BKNO, are you suggesting here that, compared with the UK, France has little to gain from a collaborative program to build the carriers?
Cheers
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Cheers
Alpha Epsilon
New Member
That quote clearly says that both countires make a saving, just like I said. Hence, suggesting that France doesn't need (they offered the collaboration) or want the collaboration because it just benefits the UK is false. Building three together will be cheaper, because the yards can build real series and gain efficiency on the building of their superblocks, the same goes for equipment, it is cheaper if Rolls-Royce gets a contract for MT30s for three CVFs than just two CVFs (though I think Rolls-Royce would gain that contract even without a common build programme.).
I am NOT suggesting anything, only reporting the French Industrials comments on the matter and financially YES apparently the gain is much lower for France but on the other hand the French shipbuilders are capable of building theirs a lot cheaper and even if Britain was to cancel CVF it would still be possible for France to build it alone.
« Pour faire rigoureusement les mêmes bateaux, les Anglais sont plus chers que nous. Si nous construisons des navires avec eux, ils feront une grosse économie et nous une petite », explique une source proche du dossier.
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=103546
Clearly: It's NOT MY suggestion is it???
>>>>>
Sure, appart for one aspect here, it is coming from a British Minister who reacted to a comment made by Chief Executive of Thales, Denis Ranque, who have ONLY a 37% minority share in MOPA2.
So at the end of the day it is NOT the source which really matter because the rest of the French shipbuilding industry and MOPA2 in particular ALASO have their own views.
SAY WHO??? I specified FACTS as they ARE and if you need MORE evidences of that i can bring it on too as for your opinion is it as much that of an expert than that of the French industrials???
Did YOU know where this information is coming from to start with???
The goal was primarily political NOT some sort of cost-saving measures expecially because at the end of the day it might well turn out to cost MORE to France than doing it alone from A-to-Z so obviously in France people are a little more sceptical about the British views on the matter of cost.
The French assemblee Nationale, Mer et Marine website, Thales, DCN sources are FULL of documentation proving these FACTS.
AGAIN this is just ONE man estimate, he got NO idea about what the rest of the French shipbuilding industry see this like and was only making a suggestion, no more than this.
It is possible that they would make an economy again the opposite might well be true too.
Examples???
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/pub...ms_for_big_aircraft_carrier_role120011931.php
Reuters | May 18, 2007
LONDON: Britain is considering changing its plans for two new aircraft carriers, including possibly hiring French companies to build large sections if that lowers costs, according to the UK's defence procurement minister.
MORE HERE:
UK's CVF faces further delay over BAE/VT joint venture
Progress on the UK Royal Navy's Future Carrier (CVF) programme appears to have stalled again as details emerge of the proposed joint venture between shipbuilders VT Group and BAE Systems.Paul Lester, VT Group's chief executive, warned that "there will be no deal" on industry consolidation unless the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) commits to ordering the two 65,000-ton aircraft carriers.His stance conflicts with the demands of UK defence equipment minister Lord Drayson, who told parliament in December 2006 that consolidation "is a pre-condition for signing" the CVF build contract.
[Jane's Navy International - first posted to http://jni.janes.com
As for the CHOICE of the French Navy Counter Admiral before he was given the verbal B'llocking by the politicians (Chirac CHOOSED the propulsion of PA-2, they chosed cost of ownership vs operational cost.
DefenceSubscribeYou are in: Home › Defence › News Article
DATE:11/03/03
SOURCE:Flight International
French navy pushes for nuclear-powered carrier
CHRISTINA MACKENZIE / PARIS
Experience drives propulsion selection as it provides independence from support ships
Nuclear propulsion is the best choice for France's second aircraft carrier, believes Rear Adm François Cluzel, the first commander to use the nuclear-powered Charles de Gaulle in a military operation, citing the "remarkable independence and strategic mobility" offered by the power source.
However, if the French government this year decides to remain with nuclear propulsion for its second carrier, industrial co-operation with the UK, which opted against nuclear power for its two CVF future carriers, would be limited to systems. This is because ship design and configuration differs radically depending on fuel choice, he says.
Co-operation between the UK and France on future carriers has been mooted several times in recent years, mainly by France. The UK Ministry of Defence has ruled out a common ship design although it has acknowledged that the two nations' ships could use common systems.
Cluzel says: "Any type of fossil power entails refuelling every two or three days so if we opt for this then we would also need at least one other tanker ship, making the overall operational cost higher even if the basic cost of the carrier might be lower." He adds: "On the Charles de Gaulle we carry seven years' worth of combustion so are not hindered in our tactical mobility by the need to refuel."
France would not need to rethink the design if it opts for a sister ship to the Charles de Gaulle, Cluzel says, "because it was designed for the Dassault Rafales and Northrop Grumman Hawkeyes and we'll have them for the next 40 years."
The only significant change he sees on the flightdeck in the next 20 years is replacement of steam-driven catapults. "Work has begun to develop electric catapults, but it is very early days and because military equipment has to be 100% tried and tested we're not likely to see them aboard for 15 or 20 years," Cluzel says.
He says operations in Afghanistan accelerated the operational use of new equipment, such as night-vision systems, but also highlighted the need to improve intelligence gathering and data handling. "But the principal effort needs to be made in combat munitions and our priority must be to develop metric precision and all-weather capacity for the Sagem AASM air-to-ground munition system."
Plans are to have such a version of this air-to-ground munition in service with the French armed forces by 2010.
http://www.flightglobal.com/Article...+navy+pushes+for+nuclear-powered+carrier.html
France can visibly build large ships at a much cheaper cost and SO says the French Industrials.
Sea and Navy : In the wake of a major industrial restructuring period, is it strategic for France to keep such companies as DCN and the Chantiers de l'Atlantique?
Michèle Alliot-Marie : DCN is and will be our number one actor for the contracting of heavily armed ships (including frigates). This position is reinforced with the DCN-Thalès merger. On the other hand, auxiliary and support ships as well as propelled platforms (especially the large ones such as aircraft carriers) are a market where Aker Yards might put forth interesting economic solutions to comply with defence requirements. DCN and Aker Yards, each with its specificity, therefore hold a full-right seat on the national chessboard.
Sea and Navy : After the frigates, a lot is being said about the PA2 aircraft-carrier. What do you have to respond to the critics of the project and to those who think the programme might be dropped with the 2007 elections?
Michèle Alliot-Marie : It will be difficult to interrupt a full, thorough cooperation that works perfectly, put in motion by the common will of France and the UK. Since the beginning of the year, French and British teams - from governmental and industrial spheres - have been actively and harmoniously working together to achieve the evenness of designs, while also abiding by the operational requirements of our respective navies. By the end of the year, we should receive an attractive technical and commercial offer from the Industry, which should make the best of both countries' common definitions, to put forth the most effective solutions at the economic level. The significant value of contracts planned in the 2007 budget bill (EUR 700 million) well demonstrates that our decision to launch the completion of the PA2 programme is a firm, final decision, one in which we put a lot of investments.
http://www.seaandnavy.com/article.cfm?id=102696&motcherche=PA2
Ces dernières semaines, les Anglais se seraient montrés particulièrement intéressés par les standards de réalisation français. Des visites ont, notamment, été organisées à Saint-Nazaire, où Aker Yards, qui souhaite réaliser la coque du PA 2, a présenté son outil industriel et ses compétences en matière de grandes plateformes, paquebots bien sûr, mais aussi navires militaires, au travers des Bâtiments de Projection et de Commandement (BPC). « La coopération se passe très bien d'un point de vue franco-français et de mieux en mieux avec les Britanniques. En matière de conception, il n'y a plus de problèmes techniques que nous ne savons résoudre », assure-t-on aux ex-Chantiers de l'Atlantique, où plusieurs dizaines d'ingénieurs sont désormais mobilisés sur le projet. Alors que le gouvernement Blair conditionne la signature du contrat Carrier Vessel Future (CVF) à la restructuration des chantiers navals du royaume, ces derniers pourraient profiter de la coopération pour s'imprégner du savoir-faire français et, ainsi, moderniser leurs pratiques et leurs capacités de production : « Nous proposons que les chantiers anglais adoptent nos standard en échange du savoir-faire sur ces standards ».
TRANSLATION:
These last weeks, the English would have proved to be particularly interested by the norms of French realization. Visits were organized, notably, in Saint-Nazaire, where Aker Yards, which likes to accomplish the PAPA 2 HULL, introduced their industrial tool and its competences of big platforms, liners of course, but also military ships, through the Buildings of Projection and Command (BPC). « Collaboration goes very well without a franco-French point of view and better and better with the British. In comprehension, there are not a technical problems anymore which we do not know how to solve », as it is assured the ex-construction sites of Atlantic, where several dozens engineers are consequently mobilized on plan.» it is assured by the ex-construction sites of Atlantic, where several dozens engineers are consequently mobilized on plan. While the Blair government conditions the signature of the intended contract (CVF) in the restructuring of the naval construction sites of the United kingdom, these last could use collaboration to immerse itself in French know-how and, so, to update their practices and their production capacities: : « We offer that the English construction sites adopt our standard in exchange for know-how on these standards ».
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=103546
SO it IS an internal UK problem, MoD is totally unwilling to SIGN the contract at the price asked by the British industrials and they already are trying to adopt French construction standards in an atempt to lower the devis.... France have little to do with CVF DELAYS or COST.
Last edited:
contedicavour
New Member
Fully agree with this assessment.
Though with Sarkozy as new French President, the British should really speed up their decision-making because if the French feel it is useless to go on waiting... then they'll just go at it alone.
A 100% UK CVF programme would then for sure cost much more than the 4 billion pounds and that would put additional obstacles in the way...
cheers
Alpha Epsilon
New Member
Actually the MoD and the British shipyards had already agreed on a price tag of below 4 billion pounds for a national programme, i.e. 3.9 billion pounds with incentives to reduce it to 3.6 billion pounds.
Clearly you fail to understand the problem.
There havent been a single major programme where the cost was kept low in UK MoD history since the Trafalgar programme and it is no different for the latest.
The point is; Restructuration would limit the risks for a repeat and the UK Ministry of Defense have a good experience of fat cats agreeing on a cost only to bring up a bill 30% higher before the first unit can be delivered.
I strongly suggest that you interest yourself to the issue on a much wider basis and have a look at the UK Defense sites, some doc from NAO will certainly unlight you on the subject.
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/05-06/0506595_I.pdf
http://www.nao.org.uk/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll
The will help a little methink....
http://www.nao.org.uk/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll
The will help a little methink....
Hmmm CdeG was not exactly on time or on cost either. It a complex project with considerable research and planning required. Three ships should be cheaper per unit than one.
CdG WAs and STILL IS the FIRST and ONLY European NUCLEAR surface vessel with capabilties unmatched in Europe today.
Considering that France was doing a european FIRST and UNIQUE in terms of technologies i think this explains it easly.
Compare the Astute programme to it and you'll see, it's a lot easier to put a SSN together than a singlet nuclear carrier..
« Pour faire rigoureusement les mêmes bateaux, les Anglais sont plus chers que nous. Si nous construisons des navires avec eux, ils feront une grosse économie et nous une petite », explique une source proche du dossier.
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=103546
This still is a very valid comment from French industrials; whatever way you put it the French shipbuilding industry manages to work at a cheaper rate for doing the same job.
CVF delays are also well documented.
http://www.janes.com/regional_news/europe/news/jdi/jdi051027_1_n.shtml
UK MoD distances itself from CVF in-service date
By James Murphy
The UK Defence Procurement Minister Lord Drayson has moved to distance the Ministry of Defence (MoD) from the previously quoted 2012 in-service date (ISD) for the future aircraft carrier (CVF), saying he "reserved the right to set the ISD" once a Main Gate decision had been set.
Giving evidence at the House of Commons (HoC) Defence Committee on 25 October, Lord Drayson said the Carrier Alliance, an industry consortium set up to build the new carriers, still had "loose ends" to tie up before a Main Gate decision could be reached, but would not be drawn on when the decision would be taken.
Main Gate, the point at which a firm investment decision is taken, was previously scheduled for the second half of 2005, but Lord Drayson said clarity was needed on cost, timescale and risk before the decision could be made.
The Carrier Alliance, consisting of the UK MoD, BAE Systems, Thales UK and physical integrator Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR), had yet to agree all parts of how an alliance approach will work, Drayson said.
When questioned as to what was holding up the alliance from reaching an agreement, Lord Drayson merely said he was "not going to discuss publicly the nature of any commercial deal".
Lord Drayson also highlighted that the Defence Industrial Strategy, set to be published by Christmas and itself containing a new Maritime Industrial Strategy, would "provide a framework by which decision [on CVF] can be taken".
He said the alliance principle for CVF was the "first step" in outlining a future structure for maritime shipbuilding in the UK, but also added that the MoD did not "intend applying alliance principles on all other projects".
Last edited:
Considering the contract has not been signed it is a little unfair to claim this is a failing of the industry in question. The UK DoD and now the French MoD are both party to the ongoing delays.
When construction starts I have no doubt there is likley to be slippage and cost overruns as, as you say this is a complex project which will provide a vessel unmatched in europe today except to the extent CdeG is nuclear powered. CdeG did suffer a few delays in commisioning and these were not necessarily related to the power plant (flight deck length and propeller asn speed iissues being the most reported), however as with CVF, these should not be considered unexpected for such a ground breaking programme nor do I think it is correct to assume these will only happen because the UK is involved.
I still beleive that three vessel will be cheaper per unit than a single one off unit not leasst becasue the design cost gest spread acroos the three. The problem for UK and France is that if they wish to keep the skills developed they need to keep building these ships.
As far as we know mate the only problems there are are between MoD and the British industrials.
Leave France alone on this one.
The UK Defense minuster refuses to sign the bill as simple as that and it's NOT because France shipbuliders are more expansive or need to resctruturate it is because MoD wants the UK industrials to restructurate because they cant stick to the agrement on cost otherwise.
AGAIN it IS a UK-UK problem.
contedicavour
New Member
Delicate situation here. The more the CVF is delayed the more other programmes will be delayed since their funding will have been eaten up by the delayed CVFs. At this speed there won't be a pound for type 22Batch3 and type 23 replacements before 2018 (probable date of completion of 2nd CVF), ie no new operational FFGs before 2025 !!
cheers
cheers
Alpha Epsilon
New Member
I would have thought that that is a rather naive calculation:
1) Funds do not disappear just because CVF slips from a 2012 (2015 for the second CVF) to a 2015 (2018) commissioning.
2) I would have thought that there is flexibility in the budget to get funds from the near future to pay for present programmes (i.e. spend money on a T22 replacement by partly raiding the T23 replacement budget)
3) The post above seems to imply that the UK can't pay for any other naval programme whilst CVF is being paid. I doubt that this is the case with Astute, MARS, Type 45, etc.... going on whilst the CVF would be built under the original programme schedule. This means that when CVF is built about three years later a lot of this funding would be again available with programmes such as the Type 45 probably having finished by 2015 with hopefully 8 ships!
4) S2C2 is at the moment looking at upgrading the rather young 13 still in service Type 23s. This would mean a relatively low budget programme that would leave funds to replace the 4 T22s.
5) There is also the idea from S2C2 to merge MCMV with escorts by building, as a start, about 8 ca. 2000 tonnes OPVs. With the eventual replacement of the 4 River class OPVs and the 2 Echos this could rise to about 15.
6)This has something to do with the Royal Navy wanting to boost escort numbers to at least 30 again. At the expense it would seem of a dedicated MCMV fleet. The problem would be solved by anti-mine UUVs on board these OPVs.
7) The DIS clearly states the need for a steady workload for the British warship yards, that is another reason why I am rather convinced of a new British future escort to appear about 2017ish.
Come 2025, I think the Royal Navy will look probably like this:
2 CVFs
8 Type 45s
8 C1s (ca. 7000 tonnes) ---> transition time between Type 23s and C1s
8 C2s (perhaps same hull as the C1 with less capability built in as standard)
15 C3s (ca. 2000 tonnes OPV)
7 Astutes (---> hoping for a 8th!)
4 SSBN(R)
4 Bay LSLs
2 Albion LPDs
1 LPH, perhaps 2 LPH
Other ships such as 2 Wave Class Tankers, 6 RoRo Point class ships, ca. 12 MARS replacement ships, ca. 18 very small patrol ships (similiar to the ones operated at the moment by the Cyprus and Gibraltar Squadrons), RFA Argus, etc... .
Last edited:
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
It's quite the reverse. The more CVF is delayed, the easier it is to allocate money for current projects such as Astute and Type 45. Future things like escort replacements won't happen because the reports aren't finished yet.
Besides the overwhelming belief is that if CVF doesn't get main gate approcal this year it won't at all.
overlander
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #617
your predictions are too optimistic. first of all still not ordered cvf, we will see, later the type 45 i think will be only 6, the astute as a maximum 6 and the maximum number of escorts in 2025 i think will be no more than 20, plus rfa argus will pay off before 2025 for sure.
Alpha Epsilon
New Member
Let's see in 2025.
1) With RFA Argus I meant either the specific ship or a similar ship, however I note that Navy Matters says that RFA Argus will remain in service until 2020, I think that could be extended.
2) 6 Astute's could pose a risk due to the Vanguard replacement. It might be that 7 are required so or so just to have an uninterrupted production. However, the number 7 is based on the Navy Matters website which iirc states 7 being planned with an 8th a possibility if funds permit this.
3) As for the Type 45s, it could be both really, it depends on a lot of factors.
4) As for escorts, I doubt very much that they will fall under 20 in 2020, especially if the Royal Navy starts replacing MCMVs with 2000 tonnes general purpose OPVs in an "exchange ratio" of 2 MCMVs for 1 OPV. If this plan goes ahead, the escort force should go above 30 (though with MCM being part of their task).
5) I think CVF will go ahead.
And let's not forget, before Iraq and Afghanistan the UK had far more ambitious plans with 12 Type 45s and 12 Astutes etc... planned. When the costs of these two wars goes down in the next few years more funding than in the last few years will hopefully be available.
No argument about the UK restrucuture BUT the third vessel is unlilely to be identical to the UK CVF (CATOBAR and different systems) and this and the work share issue does add an additional layer of complexity to the project. You cannot discount this issue.
For the UK the French involvement has an additional advantage in that the additional design work for the CATOBAR option will be done. Despite the fact CVF is intended to be 'future prooofed' to allow conversion to CATOBAR from STOL this will greatly simplify the process should that decision be made.
It is likely that if the CVFs are converted to CATOBAR it will not be until electromagnetic catapults are available, which would somewhat reduce the value of the French design work. Still have some relevance, though.