Frogs to build 40% of new Carriers

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Sandyman, Jun 13, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. GOOD!!!! At least they will be built on time and to budget unlike BAE's efforts!
  2. Personally I haven't got a problem with it. Our so-called "Tradesmen" are in my experience a bunch of lazy tossers when it comes to ship fabrication so if it gets done properly then its fine by me.
  3. We were going to have 100% of building 2 carriers, now we will 60% of three. So what?

    This might actually make the CVF programme more secure because we will not now be able to pull out of the project.

    The real question to ask is why are the French going to build the proper version of the CVF while we will be stuck with the less able non-catapult version?
  4. Erm, Why do we need a catapult?
    And, if we don't actually need one, why does that make ours "less able" ?
  5. We need a catapult because the STVOL F-35 has less range and weapons load the the CTOL version and costs 50% more…

    Also, we can't fly a real AWACS aircraft like the E2 Hawkeye off our bastardized version.

    Without catapults we've put all our eggs into the STVOL basket and can't cross deck.
  6. In days of yore a fair percentage of our ships were nicked/copied/borrowed without long term leases etc from the French; just look at how many french names crop up.
    They seem to have done us pretty good service and at least that country still has a significant shipbuilding industry eg QM2.
    Aren't a great deal of the UK's military aircraft sourced abroad? In which case I can't see it will make any difference to do the same with ships.
    I think it is a pity but the world changes.
  7. Oww my head!
    I see what you mean though (as much as I can being a Stoker :) )
  8. It is really sad but I reckon you are not too far from the truth.
    The French have been looking around for a building partner as the article says.
    I wouldn't be surprised if other EU navies are also making enquiries.
    An EU shipbuilding consortium a la Airbus perhaps.
  9. Erm how do they hold the screwdrivers in their little frog paws?
  10. Good, got to be better than the standard of build here.

    Now there's a tremendous leap of faith, how do you work that out then?
  11. As much as I 'ate the bloody French, I think this is a good idea. It makes the whole programme just that little bit more secure since by taking their "buy in" cash, we're obligated to finish the job and as it's already been put 60% of three hulls is more or less the same as 100% of two.

    As for the bit in the paper about French Captains skippering our ships - just scare-mongering. If politicans had to stick to the truth they would have bugger all to say.

  12. Not had much problem with THALES gear, same cant be said about AMS/BAE, thankgod bloody Ferranti went to the wall, and well what can you say about bloody EDS.
  13. I know what you mean wrt THALES. Thought it a shame when BaE bought them out though :(
  14. The sortie rates for the STOVL are higher and the sea conditions in which you can launch are greater, however, range and payload are lower.

    What about catapaults for cross decking and AWACS, and... a ski ramp for the STOVL! Have you seen the size of the thing!!!
  15. Sod being shot across to another ship! :D
  16. Nice one!!! :thumright:
  17. Levers_Aligned

    Levers_Aligned War Hero Moderator

    So. The French are to have a share in building the carriers.

    Okay. I am assuming I am addressing the silent stratospheric minority that I would assume browse these pages now and again in terror that the swinish multitude is getting restless. Yes, you lot. Here comes a question from the lower orders, and instead of deafening silence, I'd like to hear it from someone pretty near the top, and pretty attached to procurement, please. Please use laymans terms as well, because not all of us are destined for board positions with Thales, et al.

    We shake hands with France, a known NATO nay-sayer, to build possibly the most audacious project the defence sector has seen. IN the past they have been kown to pretty much 'go their own way' with regard defence, building their own carrier strike capability and their own nuclear deterrent. They even blew up the Rainbow Warrior and gave everyone a redoubtable 'pah!' when we said it was mal de merde.

    Now, I need someone to assure me that the bits the French build, will have codified, acquirable spares and support made available. I think we all need to be pretty sure that of that 40%, the equipment procured therein is going to be available for a very long time, and certainly built both in Britain and France. Can one imagine the scenario if say, the aircraft lifts were built over the channel, and by sheer dint of unpredicatble French political whimsy, we ended up with a fierce anti-European in the seat in France? Can't happen?

  18. Levers, at the end of the day it is a British design and even if what you said were true and they held us to ransom over their 40%, we could do the same with our 60%!

    The crazy thing is that it would probably be cheaper to go for a proper catapult launched CVF:

    a) STOVL version of JSF 50% more expensive than US Navy one, and not as good.

    b) Paying for 2 designs instead of one.

    Remember that the RN wanted the USN version of the JSF, the RAF wanted the the STOVL one. We went with the STOVL version. Now I hear that the RAF want to buy some USN versions for their Tornado replacement... so the RAF will have the version the RN wants and the RN the version the RAF initially wanted.

    We should build catapult version CVF.

    We should buy US Navy version JSF.

    We should bin the STOVL side of things, after all, now we have Apache is Harrier VSTOVL still essential?
  19. Apache unfortunately cant do 600 mph. Dont get many tanks on the briny either mate.

Share This Page