Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier class ( Program CVF ) on active duty

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
15,937
Reaction score
5,502

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
777
Reaction score
1,289
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
3,290
Reaction score
2,105
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

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
15,937
Reaction score
5,502

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
777
Reaction score
1,289
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

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
15,937
Reaction score
5,502
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
1,901
Reaction score
709
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.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
777
Reaction score
1,289
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
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,172
Reaction score
309
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: Secret
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
224
Reaction score
439
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
6,042
Reaction score
4,427
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
1,855
Reaction score
808
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
6,042
Reaction score
4,427
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

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
15,937
Reaction score
5,502
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
85
Reaction score
74
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.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
777
Reaction score
1,289
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.
Thales design won the contest, not BAe correct?
 

Ron5

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
85
Reaction score
74
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.
Thales design won the contest, not BAe correct?

Thales is a multinational company. Thales UK had (and has) no naval architecture skills, so for the CVF, they hired, and seconded from BMT (a British design consultancy), a team of British architects working under a British lead (Simon Knight), to prepare the concept designs. After their concept deisgn was selected, the concepts were fleshed out into a full design by a combined team with representatives from the other UK members of the carrier alliance.

The end result was a design that is pretty much 100% British.

In terms of CVF systems and subsystems, I cannot think of any significant components from France. I'm sure there are some, I just can't think of any.
 

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,855
Reaction score
808
In terms of CVF systems and subsystems, I cannot think of any significant components from France. I'm sure there are some, I just can't think of any.
Odd but true there's more of Italy in CVF:

 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
6,042
Reaction score
4,427
Folks,
French involvement (whatever it was) probably stopped circa 2008 with Sarkozy decision not to build the French ship.
France was involved in the ships designs before that date, at least at government level since the ships were to be for both countries.
 

timmymagic

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
82
Reaction score
141
Folks,
French involvement (whatever it was) probably stopped circa 2008 with Sarkozy decision not to build the French ship.
France was involved in the ships designs before that date, at least at government level since the ships were to be for both countries.
No they weren't.

There was a Joint UK and France study (study, not design or programme) into a joint carrier design in the early 2000's. It produced absolutely nothing but a couple pages of A4, no design was actually created. The UK left it when they realised the French had no money for another carrier and weren't serious. Ever since then people have thought that the French were involved because of this, or because of Thales UK's involvement...

The UK then created the CVF programme and appointed Thales as the lead in the Aircraft Carrier Alliance to build the ship with the design work all done in the UK in Bristol. No French involvement whatsoever. The French then approached the UK again to see if the UK would be interested in using nuclear propulsion in the design, they were told to Foxtrot Oscar by the RN. The French later approached the UK again to see if they could licence the conventional CVF design (which was now in build in the UK) for use as the French PA.2 Carrier. The UK allowed them to access the design for £100m. THe French after creating some CGI and models then realised they still had no money and abandoned the effort. The UK pocketed the £100m.

Basically French involvement in CVF consisted of giving the UK £100m towards its construction...
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
15,937
Reaction score
5,502

The article is a bit in error, the RN & MOD had given some advance notice of the makeup of the Queen Elizabeth carrier group.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
777
Reaction score
1,289

0m6ibQqQFOtZWq1ukZ7TaR4fzmQQ2z4xj8YZBorEqRc.jpg
 

kitnut617

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
443
Reaction score
187
If the RN went with a catapult, are they considering the electromagnet type ?
 

Similar threads

Top