Marine Nationale (French Navy)

[WillS]

Good question, if Morin is hawkish... unfortunately most ministers in France don't dare speak outloud until the President tells them to. After some cacophony that the press joyfully played on, now everybody just shuts up and follows the line...
... which by the way is something like "we are short of money, and there's a huge backlog of spendings awaiting to materialize".

cheers

I don't know if anyone's seen this blog post?

My French is non-existent and web translators are less than perfect but it looks like there are people within the French MoD agitating for a reduction in frigate/destroyer numbers to 15 units.

I suspect that this is the usual public panic appeal to prevent such an eventuality but it's scary that such figures are even being considered. Looks like there's a real battle going on between those willing to sacrifice numbers of escorts to ensure the building of PA2 and those willing to sacrifice PA2 to ensure decent escort numbers.

WillS
www.boilingthefrog.co.uk

 

[overlander]

Ouch I just found this on today's edition of Le Figaro, France's best selling daily. If you want a full translation you can use google, but in a few words the situation is worse than I thought, as the PA2 is seriously being questioned because of the inadequate budget...

cheers - er actually no, this time it is ouch :shudder

Le second porte-avions français sur la sellette

Samuel Laurent (lefigaro.fr) avec AFP
21/04/2008 | Mise à jour : 17:22 | .

Le Charles de Gaulle (DR)
Le ministre de la Défense Hervé Morin a confirmé dimanche que la situation budgétaire rendait «difficile» la construction d'un second bâtiment pour suppléer le Charles de Gaulle.
La rumeur agitait les milieux de la défense depuis quelques semaines, Hervé Morin l'a confirmée dimanche au Grand Rendez-vous Europe 1-Le Parisien : «la situation budgétaire de l'équipement de nos forces rend difficile la construction du second porte-avions».

Depuis la mise à la retraite du Clémenceau en 1997, la France ne possède qu'un seul porte-avions, le Charles de Gaulle. Une situation handicapante, puisque ce bâtiment doit être mis en cale sèche durant six mois tous les 200 jours, soit plus d'un tiers du temps.

Lors de la campagne présidentielle, la question avait été abordée par Nicolas Sarkozy et Ségolène Royal. Le futur chef de l'Etat avait expliqué, lors d'un entretien avec la revue Défense : «La décision de se lancer dans la construction (d'un nouveau porte-avions) doit s'apprécier relativement aux marges de manœuvre dont nous pouvons disposer et à la lumière des arbitrages capacitaires».


3,5 milliards d'euros

Quelques mois plus tard, lors d'une convention de l'UMP sur le sujet, il avait nuancé son propos, parlant de «question de cohérence» et insistant sur la nécessité de «se poser la que®stion de la permanence à la mer de notre groupe aéronaval». Une prise de position plus favorable à cette construction, donc. Hervé Morin avait d'ailleurs indiqué, le 25 juin 2007 sur France Inter : «A priori, nous aurons un second porte-avions. C'est, disons, acté».

Mais les difficultés budgétaires de la France ont changé la donne. «C'est un arbitrage que nous avons à faire, qui sera fait dans les semaines qui viennent», a assuré dimanche Hervé Morin. Le Livre blanc sur la Défense, attendu d'ici à l'été, devrait trancher.

L'autre question est celle d'une éventuelle «mutualisation» de la construction avec la Grande-Bretagne. Une position qui avait les faveurs de Ségolène Royal durant la campagne. Elle permettrait de répartir l'effort financier, estimé aux alentours de 3,5 milliards d'euros, selon un rapport parlementaire datant de février. La Défense conteste ce chiffre et parle, elle, de 3 milliards.

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/pub...ubt_on_new_aircraft_carrier120015589.php:vamp

 

[youpii]

A second flight group to go with PA2 seems out of question. So PA2 is only a "spare" PA. 3.5B€ seems a lot of money for a spare capacity. Basically, asking to to build the largest ship in the fleet only for spare capacity was doomed to fail. They should have pointed out the extra capacity (50% larger ship) and requested some Rafale to be shared with the French airforce to have the capability of deploying two carriers at the same time for a punchy attack. Given the current state of the French budget, there is a lot of chances that MN will stay a "one carrrier" navy. Actually, only the USA & UK have many carriers now.

 

[overlander]

So if the French Navy decides to cancel the PA2 and the Royal Navy finally built the 2 cvf,s the R.n. would be again the 1st navy in Western Europe ??

 

[Spacearrow99]

So if the French Navy decides to cancel the PA2 and the Royal Navy finally built the 2 cvf,s the R.n. would be again the 1st navy in Western Europe ??

When the 2 CVF the RN will be the 1st Navy in Europe. The RN will also have more AAW DDGs and SSNs than MN. I hope the French MOD cancels the PA2 project and builds a different carrier design.

 

[AegisFC]

When the 2 CVF the RN will be the 1st Navy in Europe. The RN will also have more AAW DDGs and SSNs than MN. I hope the French MOD cancels the PA2 project and builds a different carrier design.

From what I've been reading the French don't want to build PA2 in a Scottish ship yard (and I don't blame them) but weren't they unfairly suggesting that all 3 ships be built in France? I know the entire point of CVF/PA2 was to make all 3 ships cheaper due to economies of scale but at this rate any cost savings looks like they will be negated by politics and national requirements.

 

[ASFC]

After the Horizon mess up, it was decided that the RN and MN would only share the design, and that the carriers would be built seperately. The idea of building certain 'blocks' of all three carriers was floated in the Telegraph over here in the UK when the budget squeeze started, but that the bulk of the ships would still be built in each others country. Be careful not to confuse the CVF program with Horizon, where one of the reasons why the UK pulled out was because we were the largest customer, yet the French wanted to build all the ships (or a at least a disproportionate amount of the ships). That is not what is happening in CVFs case.

This whole idea of 'the first navy in europe' grips me. Ok the RN has more Subs and DDGs and we could field more carriers than the MN, but the MN has more 'low end' escorts and more landing ships, yet the RN has more 'high end' escorts, making comparisons between the two navies difficult to say the least.

 

[harryriedl]

After the Horizon mess up, it was decided that the RN and MN would only share the design, and that the carriers would be built seperately. The idea of building certain 'blocks' of all three carriers was floated in the Telegraph over here in the UK when the budget squeeze started, but that the bulk of the ships would still be built in each others country. Be careful not to confuse the CVF program with Horizon, where one of the reasons why the UK pulled out was because we were the largest customer, yet the French wanted to build all the ships (or a at least a disproportionate amount of the ships). That is not what is happening in CVFs case.

This whole idea of 'the first navy in europe' grips me. Ok the RN has more Subs and DDGs and we could field more carriers than the MN, but the MN has more 'low end' escorts and more landing ships, yet the RN has more 'high end' escorts, making comparisons between the two navies difficult to say the least.

landing and Ampibs its quite even between the RN MN they have two Minstrals compared with Ocean but the Invinisables can be reroled.
2 LPD's each for the RN and the MN
4 LSD for the RN and no equiverlent for the MN
6 small LST for MN
and 6 RO-RO for the RN
there is very little diffrence between the two on the Ampib front

 

[ASFC]

Even still, my slip up on amphibs not withstanding, I'm making the point that both Navies excel in different areas, and that the cancelation or purchase of Carriers does not make or break a navy necessarily. (Russias recent claim of 5 Carriers being a case in point. They might eventually own five carriers, but they might have trouble operating all five at the same time.)

 

[swerve]

From what I've been reading the French don't want to build PA2 in a Scottish ship yard (and I don't blame them) but weren't they unfairly suggesting that all 3 ships be built in France? I know the entire point of CVF/PA2 was to make all 3 ships cheaper due to economies of scale but at this rate any cost savings looks like they will be negated by politics and national requirements.

AFAIK they were suggesting a joint build: large blocks to be built in each country, all 3 of each block to be built in a single yard - and assembly of all ships to be done in France, as it had a dock which could do the job, while any British yard would require major works. The UK wasn't inclined to do it that way, especially not with the French taking so long to actually order a ships. We're now having to spend £50 million at Rosyth to make it capable of assembling the ships. No. 1 dock at Rosyth will have its gates widened (the dock itself is plenty wide enough), & a fair bit of new kit will be installed, including a Goliath crane & hauling gear.

MoD link re. Rosyth & CVF

I presume the proposal for final assembly in France was what made you think the French were angling to build all 3. However, this would not necessarily have meant France getting more than its share of the work, since most of the work is in building the blocks.

 

[ASFC]

and assembly of all ships to be done in France, as it had a dock which could do the job

Thats news to me, is there a link to the source? I understood that the deal collapsed because British Shipyards were worried that the French would get too many of the blocks, not that they wanted to assemble all three ships.

 

[Spacearrow99]

Thats news to me, is there a link to the source? I understood that the deal collapsed because British Shipyards were worried that the French would get too many of the blocks, not that they wanted to assemble all three ships.

I can't wait until the White Paper on Defense and National Security is published in early June. Will Sarkozy order the PA2 or will he order a smaller conventional carrier?

 

[swerve]

Thats news to me, is there a link to the source? I understood that the deal collapsed because British Shipyards were worried that the French would get too many of the blocks, not that they wanted to assemble all three ships.

I don't have a link to the source, and can't be bothered to hunt for it. It was only a proposal (though a rational cost-saving measure), & one that the UK was never going to agree to. Politically impossible, IMO.

 

[harryriedl]

I can't wait until the White Paper on Defense and National Security is published in early June. Will Sarkozy order the PA2 or will he order a smaller conventional carrier?

wouldn't designing a smaller carrier be more expensive as you designing a carrier from scratch rather than piggy backing on another program[It was the French who pushed up the size to 75,000 tons].

 

[kato]

wouldn't designing a smaller carrier be more expensive as you designing a carrier from scratch rather than piggy backing on another program[It was the French who pushed up the size to 75,000 tons].

Well, in theory they could take the CdG design and rework it with conventional turbines in place of the nuclear reactors. Would need some serious internal reworking though, and probably some extra space reserve for the additional fuel.

 

[Spacearrow99]

wouldn't designing a smaller carrier be more expensive as you designing a carrier from scratch rather than piggy backing on another program[It was the French who pushed up the size to 75,000 tons].

The MN increased the weapons load and fuel storage capacity of the CVF. Most of the extra wieght of the PA2 comes from installing catapults and aircraft launching and landing systems.

DCNS can use CDG as a basis for their design.

 

[contedicavour]

I don't know if anyone's seen this blog post?

My French is non-existent and web translators are less than perfect but it looks like there are people within the French MoD agitating for a reduction in frigate/destroyer numbers to 15 units.

I suspect that this is the usual public panic appeal to prevent such an eventuality but it's scary that such figures are even being considered. Looks like there's a real battle going on between those willing to sacrifice numbers of escorts to ensure the building of PA2 and those willing to sacrifice PA2 to ensure decent escort numbers.

WillS
www.boilingthefrog.co.uk

The point is that it's either the PA2 that gets cut or FFG numbers... sure they can trim 1 SSN here and a dozen Rafale Navale there, but it won't be enough.
My expectation is that only 13 FREMM will be built, including the 2 more AAW oriented called FREDAs, but that PA2 will still be built. Expect Rafale Navale orders to go down to 40-45 vs 60 and may be only 5 SSN Barracuda. This should save the PA2. The programme is of too high symbolism to be cut. Any reworked carrier would waste extra money and time...

cheers

 

[Spacearrow99]

The point is that it's either the PA2 that gets cut or FFG numbers... sure they can trim 1 SSN here and a dozen Rafale Navale there, but it won't be enough.
My expectation is that only 13 FREMM will be built, including the 2 more AAW oriented called FREDAs, but that PA2 will still be built. Expect Rafale Navale orders to go down to 40-45 vs 60 and may be only 5 SSN Barracuda. This should save the PA2. The programme is of too high symbolism to be cut. Any reworked carrier would waste extra money and time...

cheers

The Barracuda program want be cut; six Barracudas are minimum inorder to maintain current MN operations. The general staff of the MN wanted to build second CDG CVN, but Chirac wanted to build the PA2. If Sarkozy wants to, he can wiggle his way out of the PA2 project. Anglo-Franco defense projects haven't been very successful over the years. France entered the PA2 program inorder to save costs constructing a new aircraft carrier. But the British don't want to share the construction costs of building the 3 carriers. The final cost of the PA2 is estimated in at 3 to 3.5 billion euros. The French MOD could've ordered DCNS proposed 59,000 ton Juliette CVN at that price.

I want the French MOD to build a conventional powered variant of the CDG. I don't care about symbolism. I want to maintain or improve the current capabilities of MN. The MN would have just about enough Rafales to deploy a second flight group. The Armée de l'Air and MN can share Rafales, so that the MN could deploy a second flight group in emergencies.

If 13 FREMMs get built including the FREDAs, thats fine with me. The La Fayettes can be upgraded with AAW aand ASW systems. The French MOD could order replacements for the avisos from DCNS or Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie.

 

[kato]

My expectation: The PA 2 project will join the Joffre, Verdun and PH 75. Cue new carrier program next year.

 

[harryriedl]

My expectation: The PA 2 project will join the Joffre, Verdun and PH 75. Cue new carrier program next year.

apart from the budget squeeze and the Def-min seeming coolness about the carrier program are there any other aspects which would cause its cancellation [apart from it being a British program and national pride]. because to me it seems like the perfect solution for both France and the UK even with out the joint build. and the French specs are of almost CVN proportion 70+ Rafs plus Helos and ASTER and Sadral [are the high specs a problem]

would you be with Spacearrow that a modified CDG would be the next design which wouldn't have a chance to take over from CDG when it goes into refit in 2015