WI the UK buys a Charles de Gaulle?

[e of pi]

I've had a question I've been ruminating on for a while--say that after the Falklands, the UK decides that they'd like to replace the Hermes (and the capacity lost with the retirement of the Ark Royal) with a new carrier, and partner with the French. Did the UK ever consider buying a De Gaulle, or joint-developing a carrier with the French, as they've talked about with selling them one of the QEs or the PA-2 that would supposedly have been based on the QE but built by the French?

Assuming that something like this were to have gone ahead (and separate from the plausibility of that), what might the ships have been like? Something similar to the OTL De Gaulle, just with one flying the Union Jack? Would they have design differences, and if so how? Would they likely still be nuclear? How would work be divided--I'd assume that there would be a preference for something like the "geo-return" of ESA, with work being divided somehow, but would that mean fully duplicated production, or perhaps some arrangement where one builds the propulsion systems, the other builds the hulls, and then each fits out its own unit?

Thanks for any thoughts!

 

[aktarian]

I believe some ideas were floated about joint development but separate build for each country

 

[usertron2020]

Aren't the de Gaulle's lemons?

 

[Jukra]

Thanks for any thoughts!

In general, UK MoD is extremely hostile of buying good enough systems off the shelf. This does not allow money to be spent on favourite contractors and also limits pork spending ability. It's better to develop a gold plated system from domestic components which can be cancelled before entering production or at best procured in extremely limited quantities.

In this UK MoD is naturally not that different from other defense establishments around the world, but maybe in the extreme end alongside Post-Soviet Russia.

 

[aktarian]

Aren't the de Gaulle's lemons?

I don't think so. Some teething problems understandable with indroduction of such new and advanced system

 

[hog]

With a caveat that i am not a naval engineer or specialized in CVNs in particular the RN should give themselves a big pat on the back for not buying the CDG design as the french designed it as it is a dog of a ship for a few reasons, in no particular order:

-Reactor: they took a reactor designed for something else that uses a fuel less enriched than what is used in US and British reactors used to propel submarines and carriers which means you have to refuel the thing much more often, the CDG had her first refuel after six years of active service, for a USN CVN that stretches to 20+ years between refueling.

-The ship is to small for what they put into it leading to a bad deck lay-out (elevators, deck parking, store rooms in inconvenient places compared to where they should be to service everything from air crafts to crew), oh and she is to short to operated as designed her full complement of air craft as they had to lengthen the flight deck to operate the E-2. Good example of this is that they deployed her to support operations in Afghanistan with half the air group she was theoretically designed for.

-Due to the aforementioned deck layout she cannot launch and recover air craft at the same time which cuts down on the sortie rate, never a good thing with a limited air group.

The fact that the French decided to only build one (which means they have long periods of time with no carriers available) should tell us enough.

I can go on but the RN should be happy they stayed with the Harriers and the Invincible class. The lesson learned from the french is either stick with V/Stol or build them big.

It will be interesting to see how the QE works once she has been completed.

 

[usertron2020]

Hog

Thank you, I didn't think I was imagining things...

Do you mean they never even finished the Jean de' Arc!? What the hell?

 

[hog]

The Jeanne d'arc was a helicopter carrier along the lines of the Soviet Moscow class. Our french had a second carrier in their defense papers for a long time but i think they removed it in either 2012 or 2013 so as of now there is no mention of a second carrier.

 

[pdf27]

Couple of other points:

• The RN is always short of manpower. No way they would go for a nuclear carrier when they can use gas turbines at the same lifecycle cost and with a smaller crew. Nuclear power in CdeG seems to be far more about keeping up with the Joneses over the Atlantic than any technical reason.
• Size seems to have been set by the DCNS dock size in Brest, with internal politics making it impossible to expand the dock. This being France, a sensible solution like building it at Chantiers de l'Atlantique isn't possible.
• Ship design is a high-end, perishable skill. The metal-bashing side of construction, not so much. Buying a French design either means paying the design teams to do something else at the same time (i.e. a much expanded budget) or laying off those design teams and accepting that the skills involved are gone forever and if you ever want them again you'll have to build them up from scratch very expensively. That's exactly what happened with the Astute build problems - too big a gap after the Vanguard submarines meant some of the skills had perished.

 

[pdf27]

The Jeanne d'arc was a helicopter carrier along the lines of the Soviet Moscow class. Our french had a second carrier in their defense papers for a long time but i think they removed it in either 2012 or 2013 so as of now there is no mention of a second carrier.

It was cancelled in the 2013 White Paper. They hadn't really settled on a design - they were talking about licensing the Queen Elizabeth design, but at the same time another group were trying to sell them on a repeat Charles de Gaulle.

 

[Archibald]

Wow, so much love for the CdG in the above posts...
The CdG was build essentially with the same length as the preceding Clemenceaus simply because the drydocks were the limitations.

I don't think so. Some teething problems understandable with indroduction of such new and advanced system

Exactly. The swre and Hawkeye issues are long gone. Now I'm not saying thee's no flaws in the design...

the RN should give themselves a big pat on the back for not buying the CDG design as the french designed it as it is a dog of a ship for a few reasons, in no particular order:

-Reactor: they took a reactor designed for something else that uses a fuel less enriched than what is used in US and British reactors used to propel submarines and carriers which means you have to refuel the thing much more often, the CDG had her first refuel after six years of active service, for a USN CVN that stretches to 20+ years between refueling.

-The ship is to small for what they put into it leading to a bad deck lay-out (elevators, deck parking, store rooms in inconvenient places compared to where they should be to service everything from air crafts to crew), oh and she is to short to operated as designed her full complement of air craft as they had to lengthen the flight deck to operate the E-2. Good example of this is that they deployed her to support operations in Afghanistan with half the air group she was theoretically designed for.

-Due to the aforementioned deck layout she cannot launch and recover air craft at the same time which cuts down on the sortie rate, never a good thing with a limited air group.

The fact that the French decided to only build one (which means they have long periods of time with no carriers available) should tell us enough.

I can go on but the RN should be happy they stayed with the Harriers and the Invincible class. The lesson learned from the french is either stick with V/Stol or build them big

How many Invicibles and Harriers remain in service today ?
The fact they were perhaps a better bargain overall didn't helped in 2011 when the RN sunk its whole carrier force...

The reason why France decided to build only one was not that CdG was an utterlly flawed design.
The original goal was obviously to have a pair of CdG similar to the pair of Clemenceaus. It never happened for three reasons
- per lack of money the varied government kicked that can down the road until the CdG become an obsolete design
- then there was the whole CVF affair that lasted 8 years (2003 - 2011) ad led nowhere
-Today it is generally considered that the CdG strike force can be replaced or completed by either Tigre helicopters flying out of Mistral LPHs, or cruise missiles based on frigates.

 

[Imladrik]

-The ship is to small for what they put into it leading to a bad deck lay-out (elevators, deck parking, store rooms in inconvenient places compared to where they should be to service everything from air crafts to crew), oh and she is to short to operated as designed her full complement of air craft as they had to lengthen the flight deck to operate the E-2.

I'm pretty sure that is because the E-2 was not originally supposed to be in the air group of the Charles de Gaulle. Thus when they decided they needed one, they realised the CdG was too short.

Good example of this is that they deployed her to support operations in Afghanistan with half the air group she was theoretically designed for.

The CdG was only commissioned in may 2001, 7 months before it was decided it was to be deployed in supporting the operations in Afghanistan. The Rafale entered service at the same time. It had a small air group because it was the only things available.

-Due to the aforementioned deck layout she cannot launch and recover air craft at the same time which cuts down on the sortie rate, never a good thing with a limited air group.

That is a problem of size not a problem of organization. Small aircraft carrier physically can't organize it to do both at the same time with standard aircrafts. And if the deck layout of the CdG is bad, then the same thing can be said about the american supercarriers, given it is the same only smaller.

The fact that the French decided to only build one (which means they have long periods of time with no carriers available) should tell us enough.

It was decided to build only one because operating and building an aircraft carrier cost a fuckload of money. The second French aircraft carrier project was trashed (sorry, postponed for indefinite duration) for the same reason.

I can go on but the RN should be happy they stayed with the Harriers and the Invincible class. The lesson learned from the french is either stick with V/Stol or build them big.

It will be interesting to see how the QE works once she has been completed.

Completely different type of aircraft carrier. It can, only operate one aircraft (the F-35B) or helicopters. Sure they won't have the problem of having to make the deck bigger to operate the E-2C that can't even fly from it. I'm amazed that the RN chose to operate an VTOL aircraft after their experiment with Harriers. I understand the reason the americans are building one (they have a love affair with the USMC so they can have everything they want except aircraft carriers and heavy bombers), but i still don't know why somebody else would do it, especially when the aircraft carrier they are building is big enough to operate STOL aircraft with the addition of the adequate systems.

 

[Archibald]

Now ladies and gentlemen, as for Franco-British cooperation on carriers in the 70-90's

- the French actually tested the Harrier on the Jeanne d'Arc helicopter carrier in 1973. The Harrier could have killed the Super Etendard first, and later the superb Harrier FR.2 would have been a valuable replacement for the Crusader, even subsonic.

- one has to go back to the roots of the CdG

It was born as an helicopter carrier, the PH75. Much more than an helicopter carrier, it was to be a polyvalent platform able to perform a lot of missions - from hospital ship to training, commando carrier, and on.
At the time it was not to replace the Foch and Clemenceaus but the good old Arromanche carrier, and perhaps the Jeanne d'Arc.
The old Arromanches lasted until 1974 and was extremely useful along the Jeanne d'Arc, giving the French fleet more or less four platforms.

The PH75 went to nuclear propulsion but originally it was to be propelled by F67 frigates gas turbines. It was more or less a French Invicible... imagine if France had bought Harriers at the time...

 

[pdf27]

The CdG was build essentially with the same length as the preceding Clemenceaus simply because the drydocks were the limitations.

That's the irritating bit - there's a much bigger dry dock available down the coast, but they won't use it because it's owned by the wrong company.

How many Invicibles and Harriers remain in service today ?
The fact they were perhaps a better bargain overall didn't helped in 2011 when the RN sunk its whole carrier force...

Illustrious is still in service as an LPH, but is due to retire some time this year (probably going to be late in the year, as Ocean's refit is running late). It isn't much of a comparison though - Illustrious was launched in 1978, Charles de Gaulle in 1994. And the RN haven't exactly sunk their carrier force, just put it on hold for a year or six due to resource issues. Much the same as the MN did between 2007 and 2009 while CdeG was in refit and they didn't have a carrier. Regrettable, but life's like that sometimes.

 

[pdf27]

I'm amazed that the RN chose to operate an VTOL aircraft after their experiment with Harriers. I understand the reason the americans are building one (they have a love affair with the USMC so they can have everything they want except aircraft carriers and heavy bombers), but i still don't know why somebody else would do it, especially when the aircraft carrier they are building is big enough to operate STOL aircraft with the addition of the adequate systems.

STOVL has some advantages, notably in faster takeoff rates, no requirement for buddy tankers and operations in really bad weather. I think the killer advantage though was training - RAF Lightning squadrons can land on it with minimal specialist training, the same would not be true for a CTOL carrier. At a time when we're struggling to recruit and retain enough FAA aircrew, that's a major advantage. AIUI the plan is to normally have an air group of ~12 aircraft, with other FAA and RAF squadrons moving on board as required for exercises or conflicts.

 

[Pangur]

I have been following this thread with great interest. One think has crossed my mind, WI the British Go had committed to the purchase early enough in the design phase and hence have input into said design?

 

[cracou]

Interesting post about the ship, but full of urban legends.

the CDG had her first refuel after six years of active service, for a USN CVN that stretches to 20+ years between refueling.

- For Nimitz class the interval is 12.5 years. For De Gaulle the nuclear plant has been activated in May 98... but the ship entered active service only mid 2001: the interval is not 6 years but 9 years. So don't compare 6 years to 20 but 9 to 12.5...
- The first screws were defective and were replaced (first with old ones then with new ones).
- The E2C did not need a new deck. It has been changed (+2meters) to allow it to abor if it failed to catch the last wire and the arresting gear has been damaged (they wanted to be on the safe side, something that I can understand given the plane cost!). The cost was 0.0025% of the total.
- As for the bad deck layout I would really be happy to see any source. You may be right but I would like to see a single one reference on the topic
- In Afganistan the carrier was new but the problem was not the carrier but a lack of Rafale (you can check). Now they have many more Rafale.

-Due to the aforementioned deck layout she cannot launch and recover air craft at the same time which cuts down on the sortie rate, never a good thing with a limited air group.

Not at the same time... but almost: they can't launch and recover exactly at the same second. They need a full 30 seconds to do so (...).

The fact that the French decided to only build one (which means they have long periods of time with no carriers available) should tell us enough.

Money.

On the other hand: it's here, it works. Rafale bombed Afganistan and Lybia and last time I haven't seen any UK carrier doing the same thing.

I can go on but the RN should be happy they stayed with the Harriers and the Invincible class. The lesson learned from the french is either stick with V/Stol or build them big.

Right now between a VSTOL and a Rafale I bet on the Rafale. Don't say F35 as they may afford to purchase two (given the stupid cost. I've never seen such a badly managed program) plus a broken one for parts.

It will be interesting to see how the QE works once she has been completed.

That's a good question...

 

[Jukra]

[*]Ship design is a high-end, perishable skill. The metal-bashing side of construction, not so much. Buying a French design either means paying the design teams to do something else at the same time (i.e. a much expanded budget) or laying off those design teams and accepting that the skills involved are gone forever and if you ever want them again you'll have to build them up from scratch very expensively. That's exactly what happened with the Astute build problems - too big a gap after the Vanguard submarines meant some of the skills had perished.

AFAIK, the idea was to have a Navy, not a design office? In case of CVN's with service age of perhaps 50 years the lack of design continuity is not an issue since the original team would reside in the graveyard anyway.

But the real comparison should of course be between having a carrier or two or no carriers at all. I for one am highly sceptical of QE ever entering service as anything more than a glorified LPH.

 

[e of pi]

Thank you everyone for the insight--the sheer cost of the CdG and the resultant fact of there only being one in French service is part of why I was thinking of the RN. The two national interests align enough in the area that the RN and MN carriers of the same class could potentially act as the "second carrier" in the other navy as required.

I have been following this thread with great interest. One think has crossed my mind, WI the British Go had committed to the purchase early enough in the design phase and hence have input into said design?

Given the discussion about the CdG originating as a turbine-powered design and of the drydock limitations being largely French internal political issues, this strikes me. So maybe a better question might be not a CdG, but a joint-developed bespoke aircraft carrier, and what that might have looked like--a bit larger, potentially conventional...what might this bespoke design look like, and what could arrangements over development and
have looked like?

 

[pdf27]

AFAIK, the idea was to have a Navy, not a design office?

You wouldn't know that looking at the Astute saga. The reality is that most major navies tend to get very uncomfortable relying on overseas designs, since access to them cannot be guaranteed in future.

In case of CVN's with service age of perhaps 50 years the lack of design continuity is not an issue since the original team would reside in the graveyard anyway.

It isn't so much an issue of carriers in particular as complex warships in general. The UK hasn't had much of an issue going from Type 45 -> CVF -> Type 26.