The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
I've read about similar rumours concerning the mothballing of the 2 Type 42s and the 4 remaining Broadsword Batch 3. Hence the reduction from 25 to 19.
However they are still just rumours. Indeed the very fact HMS Cornwall in on deployment in the Gulf suggests there are no plans to carry out such reduction in fleet numbers at the moment. It may well just have been a bit of scaremongering to put pressure on the government.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #342
in my opinion these are the probabilities of the cvf future carrier project in percent

cancellation total of the project - 20 %
construction of only 1 carrier with the present size and design - 30 %
construction of 2 carriers but downsized - 20 %
construction of the 2 carriers with the present size and design - 30 %

of course this is like a kind of game you never know but these are my predictions. greetings.
 

fredrick

New Member
Hi, ive been looking for information on 21st century naval vessles, and at the moment i am focused on carriers,
can someone explain the advantages of the possible CVF HMS Queen Elizabeth over the american u.s.s. gerald r. ford.

according to wiki data, the Queen Elizabeth will be a quite striking, and allow us to project as much power as the americans. I would also like to know how many of these the RN will build.
 

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Hi, ive been looking for information on 21st century naval vessles, and at the moment i am focused on carriers,
can someone explain the advantages of the possible CVF HMS Queen Elizabeth over the american u.s.s. gerald r. ford.

according to wiki data, the Queen Elizabeth will be a quite striking, and allow us to project as much power as the americans. I would also like to know how many of these the RN will build.
Sorry to state the obvious here Fredrick, but if you take the time to read all 23 pages, you'll figure out that the RN intends to build a total of 2.

A possible 3rd ship / hull may be constructed to similar design standards, but with different equipment fit, if the French decided that they wish to join in & have one too....


Hope this helps

Systems Adict
 

contedicavour

New Member
in my opinion these are the probabilities of the cvf future carrier project in percent

cancellation total of the project - 20 %
construction of only 1 carrier with the present size and design - 30 %
construction of 2 carriers but downsized - 20 %
construction of the 2 carriers with the present size and design - 30 %

of course this is like a kind of game you never know but these are my predictions. greetings.
At this stage of the programme, I doubt the UK or French govt would be ready to pour in more R&D money on an expensive redesign (required for downsizing). IMHO the carriers will either be built as they are designed, or not at all. If the whole programme collapsed (highly unlikely), then inevitably France would have to build a 2nd De Gaulle (unless the left wins the coming presidential elections) and the RN would focus on STOVL CVLs to replace the Invincibles.

cheers
 

Big-E

Banned Member
If the whole programme collapsed (highly unlikely), then inevitably France would have to build a 2nd De Gaulle
I don't think the French Navy ever wants to see a second ship of that class. You only build follow ons to a succesfull program and the De Gaulle was anything but.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
I don't think the French Navy ever wants to see a second ship of that class. You only build follow ons to a succesfull program and the De Gaulle was anything but.
Hi Big E. Good to see you are able to get an opportunity to post on the forum.

What are the short comings with De Gaulle?

Cheers
 

fredrick

New Member
Sorry to state the obvious here Fredrick, but if you take the time to read all 23 pages, you'll figure out that the RN intends to build a total of 2.

A possible 3rd ship / hull may be constructed to similar design standards, but with different equipment fit, if the French decided that they wish to join in & have one too....


Hope this helps

Systems Adict
it does thank you
 

contedicavour

New Member
I don't think the French Navy ever wants to see a second ship of that class. You only build follow ons to a succesfull program and the De Gaulle was anything but.
Hello good to hear from you.
The De Gaulle had its bunch of teething problems starting with the propeller and the length of the flight deck in order to operate E2C. However it is now a good CVN with a max complement of 40 Rafale/Super Etendard. DCN is ready tomorrow morning to restart the De Gaulle programme for a 2nd ship with all the learnings from the 1st one.
The only reason why the French are going for the British-French design is that its would be cheaper because of economies of scale, because of no nuclear reactor, and that it would be much bigger than the De Gaulle.

cheers
 

fredrick

New Member
Hello good to hear from you.
The De Gaulle had its bunch of teething problems starting with the propeller and the length of the flight deck in order to operate E2C. However it is now a good CVN with a max complement of 40 Rafale/Super Etendard. DCN is ready tomorrow morning to restart the De Gaulle programme for a 2nd ship with all the learnings from the 1st one.
The only reason why the French are going for the British-French design is that its would be cheaper because of economies of scale, because of no nuclear reactor, and that it would be much bigger than the De Gaulle.

cheers
why wont the new carriers be nucleared powered? i just read on an old news article that the ford class carriers will have 2 A1B reactors
 

mark22w

New Member
Hello good to hear from you.
The De Gaulle had its bunch of teething problems starting with the propeller and the length of the flight deck in order to operate E2C. However it is now a good CVN with a max complement of 40 Rafale/Super Etendard. DCN is ready tomorrow morning to restart the De Gaulle programme for a 2nd ship with all the learnings from the 1st one.
The only reason why the French are going for the British-French design is that its would be cheaper because of economies of scale, because of no nuclear reactor, and that it would be much bigger than the De Gaulle.

cheers
Cheaper AND bigger sounds just the ticket; a second CDG class IMO is most unlikely. The question might be which country will commission their CVF first?
 

Big-E

Banned Member
Hello good to hear from you.
The De Gaulle had its bunch of teething problems starting with the propeller and the length of the flight deck in order to operate E2C. However it is now a good CVN with a max complement of 40 Rafale/Super Etendard. DCN is ready tomorrow morning to restart the De Gaulle programme for a 2nd ship with all the learnings from the 1st one.
The only reason why the French are going for the British-French design is that its would be cheaper because of economies of scale, because of no nuclear reactor, and that it would be much bigger than the De Gaulle.

cheers
I have read many French defense analysts wanting to put this class to bed. It has left a very bad taste in the mouths of the French people. I'm sure DCN is ready to do anything that will get them more orders. But as President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing described it as only "half an aircraft-carrier" the people see it as a national disaster. Public perception can be the deathnell of any defense project. Have you seen anything in the Parisian papers to suggest they are going to build a follow on to this class?
 

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
...The only thing I've seen IWO anything to do with the French Carriers, was a press release earlier this year that stated that Thales had approached the French Gov't. (along with the DCN Shipyard??), offering to build a Thales designed Carrier for them (believe this to be one of the build models that was originally suggested & was then rejected for the UK carriers).

It was thrown out point blank, as the article indicated that the UK design & the ability to utilise the UK build program to help reign in costs would be more beneficial, as it's a bit further down the road.

Down side of all this is I can't remember which newspaper / publication the article came from, so can't quote the source.

Systems Adict
 

rickusn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Merger of BAE and VT still in dry dock
David Robertson, Business Correspondent

The £1 billion merger of BAE Systems and VT Group’s shipbuilding assets has become a victim of politics and is likely to be delayed by several months, The Times has learnt.

The creation of a single UK shipbuilder is being tied to an order by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for two aircraft carriers, each worth about £2 billion. The MoD had hoped to announce both deals last week but BAE and VT had not completed negotiations on the merger.

Having missed that deadline, the announcement likely will have to wait until at least mid-May because of domestic politics. The House of Commons is in recess for Easter and then the Government goes into “purdah” until after the local and Scottish elections on May 3. Before the elections the Government is barred from making announcements that could be perceived as generating political advantage.

Sources close to the Government have said that the carrier launch may be delayed until June or July to allow Gordon Brown to make the announcement as Prime Minister. Assuming that he succeeds Tony Blair, he is expected to start his tenure at 10 Downing Street with a string of high-profile announcements. The warships, to be commissioned HMS Queen Elizabeth II and HMS Prince of Wales, will become the flagships around which the Royal Navy will be built, and Mr Brown may regard this as sufficiently important.

BAE and VT could, theoretically, announce their merger to the Stock Exchange when they complete the contract, but the MoD is understood to want to link the merger with the announcement about the carriers.

The MoD advocates a single shipbuilder because it is concerned that once the present round of Royal Navy orders ends there will be few military orders for many years. This would force British yards to seek export orders overseas, and the Government believes that a single shipyard is better placed to deal with this circumstance.

BAE and VT have been head-to-head competitors. The merged entity will include VT’s yard at Portsmouth and those of BAE at Scotstoun and Govan. It will take in a joint venture between the companies, called Fleet Support, which provides maintanance facilities. BAE is expected to own 55 per cent of the venture and VT the balance.

Trinidad deal

VT Group has won a £155 million contract from Trinidad and Tobago to supply three offshore patrol vessels, it emerged last night. The deal, signed yesterday in Port of Spain, is the largest military contract by Trinidad and is the latest success for VT this year, after a £450 million order for a consignment of patrol vessels to Oman in January.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
Good news on the VT deal being confirmed.

As to the carriers, interesting - the Times is alleging a delay on an announcement was due to BAE and VT not getting things ready in time? I thought it was because the government would have looked bad for announcing such important news with the Iranian episode.
 

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Merger of BAE and VT still in dry dock
David Robertson, Business Correspondent

The creation of a single UK shipbuilder is being tied to an order by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for two aircraft carriers, each worth about £2 billion. The MoD had hoped to announce both deals last week but BAE and VT had not completed negotiations on the merger.
In fairness to both BAE & VT, it should be noted that the UK Gov't. have held this over both their heads, insisting that this merger happens before the order is placed.

This added to the haggling over the contract price (actually arguing over a "mere" £200M - £350M reduction in a £2.5 Billion contract!), have only added to delay to the start date, which will in turn affect the in-service date.

As usual the UK media are blaming the contractors, rather than placing the blame on both the RN, for changing spec. & the UK Gov't. for the points mentioned above.


Systems Adict.
 

rickusn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
"I thought it was because the government would have looked bad for announcing such important news with the Iranian episode."

Actually IMHO it would have been a good thing. But what do I know? LOL
 

contedicavour

New Member
I have read many French defense analysts wanting to put this class to bed. It has left a very bad taste in the mouths of the French people. I'm sure DCN is ready to do anything that will get them more orders. But as President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing described it as only "half an aircraft-carrier" the people see it as a national disaster. Public perception can be the deathnell of any defense project. Have you seen anything in the Parisian papers to suggest they are going to build a follow on to this class?
Actually yes, the most likely winner of the Presidential elections (Sarkozy) has clearly stated that a 2nd carrier will be built fullstop. In the unlikely event that the UK were to drop out of this joint programme, then an improved De Gaulle would be the preferred choice.
All that you are writing is true, but it is also old. Nowadays the French are happy to see the fleet in the Indian Ocean with the De Gaulle as its flagship. The improvement in the public perception is also due to the fact that the Rafales are gradually becoming multi-role and appear very often on TV.

cheers
 

contedicavour

New Member
...The only thing I've seen IWO anything to do with the French Carriers, was a press release earlier this year that stated that Thales had approached the French Gov't. (along with the DCN Shipyard??), offering to build a Thales designed Carrier for them (believe this to be one of the build models that was originally suggested & was then rejected for the UK carriers).

It was thrown out point blank, as the article indicated that the UK design & the ability to utilise the UK build program to help reign in costs would be more beneficial, as it's a bit further down the road.

Down side of all this is I can't remember which newspaper / publication the article came from, so can't quote the source.

Systems Adict
Yes you're right the event you're describing has indeed happened.
Though as I stated in the post above, the whole programme would be revived if the British pulled out (which is very unlikely, I know, but just in case)

cheers
 
Top