NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Naval Air Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

De Gaulle Put Right?

December 9, 2008: The French nuclear aircraft carrier (CVN) Charles de Gaulle has completed a fifteen month, half billion dollar, refurbishment. All CVNs undergo this, usually timed to coincide with when it is necessary to replenish the nuclear power plant (in this case with 64 new fuel rods). The de Gaulle took eleven years to build (1988-99) and was not ready for service until late 2000. It was downhill after that, with a long list of problems. The recently completed refurbishment was meant to address the most serious problems. It will be a year or so before it is clear if the de Gaulle is really good to go.

The refrub work required 2.5 million man hours (about half of supplied by the crew and navy technicians) from 1,700 workers. The worked involved stripping old paint and applying 11,000 square meters (40 tons) of new paint on the hull. The 7,800 meter flight deck was refinished. Over 80,000 meters of electrical cables were installed. Most of the mechanical systems were refurbished, and some were replaced. Electronic systems were upgraded, to include more satellite communications access and improved Internet capability. It's now easier to use VOIP (using the Internet for telephone calls.) The de Gaulle will return to service next year.

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article SUPPORT: X-Plane Flies Right


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2
Carney       12/9/2008 11:19:48 AM
France needs a second carrier, but is planning on an all-new design.  Now that they've figured out the ins and outs of the DeGaulle class, why on Earth would they go through the headaches of creating a brand new one from scratch?  Especially since the replacement one won't be nuclear-powered.
 
Quote    Reply

FCUS       12/9/2008 11:28:57 AM
"It will be a year or so before it is clear if the de Gaulle is really good to go."
 
The Charles de Gaulle will be at sea next spring, so 4 months or so.
 
BTW I agree, we need a second carrier, CdG class. The problem is not that the navy wants to design a whole new one, it's that the decision for a second one will be taken in 2012 (I suppose at a time when we wil see the results of the new white paper) and I fear the decision is going to be delayed again
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    France is kiting off British work.   12/9/2008 12:57:55 PM

France needs a second carrier, but is planning on an all-new design.  Now that they've figured out the ins and outs of the DeGaulle class, why on Earth would they go through the headaches of creating a brand new one from scratch?  Especially since the replacement one won't be nuclear-powered.
THALES and DCNS will get that new carrier to work right..........never.


Herald

 
 
Quote    Reply

SAE       12/9/2008 3:44:00 PM
"The de Gaulle took eleven years to build (1988-99) and was not ready for service until late 2000. It was downhill after that, with a long list of problems." And what were the cost overruns? Eleven years, what a frisco! 
 
Quote    Reply

earlm       12/9/2008 11:29:24 PM
What kind of reactor needs refueling after 8 years, or did they install the reactor back in 1988?  If this is a mid-life upgrade how long will CdG be in service?  Sounds like a POS to me.
 
Quote    Reply

jak267       12/10/2008 12:12:22 AM
If you can come up with a cheap, lightweight replacement for grey paint, you can make a fortune.
 
Quote    Reply

oOOOo       12/10/2008 10:00:26 AM
New carrier not nuke? Given France's civilian success with nuke power, I'd think the nuke power aspect wouldn't have been the problem. Yet with a re-fuel begun in 2007 for a boat pushed into the water in 2000, clearly something is not right with France's ocean-going nuke tech.
 
Quote    Reply

jlb       12/10/2008 8:00:55 PM

"The de Gaulle took eleven years to build (1988-99) and was not ready for service until late 2000. It was downhill after that, with a long list of problems." And what were the cost overruns? Eleven years, what a frisco! 
The CDG was used as an adjustment variable for the defence budget. Initially, two carriers were planned for a total of FF 14bn, but construction of the first unit was endlessly delayed to save a few hundred millions every year, so much so that those "savings" ended up consuming the whole budget on building the first one.
 
Another budgetary problem, of course, was the air group. A CAG costs much more than the ship, and the French carrier-capable aircraft were so old that by the time the CDG was finished, there were enough legacy aircraft  for only one carrier.
 
And behind all this, the real problem is that leading French politicians (say, since the late 80's) don't seem to have a clue about defining a defence policy.
 
Until 1989-91, the priority was the Soviet threat and the nuclear deterrent. The strategy was primitive, but quite clear: if it looks like you (the Soviets) are preparing to cross the Rhine, we'll fry your tanks, the Germans be damned, and if you actually cross it, we'll fry your main cities, consequences be damned.
 
Since then, there don't seem to be much strategic docrine left apart from the feeling that if we dropped our deterrent we'd loose status and if we didn't have an army we couldn't partake in UN operations.
 
Preoccupation about securing vital raw materials sources and the communications lines to those sources, and preserving capability for the long-term now seems relegated to second or third-rank power circles.
 
Quote    Reply

jlb       12/10/2008 8:11:54 PM

New carrier not nuke? Given France's civilian success with nuke power, I'd think the nuke power aspect wouldn't have been the problem. Yet with a re-fuel begun in 2007 for a boat pushed into the water in 2000, clearly something is not right with France's ocean-going nuke tech.

The answer to both question is probably that the CDG uses the same reactors as the Rubis submarines. This was done to - again - save money. My guess is that on the carrier they are used much more intensively than what they were originally designed for, thus the - relatively - short autonomy.
 
Now the CDG is a 40,000t ship, whereas the currently contemplated ship would be a half-sister of the UK 60,000t QE CVF's.
 
Using reactors designed for 2,500t subs on a 40,000t ship required compromises - and is the main reason for the CDG's relatively slow top speed. Using the same reactors on a 60,000t ship must be impracticable, and would thus require designing a new reactor, and also a major redesign of the carrier's power arrangement. This when the R&D savings of using the British design are a major selling point.
 
Quote    Reply

Whispering_Death       12/15/2008 8:18:06 AM

France needs a second carrier, but is planning on an all-new design.  Now that they've figured out the ins and outs of the DeGaulle class, why on Earth would they go through the headaches of creating a brand new one from scratch?  Especially since the replacement one won't be nuclear-powered.

Maybe it is BECAUSE they know the ins and outs of the DeGaulle class that they have decided to create a brand new one from scartch.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       12/16/2008 11:31:06 AM
The CdG has 2 K15 reactors of 150MW each (generating enough power to sustain a 100.000 people City) .
The power output is largely enough for a ship of Her size .
Regarding the autonomy , one have to look at how many days per year the ship is at sea . Just compare it with the British or US carriers , you 'll be surprized .
 
Cheers .

 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       12/16/2008 11:58:45 AM

The CdG has 2 K15 reactors of 150MW each (generating enough power to sustain a 100.000 people City) .

The power output is largely enough for a ship of Her size .


Regarding the autonomy , one have to look at how many days per year the ship is at sea . Just compare it with the British or US carriers , you 'll be surprized .


 

Cheers .




No I won't, Ruben.

Current CdG time at sea; ZERO.
 
Herald
 

 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       12/16/2008 1:41:49 PM
Herald is again (as usual) twisting the truth . Here is on exemple
 
Operation HERACLES-1 (Arabian Sea , A-Stan campaign) :
 
- From December the 1st 2001 to July the 1st 2002 . (8 full months at Sea)
- Total numbers of deck landings (all aircrafts) : 3189
- totalizing 5195 hrs of flight
(From the MN site)
 
Find me the same datas for a US carrier ...
 
Cheers .
 

 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    You can't read can you?   12/16/2008 2:07:18 PM

Herald is again (as usual) twisting the truth . Here is on exemple

 

Operation HERACLES-1 (Arabian Sea , A-Stan campaign) :

 

- From December the 1st 2001 to July the 1st 2002 . (8 full months at Sea)


- Total numbers of deck landings (all aircrafts) : 3189

- totalizing 5195 hrs of flight


(From the MN site)


 

Find me the same datas for a US carrier ...


 

Cheers .


 



CURRENT TIME as in present-not six years ago.. The CdG is still a harbor queen

And even with that data you posted? 240 sailing days with 13 traps per day? For a one time show the flag?
 
A typical US duty rotation is about six months. The Indian Ocean carrier and escorts will be on station and fly at least a minimal CAP in the Persian Gulf-so figure at least 24 traps a day-4320 sorties-many over Afghanland or Iraq.
 
But then we have a carrier on station there ALWAYS-don't we? We don't send one out to break down to be towed back as happened off Cote d'Ivoire, or leave it short of critical parts or aircraft and cross our fingers and hope?
 
Don't thump your chest, poseur 2.
 
Herald
 
 
 
.
 

 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       12/16/2008 2:48:03 PM
I 'm not thumping my chest (how could I when we only one one CBG) but putting some facts right .
 
Btw , during the HERACLES-1 Ops , the CdG only had 10 SEMs and 7 (later 8) Rafales (+ 2 Hawkeyes) . 
How many aircrafts on one of your Arabian Sea Carrier ? Twice as much . When a SH flew one hour , a Rafale flew 3 hrs which is good at it gives a lot of operational flying hrs to our Navy Pilots .
 
Cheers .

 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy