German Navy

[spoz]

Not too keen on the location of what appears to be the 5 inch cartridge room, either. No VLS or sonar, apparently. A design for a strategic environment in which there was no real great power competition and where constabulary and brush fire conflicts, including anti terrorist operations, had priority - arguably an environment which is disappearing as the elephants start to trample around.

 

[swerve]

Yes. A colonial cruiser. Great for supporting UN interventions, anti-piracy patrols (over the top, but could back up smaller vessels - though an Absalon or similar might be better for that role).

Well, at least that's sorted out for the German navy. Constabulary etc. is covered, & now it can concentrate on ships for full-on wars.

 

[Ananda]

Germany proposes European aircraft carrier

Seems some member of Frau Merkel party floats the idea of Join Euro CV..well I presumed it might be using French next gen CV. The idea from financing perspective seems has some merit.. considering French now shown capabilities constraints on operating one CV let alone two as what they used to do with Foch and Clemanceu.

However as any 'Euro' join military asset idea..is this workable ?

Upps..just see t68 already put this in Euro Army thread..

 

[hauritz]

Germany proposes European aircraft carrier

Seems some member of Frau Merkel party floats the idea of Join Euro CV..well I presumed it might be using French next gen CV. The idea from financing perspective seems has some merit.. considering French now shown capabilities constraints on operating one CV let alone two as what they used to do with Foch and Clemanceu.

However as any 'Euro' join military asset idea..is this workable ?

If Germany feels it needs an aircraft carrier I would be inclined to tell them to pay for it out of their own defence budget. Most of the other nations are probably more concerned about how they can afford to pay for their own kit without taking on any more expenses.

They only way it might work are for assets that would be needed by all countries and even then you would have to have a workable arrangement for sharing those assets.

 

[John Fedup]

The only way a Euro carrier happens is a French designed and built ship paid for by Germany. What are the chances for this happening?

 

[Ananda]

I have suspicion that the idea being floats also related to French and German plan for join Euro next gen fighter. French off course wants the Fighter to have carrier variant.
However with small population, then how to finance the carrier variant ?

If the German did not want to co-finance carrier variant development as part of overall design Investment..then French might go separate ways, thus the Eurofighter - Rafale situation repeat again.

However if the idea of Join Euro carrier can move along..then the justification for co-finance Carrier variant is there.

Off course this is bit far fetched..I believe the main idea behind this is for Euro Centric forces.
French shipyards off course will be the one that design and build it..German shipyard has no experience with carrier beside that Zepelin they build in WW2..
French build it, German co-finance the Aircraft..

It can happen if German and French are politically serious for join Euro Armed Forces.

 

[John Fedup]

The real question is why would the EU want a carrier? Only the French would consider deployment outside of Europe. EU airforces will deploy locally, to the east and to the south. Land based are sufficient. For sure, the future EU 5 th Gen fighter (i.e. French- German) does present a problem for France. Germany and other potential EU customers understandably don’t want to finance a maritime version future jet.

There have been a number articles on the ongoing debate about CVN vulnerability as submarine and missile technology advance at rates seemingly greater than defensive systems for surface ships. One really has to wonder what threats these multi-billion dollar ships will face in 10 or 20 years let alone in 30-40 years. There is also issue of combat radius for jets operating off carriers, that is ranges which place carriers in the danger zone. Perhaps if options like the X-47B were being produced I would be more optimistic about carriers. Surface fleets in general may be in for troubling times in 10 years. I look at Canada’s 60 billion dollar CSC program and wonder if it should cut in half in order to fund new and larger submarine fleet.


Nothing Projects Power Like an Aircraft Carrier. Does the Pentagon Think Otherwise?

Does USS Truman’s Early Retirement Herald a New War on Carriers?

 

[swerve]

The real question is why would the EU want a carrier? Only the French would consider deployment outside of Europe. ....

Apart from Luftwaffe Tornados in Afghanistan operating alongside AMI Tornados & AMXs . . .

And of course, everyone & his dog has chased Somali pirates in the Indian Ocean.

 

[Ranger25]

The real question is why would the EU want a carrier? Only the French would consider deployment outside of Europe. EU airforces will deploy locally, to the east and to the south. Land based are sufficient. For sure, the future EU 5 th Gen fighter (i.e. French- German) does present a problem for France. Germany and other potential EU customers understandably don’t want to finance a maritime version future jet.

There have been a number articles on the ongoing debate about CVN vulnerability as submarine and missile technology advance at rates seemingly greater than defensive systems for surface ships. One really has to wonder what threats these multi-billion dollar ships will face in 10 or 20 years let alone in 30-40 years. There is also issue of combat radius for jets operating off carriers, that is ranges which place carriers in the danger zone. Perhaps if options like the X-47B were being produced I would be more optimistic about carriers. Surface fleets in general may be in for troubling times in 10 years. I look at Canada’s 60 billion dollar CSC program and wonder if it should cut in half in order to fund new and larger submarine fleet.


Nothing Projects Power Like an Aircraft Carrier. Does the Pentagon Think Otherwise?

Does USS Truman’s Early Retirement Herald a New War on Carriers?

I concur. Doesn’t see an ongoing need for global Naval power projection for Germany whatsoever. And agreed, from a Euro defense standpoint one can do this with shore based AShM and fighter aircraft.

Best to save the money and fix their current needs across all three services.

 

[t68]

I wonder if trumps plan for allies to pay the full cost of hosting US troops plus 50% has anything to with it, gota hand it too grumpy he’s trying to run it as a business which I agree to a degree but defence is not a business it’s national security. Stationing troops overseas is not only in the interest of the host nation but also in the interests of the US.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...72b9cb-09d5-481e-9475-291378986dbb_story.html

 

[John Fedup]

The logistics of moving military kit to Europe in a time of crisis is no easy task and moving personnel across the Atlantic is high risk. Predeployed kit and personnel has value to the US assuming an important trading market is still of interest.

 

[kato]

The real question is why would the EU want a carrier? Only the French would consider deployment outside of Europe. EU airforces will deploy locally, to the east and to the south. Land based are sufficient. For sure, the future EU 5 th Gen fighter (i.e. French- German) does present a problem for France. Germany and other potential EU customers understandably don’t want to finance a maritime version future jet.

There are a few points relevant to this "European Aircraft Carrier":

• In February 2003 at the Le Touquet Anglo-French summit Jaques Chirac and Tony Blair agreed to work towards a pooled carrier capability for supporting the then-planned European RRF. It was planned to involve other European nations in this, in particular Italy and Spain with existing capabilities. That's the basic idea behind the whole thing.
  
• At the time the defense spokesman of the CDU publicly endorsed the idea of a pooled/shared European carrier capability and endorsed that Germany "should join such an initiative". The same guy went on to stay as a parliamentary secretary (lower-rank minister) at the German MoD until 2013 and then was Federal Minister of Agriculture and later Federal Minister of Transport in Merkel's cabinets - in other words we're talking about a defense spokesman deep in Merkel's circles. He was kicked off the government bench with the new coalition a few months ago.
  
• The primary opponent of the above plan decided to quit Europe in June 2016.
  
• France is - since October 2018 - running a study to evaluate future requirements for a successor to Charles de Gaulle, to commission in the timeframe of 2030-2035. Set requirements include compatibility with the Franco-German Rafale/Eurofighter successor. According to a statement of the French Minister of the Armed Forces, part of the studies is evaluating "how many carriers will be required for French and European interests".

And then after that comes the Treaty of Aachen.

 

[kato]

Predeployed kit and personnel has value to the US assuming an important trading market is still of interest.

There is no predeployed kit in Germany anymore really. US assets in Germany, ground forces wise, consist of a Stryker brigade which usually has at least half its personnel and gear deployed to other places and gear for a armoured brigade which is stationed in Germany for shipping around Eastern Europe for training of US forces there. It's similar with Italy as the second larger-scale host of US forces in Europe.

Apart from Luftwaffe Tornados in Afghanistan operating alongside AMI Tornados & AMXs

We also have Tornados stationed in Jordan right now and some assets around western Africa.

 

[Redlands18]

There are a few points relevant to this "European Aircraft Carrier":

• In February 2003 at the Le Touquet Anglo-French summit Jaques Chirac and Tony Blair agreed to work towards a pooled carrier capability for supporting the then-planned European RRF. It was planned to involve other European nations in this, in particular Italy and Spain with existing capabilities. That's the basic idea behind the whole thing.
  
• At the time the defense spokesman of the CDU publicly endorsed the idea of a pooled/shared European carrier capability and endorsed that Germany "should join such an initiative". The same guy went on to stay as a parliamentary secretary (lower-rank minister) at the German MoD until 2013 and then was Federal Minister of Agriculture and later Federal Minister of Transport in Merkel's cabinets - in other words we're talking about a defense spokesman deep in Merkel's circles. He was kicked off the government bench with the new coalition a few months ago.
  
• The primary opponent of the above plan decided to quit Europe in June 2016.
  
• France is - since October 2018 - running a study to evaluate future requirements for a successor to Charles de Gaulle, to commission in the timeframe of 2030-2035. Set requirements include compatibility with the Franco-German Rafale/Eurofighter successor. According to a statement of the French Minister of the Armed Forces, part of the studies is evaluating "how many carriers will be required for French and European interests".

And then after that comes the Treaty of Aachen.

Wasn’t France at one stage planning on building a CATOBAR version of the Queen Elizebeth? and aren’t the QEs actually originally based on a French Design?
Will be interesting to see what Power Plant France will look at for their next Carrier, if they don’t go Nuke then they will need to ask the US for EMALS or develop a version of their own, doubt they would want to go back to Steam Turbines.

 

[ngatimozart]

There are a few points relevant to this "European Aircraft Carrier":

• In February 2003 at the Le Touquet Anglo-French summit Jaques Chirac and Tony Blair agreed to work towards a pooled carrier capability for supporting the then-planned European RRF. It was planned to involve other European nations in this, in particular Italy and Spain with existing capabilities. That's the basic idea behind the whole thing.
  
• At the time the defense spokesman of the CDU publicly endorsed the idea of a pooled/shared European carrier capability and endorsed that Germany "should join such an initiative". The same guy went on to stay as a parliamentary secretary (lower-rank minister) at the German MoD until 2013 and then was Federal Minister of Agriculture and later Federal Minister of Transport in Merkel's cabinets - in other words we're talking about a defense spokesman deep in Merkel's circles. He was kicked off the government bench with the new coalition a few months ago.
  
• The primary opponent of the above plan decided to quit Europe in June 2016.
  
• France is - since October 2018 - running a study to evaluate future requirements for a successor to Charles de Gaulle, to commission in the timeframe of 2030-2035. Set requirements include compatibility with the Franco-German Rafale/Eurofighter successor. According to a statement of the French Minister of the Armed Forces, part of the studies is evaluating "how many carriers will be required for French and European interests".

And then after that comes the Treaty of Aachen.

It will be interesting to see what eventuates with this. If it does go ahead, will it include Italy and Spain, both of whom have carrier experience especially with VTOL aircraft, to whit the Harrier, and Italy is migrating to the F-35B subject to political shenanigans and convulsions etc., in Rome. Spain may or may not migrate to the F-35B because of funding. If both of them do, then that is a powerful force multiplier for a Euro CV force.

That's the next question, do you build one or two CATOBAR CVs? Or do you build one CATOBAR CV and one STOVL CV? It does seem pointless Italy and Spain building a STOVL CV each when they and EU Defence could pool resources and build one, possibly even two. Two STOLV CV and one large CATOBAR CV or CVN would give EuroDEF quite a potent naval force. If perfidious Albion, when it isn't undergoing self inflicted political shenanigans, ructions, and self immolation e.g., were to join said force on occasion that makes for a very strong force that would make even those across the pond sit up and take notice. Would there be political will within Europe to build a CV force consisting of one CATOBAR CVN and two STOVL CVs? There are enough capable ships in all the Euro navies to provide escorts and a logistics train for a Euro CBG and such a CBG would be quite effective.

 

[John Fedup]

If the EU wants a STOVL carrier, get the PoW as part of a Brexit deal should Corbyn win the next election. Should be a potential deal of the century. The future German-French 5th Gen jet would require STOBAR or CATOBAR CV assuming a maritime version of this jet will be developed. STOVL with F-35Bs would be the least expensive option but I don’t think the French would support this.

 

[John Fedup]

Wasn’t France at one stage planning on building a CATOBAR version of the Queen Elizebeth? and aren’t the QEs actually originally based on a French Design?
Will be interesting to see what Power Plant France will look at for their next Carrier, if they don’t go Nuke then they will need to ask the US for EMALS or develop a version of their own, doubt they would want to go back to Steam Turbines.

IIRC, the French carrier was initially decided to be a CVN which ended the British-French collaboration as the UK deemed nuclear as too expensive. Although the UK was considering a CATOBAR with EMALS I believe the French were still going with steam. One question I have is would two MT30s be sufficient for EMALS if the QEC were converted to CATOBAR?

 

[swerve]

Wasn’t France at one stage planning on building a CATOBAR version of the Queen Elizebeth? and aren’t the QEs actually originally based on a French Design?....

The QEs aren't based on a French design. The basic design was by Thales (French HQ but very large British operation, & I think the work was mainly done in the UK: Thales says "Bristol-based facility") & BMT (British), & turned into the final ship design by them, plus BAE & the MoD. Some time after that, the French joined - temporarily. I read that while they were involved they made some detailed design suggestions, IIRC to do with internal layout, which are in the QEs as built.

So it's a mainly British design with some French input.

 

[steel jo]

The real question is why would the EU want a carrier? Only the French would consider deployment outside of Europe. EU airforces will deploy locally, to the east and to the south. Land based are sufficient. For sure, the future EU 5 th Gen fighter (i.e. French- German) does present a problem for France. Germany and other potential EU customers understandably don’t want to finance a maritime version future jet.

There have been a number articles on the ongoing debate about CVN vulnerability as submarine and missile technology advance at rates seemingly greater than defensive systems for surface ships. One really has to wonder what threats these multi-billion dollar ships will face in 10 or 20 years let alone in 30-40 years. There is also issue of combat radius for jets operating off carriers, that is ranges which place carriers in the danger zone. Perhaps if options like the X-47B were being produced I would be more optimistic about carriers. Surface fleets in general may be in for troubling times in 10 years. I look at Canada’s 60 billion dollar CSC program and wonder if it should cut in half in order to fund new and larger submarine fleet.


Nothing Projects Power Like an Aircraft Carrier. Does the Pentagon Think Otherwise?

Does USS Truman’s Early Retirement Herald a New War on Carriers?

It always puzzles me WRT the so called vulnerability of ships v land based a/c in the current climate where these a/c are actually coming from in terms of bases.

When u consider that ships move constantly and carry maximum defensive systems and land bases never move and frequently are not even defended WTF?

 

[John Fedup]

There is a growing concern about the ability of naval defence systems to counter a major missile attack plus CBGs are extremely expensive. This is why laser weapons are seen as the solution to a swarm of missiles and would allow confidence in committing to more 14 billion dollar CVNs. However, lasers aren’t quite ready for prime time yet.