CVF News

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

18 years 1 month

Posts: 417

I speculate it will be EH101.

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 847

I think it's nice to see Thales and the RN thinking about innovative and fresh solutions to the AEW requirement, but at the same time suspect that whatever the MoD says the Navy would still like the Hawkeye. This is an area that could very well make sense for the UK and France to pursue a joint procurement program as both countries needs the aircraft and requirements will be very similar. Personally, I'd like to see the RN now abandon the STOVL configuration and go CTOL, and pursue a collaborative integration of the catapults and arrestor gear, if you're going to invest 3 billion GBP+ in carriers why argue over the few millions that'd be needed for CTOL? Now the program is a joint venture with regards to the hull design then it makes sense to risk and cost share things like the cats etc.

Member for

18 years 3 months

Posts: 1,039

Beedall has updated his excellent site a little and has a new editorial re the latest CVF machinations. I love the comment about the fact that the whole of WW2 took less time than the RN/UK Govt have taken to decide on whether to build the CVF :eek: :diablo:

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/index.html

Member for

18 years 3 months

Posts: 5,267

Beedall has updated his excellent site a little and has a new editorial re the latest CVF machinations. I love the comment about the fact that the whole of WW2 took less time than the RN/UK Govt have taken to decide on whether to build the CVF :eek: :diablo:

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/index.html

Good old Beedall! I always look forward to one of his updates he always seems to have his finger on the pulse, certainly a person I would love to meet along with Ja Worsley.

Now we are so close to a government anouncement going onto google news and typing "CVF +Aircraft Carrier" in the search box has become a daily ritual.

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 11

But this is very different from standard collaborative arrangements. It's a British programme which the French are paying to join (1/3rd of what's already been spent, in staged payments). Leadership will remain with the UK. There's no workshare argument possible, because there is no workshare agreement. We build ours, they build theirs. They get the right to use the design, & will modify it to suit themselves. That's the deal, & both sides seem happy with it.

AFAIK, if the French change their minds, they can pull out at any time. We keep their money, they keep a copy of everything done up to that point - because they'll have paid for it.

Only scope for a big argument, as far as I can see, is if we change our requirements so that they become incompatible with theirs, & I presume we'll have made promises about that. If they change their requirements so they're no longer compatible with ours, well, that's their problem. They can pull out, as above.

AFAIK the two programmes are independent. French are not joining the british programme, they have their own programme leaded by DCN and Thales.There is a MoU at a political level, which allows french programme to use the CVF design made by Thales. There is a true willingness to stay as much as possible compatible with CVF, but the french navy specifications are pretty differents from the british ones (Rafale, E2C, combat system etc.).

Member for

18 years 4 months

Posts: 107

But it is going to be like the FREMM program.
The French gov will try to be as close as possible to the other's spec in order to match maximum commonality.
And again (like the FREMM) that will be a give-only game from France.

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 847

France should pursue their own program independently, that doesn't exclude using the CVF hull design, but if they go beyond just buying the basic hull design and enter a common program I'm sure they'll regret it. France has the technical skills to do this on their own (hell, it's a French company that made the CVF design!) and their builders are more experienced in large ship construction than British yards. Not to mention companies like Alstom have more than enough expertise for the propulsion package etc. To me any advantages to France in a short term gain with initial hull design will be offset later in arguing with the UK about every little detail if co-operation goes any deeper.
This is not me being a nationalist or anything, both the UK and France are good enough to do this on their own and I have no bad feelings at all about France, but both navies have their own ideas and preferences, operational responsibilities etc. and given the importance of this to both navies i think both countries would be better going it alone for the most part. That does not exclude joint efforts in some areas, for instance if both companies bought the Hawkeye they could co-ordinate their efforts to reduce costs and share support etc.

Member for

18 years 3 months

Posts: 1,039

Agree Turbinia, UK and France have fallen out many times over the detail. Quite how Concorde ever got aloft amazes me. Let them take the basic design and do what they like with it. From what I read the French have 'bought in' mainly due to the amount of time it will save them from designing something from scratch, when in effect what they would have designed independantly wouldn't have been fundamentally different at waterline level anyway.

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 847

Joint programs tend to work well where their is a dominant partner and the junior partners accept they're basically buying a bit of influence and workshare but accept there is a boss (eg. UK involvement in JSF) but where it is with equals and things are done by committee it's not so great. An exception is the Tornado which has been an outstanding aircraft (ADV excepted) but when you look at other programs usually the expected cost savings are cancelled by constant arguments, delays, mission creep to try and satisfy differing requirements etc. One of the things I admire about France if they've had the balls to go their own way so often and produce some outstanding systems (Mirage family, Rafale etc.).

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 25,376

Second aircraft carrier: Towards a blow of accelerator?

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".

Member for

18 years 3 months

Posts: 1,039

Well I think I understand that, all except the bit about "and a line of trees" :eek:

74,000 tonnes is getting bigger and the article hints that it might be longer or wider as the deck space has been increased by about 200 sq metres more than I have seen quoted in any of the previous proposals. Its about time something official came out :confused:

Its about time something official came out

According to that article, or another one, Main Gate for the UK will happen tomorrow. So hopefully we will get an official statement then to confirm what's happening/has happened.

Member for

18 years 3 months

Posts: 1,039

On a Friday, the MOD ? :eek: Mmmmmm lets see :diablo:

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 366

it comming! :D it almost past the point of no return 2 CVFs and a PA2.

its almost the size of a forrstal class of a super carrier :diablo:

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 5,707

it comming! :D it almost past the point of no return 2 CVFs and a PA2.

its almost the size of a forrstal class of a super carrier :diablo:

And has the word cancellation written all over it the way it is going.

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 819

Why would it be cancelled? RN has to replace the invincible class in a decade or less.

Why would it be cancelled? RN has to replace the invincible class in a decade or less.

Because lawrence is a pessimist.

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 5,707

Why would it be cancelled? RN has to replace the invincible class in a decade or less.

Becouse I have a fairly good knowledge of the History of UK military procurement, and carriers have had to be replaced before and it has never happened- ever heard of CVA-01? If these ships keep growing in size they will get more expensive making them increasingly vulnerable to be being cut, especially with a very careful treasury, a public largely dis-interested if not suspicious of defence spending and what money there is being eaten up by ongoing operations over-seas. :(

And yes I am a pessimist- in this case. ;)

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 847

There is a legitimate question over whether this is the best thing we can spend our defence money on.

There is a legitimate question over whether this is the best thing we can spend our defence money on.

I can think of many other things that should be cut before CVF, such as Typhoon Tranche 3.