HMS EAGLE in the Falklands

Reader mode

Hammerbolt

Gunnarnz said:
As for the French, they built their CVN with the same reactors used by their subs. This was not ideal, and I seem to recall they had a fair amount of trouble with their powerplants. However, it did mean that more space could be devoted to fuel and weapons for their air group, and it also kept their skilled nuclear-tradespeople usefully employed. Another possible advantage was that it provided a pool of trained operators who could transition into the submarine arm if necessary - it's hard to make sure you have enough nuclear engineers, given military life and pay. And, of course, it meant that their carriers had theoretically unlimited range at full speed.
Click to expand...

France (specially at this point in time) has a very strong civilian nuclear-plant service. They won't go short on people for this job anytime soon...
 

Pseudo

Gunnarnz said:
I would expect that CATOBAR carriers are seen as the only "real" option if you're serious about having a carrier at all, with the Harrier carriers rather unfairly seen as the "toy" version. RN methods will gain even more credibility than they had otherwise. We could also expect that the equipment and weapons they used will become popular export items.

As for the French, they built their CVN with the same reactors used by their subs. This was not ideal, and I seem to recall they had a fair amount of trouble with their powerplants. However, it did mean that more space could be devoted to fuel and weapons for their air group, and it also kept their skilled nuclear-tradespeople usefully employed. Another possible advantage was that it provided a pool of trained operators who could transition into the submarine arm if necessary - it's hard to make sure you have enough nuclear engineers, given military life and pay. And, of course, it meant that their carriers had theoretically unlimited range at full speed.

Generally speaking, though, if I was trying to find out why they went with CVNs, I wouldn't look purely at military reasons. It's entirely likely that there were political-industrial reasons as well, and perhaps even a dose of prestige too - don't underestimate the desire of the French to be able to operate independently, and be taken seriously as a world power.
Click to expand...
I think that you make a good point about the fundamental difference between the RN and MN requirements. The RN has a substantial replenishment fleet in the RFA that the MN lacks which means that an RN carrier group can be guaranteed to include a tanker where an MN carrier group might have to be able to operate autonomously for long periods. That said, I'm not sure that the increased cost of using nuclear propulsion for CdG would be less than building a couple of tankers, but I expect that the lifetime operating costs of those tankers would be.
 

Zheng He

Gunnarnz said:
I would expect that CATOBAR carriers are seen as the only "real" option if you're serious about having a carrier at all, with the Harrier carriers rather unfairly seen as the "toy" version. RN methods will gain even more credibility than they had otherwise. We could also expect that the equipment and weapons they used will become popular export items.

As for the French, they built their CVN with the same reactors used by their subs. This was not ideal, and I seem to recall they had a fair amount of trouble with their powerplants. However, it did mean that more space could be devoted to fuel and weapons for their air group, and it also kept their skilled nuclear-tradespeople usefully employed. Another possible advantage was that it provided a pool of trained operators who could transition into the submarine arm if necessary - it's hard to make sure you have enough nuclear engineers, given military life and pay. And, of course, it meant that their carriers had theoretically unlimited range at full speed.

Generally speaking, though, if I was trying to find out why they went with CVNs, I wouldn't look purely at military reasons. It's entirely likely that there were political-industrial reasons as well, and perhaps even a dose of prestige too - don't underestimate the desire of the French to be able to operate independently, and be taken seriously as a world power.
Click to expand...

I don't agree, CATOBAR carriers and their aircraft are really expensive and I don't see countries like Spain, Italy, Thailand, and India going that route if for no other reason than money alone unless you try to get a second hand ESSEX class ship from the US which brings a whole other set of problems. You can also have a much smaller carrier if you go the Harrier route whereas going the CATOBAR route means the smallest you can probably get is something along the lines of what the French are operating. Then there is the issue of the catapults themselves. They are complex and difficult to make and maintain which is why the US and Great Britain are the only two countries that have ever made them (French carriers have had either British or American catapults).
 

King_Arthur

Zheng He said:
I don't agree, CATOBAR carriers and their aircraft are really expensive and I don't see countries like Spain, Italy, Thailand, and India going that route if for no other reason than money alone unless you try to get a second hand ESSEX class ship from the US which brings a whole other set of problems. You can also have a much smaller carrier if you go the Harrier route whereas going the CATOBAR route means the smallest you can probably get is something along the lines of what the French are operating. Then there is the issue of the catapults themselves. They are complex and difficult to make and maintain which is why the US and Great Britain are the only two countries that have ever made them (French carriers have had either British or American catapults).
Click to expand...

I agree. Spain launched Principe de Asturias during the War, while Italy laid down Giuseppe Garibaldi in 1981 and launched her in 1983. Spain already as her harrier carrier ready for commissioning, while I highly doubt Italy will cancel Garibaldi on the slip. I could see India buying Foch or Clemenceau (they have CATOBAR experience thanks to Vikrant), but they are likely to go the STOVL/STOBAR route they went IOTL.
 
SsgtC

SsgtC

Banned
Zheng He said:
I don't agree, CATOBAR carriers and their aircraft are really expensive and I don't see countries like Spain, Italy, Thailand, and India going that route if for no other reason than money alone unless you try to get a second hand ESSEX class ship from the US which brings a whole other set of problems. You can also have a much smaller carrier if you go the Harrier route whereas going the CATOBAR route means the smallest you can probably get is something along the lines of what the French are operating. Then there is the issue of the catapults themselves. They are complex and difficult to make and maintain which is why the US and Great Britain are the only two countries that have ever made them (French carriers have had either British or American catapults).
Click to expand...

King_Arthur said:
I agree. Spain launched Principe de Asturias during the War, while Italy laid down Giuseppe Garibaldi in 1981 and launched her in 1983. Spain already as her harrier carrier ready for commissioning, while I highly doubt Italy will cancel Garibaldi on the slip. I could see India buying Foch or Clemenceau (they have CATOBAR experience thanks to Vikrant), but they are likely to go the STOVL/STOBAR route they went IOTL.
Click to expand...
I think India may be the one exception. Out of everyone that wants a carrier, they're the only ones who could realistically go the CATOBAR route. And I think they would. The British experience in the ATL Falklands seems to "prove" that high performance fighter aircraft are needed to operate effectively in a strike role. Everyone else will, I think, do as OTL and make the best of it with STOVL or STOBAR carriers.
 

Hammerbolt

SsgtC said:
I think India may be the one exception. Out of everyone that wants a carrier, they're the only ones who could realistically go the CATOBAR route. And I think they would. The British experience in the ATL Falklands seems to "prove" that high performance fighter aircraft are needed to operate effectively in a strike role. Everyone else will, I think, do as OTL and make the best of it with STOVL or STOBAR carriers.
Click to expand...

This here. Nothing like real-world experience to prove a point.
 

King_Arthur

SsgtC said:
I think India may be the one exception. Out of everyone that wants a carrier, they're the only ones who could realistically go the CATOBAR route. And I think they would. The British experience in the ATL Falklands seems to "prove" that high performance fighter aircraft are needed to operate effectively in a strike role. Everyone else will, I think, do as OTL and make the best of it with STOVL or STOBAR carriers.
Click to expand...

I don't think India had the capability to build carriers in the early 80s though. They will most likely buy Foch, Clemeceau or Eagle.
 
SsgtC

SsgtC

Banned
King_Arthur said:
I don't think India had the capability to build carriers in the early 80s though. They will most likely buy Foch, Clemeceau or Eagle.
Click to expand...
Most likely. Or try to collaborate on the future British carrier. If India is willing to shoulder some of the development costs, I think that dramatically increases the odds of the UK building a new class. At least 2 for the RN, 1 or 2 for the Indian Navy, maybe even one for Australia (in lieu of Invincible, though I doubt the RAN could actually afford to buy one).
 

JamesHunter

King_Arthur said:
I don't think India had the capability to build carriers in the early 80s though. They will most likely buy Foch, Clemeceau or Eagle.
Click to expand...
Eagle's clapped out and the French twins are not only smaller than Hermes but relatively new at this point. Likely they still buy Hermes and perhaps do a quite deal for one of the post Eagle CATOBAR's Britain will be building. After all if you can find a few investors (and use tech to keep costs down) it will be easier for the RN to buy its own carriers.
SsgtC said:
Most likely. Or try to collaborate on the future British carrier. If India is willing to shoulder some of the development costs, I think that dramatically increases the odds of the UK building a new class. At least 2 for the RN, 1 or 2 for the Indian Navy, maybe even one for Australia (in lieu of Invincible, though I doubt the RAN could actually afford to buy one).
Click to expand...
Ninjaed... Bother...
 

Zheng He

SsgtC said:
Most likely. Or try to collaborate on the future British carrier. If India is willing to shoulder some of the development costs, I think that dramatically increases the odds of the UK building a new class. At least 2 for the RN, 1 or 2 for the Indian Navy, maybe even one for Australia (in lieu of Invincible, though I doubt the RAN could actually afford to buy one).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure Cold War politics will permit the Indians to be part of a new CV design with the British given their close relationship with the Soviet Union at this time unless India aligns itself more in the direction of the US alliance. It's one thing to buy a few Sea Harriers and an small old carrier with ski jump. Being a collaborative partner on a new state of the art CATOBAR carrier that will likely include some US technology on it sounds like a bit of a stretch to me. Maybe this conflict convinces the French they need to a newer and larger carrier that can operate heavier aircraft sooner rather than later meaning one of their carriers can be sold to the Indians in the late 1980s.
 

JamesHunter

fhaessig said:
Everything is relative, but the Clem was launched in 1957....
Click to expand...
Its still over a decade newer than Eagle with alot less use and no potential damage from sitting on the slips unfinished for years. Also the Clem's have had recent refits and in OTL served for decades to come so I doubt France is ready to part with one any earlier than when Foch went to Brazil in OTL.
 

El Pip

Hammerbolt said:
France (specially at this point in time) has a very strong civilian nuclear-plant service. They won't go short on people for this job anytime soon...
Click to expand...
My understanding is that civilian and military nuclear power are quite different. Maybe not the theory and plumbing, but the standards, approach and the softer people side of things.

Admittedly I was told this by someone who installed cooling for both, so clearly there is some cross-over. But the management and ops people he dealt with were night and day different.
 

MKD

Wet Coast said:
They could always apply to the Despots Retirement Home otherwise known as Saudi Arabia though not being Muslim may be a hinderance.
Click to expand...

i thought the despots retirement home was in Wentworth................

Zheng He said:
Just curious, what is so bad about Hull?
Click to expand...

My evil ex lives there.

andys said:
If the world had piles, they'd be in Hull.

There's a saying, "From Hell and Hull and Halifax, God Lord deliver us."

It's a dump.
Click to expand...

That is harsh. Halifax is no way as bad as Hull. I have been to and lived in many dumps. Calling Hull a dump is an insult to decent dumps the world over.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top