Aircraft Carriers

Secrecy is a must for them, since for the last ~200 years they were at the short end of the stick... I wonder, even if that sale did happen, how the french were going to circimvent the arms embargo- didn't it include CVs too?

according to german "MARINEFORUM" the new french carrier (first pic) could be ordered very soon
pic of modell at

some more information at



it will carrie Typ Rafale M fighters, Hawkeye and Helos;
283 m lengh 74.000 t, 26 kn maxim. Speed by conventional engines (nore nuclear) 1.650 man, finish in 2015

intensive cooperation with GB (scnd pic), which order two simillar carriers (CVF) in the same time with same propulsion

GB prefer ski-jump, french carrier should use catapulte

Now that would be a nice move. Sign the contract just before the election wich the opposition may win so that the deal will be made in any case.
So since the presidential election in france is in April, I anticipate a decision quiet soon.

While the basics designs remain similar. The UK is continuing to opt for the no catapult design.

Obi Wan!! is there any chance the UK will ever return to CV's with catapults? Or have they made up their minds quite firmly against catapults? is it a matter of money, type aircaft and training? Or a combination of all three??

I would really like to see the UK opt for the French design. That way "true" joint(Cross decking) CV ops could be carried out with the USN & FN.

The main reason the RN is against CTOL ops for the CVF is cost, Catapults and arrestor gear are percieved not only as an extra installation cost but as requiring increased manpower to operate them (engineers). Basically it is a money issue, although the real price difference is most likely nowhere near as large as the politicians think and the navy's brass are frightened of rocking the boat. I would like to see CTOL CVFs personally, seeing as how we invented the steam catapult and the angled deck we should get our money's worth! It would also solve the MASC problem by allowing the E2 Hawkeye to join the FAA. This would bring cost savings by pooling training and support costs with the French which would go some of the way to compensate for the extra cost of CTOL ops, indeed training of F-35C pilots could be pooled with the USN (and the RAF could do likewise with the USAF if they adopt the F-35A).

I can see a row brewing about funding now that Blair has announced a replacement programme for the Vanguard class subs as the £20Billion they will cost is now supposed to come from the existing Naval budget, which is not much more than that to begin with! There also rumours of six more DDGs/FFGs being reduced to reserve (permanently) and type 45s being cut further. This is a ridiculous situation, you can't fight a war (two, Afganistan/Iraq) on a peacetime budget whilst blowing a fortune on Typhoons that have no guns and no threat to counter. We can afford more, the current defence expenditure is less than half what it was in the 80s (as a proportion of GDP) and we can't keep expecting the US to do it all for us, an unfair situation for America.

Thanks for that insight Obi Wan!

Too bad the politicians run the worlds militaries. In my opinion there is no reason why the RN should not be operating at the least the CVA's that were envisioned in the 60's. To bad those politicals have their sticky fingers in the money pie...And they already have the "chips"...

The US is no better...The USN should be operating 14-16 Cv's if the ships that were SLEP'ed lived out more of their new service life of 20 extra years. And futher minor re-fits were conducted

ship SLEP completed
CV-59 1985
CV-60 1983
CV-61 No SLEP
CV-62 1988
CV-63 1990
CV-64 1993
CV-66 No SLEP

Start adding 20 years..See what I mean?..With the exception of the Kitty Hawk all those ships are decomissioned. And CV-66 was sunk as a target..

Does the USN have long term plans how many CVN-21s are to be build, wich older CV(N)s will retire and when ?
Anyway, just sad that every (european) country has it's own specific military needs and there's so few collaboration even in the big programs like CVs.

Scratch said:

Does the USN have long term plans how many CVN-21s are to be build, wich older CV(N)s will retire and when ?
Anyway, just sad that every (european) country has it's own specific military needs and there's so few collaboration even in the big programs like CVs.

Click to expand...

Just checking in...Merry Christmas!

The Nimitz class will be retired in sequence...68,69,70 etc as the new class is comissioned. I'm not sure but the USN plans to maintain a CVN force of at least 10 CVN's for some time. CVN-65 will be the first retired in about 2013-15...

Obi Wan Russell said:

I can see a row brewing about funding now that Blair has announced a replacement programme for the Vanguard class subs as the £20Billion they will cost is now supposed to come from the existing Naval budget, which is not much more than that to begin with! There also rumours of six more DDGs/FFGs being reduced to reserve (permanently) and type 45s being cut further. This is a ridiculous situation, you can't fight a war (two, Afganistan/Iraq) on a peacetime budget whilst blowing a fortune on Typhoons that have no guns and no threat to counter. We can afford more, the current defence expenditure is less than half what it was in the 80s (as a proportion of GDP) and we can't keep expecting the US to do it all for us, an unfair situation for America.

Click to expand...

Yea Obi Wan you are so right. That Boomer sub replacement program is probably the dumbest idea I've heard in a long time. It made sense in 1983 but not now.

Britain would be far better off if it spent the money on more Type 45s, CTOL on the new carriers and....I don't now...there's still a lot leftover . Seriously, more nuke boats is not a good investment for the RN. An SSGN or two however might be a good investment though.

My brother served on Swiftsure class SSNs in the late 80s -early 90s, so its not like I'm anti submarine (pardon the pun) but there are cheaper ways of maintaining a credible nuclear deterent, eg nuclear tipped cruise missiles aboard ALL our SSNs producing a larger (hence more survivable) overall force. Another proposal is to fit the new Astute class SSNs with four Trident tubes behind the sail in order to disperse the missiles amongst the whole Sub fleet. Also air launched cruise missiles could be launched from most of the RAFs strike aircraft in theory (lumbering them with the cost of the deterent, something they have been shying away from for some time). Another unecessary cost in the defence budget is the more than 20,000 British troops based in Germany. The Cold war is over, they should be re trained and re deployed as expeditionary troops instead of propping up the local German economy. At least our Amphibious shipping has been renewed and enlarged, now a similar effort needs to made on the destroyer/frigate force and of course the carrier force, which could be part funded by selling the last batch of Typhoons (without a gun they offer no operational advantage over the mediocre Tornados they are replacing).
I'm not totally anti RAF either, as I would double the number of Nimrod MR4s since they have a lot of potential as land attack aircraft/missile platforms (in a similar role to the USAFs B52s) and I would select the F-35A as the replacement for the Tornado GR4, so that training for both land based and carrier based pilots could be combined to a large degree

Oh and I nearly forgot... Merry Christmas and a Happy new Year to you all!