens are too expensive multi-mission escorts.

cheers
The Nansens are are specialised ASW frigates.
 

contedicavour

New Member
The Nansens are are specialised ASW frigates.
The Nansens are very good at ASW, but they happen to be extremely well equipped from a AAW standpoint because of the AEGIS system, and they are also well equipped from an ASUW point of view because of SSMs and missiles embarked on the helos.
That's why I consider the Nansen as multi-mission FFGs, with much stronger AAW and ASUW than British Type 23s for example.
Since the RN has so many more escorts, they tend to specialize functions (with for ex Type 45s which have no ASW and no ASUW)

cheers
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
but they can add SM-2 at any time so is too expencive for the RSC thats is a shame :frown

because i thought it would be perfect good AAW and good ASW.

also how much better than the type 23 with the sonar upgrade
 
Last edited:

contedicavour

New Member
but they can add SM-2 at any time so is too expencive for the RSC thats is a shame :frown

because i thought it would be perfect good AAW and good ASW.

also how much better than the type 23 with the sonar upgrade
ASW-wise, honestly, once both ships have towed linear passive arrays capable of very low frequency, plus the usual VDS active/passive and the active hull sonar, plus 2 ASW helos, plus the usual embarked torpedoes, well, it becomes really tough to compare those ships ;)

AAW : the RN is with France and Italy on Aster 15/30, so I don't see them warming to ESSM (inferior to Aster 15 in range) and SM2 (better range than Aster 30 but needs illuminators while Aster doesn't). Too much of a costly duplication.

cheers
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
is that such a problem we have two AAW missiles anyway i know one short range and the other is long range. but wouldn't the MK47 lanchers be usful so the could hold tomakhawks as well as harpoon and the standered loadout of ESSMs and SM-2s. i know it would be new logistical berden but it would add new flexablitiy to the RN fleet.


also new news on the CVF it is comming

Yahoo Babel Fish text translate:26/10/2006

The program of the three Franco-British aircraft carriers, designed in co-
operation between the two countries, seem to want to pass at the higher speed, expiries political oblige. Tomorrow, the Anglo-Saxon industrialists and the ministry for British Defense must cross the "Hand gate", the equivalent of the file of launching and realization (DLR), opening the way with a ordering of the HMS Queen Elisabeth and Prince of semi-2007 Wales. During this time, in France, the second aircraft carrier advances, him too. After the signature, September 25, contract for the detailed studies of definition, that we revealed you later two days, DCN and Thales must present before the end of December an engaging offer to the General Delegation for Armament (DGA). The three months separating these two stakes are devoted to refine the budget necessary to the realization of the new aircraft carrier, whose cost is always estimated at more than 2 billion euros. Since the signature of the cooperation agreement between Paris and London, the Memorandum of Understanding (SOFT), last at the beginning of March, the teams of MOPA2, common company of DCN and Thales in load of the program, received the British plans and studies gradually (1400 documents). These documents, screen, made it possible to confirm that France could use the British design for its own ship, with the help of some adaptations.

The English adopt French dimensions

These last months, an intensive work was undertaken between Paris and Bristol, where are gathered the British industrialists and where about fifteen French work permanently. Tricolour side, one estimates that the discussions profitable, are facilitated by the British interest for the expertise of DCN as regards aircraft carrier, a type of ship that Great Britain did not realize since the Fifties. If, initially, the version on takeoff court of the F 35 is planned for Fleet Air ARM, Royal Navy plans, thereafter, to be able to install catapults on its ships. This question is all the more crucial as the program Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) knows large turbulences and the threats of an abandonment of version ADAC/ADAV are still not completely isolated. However, it seems that initially, the English industrialists did not envisage sufficient place for the catapults and the associated machinery. In September, Aircraft Carrier Alliance thus lined up with the French proposals on dimensions of the flight deck, a factor dimensioning for the catapult-launched planes. On their side, the British launched, in July, 13 consultations relating to subsets. This equipment, not yet selected, relates to the propulsion and the systems of platform (electric elevators, hoists, devices, tackle of dampings, winches, capstans...) Proof that work in co-operation starts to bear its fruits, Bristol accepted, within the framework of the procedure of joint acquisitions, to include, at the request of the French, the suppliers not envisaged in the beginning. The objective of the co-operation remains, obviously, to limit the total cost of the aircraft carriers by preserving, to the maximum, the community of design. The purchase of common equipment and possible similar programs of maintenance will come to amplify this step. This summer, at the time of the review of design with the DGA and the navy, DCN and Thales estimated that the French building (CVF-FR or Pa 2) could be common to a little more than 80% with his/her English cousins (Carrier Vessels Future - CVF). The ministry for Defense wished, nevertheless, that the two groups do better and approach the 90%, which would be E passes to be obtained.

The question of the armament and the propulsion

With the wire of the studies, the future aircraft carrier took weight, passing from 65.000 to 74.000 tons, that is to say 32.000 tons more than the Charles of Gaulle for a higher length of 22 meters. The surface of the flight deck reaches from now on 15.700 m², against 12.000 m² for the CDG and 8000 m² for the ex-Clemenceau. The difference in size is explained mainly by two great factors. The first lies in the importance of the air group, carried from 24 to 32 Rafale Marine, apparatuses twin-jet aircrafts with nonfolding wings whose replacements are relatively cumbersome. The equipment in helicopters and the planes of guet air (5 NH 90 and 3 E2-C Hawkeye) remains unchanged. The other dimensioning factor remains the propulsion which, contrary to the Charles of Gaulle, will not be nuclear but traditional. Having electric motors of propulsion and two gas turbines for the dash speeds (26 n?uds), the ship must have important fuel compartments, absent on its predecessor. The choice of the type of propulsion is not stopped yet. Aker Yards, DCN Propulsion and the ex-APC (Rolls-Royce group) propose to equip the CVF and CVF-FR with two pods and a line of trees. This formula had already been retained for the five steamers of the class Voyageur of the Seas (138.300 barrels), delivered by Aker Finnyards (ex-Kvaerner) between 1999 and 2003. This system offers the advantage of improving the maneuverability of the ships considerably and of reducing the vulnerability of the propelling apparatus. Moreover, one new generation of pods, more economic, is proposed. These nacelles, which have a propeller in conduit, directed towards the back, would offer a better output, about 10%: "the boat can go more quickly with less propelling power and, with the pods, one gains place", explains an engineer. The Masters of?uvres are not, however, very receptive with these arguments "the problem, it is that this system is not qualified", affirms a close relation of the file, while adding: "It is not rejected. If the British go there, one will go can be ". In addition to the propulsion, French and British discuss also much on the armament, whereas Royal Navy leaned for a self-defence of lightest. A few months ago still, only a launcher Sylver (8 missiles Aster 15) was to be embarked and no chaff launcher was considered initially, although spaces are envisaged. Light better from now on is noted with, in particular, two launchers Sylver (16 missiles), which remains always twice less important than the armament of the Charles of Gaulle. Since the cold war, time when this ship was designed, it should be said that the threat has, it also, evolved/moved.

An order before the presidential one of 2007?

The principal asset and the principal threat of this program reside in the political factor. Carried by Jacques Chirac, who put a term at the will of DCN to build a derivative of the Charles of Gaulle while choosing the traditional propulsion in 2004, opening the way with the co-operation, the second aircraft carrier could make the expenses of future budgetary restrictions or a change of governmental course as regards defense. Accordingly, the presidential election of May 2007 will be determining. For Michele Alliot-Marie: "It will be difficult to stop a co-operation full and whole which functions perfectly under the impulse of a will shared by France and the United Kingdom" (*). And the minister of Defense to insert the nail: "the very significant amount of commitment appropriation envisaged in programming of finance law 2007, is 700 M?, illustrate well that the decision of launching the realization of the PA2 is a firm decision, final, on which we invest ". Yesterday, to Euronaval, Michele Alliot-Marie added that it wished to make the program "irreversible" and called the industrialists with "a mobilization with the height of the strategic importance of this file". The majority of the potential candidates to the supreme nomination not seeming to have a taste as pronounced for this project as the current Head of the State, the program enter, gradually, in a phase of "security". In this step, the weight of already committed budgets will be determining. In more of the contracts of studies signed with DCN in December 2004 (16 M?) and December 2005 (19.6 M?), it is necessary from now on to add the invoice of September 25. If the amount of this contract were still not revealed, it would be, according to a source close to the file: "definitely more important than the last contract relay". In same time, pursuant to SLACKNESS, France already poured with British industry 45 million euros in March and 35 million euros this summer (right of access to the studies). Does the cooperation agreement envisage, moreover, a third envelope of 65 M? if the program is notified, which could finally intervene before the presidential one, for example at the time one to summon European in March or April. Lastly, Paris would currently be in negotiation with the United States for the ordering of certain equipment very expensive and long to manufacture, as the catapults. In the event of abandonment of Pa 2, the note will thus be salted for the taxpayer and door of consequences for Europe of Defense. According to the specialists, the British government maintenance him also this program under the shield of the European co-operation. From where this comment of an industrialist: "They will be three aircraft carriers or nothing".
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version Name: CVF-1.jpg Views: 36 Size: 23.7 KB
Reply With Quote


thats a lot of info but the CVF is now at 74.000 tonnes
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
Any one heard anythig about CVF's passing MainGate2? this was meant to be due yesterday.
No, it was rumoured to be happening yesterday. There was an article on the French Navy's site saying main gate would be approved today, but again that is unconfirmed.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #155
New Delays In The Cvf Future British Carrier Project

read www.beedall.com as you can see in the article of the telegraph a new delay for the main gate aproval, british m.o.d. and builders they don,t agree with the cost of building.
 

contedicavour

New Member
read www.beedall.com as you can see in the article of the telegraph a new delay for the main gate aproval, british m.o.d. and builders they don,t agree with the cost of building.
Only comment to that article : :shudder
How on Earth could it be acceptable that the RN ends up with only 6 Type 45 and 10 FSC to replace 17 FFGs of T22B3 and T23 ?
Regarding the Queen Elizabeth CVs, don't worry, they will materialize sooner or later, too much political capital has been staked on them, especially over here in France. The French have 700 million euro earmarked for carrier acquisition in the 2007 budget.

cheers
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
The cost dispute is only £100 million now, because the builders agreed to accept £3.6 billion if there are no additional savings. What probably happened was that both sides got too proud and wouldn't negotiate any further, expecting the other side to give in. They didn't realise the other would be like that, so they're probably feeling rather sheepish.

If the government quibbles over such a trivial (it is trivial for them) sum of money, it will cost it MORE to reactive the project later on if it now fails. So they should just swallow their pride and make sure it goes through later on in the month. That said the builders had better be careful and accept a reasonable comprimise - otherwise there will be no money for them at all!
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
you know what i think the RN going for a 2 teir force with old t22 and T42 take the showing the flag and anti pirarat dutys because the Last the t42 isn't going till at the earliyst of 2018 and no other immeanet reterment of other classes

and the t45 and the new frigert class for the Anfib and carrier escorts

i alos think beedle no nothing is permnantly pannincing over nothing and has been wrong before. in my opinion he is nothing nore than a doom sayer
 

rickusn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
2018?

I believe your mistaken either that or my source the RN is:

"Ship/ Planned decommissioning date
Type 42 Batch 2 destroyers:
HMS Exeter 2009 HMS Southampton 2010 HMS Nottingham 2012 HMS Liverpool 2009
Type 42 Batch 3 destroyers: HMS Manchester 2011 HMS Gloucester 2011 HMS Edinburgh 2013 HMS York 2012 "

[ Admin. text deleted. ]

As for Richard Beedall hes much respected.

Your disparagement of him is way out of line.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

McZosch

New Member
you know what i think the RN going for a 2 teir force with old t22 and T42 take the showing the flag and anti pirarat dutys because the Last the t42 isn't going till at the earliyst of 2018 and no other immeanet reterment of other classes

and the t45 and the new frigert class for the Anfib and carrier escorts

i alos think beedle no nothing is permnantly pannincing over nothing and has been wrong before. in my opinion he is nothing nore than a doom sayer
Some sort of oxford english:confused:
 
Top