Royal Navy May Share New Carriers With France

[Gerarddm]

Apropos of earlier posts, when France was going down in 1940 the Brits proposed announcement of "an indissoluble union" of Britain and France to stiffen their will to fight on after capitulation. Citizens of each would automatically become citizens of the other. Joint single War Cabinet, both Parliaments formally associated. Pretty radical, but Churchill was willing to try almost anything to keep the French going.

He recounts the episode in The Gathering Storm, (chapter ten The Bordeaux Armistice). Interestingly, DeGaulle was involved.

The French would have nothing to do with it. If they wouldn't cooperate in those desperate hours, what is the prognosis for cooperation today with a shared carrier?

[Jean-Paul Binot]

Apropos of earlier posts, when France was going down in 1940 the Brits proposed announcement of "an indissoluble union" of Britain and France to stiffen their will to fight on after capitulation. Citizens of each would automatically become citizens of the other. Joint single War Cabinet, both Parliaments formally associated. Pretty radical, but Churchill was willing to try almost anything to keep the French going.

He recounts the episode in The Gathering Storm, (chapter ten The Bordeaux Armistice). Interestingly, DeGaulle was involved.

The French would have nothing to do with it. If they wouldn't cooperate in those desperate hours, what is the prognosis for cooperation today with a shared carrier?

This is a fair question. However, honesty demands that one should consider the circumstances. At the time that proposal was extended to them, the French government was already deeply divided, with a strong fraction wanting to take France out of the war at any cost. Some were motivated by dark designs, but others were simply appalled at the collapse of the French army and indeed the French state. They must have feared that France was going down for good and that no form of union with Britain could save the day.

As far as I am concerned, with the benefit of 68 years of hindsight, I strongly believe that the French government should have told the army in France to capitulate if it had to, but should have escaped to Algiers with the Fleet (that was intact) and continued fighting the war together with Britain and hoping for the US to join in. It would be presumptuous to condemn the behaviour of those unfortunate politicians, not all of them statesmen by any stretch, who had to face the German onslaught and were seeing France come frightfully close to total annihilation.

As far as having the two navies cooperate in carrier development and operation, I believe it sounds like a good idea. There must be ways to make it work, even if at his point we can see many issues with this.

[FrancisMcN]

I seem to remember hearing on the radio some months back that the French PM of the time made a suggestion that Queen Elizabeth should become head of state for France too....

On the issue of sharing CVF, I can't help thinking that the extra costs from adapting all the other "Lines of Development" of Training, Personnel, Infrastructure, Doctrine, Organisation, Information and Logisitics to a satisfactory common level would make any loan of hulls unaffordable.

[Werner]

My understanding is the carrier would be shared at the strategic level. It would never exchange crews and aircraft, but would retain the British crew and aircraft under control of the French Navy. Obviously, the French could never operate Rafales and Hawkeyes on a ski-ramp carrier. It is too much of a leap backwards.

[MartinL]

thats twice now(read my first post). you yanks really dont understand irony

[chuck]

I bet the new British CVs will be completed as a horizontal takeoff and landing carrier. The penalties of VTOL facilities to mission capabilities of an aircraft is too severe. It's hard to imagine why the British would opt for VTOL F-35s when:

1. The carrier is more than large enough to support conventional flight operations

2. The carrier will have provisions for conventional flight operation

3. The plane is already offered in a more capable horizontal takeoff version.

I suspect the ski ramp design was largely a ploy to make the carrier seem less like an extravagant expansion of capability over the existing Invincible CVLs, and more likely to pass under the radar as a logical successor to the Invincibles.

[FrancisMcN]

The carrier will have provisions for conventional flight operation

The design that is about to go on contract is for the STOVL version with a ramp. It has provision in terms of space for a conventional catapult/arrestor arrangement but nothing has been done towards detailed design work or acquisition of components so it is difficult to see how CVF could put to sea in 2014 with anything but STOVL arrangements.

[Werner]

The carrier will have provisions for conventional flight operation

The design that is about to go on contract is for the STOVL version with a ramp. It has provision in terms of space for a conventional catapult/arrestor arrangement but nothing has been done towards detailed design work or acquisition of components so it is difficult to see how CVF could put to sea in 2014 with anything but STOVL arrangements.

In which case it will never operate French Hawkeyes or Rafales.

[chuck]

Not hawkeyes, perhaps. But there is no reason why Rafale in air superiority loadout can't take off under its own power on a ski ramp in the same manner as SU-27 from the Russian carrier. All modern carrier based fighters would have ample thrust to weight ratio to take off with a respectable loadout under its own power from the deck of a normal sized carrier.

[Werner]

That would in turn require the Rafale N have a steerable nose wheel, unlike many of it's predecessors in the FN.

It is my understanding that a steerable nose wheel has been given up for more fuel capacity and a simpler gear strut.

[chuck]

Normal ground taxiing or deck maneuvers would be impossible if Rafale's nose gear doesn't steer.

[Werner]

Several USN carrier aircraft did not have steerable nosewheels, including the A-4 Skyhawk, and the F-8 Crusader. The Crusader had a double whammy in that it's wheel "castored" or rattled like a grocery cart's.

Remember, the Rafale N has an entirely different set of gear, and steering may have been seen as a luxury on a strut which already had to rise exceptionally high to attain the launch angle of attack.

A carrier aircraft simply doesn't taxi that much unattended by ground crew. It is simple to provide a grunt with a yoke of metal to control the wheel.

[bengtsson]

What happened to the idea of a European Force seperate from NATO. Wouldn't joint strategic use of the new carriers be a move in that direction? In order to work it would seem two carriers would be all RN and one carrier would be french, but when need arose they could operate with each others naval forces. They would train together and develop joint doctrine. I don't think anyone suggests that they would each trade turns operating the ships. No reason French and RN ships can't train and operate in each others interests arounbd the world. They did it at the start of WWII and the RN wasn't complaining about having the French Navy on their side. Quite the opposite in fact, if we remember our history!

Bob B.

[Francisco P. de Nanclares]

This is fairly usual. NATO naval forces are multinational and share procedures and are mostly interoperable. A Spanish Navy frigate has been deployed as part of a USN carrier strike group for some months, and both sides looked pretty happy. Examples are everywhere. Multinational task groups are daily bussiness, but what seemed implied at the head of this thread doesn�t quite look the same, and I don�t think it would work. Not in our age.

Cheers.
Pachi.

[Walt]

Where have you been?

Not since 1946 has Britain managed to complete a first class capital ship more or less on her own, why the sudden surprise at the fact that she should continue to prove unable to do so now, when the cost of a first line capital ship has grown to represent a greater fraction of British GDP than ever before?

Britain has not been "mighty" in my life time, nor I suspect in yours.

All nations have their day in the sun and just fade away to insignificance
Dave Wooley

True .. But some sooner than others eh? Even with recent events and changes I don't see anyone knocking the USN off it's perch as the World's greatest Navy anytime soon..the only real threat they have is Congress. I can't believe that in a lifetime the RN has gotten so desperate as to share it's fleet with a foreign power, and a historicly weak naval power at that. I originally thought this post was a bad joke..Then I got to thinking that maybe the British are thinking proactively here.. Joining with France in a venture such as this could prevent France from sharing or worse yet selling these CVs to Iran or North Korea or some other unstable Country as the French usually do with their new weapons systems.. I.E. Exocet...and Mirages etc. May God help the Pommys if this does in fact transpire. I can't wait to see how the RN is going to address the language issue..We all know the French won't buy into a English speaking crew..Hey, the USN has a few fine old CV hulls available.. I don't think even the French Navy could screw them up.

[Walt]

This is fairly usual. NATO naval forces are multinational and share procedures and are mostly interoperable. A Spanish Navy frigate has been deployed as part of a USN carrier strike group for some months, and both sides looked pretty happy. Examples are everywhere. Multinational task groups are daily bussiness, but what seemed implied at the head of this thread doesn�t quite look the same, and I don�t think it would work. Not in our age.

Cheers.
Pachi.

The RN may also have issues with their crews serving under foreign flags or officers for that matter. I know the US Military recently had issues with this when the US Military in the Balkans refused to wear NATO/UN flags on their uniforms in lew of the American flag as well as their refusal to serve under a foreign command during peacetime(It goes against our Democratic laws and our military's purpose to serve to protect The Constitution of The United States). Of course during a time of War or humanitary aid when joint forces act in a Allied cause these laws are sometimes overlooked in the interest of the operation etc. Training with a multinational force is common.. But I doubt if that USN strike force got ordered into combat the Spanish Navy Frigate would not be subjected to go into action with them unless the Spanish Gov't ordered them to do so and visa versa with the USN. GB and France are entering unchartered waters with this idea.. It will be fun to watch this transpire. The lawyers will have a time of it for sure..

[Francisco P. de Nanclares]

...I doubt if that USN strike force got ordered into combat the Spanish Navy Frigate would not be subjected to go into action with them unless the Spanish Gov't ordered them to do so and visa versa with the USN. GB and France are entering unchartered waters with this idea.. It will be fun to watch this transpire. The lawyers will have a time of it for sure..

Yep. That was my point exactly.

[ASFC]

True .. But some sooner than others eh? Even with recent events and changes I don't see anyone knocking the USN off it's perch as the World's greatest Navy anytime soon..the only real threat they have is Congress.

You forget that the RN was the World's Greatest Navy for a lot longer than the USN has currently been, since at least the Battle of Trafalgar if not some time before until WW2.

I can't believe that in a lifetime the RN has gotten so desperate as to share it's fleet with a foreign power, and a historicly weak naval power at that. I originally thought this post was a bad joke..

We don't need the French. We did not go to them they came to us. They are the ones having issues funding their new Carriers. Incidently, they are apparently buying the PA2 now, so this thread could seem academic as co-operation on this new level won't happen.

Then I got to thinking that maybe the British are thinking proactively here.. Joining with France in a venture such as this could prevent France from sharing or worse yet selling these CVs to Iran or North Korea or some other unstable Country as the French usually do with their new weapons systems.. I.E. Exocet...and Mirages etc.

Tell me which of these countries can afford to operate a �2 Billion+ carrier? Lets be fair, the French don't sell equipment to countries that other Western Countries are not supporting at the time.

Hey, the USN has a few fine old CV hulls available.. I don't think even the French Navy could screw them up.

Is it not against the law in the US to sell former USN Capital Ships abroad?

[Werner]

Is it not against the law in the US to sell former USN Capital Ships abroad?

All depends on the bribe

[Dave Wooley]

Whilst I have the greatest respect for the French Navy . The prospect , of the French and RN sharing carriers will not happen . Not for any anti French nonsense but down to logistics. It is as simple as that. A deeper level of cooperation is quite another area and this we may well see in the near future .
Dave Wooley