New Aircraft carrier design question

#1
On the British side, the British government wants its shipbuilding industry to begin restructuring in accordance with the Defence Industrial Strategy before it awards the future aircraft carrier (CVF) contract. British yards shipyards are visiting French facilities, and looking to benefit from their improvement – and the French have offered to help, for a price. The quid pro quo is that British shipyards adopt French production standards and methods, and that the British agreed to design changes that accommodate French requirements (provision for larger ammunition storage holds, special secure storage areas the French can use for nuclear weapons, etc.) There is some thought that adoption of identical standards could lead to the building of common sections for the three carriers, but that hasn't gone past the discussion stage at this point.
I was reading the article on the new carriers hereClicky cliky. It says that the UK looked at how French industry built the De Gaulle, ok fair one learn from them to avoid the same mistakes. But I don’t understand why we agreed to their conditions to allow us to learn from them.

Firstly it says the French made us adopt their own production standards and design requirements; the article says it’s possibly to allow construction of common sections for ours and their future carriers. Why would either France or UK allow the others Shipyards to build part of their fleet? I can’t see the benefits of commonality here.

Also why would we agree to the option of nuclear storage on the carriers, do we currently do so? I thought our nuclear deterrent was purely trident based. And lastly, why would we accept larger ammunitions holds, is it not better to have smaller isolated units in case of accidents?

Oh and an unrelated side note. The wiki on the De Gaulle says a couple of MI6 spooks were caught on it during construction to look at how they were sheilding its reactor. DOes anybody have more info on this? Surely if we wanted a nuclear powered carrier back them we would the same sheilding design as we use in our subs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Gaulle_(R_91)
 
#2
The thing is there is a trade of in costs of R&D which can run into billions, that is why the French and British may adopt the same design
 
#4
But I don’t understand why we agreed to their conditions to allow us to learn from them.
Because their working practises have been proven better than ours, perhaps :roll:
 
#6
bobos said:
I heard a rumour (alright I started it0 that Airfix are bidding for the ship building conract
:D :D
 
#7
Bravo_Bravo said:
Lazy Journo alert.
Somebodys a bit paranoid, got the tin foil hat off?

in_the_cheapseats said:
But I don’t understand why we agreed to their conditions to allow us to learn from them.
Because their working practises have been proven better than ours, perhaps :roll:
I’m not questioning why we are looking to replicate their system; I'm questioning the conditions of the French for doing so. As said by W.Anchor adopting their standards for construction commonality reduces R&D, fair point I didn’t think of that. But larger ammo stores and more importantly the ability to carry nukes is what got my attention. As I said is it not better to have smaller stores to reduce incidents? Then again they could have been designed impractically small and the French highlighted this. But why would we design in special secure areas, that seems like added cost that they could take upon themselves to do some retro fitting on their designs. Just seems an awful lot to look at how their different companies worked together to build a boat (yes I do realise this is looking at their internal defence industry :p )
 
#8
here_be_mike said:
Bravo_Bravo said:
Lazy Journo alert.
Somebodys a bit paranoid, got the tin foil hat off?
Not in the slightest.

Just a bit odd, a bloke who posts less than once a week having been a member for nearly two years coming onto a military forum asking questions that, if answered, could be posted in the press as "Service Personnel say that..."

And if you expect anyone here to comment on Jacks' abililty to carry nukes or not, and if you think its OK to comment about SIS you'd best toddle off and have a look at the Official Secrets Act.

Klar?
 
#9
Re design of ammo stores: we did have aircraft carriers in living memory so doesn't take the brains of an archbishop to look at how we did it then. Also I suspect the sceptics wouldn't object to us taking a peek below decks on the Nimitz, so don't see a lot of advantage in cooperating with the French in that respect.

Two things to think about: influence of thinking around European Defence Force and European Defence Agency could make design cooperation attractive; and secondly there's a presumption in the defence procurement process towards allowing bids to come from any European defence manufacturer. Agreeing on common bits between us and the frogs gives more manufacturers an incentive to bid for work. And gives French suppliers an opportunity to get a slice of the UK carrier work.

And for the lazy journo -- do your own thinking next time.
 
#11
Bravo_Bravo said:
Not in the slightest.

Just a bit odd, a bloke who posts less than once a week having been a member for nearly two years coming onto a military forum asking questions that, if answered, could be posted in the press as "Service Personnel say that..."

And if you expect anyone here to comment on Jacks' abililty to carry nukes or not, and if you think its OK to comment about SIS you'd best toddle off and have a look at the Official Secrets Act.

Klar?
Fair cop, least there’s logic to it rather then a brain fart comment. I don’t post often because pretty much everything I spot in the papers that’s interesting is already dissected with Swiss precision by the time I can post it. Same with comments on running threads, anything I can think of has already been asked.

Now as for the carrying of nukes - I didn’t think we would possibly need to carry them on boats. Only reason I can think for that is for use on the J35s, but we don’t have a system to launch from planes like the yanks. Now if that’s a naughty naughty bad boy question to ask then again fair one end of.

Clarion - Do you think the MOD is thinking that far ahead in terms of the EU defence force? I thought there would be political ramifications (UK jobs etc) of letting defence contracts go to non UK companies. Hopefully that won’t be the case as opening the thing up to further competition would be a damn good idea. Also I did think about all this but couldn’t think of an answer, hence the post.

Yokel - Thanks for the links, its general interest :oops:
 
#12
the french and british are using the same basic design. The main difference is the french are not cutting costs while we are and bae don't have the skills tomake it workwhile thales do
 
#13
in_the_cheapseats said:
But I don’t understand why we agreed to their conditions to allow us to learn from them.
Because their working practises have been proven better than ours, perhaps :roll:
Take a look at the cock up airbus has made over the A380 and what will happen to the A400. French and German working practises
 
#14
reference SIS looking at the sheilding used around the reactor: it is in the public domain that they used this as a cover for another operation to uncover naval intel in another area. The nuke question is moot. We no longer have WE144 gravity devices for delivery to land targets from our fixed wing A/C, and the same applies for our nuclear depth charges. It would be quite easy to fit B67 gravity devices to J35 A/C - the Pak's have managed to cobble something together to deliver locally produced warheads from their F-16's, despite congress voting against a technology transfer to allow them to do this, so what exactly is planned I am not sure.
Either way, special weapons do not take up all that much room - if the americans can fit a nuke warhead onto a bazooka then they can't be that big.
 
#15
Some potential differences between CVF and possible future French carrier: (Some of the answers lie in the current French carrier)

a/ French likely to be bigger at 75,000t (vs. CVFs 65,000)
b/ As with carrier-CDG, likely to be a catapult and arrestor wire design. Unlike the UK which has stated it's intention of operating JSF-stovl, the French would operate Rafales.
c/ Nuke-propulsion like CDG - RN using conventional so French might have to follow.
d/ French are intending to purchase ONE ship.

Ultimately it's about R&D costs. Neither navy are planning to have a carrier force the likes of the US. IMO the RN might have bit-off-more-than-they-could-chew. The more capable the carrier is, the more important they become (attractive target) - the RN will have to divert a lot of resources to protect, crew and supply these ships.
 
#16
here_be_mike said:
Now as for the carrying of nukes - I didn’t think we would possibly need to carry them on boats. Only reason I can think for that is for use on the J35s, but we don’t have a system to launch from planes like the yanks. Now if that’s a naughty naughty bad boy question to ask then again fair one end of.
Its Logical given the projected service time of the Ships that ALL possible eventualities should be catered for at this stage if affordable. Retro fitting as anybody knows is an expensive and awkward nightmare. It is just sensible planning for once.

Mildly miffed that the froggie one is bigger though.
 
#17
I am comfortable for the frog carrier to be bigger than ours. They have always been willie-wavers..............it's what you do with it that counts :D
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads