CVF and Carrier Strike thread

Trans-sane

LE
Book Reviewer
Hence my reason for saying so - and probably better scran too.
Charles De Gaul's most recent refit involved (I assume among other things) newly designed bakery facilities that allow them to bake something like 800-1000 baguettes a day. Some may think that's a frippery, but I read once that an element of complication for organising properly escorted convoys in the early years of the second world war was having ships in each escort group with proper baking and catering facilities aboard so they could feed the crews of the smaller corvettes as they couldn't do a full long range deployment out of their onboard supplies. Now I read that in my first year of university (half my life ago...) so may be mis-remembering the details...
 
Charles De Gaul's most recent refit involved (I assume among other things) newly designed bakery facilities that allow them to bake something like 800-1000 baguettes a day. Some may think that's a frippery, but I read once that an element of complication for organising properly escorted convoys in the early years of the second world war was having ships in each escort group with proper baking and catering facilities aboard so they could feed the crews of the smaller corvettes as they couldn't do a full long range deployment out of their onboard supplies. Now I read that in my first year of university (half my life ago...) so may be mis-remembering the details...
End of the day, a lot of things are about food - that's why the navy has some of the best food around - and the fact that they have a bit more space to prep. You can have a nuclear powered sub which can go around for years silent and submerged but you need to feed the crew. In my personal experience, the best scran I ever had while on ops, was while on ships.
 
It’s interesting that even a government run shipyard can have procurement problems.
Did I read somewhere that the yard had problems accommodating the size of vessel that CDG was supposed to be? The yard allegedly refused to allow an extended build area to be constructed?
Even with all their related nuclear experience on subs, they still encountered problems.
The life cost of the CDG must be mounting now, with the reactor having to be refueled at the recent refit.
 
It’s interesting that even a government run shipyard can have procurement problems.
Did I read somewhere that the yard had problems accommodating the size of vessel that CDG was supposed to be? The yard allegedly refused to allow an extended build area to be constructed?
.
Twas Politiical

1) The CdG was a replacement for Foch* as such it was to be a replacement -this meant as far as the French government were concerned it would be (about) the same size** although the Navy were later able to fudge that.
2) The CDG was built in the biggest dock available and so was restricted in length by that - except the one across the harbour which was far larger but politically unacceptable to use.

Then theres the whole Catapult issue - that saw France reluctantly using US catapults and arrester gear ( The French Smaller more compact ones were to violent)

The SSN reactors have just never liked being used on the Carrier @jrwlynch has a better insight into that IIRC

Although the its cooking the crew it doesn't meet safety standards is the usual ill informed media wibble
It does meet the safety standards - Of the Day- regs have been tightened since then - I dare say the Nimitz etc would fall foul of modern standards

The (exaggerated deck to short problem and then the propeller falling apart have just heaped insult onto what seems to be an unlucky and if not unreliable less than stellar reliability ship

*Or clemencaeu I forget which
**And we thought restricting T42 length was dumb
 
Twas Politiical

1) The CdG was a replacement for Foch* as such it was to be a replacement -this meant as far as the French government were concerned it would be (about) the same size** although the Navy were later able to fudge that.
2) The CDG was built in the biggest dock available and so was restricted in length by that - except the one across the harbour which was far larger but politically unacceptable to use.

Then theres the whole Catapult issue - that saw France reluctantly using US catapults and arrester gear ( The French Smaller more compact ones were to violent)

The SSN reactors have just never liked being used on the Carrier @jrwlynch has a better insight into that IIRC

Although the its cooking the crew it doesn't meet safety standards is the usual ill informed media wibble
It does meet the safety standards - Of the Day- regs have been tightened since then - I dare say the Nimitz etc would fall foul of modern standards

The (exaggerated deck to short problem and then the propeller falling apart have just heaped insult onto what seems to be an unlucky and if not unreliable less than stellar reliability ship

*Or clemencaeu I forget which
**And we thought restricting T42 length was dumb
The original plan was to replace both the Foch and the Clemenceau, with CDG class nuclear powered carriers. No wonder they binned the second one.
 
It is a pity Charles De Gaulle does not have a sister ship - she is an important Western naval asset. I wonder why France did not consider making an extra session in a different yard - a bit like when we built bow sections for the Type 45 destroyer on the South coast and joined them to the rest of the ship on the Clyde.

Increased length would improve her stability and extend the envelope of whether conditions she can operate aircraft. They would also allow her to carry more aircraft, perhaps a squadron of ASW helicopters so that the carrier becomes part of task group ASW? This would be in line with RN and USN thinking.
 
Increased length would improve her stability and extend the envelope of whether conditions she can operate aircraft. They would also allow her to carry more aircraft, perhaps a squadron of ASW helicopters so that the carrier becomes part of task group ASW? This would be in line with RN and USN thinking.
Once again, CdG could carry ASW helos now but the French choose to place their Caimans on FFGs and DDGs.

Just because that’s not ‘in line with RN and USN thinking’ doesn’t make it wrong. Indeed, with Wildcat partially offsetting a reduction in Merlin HM numbers in the RN, we’re arguably adopting a similar model.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:
French scoff isn't bad; I can't comment on USN scoff, but US Army scoff I found to be very basic, with the only vegetables being green beans and sweetcorn. Lunch was a burger and a hot dog plus soggy fries. Not great. I'm not a big fan of MREs either.
The best food while in my time was:
USN
USAF
USMC
US Army

In that order.
 
The best food while in my time was:
USN
USAF
USMC
US Army

In that order.
That figures; when I was at Grafenwoehr this time last year, a couple of the American chefs from their forward deployed Task Force came and cooked in our cookhouse. To be fair, they knocked out some good scoff, but then they had fresh rations to work with. Apparently all of their rations were freeze dried and re-heated, full of carbs, sugar and salt but not much else.
 
That figures; when I was at Grafenwoehr this time last year, a couple of the American chefs from their forward deployed Task Force came and cooked in our cookhouse. To be fair, they knocked out some good scoff, but then they had fresh rations to work with. Apparently all of their rations were freeze dried and re-heated, full of carbs, sugar and salt but not much else.
I really didn't know why the US Army had such shit food almost every single time - I mean for christ sake's it's not like they are constrained by space or logistics. The USN spread always blew me away.
 
True that - one of my reasoning behind it. I don't know how much gets allocated to each service, could find out if I bother to Google it, but I assumed the USN had more money to keep people motivated over longer deployments.
It would be difficult to differentiate entirely in terms of money, as the varying sources of food when deployed and the premium they attract would need to be considered.
 
It would be difficult to differentiate entirely in terms of money, as the varying sources of food when deployed and the premium they attract would need to be considered.
Even then you would *logically* assume that the fact that you can get fresh produce etc. more cheaply (if true) and more frequently delivered to you on land would mean you would have better quality. Anyways, I am out of my depth here, have no clue about cooking or how they are done in the mil. I just ate.
 
Even then you would *logically* assume that the fact that you can get fresh produce etc. more cheaply (if true) and more frequently delivered to you on land would mean you would have better quality.
Or alternately, with ships stocking up in busy ports where there is healthy competition Vs land bases in the middle of nowhere with few providers to drive the price down, and often at the end of a logistical nightmare route, the Navy can get a better deal.
 

Top