2nd MN CV status

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 770

Anyone know the current status of the French Navy's plan for a second CV?

Original post

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 241

yep its being built strait after the Queen elizabeth. :diablo:

Member for

16 years 3 months

Posts: 630

Not going to happen

In May 2008, Sarkozy said that he would decide on PA2 in 2011-2012.

... everyone laughed because the presidential election is in May 2012 and no outgoing government would take such a decision (or it would be reversed by the new government).

In August 2010, the Defense Minister swore that there was a very set timetable and that the decision would be taken in 2012. He also swore that the timing had nothing to do with the elections but was based on the timing of CdG's next refit.

... everyone laughed, because you can't design, order, build and work-up a carrier in 4.5 years (CdG will enter refit in early 2017 at the latest).

Two months later, the same defense minister said the decision would be made in late 2012/early 2013.

...but by that time it was too predictable to be funny. In 2013, you can fully expect the next government to delay PA2 for another 5 years because "there's no point in ordering PA2 now since it won't be available for CdG's refit"

Member for

13 years 7 months

Posts: 507

Basically like CDG before it the program has got stuck in Limbo with the French 5 yr defence budget cycle. Whilst the Economy is still recovering it will probably be put back another 5 years when the review next comes next year or so, no doubt to assess what the actual status of the UK's CVF will be at that point, and what the workload is like for the French shipyards as they are currently doing the FREMM & will be starting the Russian Mistral soon.

Member for

18 years 3 months

Posts: 5,267

I think PA2 would be happening now if the UK had played ball a few years back. When the French purchased access to the design they were looking to participate in the CVF build. They had realised that they were not going to persuade the UK to build CVF in France so they were looking at a proportion of the super block construction. They were looking to build one or two of the super blocks for each ship in a French yard with final assembly of QE and PoW in a Britain and final assembly of PA2 in France. It might well of reduced costs through economies of scale and the French hoped they UK might be attracted by getting super block and systems work for PA2, they even sweetened the deal by selecting the Rolls Royce MT30 over the French navies preferred solution of the LM2500.

When the UK didn't bite the CVF based PA2 started to die a slow death as the French navy started to push for their ideal solution and DCN started move in a different direction design wise. Finally with general political dithering its gone into limbo. Nevertheless I bet the French navy were pleased when the UK decided to switch to CATOBAR for the QE class.

Member for

13 years 9 months

Posts: 272

Well a French Admiral suggests the 2nd CVF should be shared. PA2 problem solved! ;)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8556054/We-should-share-aircraft-carrier-say-French.html

Adml Forissier said: “If we have the necessary budget it would be useful to each have a national carrier then have an extra carrier — not as expensive and for training uses — for UK and French use.

“It would be useful to have a carrier in Europe for training pilots, otherwise we would need two carriers on both sides and I do not think this is economically feasible.”

Member for

16 years 2 months

Posts: 475

Will never happen, I don't think any government could survive the backlash.

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 172

Absurd.

Member for

17 years 5 months

Posts: 519

French interest can be useful to leverage away any nonsensical talk of selling the second carrier, but the reality is more likely we will commission both in due course anyway, after a change of government between now and then...;)

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 770

French interest can be useful to leverage away any nonsensical talk of selling the second carrier, but the reality is more likely we will commission both in due course anyway, after a change of government between now and then...;)

And a needed big increase in budget.

Member for

13 years 3 months

Posts: 87

French interest can be useful to leverage away any nonsensical talk of selling the second carrier, but the reality is more likely we will commission both in due course anyway, after a change of government between now and then...;)

Yep, a majority Tory government after the next election will probably find the money to commission both! ;)

And as it was Labour who were responsible for the utter mismanagement of projects like FRES, MRA4, St Athan and for not boosting the defence budget to cope with the pressures of two wars that resulted in the £36 billion overspend that made severe cuts inevitable, I'm sure you'll understand why Im not particularly keen at the idea if them getting back in!

Member for

15 years 7 months

Posts: 1,533

Yep, a majority Tory government after the next election will probably find the money to commission both! ;)

And as it was Labour who were responsible for the utter mismanagement of projects like FRES, MRA4, St Athan and for not boosting the defence budget to cope with the pressures of two wars that resulted in the £36 billion overspend that made severe cuts inevitable, I'm sure you'll understand why Im not particularly keen at the idea if them getting back in!

And it was the tories who stuffed up the defence budget post cold war, which included postponing replacement of the SSN fleet causing problems in the Astute programme and stuffing up the MRA4 contract by ensuring they would be rebuilds.

Let's be honest, labour and conservative have been stuffing up defence expenditure/planing etc for decades, no one party is any worse than the other, they are both equally as bad as each other.

Member for

13 years 3 months

Posts: 87

And it was the tories who stuffed up the defence budget post cold war, which included postponing replacement of the SSN fleet causing problems in the Astute programme and stuffing up the MRA4 contract by ensuring they would be rebuilds.

Let's be honest, labour and conservative have been stuffing up defence expenditure/planing etc for decades, no one party is any worse than the other, they are both equally as bad as each other.

Agreed theyve both been clueless, as for the current lot, I'll judge them properly in 5-10 years if they get both CVD's into service and if the institutional changes that Fox is introducing at the MoD puts an end to the debacles listed above.

Member for

15 years 9 months

Posts: 1,025

Both Cardiovascular Diseases in service...I assume you are saying you'll judge them badly if that occurs right?

When do they project getting back into a surplus and by how much?

Member for

15 years 8 months

Posts: 1,320

I think there will be a lot of collaboration, but no joint crewing or sharing, too problematic.

I think PA2 would be happening now if the UK had played ball a few years back. When the French purchased access to the design they were looking to participate in the CVF build. They had realised that they were not going to persuade the UK to build CVF in France so they were looking at a proportion of the super block construction. They were looking to build one or two of the super blocks for each ship in a French yard with final assembly of QE and PoW in a Britain and final assembly of PA2 in France. It might well of reduced costs through economies of scale and the French hoped they UK might be attracted by getting super block and systems work for PA2, they even sweetened the deal by selecting the Rolls Royce MT30 over the French navies preferred solution of the LM2500.

When the UK didn't bite the CVF based PA2 started to die a slow death as the French navy started to push for their ideal solution and DCN started move in a different direction design wise. Finally with general political dithering its gone into limbo. Nevertheless I bet the French navy were pleased when the UK decided to switch to CATOBAR for the QE class.

Looked more like an attempt to flog Rafales to the UK and hoover up carrier workshare than a genuine desire to collaborate on CVF to me.

And a needed big increase in budget.

Not really. The budget is fine. They just spend it really badly. Put another 10 billion in and the bureaucrats will just p1ss it away on cr@p as usual.

Yep, a majority Tory government after the next election will probably find the money to commission both! ;)

And as it was Labour who were responsible for the utter mismanagement of projects like FRES, MRA4, St Athan and for not boosting the defence budget to cope with the pressures of two wars that resulted in the £36 billion overspend that made severe cuts inevitable, I'm sure you'll understand why Im not particularly keen at the idea if them getting back in!

No they won't. Neither are interested in defence spending. Labour will spend big on healthcare, social protections like unemployment benefit and housing benefit, and a big civil service to artificially lower unemployment figures amongst those that bother to vote. Tory's want small government and big economic growth.

Member for

14 years 9 months

Posts: 10

The way too solve this is to set the defence budget at 3% and set it into law like they intend to with the DFID budeget. well we can live in hope can't we

Member for

15 years 8 months

Posts: 1,320

The way too solve this is to set the defence budget at 3% and set it into law like they intend to with the DFID budeget. well we can live in hope can't we

Violates a fundamental principle of our government: No government can bind its successor. It is also not enough of a vote winner to get 3%! There are more votes to be had in spending the 3% giving jobs in bureucracy (doing nothing at a desk) to people who would vote.

Member for

14 years 6 months

Posts: 517

The way too solve this is to set the defence budget at 3% and set it into law like they intend to with the DFID budeget. well we can live in hope can't we

Why 3%, when the NATO average is less than 2% (when you exclude the US)?

Member for

13 years 8 months

Posts: 311

Because 2% isn't enough?