Sharing an aircraft carrier with the French?
Sharing an aircraft carrier with the French?
Author
Discussion

Puggit

Original Poster:

49,820 posts

278 months

Tuesday 31st August 2010
quotequote all
Sky News

It might seem sensible to the accountants, but past history proves that we cannot rely on the French in matters of foreign policy.

Gwyn Prins - a research professor at the London School of Economics said:
At first glance it may seem sensible to pool aircraft carriers with the French.

But a moment's reflection in the light of past history and of modern geopolitics shows why that is unwise.
Spot on!

DSM2

3,624 posts

230 months

Tuesday 31st August 2010
quotequote all
Puggit said:
Sky News

It might seem sensible to the accountants, but past history proves that we cannot rely on the French in matters of foreign policy.

Gwyn Prins - a research professor at the London School of Economics said:
At first glance it may seem sensible to pool aircraft carriers with the French.

But a moment's reflection in the light of past history and of modern geopolitics shows why that is unwise.
Spot on!
........or when fighting. How does one surrender a Carrier?

rhinochopig

17,932 posts

228 months

Tuesday 31st August 2010
quotequote all
Great idea - The French have plumbed in wine. We don't - I know which I'd rather serve on drinkdrunk

Elroy Blue

8,841 posts

222 months

Tuesday 31st August 2010
quotequote all
Frenchman- "We'll share your carrier (you can have it when we say so) and you have to buy Rafale to go on it as well". Got to have compatability you see!!!!!!!!

The Armed Forces are going to be devastated in the SDR. Anybody want to but some nice multi-billion pound scrap metal, going cheap (otherwise known as Nimrod MR4a)

telecat

8,528 posts

271 months

Tuesday 31st August 2010
quotequote all
Given how often the French Carrier has been "unavailable" I'd be wary of using it. I can see the French building a Queen Elizabeth Class as the cost benefits for both the Royal and French Navies would be worth having. Sharing, given the different political positions the French take could be more than awkward.

AshVX220

5,965 posts

220 months

Tuesday 31st August 2010
quotequote all
telecat said:
Given how often the French Carrier has been "unavailable" I'd be wary of using it. I can see the French building a Queen Elizabeth Class as the cost benefits for both the Royal and French Navies would be worth having. Sharing, given the different political positions the French take could be more than awkward.
That was the original idea I think when the governemnt gave the contract jointly to BAE and Thales. That 3 ships would be built, one for the french two for us. So both nations would have 2 ships each. The french one being conventional from the outset.

Also, to address doogz point, the cats and traps have been designed into the ships already, two designs are in place for STOVL or CV variant. To update the CV variant it wouldn't be a complete nightmare as most of the work's been done.

I do see these ships going CV, I think JCA will get canned at SDR and we'll buy up a load of F-18's. I also see ships like Oceans replacement being canned before the QEC.

IMHO this is just typical media banging on about stuff of which they know absolutely nothing. In the hope that they can affect public opinion and therefore effect policy.

I would believe a word of it.

Busa_Rush

6,930 posts

281 months

Tuesday 31st August 2010
quotequote all
We'd need to install some soap dishes in the showers . . . laugh

AshVX220

5,965 posts

220 months

Tuesday 31st August 2010
quotequote all
doogz said:
AshVX220 said:
Also, to address doogz point, the cats and traps have been designed into the ships already, two designs are in place for STOVL or CV variant. To update the CV variant it wouldn't be a complete nightmare as most of the work's been done.
No they haven't. There is provision to add them, i.e. there are vacant space grabs to retro-fit them if they choose, but atm the boiler spaces are lying empty, with no equipment specified and no mounting arrangement, and a few other compartments would need to be relocated to allow the flight deck catapult and arrestor wire mounts to be fitted.

It wouldn't be as bad as if they hadn't thought about it at all, but it certainly isn't a little job.
Indeed, but what I was trying to say was that it won't require a massive physical re-design in order to accomodate them.

AshVX220

5,965 posts

220 months

Tuesday 31st August 2010
quotequote all
doogz said:
AshVX220 said:
doogz said:
AshVX220 said:
Also, to address doogz point, the cats and traps have been designed into the ships already, two designs are in place for STOVL or CV variant. To update the CV variant it wouldn't be a complete nightmare as most of the work's been done.
No they haven't. There is provision to add them, i.e. there are vacant space grabs to retro-fit them if they choose, but atm the boiler spaces are lying empty, with no equipment specified and no mounting arrangement, and a few other compartments would need to be relocated to allow the flight deck catapult and arrestor wire mounts to be fitted.

It wouldn't be as bad as if they hadn't thought about it at all, but it certainly isn't a little job.
Indeed, but what I was trying to say was that it won't require a massive physical re-design in order to accomodate them.
It'd be a lot more work than you think. Seriously, quite a lot of structural and piping re-work and relocation.
Ah, I thought all that had already been done, I thought it was just an integration/setting to work issue, I thought placement of stuff had been done.

Pesty

42,655 posts

286 months

Tuesday 31st August 2010
quotequote all
Busa_Rush said:
We'd need to install some soap dishes in the showers . . . laugh
laugh


Puggit

Original Poster:

49,820 posts

278 months

Tuesday 31st August 2010
quotequote all
Pesty said:
Busa_Rush said:
We'd need to install some soap dishes in the showers . . . laugh
laugh
We'd need to install some showers first...

Beardy10

25,408 posts

205 months

Tuesday 31st August 2010
quotequote all
Can't see how this would ever work in practice....the French have only just gone back into NATO after 40 years.

badgers_back

513 posts

216 months

Tuesday 31st August 2010
quotequote all
ahhh so the second big ears gets renamed

Can't see the french wanting boat with that name

Sheets Tabuer

21,471 posts

245 months

Tuesday 31st August 2010
quotequote all
Stupid idea, can you imagine if Iraq happened all over again, would the French tell us we couldn't use them?

Still I suppose it reduces the chances of them selling missiles to anyone who may want to sink them.

JCB123

2,265 posts

226 months

Tuesday 31st August 2010
quotequote all
Can't see the problem....half the carrier paid for and they'd never use it?!

dnb

3,330 posts

272 months

Tuesday 31st August 2010
quotequote all
It's a hugely misguided idea thought up by the terminally insane.

Based on my (admittedly limited to 10 years) experience in the defence industry, it will cost at least twice what it would cost to tell the French to sod off and get on with it ourselves. Just do a search for "Aster missiles" and have a look how much time has been lost in getting the Type 45 in service just because of them. (Guess who makes Aster...)

The French will demand lots of the work to build and fit out the QE carriers, and our lot are stupid enough to give up the crown jewels to let them, meaning a net loss to GB when the remainder of our defence industry can't export stuff because of the (fairly sensible) atitude of "If your own government won't buy it, then why should we?"

Meanwhile, French defence companies clean up on exports.


fadeaway

1,463 posts

256 months

Tuesday 31st August 2010
quotequote all
Sheets Tabuer said:
Still I suppose it reduces the chances of them selling missiles to anyone who may want to sink them.
You've found the one good argument for the idea!

rofl

Jasandjules

72,622 posts

259 months

Tuesday 31st August 2010
quotequote all
DSM2 said:
........or when fighting. How does one surrender a Carrier?
More properly, how does one surrender half a Carrier?

51mes

1,557 posts

230 months

Tuesday 31st August 2010
quotequote all
AshVX220 said:
doogz said:
AshVX220 said:
doogz said:
AshVX220 said:
Also, to address doogz point, the cats and traps have been designed into the ships already, two designs are in place for STOVL or CV variant. To update the CV variant it wouldn't be a complete nightmare as most of the work's been done.
No they haven't. There is provision to add them, i.e. there are vacant space grabs to retro-fit them if they choose, but atm the boiler spaces are lying empty, with no equipment specified and no mounting arrangement, and a few other compartments would need to be relocated to allow the flight deck catapult and arrestor wire mounts to be fitted.

It wouldn't be as bad as if they hadn't thought about it at all, but it certainly isn't a little job.
Indeed, but what I was trying to say was that it won't require a massive physical re-design in order to accomodate them.
It'd be a lot more work than you think. Seriously, quite a lot of structural and piping re-work and relocation.
Ah, I thought all that had already been done, I thought it was just an integration/setting to work issue, I thought placement of stuff had been done.
I thought the intention was to use th enew electromag catapults the yanks are looking at for the ronald regan as the QE's are electric ships this would be a much easier retrofit no horrible steam piping running to the wrong end of the ship etc. Also it's much easier to vary the profile of the launch reducing the stress on airframes etc...

Simes

rhinochopig

17,932 posts

228 months

Tuesday 31st August 2010
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
DSM2 said:
........or when fighting. How does one surrender a Carrier?
More properly, how does one surrender half a Carrier?
That's why they opted for a two island design. The Bridge and FLYCO are separate so it is possible.