• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

CVF - Future Royal Navy Aircraft Carrier

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
14,046
Reaction score
3,854

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
484
Reaction score
635
unfortunately there is a paywall
but interesting that now we are back to talking catapults again

since I'm doing hindsight alot..
how about you guys and girls.
should the RN have gone Catobar from the get go with the QE?
i recall a poll in KP where a lot of the UK responses were ultimately half half with the usual reasons
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,095
Reaction score
1,801
The origins of the carriers are in the early optimistic days of the Blair Government in 1998. In retrospect it was a unique honeymoon period for a postwar British Government.
In any other moment the Treasury would have killed the carriers at birth. As it was they fought a delaying action.
Whether the carriers will prove a valuable legacy or vain anachronism from those years remains open
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
14,046
Reaction score
3,854

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
484
Reaction score
635
Impressive ships !
indeed it is a very beautiful class of carriers! probably my favorite, alongside the Cavour, Izumo and Enterprise

I still wish the French went ahead with their version as I was curious to how the CATOBAR version would look in real life.
(after all its still a Thales/French DNA)
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
14,046
Reaction score
3,854
What both the Royal Navy and La Royale need right now is a nuclear powered cruiser design, preferably in the heavy missile cruiser class.
 

FighterJock

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,760
Reaction score
526
What both the Royal Navy and La Royale need right now is a nuclear powered cruiser design, preferably in the heavy missile cruiser class.

While I like the idea of both the Royal Navy and the French navy getting a heavy nuclear powered cruiser Grey Havoc, there is one thing that will stop it from happening the problem of money.
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
257
What both the Royal Navy and La Royale need right now is a nuclear powered cruiser design, preferably in the heavy missile cruiser class.
whats the difference between a cruise and destroyer class these days?
it seems modern ships have such varying displacements, the lines have become blurred
In the old days, it was easy to distinguish - not only was the displacement far more than the destroyers of the time, but cruisers could also support themselves better - having significant maintenance shops.
 

H_K

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
168
Reaction score
320
What both the Royal Navy and La Royale need right now is a nuclear powered cruiser design, preferably in the heavy missile cruiser class.

Why a cruiser? (vs. the alternative of distributed lethality)
Why nuclear?
What missiles for what mission?
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,141
Reaction score
3,025
Blame Sakorzy ! although it is one of the very few decisions he took, I agree with him. Why ? because a non-nuclear, non-clone of the CDG would have made the French carrier "fleet" a logistics nightmare.
Best option remained a CdG clone just like the two before them. Once this option gone, dissimilar ships would have been a bad thing.
PANG will replace CDG so not a problem anymore. What really worries me with PANG will be its enormous cost. Getting two of these things will bankrupt the French Navy.
Impressive ships !
indeed it is a very beautiful class of carriers! probably my favorite, alongside the Cavour, Izumo and Enterprise

I still wish the French went ahead with their version as I was curious to how the CATOBAR version would look in real life.
(after all its still a Thales/French DNA)
 

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
597
Blame Sakorzy ! although it is one of the very few decisions he took, I agree with him. Why ? because a non-nuclear, non-clone of the CDG would have made the French carrier "fleet" a logistics nightmare.
Not necessarily, Italy operates by 2009 with two radically different carriers like Garibaldi and the Cavour without experiencing any "logistic nightmare", and things would not change in future so far since in 2022 the Garibaldi will be out and the Trieste (another different ship) will be in.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,141
Reaction score
3,025
Good counterpoint ! Still have mixed feelings. It is kind of weird, to have: on one side, an Essex size carrier yet nuclear powered; and on the other, a Forrestal sized non-nuclear one. The USN could afford that from the 70's into the 2010's (when JFK finally went away). French Navy, cash strapped ? not sure.
What bothers me is how much an oddity CdG is in the pair !
Going back in time: before 1960 Lafayette and Bois Belleau were sisterships but Arromanches was standalone, too.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
14,046
Reaction score
3,854
While I like the idea of both the Royal Navy and the French navy getting a heavy nuclear powered cruiser Grey Havoc, there is one thing that will stop it from happening the problem of money.
Funding is definitely a problem, but if Britain and France want to maintain anything resembling a credible navy they are going have to bit the bullet, sooner rather than later. Things like dodgy 'cyberwarfare' programs and the like certainly aren't helping matters in that regard, that is to be sure.

In the old days, it was easy to distinguish - not only was the displacement far more than the destroyers of the time, but cruisers could also support themselves better - having significant maintenance shops.
Arguably that still applies to a large degree, especially given that oversized, supposedly (and I use that term advisedly) multi-purpose destroyers like the Arleigh Burkes have clearly failed to replace cruisers as their advocates in the USN and other navies claimed they would, to the point where light cruisers such as the PLAN's Type 55 'destroyer' (now reportedly classified by NATO as the Renhai-class light cruiser) are rapidly beginning to emerge back on to the scene in earnest. Things like offboard/outsourced contractor-based ship maintenance have only served to show the flaws of concepts such as 'systems not platforms' in an even harsher light. The US Navy still seems to have it's head in the sand, alas.
 
Last edited:

Ron5

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
74
Reaction score
61
Impressive ships !
indeed it is a very beautiful class of carriers! probably my favorite, alongside the Cavour, Izumo and Enterprise

I still wish the French went ahead with their version as I was curious to how the CATOBAR version would look in real life.
(after all its still a Thales/French DNA)
What French DNA? CVF design was 100% British. Which is why France was asked to pay for access to the design.
 
Top