European Aircraft Carriers

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT

Soylent Green RE:European Aircraft Carriers 5/8/2003 2:45:39 AM

What are you talking about? Britain is getting two full size carriers and France has one and is set to build a second (though it could hit snags with the French economy being in the s). This year has also seen the signing of a new Anglo-French naval agreement which will pool carrier resources once the new carriers are online (and which is likely to see Spain and Italy contribute a carrier each in the future). As for Germany - forget it. Do these things not hit the radar in America or something? This is the second time I've seen this being asked in as many days.

Quote Reply

DragonReborn RE:European Aircraft Carriers 5/8/2003 3:19:14 AM

link (check link for describtion of UK Carrier) While not quite as big as the Nimitz class the new British Future Carrier will be the biggest ever biult for the Royal Navy, being built between BaE (UK origin company) and Thales (French origin company) it is likely that the French will buy one too. Europe will have four big carriers (including the De Gaulle) and several light carriers from Spain and Italy etc, more than enough to project power within its sphere of influence. Soylents right thouhgh. With the current German austerity policy which has seen severe military spending cutbacks, Germany (tho it could afford it in terms of the size of its economy) can not afford to buy any aircraft carriers for the foreseeable future.

Quote Reply

Final Historian RE:European Aircraft Carriers 5/9/2003 12:31:50 AM

I was well aware of the British plan to build two super-carriers, something I think that they should have done after the Falklands War. Jump Carriers are ok when it comes to convoy protection and ASW, but when you need to engage hostile airpower, and when power projection is your goal, then super-carriers, with their fixed wing aircraft, are a must. That said, I wouldn't really call the De Gaulle a large carrier, much less a "super-carrier", as it has proven it is a failure of a flat-top many times over.

Quote Reply

Soylent Green RE:European Aircraft Carriers 5/9/2003 1:07:22 AM

Well yes... maybe the Royal Navy "should" have done that. I'm sure the Royal Navy would have liked to have done that. But then you move out of the "shouldav dunnit" territory and into the "coulda dunnit" territory. There was no was Britain was in a position to build two super-carriers in the 1980s. Sadly, if it hadn't been for the Skybolt fiasco and subsequent force rearrangement, the Royal Navy would have had three modern full size carriers. But hey ho. Have the problems with the De Gaulle been fixed? I had heard they had been (and I think that's the official government stance) but when I mentioned this to a French acquaintance it was greeted with a bitter, hollow laugh that sounded like pebbles clattering off a coffin lid.

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:European Aircraft Carriers 5/9/2003 3:19:46 AM

My point is that European Military projects up to now have been smaller in terms of units produced - than planned - which compared to US number were small to start with. A political decision has been made - OK; but that is a very long way from functioning ships. The hard issues have been postponed. We've repeatedly seen European projects being "reconsidered". European project are grossly overpriced in relation to US projects. Cost overruns are in frequently camouflage for secret projects. The European projects are late: The Typhoon is approx an F-15 coming into service when the F-15 replacement F-22 is ready. The cost: Why buy a Rafale or Gripen, when or if you can get a couple of F-16C's for the same price or a refurbished flight of F-16A. Unrefurbished F-16 a small squadron. I'm not thinking only of the official price tag, but also spares cost. The Draken in Danish service was an experience not to be repeated in this context. I have my misgivings about the Merlin - not the aircraft; but EADS. The specification are difficult to harmonise (Tiger helicopter), leading to non-standard types. Europe will have to shape up, and it can be done: The big civilian contracts have Airbus, not Boeing on the invoice.

Quote Reply

giblets RE:European Aircraft Carriers 5/9/2003 3:22:31 AM

I think Britain would really have liked to have built a full size carrier post falklands, and indeed the Navy had the last laugh against the Government (who did not think there was even a need for harrier carriers). But the three mini-carriers had only just been commisioned ( 79, 81 and ark royal 84(?), so was not really viable to scrap those then. Though as can be seen, the lessons have been learnt with two 'full size' carriers being built with the express design condition that they can be fitted with a catapult at a later date.

Quote Reply

DragonReborn RE:European Aircraft Carriers 5/9/2003 5:05:09 AM

There are several reasons for developing the two new 'super carriers', including 1. The Americans dont take us as seriously with our jump carriers. They have given in the past more sway to French maritime forces because of the greater capacity of the De Gaulle. Large carriers are really needed for greater force projection. (The Americans dont actually favour us building large carriers, they prefer having a reliable ally who can solely perform fleet defence, with jump carriers.) 2. The Royal Navy has ordered the STVOL JSF, but they have had to hedge their bets. Looks like the US Marines will be cutting back their orders and there are problems with the development of the STVOL in weight etc. As the smallest batch of the JSF the STVOL will already be more expenxive, if the US Marines cut back the price will only go up. There is still the possiblity that the STVOL version of JSF will fail to reach the production line. Therefore the UK needs to make sure that if the STVOL version fails it can put another modern plane on its new carrier decks, thus the need for being able to launch conventional takeoff aircraft.

Quote Reply

Soylent Green RE:European Aircraft Carriers 5/9/2003 5:27:46 AM

Meh. There are a lot of things the Americans don't favour. I say build the carriers. Personally I think I'd have gone for the standard long takeoff types from the start. Not quite sure what the thinking behind getting the short takeoff JSFs was.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:European Aircraft Carriers 5/9/2003 9:16:48 PM

Let's take a deep breath and start, again. No European country has, or plans, a "supercarrier". American carriers run 90 to 100k tons. The Chuck DeGaulle and the ones the RN is planning for, now, run less than half that size. They will be able to base less than half the number of aircraft the American carriers can carry. And, frankly, it's an open question what they will fly. I'm willing to place a small wager that the Brits will buy a fair number of F-35s for their next generation carriers. I think the desire for those carriers has finally penetrated even part of the Labour Party, although I also feel that anyone who bet the house that the carriers will be built has a gambling problem. The story of the French buy of Rafales for the CDG is a running joke in military circles. Someday, they may have a few. I don't think there's much question that the Europeans, generally, would like some of their countries to have a few modern carriers. I still think there's real question what will come of this, even ten or more years down the line.

Quote Reply

Soylent Green RE:European Aircraft Carriers 5/10/2003 3:25:22 AM

Well that is a worry it has to be said. The main problems are a) the economy going on the fritz (which I suspect it might) and b) the enormous cost that is going to land in our laps a few years down the line if we want to replace Trident. That said - you shouldn't really cast aspertions on the Labour government's record on defence. Or at least you can't single them out as worse than the Tories any more. Are the armed forces underfunded? Yes. Were they less underfunded under the Tories? No. Is the current Tory opposition promising a single penny more in defence spending? No. At least Labour have had a few ideas and some vision. The Strategic Defence Review, flawed though it was, at least had a few new ideas and wasn't just an exercise in slash and burn. The Tory record in opposition on defence has been terrible (and it pains me to say that, given my party loyalty and the fact that 2 of the four people on the Tory defence team are actually very decent, very competant blokes). The only ideas they seem to have are - 1) not to scrap the sea harrier, 2) to bitch about RAF squadrons being disbanded while not offering a single penny themselves which would have saved them, 3) to go bananas at the idea of Britain buying into any form of European defence effort, of any type and 4) to bluster on about restoring the ban on gays in the military. Especially given the opposition's dire record over Kosovo and Sierra Leone (when IDS was shadow defence secretary) I'm giving Labour the benefit of the doubt.

Quote Reply

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT