UK and France commit to greater defence cooperation at Paris summit.
The UK and France have agreed to coordinate deployments of aircraft carriers to provide complementary and a more persistent European presence in regions of shared interest.
Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, said:
“As our leaders meet in Paris, the British and French Armed Forces are working together in response to Russian aggression in Europe, and to protect our shared values and interests across the globe. Now we will deepen our cooperation be it supporting Ukraine today or meeting the challenges of tomorrow, from security in the Arctic to carrier deployments in the Pacific.
We will also pursue a host of joint endeavours from intelligence sharing to complex weapon development. This reflects the mutual respect and confidence that exists between us, our shared technological ambitions, our unwavering commitment to NATO and our recognition that the security of Europe and the Atlantic is tied to that of the wider world.”
During the summit, the UK and France agreed to coordinate deployments of aircraft carriers to provide complementary and a more persistent European presence in regions of shared interest.
“This will mean routinely providing support for each other’s task groups, cooperating in exercises to prepare our carriers for warfighting, and explore opportunities for the United Kingdom and France to demonstrate the sequencing of more persistent European carrier strike group presence in the Indo-Pacific.
Further integration of the UK and French Armed Forces over the next decade was also discussed, with a vision to enable seamless operations and draw on common intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) data.”
The UK and France also agreed to work to ensure interoperability of weapons and platforms across Europe and NATO, including advance landmark projects to develop their future complex weapons systems, such as the Future Cruise and Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) programme.
An agreement was also reached on a new dialogue on defence industrial strategy, and to cooperate further on European air defence capabilities and directed energy weapons.
Could an f35b take off from Charles de Gaulle? I know it doesn’t have a ski jump but is the flight deck long enough for the f35 to take off like US marines do on there amphibious assault ships?
Is there a problem with heat resistant decks?
Not sure what the US carriers do for it
I think the issue may be more landing related with regards to heat protection of the deck.
Isn’t that one of the issues that the landing spots on the carriers need a lot of maintenance and repainting due to thee heat of the f35b?
I doubt it will ever be done just my mind being curious.
Do we know if any USN f35c’s have ever operated from de gaulle yet?
F35c cannot operate off of CDG,but conversely Rafale M can operate off US Carriers.
Are you implying the F35C cannot operate from Nimitz carriers? Because the CdG uses the same US CATOBAR system as on Nimitz carriers
There is no reason the F35C cannot operate from CdG since F18 Super Hornet already can, both weight 15k tons and F18 is slightly wider and longer.
The probable reason the F35C has not operated off CdG yet is that F35C is not fully deployed in US Navy yet, a few planes at most.
Well until recently it was the Ford that it couldn’t operate off of. Still serious problems with that carrier’s launch and retrieval systems even now, with its ongoing problems being noted in Congress including that it’s efficiency in operations still falls well below the old school Kittyhawk carriers of decades past and only manipulated figures obscure that very real deficiency.
They should have gone with EMCAT 🙂
It seems the main issue with the Launch and Retrieve. is that currently it stresses Carbon Fibre. more than anticipated. Hornets conformal tanks keep splitting due to the change in loads. was never anticipated
Then the acceleration profile is being outputted wrongly?
The whole point of EMALS is that the force / acceleration profile is programmable.
Such that for different types of aircraft, such as drones, a much softer assisted launch can be achieved.
That does makes sense. Also, recovery issues would involve the Advanced Arresting Gear.
US is having to resurface all their carriers with a higher heat resistant coating to handle the F-35 (and not just the B version), so far they have concentrated on the amphibious assault ships rather than the fleet carriers.
And yet the F35c has already successfully deployed on board both the USS Carl Vinson (USN) and USS Abraham Lincoln (USMC).
Carl Vinson had a 17 month refurb to accommodate F-35 completing in late 2020, USS Abraham Lincoln had a 6 month refurb to accommodate them completing in Spring 2021.
Other than not many F35C being in carrier use so the few full carrier qualified pilots will be focussing on USN priorities?
Bizarrely F35C is the most troubled leg of the program.
USN have no great love for F35C and F35B has got the weight of a range of allies, exports UK and USMC with it.
Its a complicated subject,have a read and make your own mind up,im confident no F35c will ever operate off of the CDG – https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27034
Incorrect. They can use catapult/arrestor like everyone else.
??
Not exactly paint. The landing spots have a special heat-resistant coating to withstand the 1,509C heat. It’s a mixture of titanium and aluminium, applied as powered metal using a robotic spray through a plasma jet at 10,000C.
The other issue would be France doesn’t operate the F35 so even if they can land/take-off they couldn’t be maintained nor probably rearmed.
Harriers were operated a few times off the US super carriers but given the fact it wasn’t a more regular thing I surmise it wasn’t wholly successful or practical.
Harriers were USMC territory so it made more sense to cross deck theirs.
F35b could probably melt a landing wire to the deck
F35B cannot land on CDG due to its weight, this was established a long time ago.
It could take off but likely would have limited fuel and munitions due to the shorter take off space and no ski jump.
An F-35B equipped with air to air missiles would probably have no issue.
Last I heard on the matter, F35s were forbidden from flying off French ships because the stealth characteristics are US proprietary technology and the US security relationship with France has been somewhat fraught throughout most of the post-war period.
CdG is only slightly longer than both the America and Wasp classes (262m v 257m), so if the island doesn’t cause aerodynamic problems an F35B configured the same way the Marines do on the assault ships ought to be able to fly off no problem. Just not come back again.
Would be good see France 2 carriers as well as Spain Italy with 1 big deck carrier each better for Europe security
Italy has the Giuseppe Garibaldi carrier that will have the F-35 and the landing helicopter dock Trieste. And Spain has the amphibious assault ship Juan Carlos that will operate the F-35. France has the Charles de Gaulle and three Mistral-class amphibious assault ships.
Italy has the Giuseppe Garibaldi carrier and the landing helicopter dock Trieste will hopefully operate the F-35. And Spain has the amphibious assault ship Juan Carlos that will operate the F-35. France has the Charles de Gaulle and three Mistral-class amphibious assault ships.
Yes interoperability will be great with F35B, leaving France as the odd one out with a CATOBAR nuclear powered carrier with 4.5th generation aircraft.
30 F35B for Italy, 74 for us and 15? for spain and 5 STOVL carriers (to an extent).
Will allow for a decent force which could always be reoinforced by USMC which USN couldn’t do to the same extent even if we had CATOBAR carriers.
Yeah. I know their helicopter carrier does mention it will have F-35. I’m not sure of the status of the Garibaldi. I think we are also looking for new LHDs. Spain doesn’t need 5 STOVL carriers, at best 2.
Meant 5 overall with QEC, PWLS, Cavour, Trieste, Juan Carlos 1
I get you. Cheers.
Garibaldis very small and old but they also have Cavour which is larger. There was talk of Garibaldi staying in use with something to do with Space, effectively keeping it in military reserve.
The STOVL European carriers are QE+ PoW. ITS Cavour and possibly Trieste (although she is strictly an LPHD). Juan Carlos (Spain) that’s all folks, unless France purchase F35B for the Mistral class. Turkey is also about to commission an F35B capable LPHD. So maybe European NATO countries together could get upto 5 STOVL carriers.
Yes hopefully talks of a second Turkish LHD go through.
Beleive they want to operate a variant of Bayraktar 2 off the LHD’s because of the F35 ban so I doubt interoperability with the Turkish won’t be an option.
Australia really messed up with the Canberras unable to operate F35B.
There will be several types of drone operating from the Anadolu, and in my opinion the Bayraktar TB3 isn’t the most impressive. Bayraktar’s MIUS progamme is a lot more impressive, leading to a low radar cross-section supersonic fighter drone. The subsonic MIUS-A (Kizilelma) was test flown at the end of last year. The B will have a more powerful engine and the C will be twin-engined, and it’s expected both B&C will be supersonic. I imagine once sea trials for the ship itself are complete, it will be worked up with the subsonic variant as that’s all that will be… Read more »
Then the key point is that the US has both bases covered, so to speak, wrt both stovl and catobar ships in the fleet. Though the supercarriers are more capable and more expensive to go with it certainly, the US has got many and also at the same time a limited number of both and whichever other of the European navies also fields carriers, they’ll slot right into both the carrier and/or the expeditionary strike groups to bolster their numbers. Re the F35B it’s also worth noting the Indo Pacific countries who can or are planning to operate stovl capable… Read more »
My point was more that the US has 9 LHD’s whilst the USMC will get 353 F35B. Only if each carried 24 and all 9 were on operations at once would there not be any left over F35B from them. The US CATOBAR fleet is too tied up to be based on other nations carriers and it is much easier to land an F35B on any carrier than land a CATOBAR aircraft on multiple different types of Carriers. Yes I forgot to mention Japan and South Korea. I don’t know what came of the CVX project and whether it’s still… Read more »
You made a good point, yes. I just figured that Charles de Gaulle plus its Rafales and Hawkeyes are also very useful in supplementing the USN’s super carriers and similar air groups in terms of interoperability and numbers whenever it sails with them.
Your point is a good one, yes. I just figure that whenever she sails with them Charles de Gaulle plus its Rafales and 2 Hawkeyes are also very useful to the US Navy’s supercarriers and larger air groups of Super Hornets and Hawkeyes, in terms of interoperability and numbers.
What about ITS Cavour? She is Italy’s premiere carrier. Garibaldi is rumoured to be offered up for sale when ITS Trieste enters full operating capability.
I didn’t spot the Cavour. Cheers for the update.
Not certain the allies can have too many carriers! The more, the merrier, for our side. Not so much, from the scum sucking, slimeball ChiCom perspective. 🤔😁
And to convert the POW carrier into a hybrid conventional /vstol carrier to make it more useful and interoperable with our allies.
It’s far more interoperable with Allie’s in its current configuration. CATOBAR interoperability is a myth. Takes months to work up even the ships indigenous air wing much less a foreign air wing using different aircraft. Any pilot from the Singapore Airforce, USMC or JMDF could operate off of Queen Elizabeth tomorrow with F35B.
I was just trying to have the best of both worlds and if the POW was just lying around gathering dust. You’d hope that future developments of the F35Bs will give them a bit more zip, range and payload.
On a tangen. I remember seeing a photo of a AEW version of the Harrier called “Black Jack” somewhere a very long time ago so will they try for a F35-AEW?
The MOD have said they expect the replacement for Crowsnest to be a drone.
General Atomics are already advertising the ability for our Protectors to A) fly off and the carrier and B) carry out AEW at very high altitude. That’s combined with F35B could be a real game changer and no need to install a catapult on QE class.
The CVF concept looks better all the time.
It’s unlikely Protectors could handle the power requirements for AEW, and they aren’t designed to be used in hostile/denied environments. I think we still have some way to go.
But will we live long enough to see it.
Yaaaaaaaawn
Hi Jon, yes, I had forgotten about that.
We need AEW but the yanks use 5 Hawkeyes per carrier. Amazing effort to sustain maned surveillance. Drones will come hopefully sooner than later.
Arguably Block IV of the F35B will make it an AEW asset. New more powerful AESA radar and even better sensor fusion and data linkage with legacy link 16 aircraft.
Block IV has some very secret non kinetic weapon enhancements as well and I would not be surprised if CEC capability with warships was part of that.
CROWSNEST might not be around for much longer.
Crowsnest was selected as a short term solution OOS is expected 2030 with the Merlin Fleet. shame its 3 years late and we want to give a order to Leonardo.
Merlins to be around to 2040+ as stated by MOD. What we want is more of them for the FAA in both ASW (10-20) and HC (10) versions.
POW will never be gathering dust. She is a valuable “spare” for QE, according to the adage: two is one and one is none. Even when all is well and QE is deployed, POW will be training and ready to respond to unforeseen circumstances.
Morning Mate, how are tricks? I’d like to see the RN Canberra carriers having f35b capability. The RAAF could swop a squadron of A’s for B’s.
Morning Klonkie, hope NZ has dried out a bit after all the rain. Looked absolutely terrible.
Yes, we’re waiting for the release of public version of the defence review here. The two Canberra ‘s are parked here in Sydney harbour Garden Island naval base. They’re a fairly decent size, built in ski jump, lightly armed (4*25mm) but I reckon could upgraded a bit to take some F35Bs and drones or bulid another more dedicated one as like Turkey’s or is it a now, Türkiye’s… lol 😁.
cheers Mate- yep, we got a taste of what Queenslanders are all too familiar with!
Off topic a bit, but do you reckon NZ might be tempted for a bargain priced ex RN ASW T23 or two? Might get two for the price of an all new T26! 😆 But you will need to find the personnel to main them first and maybe some spare 5” main guns!
its a good suggestion . but i think they may consider the Type 31s to replace the ANZACs’
The Anadolu and the Canberras already have the same fundamental design, along with their parent, Spain’s Juan Carlos. I’m not sure if Spain has opted for F-35 conversion yet, but Australia have said several times they don’t want to go that route.
What large carrier centred battle do you expect to see in Europe?
There is more than enough capacity to deal with Russian aggression when UK has, with allies, a full fleet of F35B.
What would make most sense was us UK and France primarily coordinated maybe with Italy on carriers and with Spain, Italy and France coordinating on LPH.
That way you can have 2 carriers available in Europe and probably 3 LPH – allowing for usual refit cycles. QEC are quite young so their availability should be pretty good once PoW is fixed in the spring.
It would probably be best if the two navies would coordinate on taking care of things closer to home so other forces could deploy to a more relevant theater. Of course that would kind of not really follow along with the pivot to the east.
Yaaaaaaaawn
What does “Europe” having a carrier deployed even mean. Rishi and the Torys pulled us out of the EU now he seems to be rejoining a European security framework. Carrier harmonisation was part of Lancaster house agreement and the JEF. Not sure when the Tory’s pulled us out of that one or why we have to go back in. Is it a NATO tasking or not.
We left the EU – trade
We didn’t leave Europe or its Defence structure!
Yes we did, Bojo refused to have a European security framework to replace what we had in the EU. Their is much more to European defence and security than just NATO.
Brussels is a non elected Power, non democratic or voted for. Has no Army or Navy or Air Force. How does it enforce a security.
Exactly – What dictates the foreign policy they will be implementing?
IIRC Macron suggested France giving up the French Seat on the UN security council for an EU one…..They will then of course need a common foreign policy which says it all…
We must not become part of an EU Army by surreptitious mechanisms.
By all means work with them in common interests but always under the auspices of our own governments FO policy/C&C.
Been hearing that proposal re. the Security Council on-and-off for at least 15 years- and talk of ‘reforming’ the Security Council in general for longer than that. Nothing ever happens though- probably because no 2 countries have the same idea of what ‘reform’ would actually entail. .
Macron never said or suggested such a thing. It was actually AKK (a german politician from the green party) that said this.
France didn’t even bother to respond to such a ridiculous statement.
Interesting.
https://www.naval-technology.com/features/uk-and-eu-security/
And,
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49217.htm
https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2019/07/16/strengthening-eu-nato-relations/index.html
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-nato-cooperation-factsheets_en
So the answer to your question is it does so through each individual member countries’ militaries, thus ultimately involving NATO who the overwhelming majority of EU countries are members of.
So the answer to your question is it does so through each individual member countries’ militaries, thus ultimately involving NATO who the overwhelming majority of EU countries are members of.
Jim is right – there is more to European defence and security than just NATO; it’s funding, along with each individual member’s militaries, are in the end paid for by their respective economies, meaning their GDP and trade. Thus ultimately involving, for those who are part of both, their memberships of and roles in the European Union and its activities.
Europe EU
Sadly after the Trump administration dissing attitude towards NATO, the European portion has realised it can’t assume America will always be a reliable partner. There’s plenty of European only frameworks like JEF as supplements to, not replacements for, NATO.
I looked it up. Cooperation between the EU and NATO apparently is a big thing.
Lots of cooperation between USA and NATO too 🤷🏻♂️ Not surprising given the vast majority of EU members are also NATO members.
Yes, I know…👍🏾
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/its-sink-or-swim-time-for-the-eu-on-russia/#comment-613103
Well I guess even though the EU has in theory a concept joint and mutual defence in practice it’s never really been formalised and thus NATO has tended to play that role which has always presented dangerous possibilities in terms of conflict with Russia. As Sean says the trans Atlantic bonds that encourage and enable that strategy really is in doubt these days and it seems even the British Govt which has always stood against European independent military bodies hopefully is seeing that under the new realities in European security and the inherent dangers putting one’s eggs in a single… Read more »
Thanks. And I agree wholeheartedly. It was always a source of amazement to me from 2016-20 that even while Trump was openly loudly hostile to NATO (and at the very same time, the WTO), both organisations were and still are held up in support of the UK being outside the EU which he of course also v much supported. And now in each respect, the reality is it helps the UK that he is out and Biden’s in, without a doubt for Ukraine also. So hopefully neither Trump nor anyone like him gets into power in the US again. As… Read more »
I was working in NATO South out of Naples in the mid 00s
We( UK) had probably a hundred people in the various NATO agency arms there. There where thousands of various NATO nations staff at the headquarters.
The EU contingent was around 3-5 people who had a small office and where not allowed into the main Battle Staff rooms because of the NATO security classifications on some of the data on the big screens.
OK things may have changed since then but the caveats on NATO Secret Networks and data hasn’t changed.
Please do take a look. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49217.htm#:~:text=Sharing%20strategic%20interests%20and%20facing,in%20the%20east%20and%20south.
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-nato-cooperation-factsheets_en#:~:text=The%20security%20of%20EU%20and,the%20security%20of%20their%20citizens.
https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2019/07/16/strengthening-eu-nato-relations/index.html
NATO has never carried its own weight ever. Stick with your Europe. Next thing you know……
Sorry I don’t speak gibberish, only English. Perhaps you should try again using Google Translate? 🤷🏻♂️
Dont think its working properly in moscow anymore, needs a better VPN to get the proper translation!
Europe Never Carried its on weight all failed nations of weak men. LOL
Have you ever actually made a statement that makes actual sense?
Perhaps you should stop speaking; your tongue must be awfully sore after licking Putin’s boots so much.
Oh dear, more sad “I found Brit squaddie socks in my laundry” froth….
Exhibit A : Bosnia
Yes and we left them all under Bojo.
Wrong.
We left the EU, as per the result of the democratic wishes of the nation as determined by the 2016 referendum.
The U.K. is the lead nation of the JEF, established as a NATO initiative as part of the “Framework Nations Concept”.
Other large militaries in NATO such as Germany, France, Italy, also lead other frameworks.
Should have left much sooner if it wasnt for the the numerous sides trying to overturn a democratic vote, did we get the ideal deal for leaving no we didnt, but we left.
agreed
You Forgot Cameron and May. but at least Bojo didnt want to ignore the Vote. which is why Labour Lost. Bitter salty sweaty sock
It’s all with Trump’s fault. Europe stepped on their dick for years. There’s a reason they are so impotent at the moment. Try to think critically. Europe dropped the ball. And has for 30 years.
Nope still gibberish – something about Europe having a bigger dick than America? I think you might have size issues and are projecting 🤔
Any 3 big European countries could easily defeat Russia in a fight. Implies that. They didn’t needed need to spend much more on defence after all.
Note that the hundreds of French aircraft which have just been mothballed are good enough to defeat Russia single handedly
Your lord Putin couldn’t step on his own dick; probably couldn’t find it with both hands.
Waffle, guff and jealousy every post!
Firstly the UK public voted democratically to the leave the European Union.
Secondly if Macaroon wishes to continue his dream of having a European military let him get on with it. The UK doing joint exercises with France is a different agreement, as much as I disagree with our military links as France uses any opportune moment to stab us in the back it is what it is.
Rishi and the Torys. didnt Vote that was the UK public. not sure if You understand a democracy. UK is now independent of the EU armed Forces and there bicycle. Brussels buying its fuel from Russia the people it was intending to Fight. Germany also shopping wholesale in a country that would invade it. Brexit may have been a mess, may not have been Right. But get over it or is that Thatcher’s Fault or the fact Labour ignored that Democracy at the last election and wanted to stop Brexit. was why you lost
This is about which carriers are where and when, not about landing on each others decks. I don’t think the RN and USN/Marines ever did that regularly back in the 60’s?? But I’d be interested to be proved wrong!
Drones appear to be the future for QE Carriers it appears. Royal Navy brings in Banshee to build RPAS capability08 MARCH 2023 The UK Royal Navy (RN) has purchased seven QinetiQ Banshee Jet 80+ remotely piloted air systems (RPAS), as the next step in building its unmanned aircraft system (UAS) capability. The Banshees will support two primary tasks for 700X Naval Air Squadron (NAS), the maritime UAS centre of expertise. “First, it’s about building remote pilots’ experience of operating that type of uncrewed system. Second, it’s a vehicle to allow the RN to test and develop different types of sensors,”… Read more »
Taken onboard HMS Prince Of Wales
https://ukdj.imgix.net/2021/09/banshee1.jpg
great pic Nigel
👍
NELSON WOULD TURN OVER IN HIS GRAVE.
LMAO!! The Entente Cordial was signed 120 years ago though, tbf.
Why?
One 42,000 ton carrier deploying with 30 Rafale fighters; one 65,000ton carrier with 8 F35b. CDG has 32 Aster silo’s and 12 for Mistral and 8 cannon. QE has 3 Vulcan.
And then there was that little thing about the E2D. Which there is nothing even comparable to on the other one. Crow’s nest is a f****** joke. That’s what you need to play. The French get that. 8 early model f-35s are a quantum leap ahead of where everyone else was but they are not state of the art.
F35s are a quantum leap but they are not state of the art, heard of contradicting yourself?
Yes E2D brings sustained long running AEW, crows nest is not a joke its just not as good as E2D, however an F35 in the air brings severe AEW capability also.
Agree, it’s also worth noting that just like in WW2 UK carrier operations will tend to be in confined waters close to UK airbases and US ones will tend to be in the pacific. 90% of the time in any operation the UK will be able to rely on E7 which is way beyond E2 in capability.
When are they going to be available since right now the UK has none operational. And boy all three of those are going to be hard worked as they say in the UK.
Wow your grumpy today, did you get knocked out by a Brit squaddie again when you were talking when you should have been listening? It’s OK, don’t worry, it’s not your fault.
The point about any carrier is that they are supposed to be independent of land bases.
Ah – but how long can an F35B remain airborne?
AEW is not required if the CAP is up. F35s Radar is more Powerful than the E2Ds. Crowsnest just covers that Gap in the Cap is not airborne. its not 1950s anymore LoL
LOL biggest laugh for the day. Thanks.
The US Navy wholeheartedly disagrees with you.
What next? No need for E7.
US NAVY is living in 1945 why is still retarded in everything it does. cannot get 5th gen fighters on its 5th gen carrier. so shhhhhhhh biggest laugh is the USN
Hi comrade, we have this thing called sensor fusion on the F35. We don’t need E2D. F35 combined with CROWSNEST is a multi layer warning and control system.
Your country is unable to provide such capability as you rely on a source of micro processors coming out of old washing machines.
Perhaps one day you will evolve past 1960’s tech and be able to make your own transistors.
Yet CDG only carries 2 E2 so they can’t have a permanent eye in the sky.
Funny thing Crowsnest was only intended as a stop gap and a Italian firm messed that up, soft hand Europeans again
Oh now it was an Italian firm…
Leonardo. Google IT
You’re a f*cking joke. Every word you say is complete bile.
F35s not state of the art? Oh my, you are so anti Brit that you just make up statements, then contradict them.
Hmm. I would be very careful when stating “Crowsnest is a f****** joke!” Clearly it doesn’t have the height advantage that extents the radar horizon. Nor does it have the ability to look for threats around 600km away. It doesn’t use resonance effects to detect stealthy targets. Plus it uses an old hat mechanically scanned pulse Doppler radar instead of an AESA. So it must be useless! Well no actually, it has its place. Being based on the Searchwater radar has its advantages. For starters it can detect very small objects in really choppy seas. As it was originally designed… Read more »
good post Mate- really interesting insights.
Spot on and on top it worked rather well up in the hills of Afgan tracking them bad guys too, a role the system or helo were not thought capable of.
Not quite to your point but the Future PA-NG carrier looks very impressive, though France really ought to have two. Hopefully the issues with the related FCAS are resolved and the planes are actually made for it however.
That’s the point: if you have only one it can be made more impressive. We chose two fairly impressive ones instead.
Ooph. I’m here for the forthcoming commentary about dissing our two invincible and illustrious carriers.
Wait, did I just…
She is impressive but again it’s only one ship. We went for two to always have one on station but we could increase the annual figures of having both operational if we put our mind to it.
I notice she is due to enter service in 2038. About the same time as our third squadron of F35’s. Sorry…just being mischevious!
I know however I did say France ought to have two.
Apparently they did not originally intend for CdG to be the only one of her class, or for them to be a one carrier navy. If France had gone ahead with PA2 they’d be in a better place today but they didn’t. Still, at least we can thank Thales Group and their UK subsidiary for their design and build leadership as part of the carrier construction consortium.
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide-defence/naval-forces/magazine/uk-carrier-strike-group-gets-underway-its-international
Both are crewed fully just missing the aircraft to fill them up as we only will ever have enough for one air wing. 😕
I have been having this discussion here for the last couple of years. It would be possible to have both carriers operating and overlapping with mixed air wings. It just need the will to do it.
The total number of Rafales every produced is 40 so how do you think they could ever have 30 on a carrier? Even with the Harrier fleet in 1982 we barley managed 75% deployment under war time conditions which is seen as probably the greatest availability of aircraft ever achieved. How do you think France can do better than that in peace time? Also have you ever watched what happens to an aircraft carriers deck when you launch a solid fuel missile from it? It gets covered in smoke for minutes and shuts the aircraft carriers deck to operations. You… Read more »
Also doesn’t matter how many planes you have when you only have 1 carrier as when it goes into maintenance or refit you effectively have no planes.
48 Rafale de Marine produced.
“Also have you ever watched what happens to an aircraft carriers deck when you launch a solid fuel missile from it?”
You know that USN has ESSM’s and RAM in their carriers?
It makes possible for the commander to choose the best for tactical situation. British carriers instead are sitting ducks.
Trouble is your still in the 1950s. QE class will always have a Type 45/23 Beside her. USN have removed weapons from the Ford Class.
That would be no.. you have internet access look it up
Do you have Internet in Russia or is it just Comedy Hour on repeat. your entertainment value is limited, guess you stretched your IQ. when you try to fishing for attention. guess your father never hugged you on your 5th Birthday, maybe he will on your 6th. but i guess that disappointment in his face when he looks at you.
You really are a special case of jingoism. You know there are photo don’t you…?
Could you Translate that into English as i don’t read Retard
Well the US has done it for the last 50 years but I’m sure you know better.
Yaaaaaaaawn do stop crying.
How do you think they could ever have 30 on a carrier? Because they have had 30 on the carrier! Wiki might not be 100% accurate but here’s an extract…
“In 2019, Charles de Gaulle operated 35 aircraft during exercises, its record: two Dauphin helicopters, thirty Rafale M, two E-2C Hawkeye and one NH90 NFH Caiman. In the event of war, the carrier is expected to operate close to its full complement of 40 aircraft.”
Same Source
2010 Operation Agapanthus : 10 Rafale, 12 Super Entendard2012 FANAL exercises : 7 Rafale, 7 SuperEtendard2015 Operations against Islamic State : 7 Rafale, 9 SuperEtendard, 15 sorties per daySeptember 2016 Battle of Mosul : 24 Rafale (nice)
I make that an average of 20.5 on real deployments. Which is good. I don’t see any gap, we will have 37 F35s bee end 2023
You can Launch and land 8 F35s at the same time. CDG can only Launch or receive not both, QE can out cycle the Ford Class. and there are Now 15 F35 pilots. why would the QE need Missiles thats a WW2 model. QE can have 4 Phalanx not Vulcans “thats a Bomber mate” and the Mounts and hardware for the 30 Auto Cannons are there. 5th gen Carrier and 5th Gen aircraft No other World Navy has 2. Ford Class is a 5th gen with a 4/5th gen fighter group. and unlike the Ford class which is a laughing… Read more »
As I’ve told many times before there is no rush. Why would anyone want the best equipment as soon as possible when you can dawdle along ang take ten or fifteen years to get round to doing your best to defend your country.
Issue is Pilots on the F35 programme being 2.5 years behind target. defend the UK should be the priority let the rest take the strain for a bit
Hi Jon- does that mean 8 in total or 8 at lauch and 8 at recovery (i.e. 16)?
The 8 in question was a bit tongue in cheek as we they say 8 F35s is a wing, and we only have currently 15 pilots, so we tend to have F35s in groups of 8. put they can cycle land n take off at the same time.
The Ford class is also a fifty year program. Unless the United States’ ability to get the new tech eventually fixed and working reliably, and applying all those lessons painfully learned with Ford to the next three ships is in doubt?
Yep agree, but one thing they cannot fix is Carbon Fibre don’t like starting and stopping quickly, it doesn’t stretch and contract, and that is a big issue in a modern fighter program
Right. So even though the F35B’s the most mechanically complex of the three we have evidently lucked out in not having to catapult them into the air, or hook them with arrester cables. With the plane’s long list of issues over the years it’s a shame in the C variant’s case one of them is apparently a prime material it’s constructed from. If the B is proving reliable that’s great.
2010 and 2012 active deployments ie Iraq/Astan action involved 12 Rafale and 9 Super Etendards.
The QE’s first deployment of 18 F35s is orders of magnitude more powerful. Yes 10 of them were USMC – but 30 F35s have now been delivered with another 7 scheduled in 2035.
Nuclear power is near irrelevant as you still need hydrocarbons for the escorts, and food for the crew.
I’d like to see a few CAMM on QE but still QE + T45 + T26 + Tide is not a bad package
I think this is more about the French only having one carrier. The cannot cover a gap when their carfier is in refit. Trust the French to stress the European angle rather then a global perspective. They would love the UK to be tucked into a EU defence force….
Haha love that attitude! Listen im as Brexit as they come but this isn’t about the EU, its about Geography and about shared interests. Anything that happens to France and we also cop the fallout…..so to speak.
But a French aircraft carrier is just as capable of going off to the other side of the world to fight China as a British one. And being nuclear powered, no chance of running out of gas/diesel? I mean, doesn’t CdG sometimes sail alongside USN carriers outside European waters?*
*And just as able to come over and cover their French NATO ally’s capability gap as well
Yes I might be a bit harsh on the French but they have not been that friendly to us recently. At one stage we did have an agreement to cover a French carrier gap with our carriers but that was when we had F35C slated for cats and traps. After we went for F35B I think the agreement was dropped.
Yes although it was the same time that call me Dave was trying to scrap one of our carriers and I’m sure this factored in. Having two means we don’t need to rotate with anyone else.
Unless the CDG is planning on sailing with no aircraft onboard or any escorts it’s still going to have to refuel. The CDG is no where near as capable as a QE class. It’s aircraft are a generation behind the QE, it’s 50% smaller, their is only one of them and it can only operate French aircraft of which their are only 40 in existence. There will eventually be nearly 500 F35 B operated by atleast 4 allied nations able to operate from Queen Elizabeth on short notice with little training. Remember France paid part of the development budget for… Read more »
Hi
CDG had serious problems when it was achieved, but for 20 years now has achieved an operationnal life impressive (even compare to one US carrier) which is planned to continue for the two next decades. The number of operations “tiny Charles” participated is just enormous.
And it had already bring 30 Rafales M (just one time I give it to you) which is a (very) lot of airpower, routinely between 20 and 24 Rafales.
We can’t criticize the ship just because it’s french 😅
No just its tiny size bit like Napoleon small in the hand
…lovely.
Being a one-carrier navy was not France’s original plan – let’s not forget the previous pair, Clemenceau and Foch. Nor was Charles de Gaulle meant to be the only one of her class. Their version of QE, PA2, was scheduled to enter service in 2015 as the second carrier in the fleet as the French Navy was understood to be unwilling to proceed with another carrier of CdG’s design. It would certainly have replaced her but not straight away. I’d wager those budget constraints that led them to cancel PA2 were similar to the ones that the UK govt had… Read more »
Issue is that Nuclear power and being able to Dock, so of the Pacific Allies don’t like Nuclear Tipped anything. and CDG is about as reliable as the Russian one sat at the Bottom of the bay
Surely then CdG doesn’t have any more issues with those friendly pacific non-nuclear supporting allies than the United States’ nuclear ships and subs have got, no?
Someone else commented re CdG’s operational capabilities and reliability over the last 20 yrs and planned for the next two decades which I see you’ve responded to. lol
Surely then CdG is no more handicapped by those friendly pacific non-nuclear supporting allies than the United States’ nuclear ships (and subs) are, no?
Someone else commented re CdG’s operational capabilities and reliability over the last 20 yrs and planned for the next two decades which I see you’ve responded to… Lol
Funny thing is everyone forgets about the re-fuelling of a reactor takes quite a long time. and is maintenance heavy.. CDG realiability since refit has improved but she still does 6 months on 6 months off 50% reliability in truth
I understand re refuelling and maintenance. Gunbuster below commented details on the same. Great that we and France are cooperating on deployments and so much else.
No it wont run out of fuel but it will need to be re-cored. The French reactors on its Carrier and Subs uses low enriched uranium so need to go into refit, be cut open and refuelled a lot more than a reactor using HEU, as USN and RN assets do. Factor in more frequent refuelling of reactors and the length of time it takes to do it then you will probably find that a conventional carrier is available more often. If you use HEU it gives you 25 years between refueling/core changes LEU around 6 years. UK Carriers are… Read more »
Absolutely. Interesting that the cancelled PA2 was originally going to be conventionally powered. Future French subs and the PANG will undoubtedly use HEU, though admittedly both are years and years away.
Nuclear power only relates to the ship itself, its escorts all need liquid fuel as does its airwing so as the Yanks discovered not a great saving really and of course the crew have to be fed!
Yes, you’re correct of course.
Interesting article on the IAF and their use of drones; Roughly 80 percent of the total number of the IAF flight hours are performed by UAVs, something Maj. M, deputy commander of the squadron, said shouldn’t be a surprise given how much the IDF has come to rely on unmanned systems. “UAVs replace manned aircraft in more and more missions. The number goes up all the time,” she said. (One good example: the IAF has traditionally operated manned aircraft for maritime patrol missions but is transferring the majority of that work to UAVs equipped with special payloads. However, that mission… Read more »
I read this article a few years ago how the IDF employs certain gifted autistic adults to scan images, and data most impressed and certainly thinking outside of the box.
That was quite wholesome to read, maybe we could do the same.
Thanks for the link F, this is typical of Israel using resources and ingenuity. Wish MOD would think outside the box sometimes instead of talking about thinking outside the box.
Just read this article some might find interesting.
https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/the-f-35-is-getting-a-15-billion-upgrade-thatll-make-it-a-whole-new-beast/
It has been proven,that drones ,are the future, for land and sea ,due to cheaper to make,run,maintain, and can be controlled by a ship or a plane
Makes sense to me.
If, as the navy says, one is none and two is one, then it stands to reason that three is two.
If SHTF and the Ukraine war did escalate, then between us and the French we could have two carriers operating.
Perhaps get Italy and Spain in on this as well; while their carriers are less capable than QE or CdG class, better to have them than not.
Do the French have the auxiliaries to deploy a carrier group to the pacific? I believe they only have a couple of tankers and no solid stores ship?
The CDG is in someways more impressive than the QEs as a ‘proper’ carrier, but deploying a carrier group to the other side of the world requires more than just the carrier. Britain and the US are the only two countries who can do that.
Yes 4 Durance class resupply ships (which be replaced by BRF over the next few years)
The BRF Jaques Chevallier started sea trials end of 2022 and entering active service shortly.
Construction of the second BRF Jaques Stosskopf started last year. A total of 4 BRF are planned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDjuI5Wf1VM
Why do I get the feeling this is the latest Tory wheeze to justify further slashing the defence budget?
They just gave up another £5 billion over 2 years. Its that the MOD needs to things smarter to get the bangs it needs.
I think someone needs to sit Radakin down and explain to him that he’s not Foreign Secretary. Every time he opens his mouth he veers way too far into politics. Personally I don’t want a “host of new weapons” to be developed with the French – name one that has worked? The SeaSkua replacement is running late and that FCASW is vapourware.
When the French start buying Brimstone I’ll believe they’re serious about cooperation
FYI Sea Venom/ANL has been in service with RN since 2021
Storm Shadow/SCALP co-developed by France and UK seems to be a success.
Not to mention other weapons France co developped with other countries that have been succesfull ie Aster 15 and 30 with Italy and Bonus arti shell with Sweden. All fit for purpose.
Seems to be a long-term drive for greater interoperability and coordination between US, UK and France where naval power porjection is concerned. See this articlefrom a couple of years ago: https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/06/03/us-uk-french-navies-agree-to-bolster-joint-operations-tech-collaboration/ I think part of the reason that the US put so much effort into regenerating RN carrier strike capability is because they hope to lean on allies to mitigate the fact that they have 11 operational CVNs, while their commitments imply a need for 12. (12 ships implies 4 available at short notice, for a country bordering 2 oceans and unable to transit the Panama Canal).
Good find. Explains everything very clearly.👍
If the F35C can not land on the CDG, i propose for the US to purchase French Rafales and that will be it. Tada, now you can land on the CDG.