Article

2003-12-04 Europe

More on the Franco-British Carrier Program

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Patrick Phillips 2003-12-04 9:21:09 AM|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 This story sounds better than the one yesterday that hinted that Britian was going to share carriers with the French. This says that the Brits get two of their own and the French buy a third. Sounds like a good deal for British ship builders.

In other French carrier news:
On Wednesday tug-boats were called in to control the decommissioned aircraft-carrier the Clemenceau, which broke its moorings in the Mediterranean while waiting to be brought to port to be broken up.

Posted by Steve 2003-12-4 9:51:24 AM|| 2003-12-4 9:51:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Maybe French can sell the CDG to Pakistan. The idea of the CDG crossing swords (catapults?) with the Russian rust bucket that India just acquired is to rich. Perhaps they can have a rumble but stay inside their respective ports for safety.

Posted by Shipman 2003-12-4 10:32:21 AM|| 2003-12-4 10:32:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 new name suggested for the De Gaulle:
"Le Clouseau"

Posted by Frank G 2003-12-4 12:46:10 PM|| 2003-12-4 12:46:10 PM|| Front Page Top

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

Like their listening devices so they can sell US down the river?

Posted by Anonymous2U 2003-12-4 12:47:53 PM|| 2003-12-4 12:47:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 I don't think the French interests will stand for it being a Brit-build-French-buy project. There will either be demands for offsets or significant French participation. Either one will drive up the cost, and joint European naval projects have a long history of failure.

Unless the French gov't can sell this, it will probably end up a non-starter.

Posted by Pappy 2003-12-4 1:36:14 PM|| 2003-12-4 1:36:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Pappy,
The deal would probably be France buys UK-built carrier and in return UK buys Rafales instead of F-35s.France desperately needs somebody to buy Rafales or her aircraft industry becomes another huge drain on the government's checkbook.With the UK and France operating Rafales,France could then pitch Rafales as European replacement for F-16s.In the rest of world,China offers cheap,Russia offers the low-end hi-tech,the US offers hi-end-hi-tech and the Eurofighter will soon be offered for Air Defence needs,with a bunch of refurbished/used F-16,F-18,and F-15 types being available in next ten years.

Posted by Stephen 2003-12-4 2:52:22 PM|| 2003-12-4 2:52:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Sounds like their new carrier is just plain "Foch-ed" up.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-12-4 3:08:48 PM|| 2003-12-4 3:08:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 On reflection just how dumb do you have to be to design a flight deck that can't handle a 40 year-old E-2?And how incompetent do you have to be to approve such a design?

Posted by Stephen 2003-12-4 3:43:43 PM|| 2003-12-4 3:43:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 BAR LOL

Stephen: Has anything but high-end high-tech proved cheap and effective in the long-run? I'm thinking of all those Mig-21s and maybe even the Tornado (in the mid-level sense).

Posted by Shipman 2003-12-4 3:45:36 PM|| 2003-12-4 3:45:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Well the British let the new Queen Mary be built in a French yard (Nelson must be spinning in his grave over that one). Has anyone ever really had good combat success with French built aircraft aside from the Israelis. But the galleys are probably first rate though.

Posted by Cheddarhead 2003-12-4 4:04:26 PM|| 2003-12-4 4:04:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Nelson would not be spinning. A fair number of British warships in the 1760 - 1815 time frame were French built, captured at some point by the Brits, and re-flagged. Indeed, French ships were considered to be better built than Brit ships, and they were preferred by most Brit captains.

Posted by Steve White 2003-12-4 4:37:05 PM|| 2003-12-4 4:37:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 French warships have always been technically advanced and capable vessels--and not just in the Napoleonic period. (Just to give three examples from WWII: Richelieu, Fantasque, Surcouf.) The French Navy may have underperformed historically, but it wasn't due to the quality of its ships. The deGaulle appears to have been something of an aberration for them in the quality control department.

Posted by Mike 2003-12-4 5:05:24 PM|| 2003-12-4 5:05:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 The DeGaulle was a politically motivated, politically promoted idea of the central government, rather than something actually requested and promoted from within the French Navy. As a result, it was a political object from the very beginning. We all know how political bureaucracies work - a camel is actually a mouse designed by a bureaucracy.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-12-4 6:41:04 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-12-4 6:41:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Mike

The French Navy didn't underperform, it was outnumbered. If France funded a big navy then the Army had to be left underfunded, that was what Napoleon III did and the result was the defeat in the 1870 war against Prussia. Or it could try to fund both but then the economy suffered so much to cause a revolution, that was what Louis XVI did: his ships were better, officer training was superior than in the British navy and after Gribeauval's reform the French artillery outranged and outpaced the British one. The effort paid in the naval battles who preceeded Yokrtown. But the finacial effort cost Louis XVI his head. And then officers and most NCOs had to flee France letting the French Navy in disarray.

Now a note for perspective.

France has most of her frontiers anchored on the sea, mountains difficult to cross and a wide river (the Rhine). In addition behind the Rhine, there are the Vosges mountains who are difficult to cross when you come from Germany. But in its north-easten frontier the ground is flat, in addition it is the closest one to Paris and there is no obstacle between the border and Paris: no mountain, no major river, no swamp. Nothing.

That is why Napoleon's long term goal was engulfing Belgium (a thing most Belgians favoured, and not only the Wallons) in order to put the North-Eastern border on the Rhine. It wasn't permanent occupation of Germany or other places. But this would have allowed France to reduce her army and concentrate on her navy. So the British funded coalition after coalition against him.

About the "Charles de Gaulle", political interference is probably the reason for many of her problems. I don't know about her but I know about her fighters. The French Navy had asked for the F18, but in order to somewhat amend the industrial disaster than was the Rafale (who was the future Air Force fighter), the Navy was forced to take it and... wait for over fifteen years in order to get a navalized version of it. In the interim the French naval pilots had to cope with obsolete Crusaders who were a joke as fighters and were falling apart (spare parts had to be taken from scrap yards). AFAIK the Rafale is quite superior to the F18 (no merit, it is 10 or 15 years younger) but it is not a _real_ naval airplane so landing it on a carrier is harder and riskier than for the F18. But who cares about the lives of the French pilots and sailors? Not the French politicians.

Posted by JFM 2003-12-4 7:03:01 PM|| 2003-12-4 7:03:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 The deal would probably be France buys UK-built carrier and in return UK buys Rafales instead of F-35s.

That is a probability, Steve. I guess the question is whether the acquisition costs will be the same as the F-35.

Posted by Pappy 2003-12-4 8:46:35 PM|| 2003-12-4 8:46:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 JFM-the French Navy was outfought consistantly from 1750's on.Partly because the British were constantly at sea,building experience,but mostly because of differ tactical doctrines.The British believed warships were designed to fight other ships and in combat fired into the hulls of foes in order to defeat them.The French believed warships were designed to accomplish a task.The French tended to fire into foes rigging in order to prevent foes from interfering with French plans.This translated in reality to British Admirals charging at the French with no other motive in mind than slugging it out.Suffron was about only French Admiral who would seek combat.
Shipman-hi-end hi-tech,like the provebial big battalions is the way to bet,but is not always answer.In WW2 the German ME-262 was the hi-tech fighter of war,but it did little to stop US daylight bombing.The F-4 was far more hi-tech than the F-8,yet in actual combat over Vietnam the F-8 kill ratio was much higher.If a hostile tank company was headed for your home would you rather have an A-10 or a F-117 assigned to stop them?If you are running a typical Third World country,with pilots chosen for political reliability,few hours flown,and a limited technical base,it makes more sense to go with the cheaper Low-end Hi-tech.
Pappy-who knows what actual acquisition costs would be with the variety of offsets offered.The French will make sure announced price of Rafales will be cheaper than F-35.The Rafale does have one advantage-it exists.Who knows when F-35 will enter service.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-12-4 10:17:14 PM|| 2003-12-4 10:17:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 #16 was by me,forgot to type in name.
Stephen

Posted by Stephen 2003-12-4 10:19:04 PM|| 2003-12-4 10:19:04 PM|| Front Page Top

22:15 Anonymous4589
13:48 Anonymous4506
04:52 Anonymous
02:03 BH
00:32 Old Patriot
00:07 Lucky
23:58 Robert Crawford
23:54 Lone Ranger
23:51 Robert Crawford
23:41 Angie Schultz
22:54 tu3031
22:51 tu3031
22:48 Glenn (not Reynolds)
22:46 tu3031
22:43 Anonymous
22:33 Alaska Paul
22:28 Alaska Paul
22:19 tu3031
22:19 Stephen
22:17 Anonymous
22:06 Alaska Paul
22:01 Pete Stanley
21:58 Pete Stanley
21:58 Bomb-a-rama