Its had trouble from the start, excessive noise, chemical leaks, massive delays, extended flight deck length so it could operate its aircraft, propeller falling off, drive system fatigue and now an electrical fault adds to the list turning MN de Gaulle back to port less than a day after setting sail! On the plus side, it doesn’t seem like anyone was killed or injured.
As Sampaix/Fonk/Wingman (or whatever he calls himself these days) is forever telling us, France is the only country with Europe with a nuclear powered carrier, but what a poor example of one it is. It just goes to show, they may be able to make one, but that doesn’t mean it will be any good!
PARIS – A technical fault has forced France’s flagship and only aircraft carrier to return to port less than a day after it set off to fight piracy and terrorism in the Indian Ocean, the navy said Oct. 14.
Naval spokesman Capt. Hugues d’Argentre said the nuclear-powered Charles de Gaulle would be back in its home port of Toulon later in the day and it would take a few days to carry out the necessary repairs.
“A fault was found in the insulation of an electrical cabinet in the propulsion system,” the officer said.
The Charles de Gaulle and its escort group – two frigates, an attack submarine and a refueling tanker – set sail from Toulon on Oct. 14 and had been due to spend four months patrolling the Indian Ocean.
France is the only country apart from the United States to operate a full-size nuclear-powered carrier capable of launching fixed-wing jets, but the ship has been plagued with technical problems since it was launched in 1994.
In November 2000 the Charles de Gaulle limped back to port after one of its huge propellers snapped off in mid-Atlantic, and between July 2007 and December 2008 it was taken out of service for a major refit.
In all, the battle group carries 3,000 sailors and 27 aircraft: 10 Rafale F3 fighters, 12 Super Etendard attack jets, two Hawkeye early warning planes and three helicopters.
Rear Adm. Jean-Louis Kerignard, commander of the group, said the force would help allied navies fight piracy off the coast of Somalia and send attack jets to support NATO troops fighting insurgents in Afghanistan.
The ships will also train alongside allies from Saudi Arabia, India, Italy, Greece and the United Arab Emirates, and make two stopovers at the French base in Djibouti before returning to France in February.
By: H_K - 19th October 2010 at 00:22
Not surprising considering the CdG reliability record but still…
Not exactly true. From 2001 to 2007 CdG was the BUSIEST carrier in the world, spending 145 days away from her homeport year in, year out, for 6 years straight. All worries about her reliability had pretty much disappeared.
The problem is that since her refit everything’s gone wrong. This is now raising questions about whether this is just “bad luck” or something more serious:
[*] Maybe the propulsion is aging poorly, but that also sounds unlikely because the components that are breaking are fairly standard stuff (unlike the propeller problems during sea trials).
[*] That leaves maintenance & quality of work issues. It’s quite possible that budgets have been shaved a bit too much for comfort, or that privatization of contracting has led to loss of engineering knowledge within the navy. Either of those would be very worrisome.
Maybe they just feel there is a lower risk to the propulsion system by switching it off? The last thing they want to do is cause even more damage.
Here’s my guess: it’s a steam valve, so to repair it you have to flush the entire steam circuit. Which in turn means you probably have to shut down the reactor. Once the repair is done you have to slowly bring the reactor back on line. No wonder it takes a few weeks.
By: benroethig - 18th October 2010 at 22:59
When it comes to design, CdeG is 30m shorter than she should be, has at the very minimum 1 (probably 2) reactor less than she should and was built with very poor construction. In the end you get a ship build more for show than capability.
By: ppp - 18th October 2010 at 19:18
Bloody hell it a rolling set of problems on CdG. Embarrassing MN not to be able to fulfill it role of Flag. At least this problem didn’t kill anyone. Shutting the propulsion system sounds serious.
could you link it?
Maybe they just feel there is a lower risk to the propulsion system by switching it off? The last thing they want to do is cause even more damage.
By: harryRIEDL - 18th October 2010 at 13:01
Well it seems things are not as simple as the original information would like them to be…
The official French Navy website now reports that during repairs a more serious problem with the electrical system came up which will require the propulsion system to be shut down to fix…
Apparently the Marine Nationale thinks this will take weeks…
Not surprising considering the CdG reliability record but still…
Bloody hell it a rolling set of problems on CdG. Embarrassing MN not to be able to fulfill it role of Flag. At least this problem didn’t kill anyone. Shutting the propulsion system sounds serious.
could you link it?
By: shadowbox - 17th October 2010 at 14:55
Well it seems things are not as simple as the original information would like them to be…
The official French Navy website now reports that during repairs a more serious problem with the electrical system came up which will require the propulsion system to be shut down to fix…
Apparently the Marine Nationale thinks this will take weeks…
Not surprising considering the CdG reliability record but still…
By: Grim901 - 17th October 2010 at 02:56
@ Grim901
he didn’t say “over their lifetime” but since the beginning of afghan conflict 😉
Which is a silly comparison to say the least. Afghanistan is the first conflict in a long time where British carrier air power has not been used. The CdG’s has. It’s like saying that in 2003 45,000 British troops were deployed to conflict and for some reason that is better than the French who deployed none, despite France not needing to deploy troops.
If you’re going to make a comparison like that you can’t just pick and choose a time period in which one side has been active and the other hasn’t in order to sound better.
By: TooCool_12f - 16th October 2010 at 22:16
@ppp
it’s never the fault of the ship, if you want to go that way. the ship is just an object. as for teh reason the illustrious had to go back:
human error
why CdG had to go back? human error
the basic reason is the same.. not necessarily on the same level (in one case, the sailors that don’t seem to read labels, and on another some mechanics or engineeres who don’t seem to read plans)
@ Grim901
he didn’t say “over their lifetime” but since the beginning of afghan conflict 😉
By: Grim901 - 16th October 2010 at 19:50
It’s a small but annoying problem, these kind of things can happen. In 2008, HMS Illustrious had to sail back to port because of a faulty fridge:
It’s not the first time Illustrious has made the news for the wrong reasons.
Since the first mission in Afghanistan the Charles De Gaulle has now probably launched more tonnage than all the british light aircraft carriers in service.
One of the problem of the CDG is that she is a prototype, the planned sister ship would have benefited from the experience but in the end there was no budget for this. Considering the troubles in the defense budget, in few year the british navy may end up in the same situation with the CVF.
I highly doubt that the CdG has launched more than Ark Royal and Illustrious over their (considerably longer and more active) careers.
And it is almost certain that both CVFs will be ordered.
By: ppp - 16th October 2010 at 18:32
It’s a small but annoying problem, these kind of things can happen. In 2008, HMS Illustrious had to sail back to port because of a faulty fridge:
It’s not the first time Illustrious has made the news for the wrong reasons.
Since the first mission in Afghanistan the Charles De Gaulle has now probably launched more tonnage than all the british light aircraft carriers in service.
One of the problem of the CDG is that she is a prototype, the planned sister ship would have benefited from the experience but in the end there was no budget for this. Considering the troubles in the defense budget, in few year the british navy may end up in the same situation with the CVF.
Out of interest, why did you leave out the second reason? Lets take that quote in full shall we? Clearly it has nothing to do with a fault in the ship itself 🙂
It’s not the first time Illustrious has made the news for the wrong reasons.
Last year gas from its toilets poisoned seven sailors after a crew member mistakenly mixed two cleaning agents while scrubbing the loos, creating chlorine-based fumes.
By: Colibri - 16th October 2010 at 17:53
It’s a small but annoying problem, these kind of things can happen. In 2008, HMS Illustrious had to sail back to port because of a faulty fridge:
It’s not the first time Illustrious has made the news for the wrong reasons.
Since the first mission in Afghanistan the Charles De Gaulle has now probably launched more tonnage than all the british light aircraft carriers in service.
One of the problem of the CDG is that she is a prototype, the planned sister ship would have benefited from the experience but in the end there was no budget for this. Considering the troubles in the defense budget, in few year the british navy may end up in the same situation with the CVF.
By: PiF - 15th October 2010 at 20:07
How long is the ship in service already? Why do they figure that insulation issue out only now?
The ship is in service since 2001, she had her first major overhaul from 2007 to 2009.
By: Distiller - 15th October 2010 at 20:02
How long is the ship in service already? Why do they figure that insulation issue out only now?
By: steely dan - 15th October 2010 at 18:40
I still think its a great Carrier though with a typical setup of 22 jets plus 2 hawks plus helicopters its the best carrier out there after the CVN classes. I know its not a big field but it aint bad.
it really isn’t a big field at all. let’s look at the current, in-service CATOBAR/STOBAR competition after the USN’s CVNs:
– charles de gaulle – very capable ship in theory, nothing but problems in practice. equipped with catapults capable of hurling fully-loaded rafales and hawkeyes into the sky, she would have to be considered the most serious and capable carrier out there after the USN’s flat tops.
– admiral kuznetsov – has had its fits and starts over the years. somewhat compromised by russia’s insistence on over-arming it’s carriers instead of relying on escorts, but she is a very big ship and an imminent modernization program could potentially lead to a carrier more capable than the CdG
– sao paulo – old, outdated, ancient air wing. not really worthy of inclusion with these other ships.
that’s it, after the USNs 11 supercarriers, and the 3 ships listed above, the only other carriers out there in the world’s navies are STOVL harrier carriers, some of which are very good and capable ships (the cavour and the invincibles come immediately to mind), but size and air wing constraints put them in a different category in my mind. so take your pick, after the USN, it’s either the CdG or the kuznetov for second place out of a field of what is really just only 3 (if the USN carriers are taken collectively as a single entry, and discounting the sao paulo).
By: ppp - 15th October 2010 at 17:17
The problems stemmed from a long gap in producing an aircraft carrier and also on making it nuclear powered for the first time. Then there was the inhernet design and size issues mentioned above.
Perhaps when you look at all that it was sensible what they were planning to do with PA2, take a design that will have been put to the test before the PA2 comes into service and also take any help necessary to make sure it is built correctly.
I don’t think anyone has suggested getting a PA2 based on CVF was a bad thing. It’s certainly preferable to a second of class of Charles de Gaulle.
By: Grim901 - 15th October 2010 at 16:40
The problems stemmed from a long gap in producing an aircraft carrier and also on making it nuclear powered for the first time. Then there was the inhernet design and size issues mentioned above.
Perhaps when you look at all that it was sensible what they were planning to do with PA2, take a design that will have been put to the test before the PA2 comes into service and also take any help necessary to make sure it is built correctly.
By: PiF - 15th October 2010 at 13:41
The failure came on a redundant element, if it would have happened during the mission, they would have done with it. So there is really nothing to worry about, they are taking the chance to go back ASAP for repair and get everything OK on the CV.
By: Geoff_B - 15th October 2010 at 13:23
It only returned to Toulon as it that was the best place to do the repairs, no doubt if it had happened further in to the cruise they would have repaired at their next port of call and it wouldn’t be news.
It just spins out like bad news as they had just announced it had set sail on its 4 mth mission, and within hours were saying its had to return to port. If it was a serious problem signalling a delay to the cruise or cancellation then it would be news worthy.
By: ppp - 15th October 2010 at 13:19
It’s a typical story in european projects. Constantly changing the gaol posts. I dont know when they decided to operate the E-2 off it but then they realised that the deck wasnt long enough. Really 40k aint enough it should have been 55k.
I still think its a great Carrier though with a typical setup of 22 jets plus 2 hawks plus helicopters its the best carrier out there after the CVN classes. I know its not a big field but it aint bad.
They should have just made a conventional aircraft carrier, or two. Instead they made what is more like a technology demonstrator for a nuclear fleet, without the nuclear fleet buy. It doesn’t really matter how many planes it has, since its doesn’t spend much time at sea, and when it has been it mostly does token tasks anyway.
At least the media in Europe is consistent!
“A fault was found in the insulation of an electrical cabinet in the propulsion system”
I’m not a fan of the Charles de Gaulle by any means. I think they paid far too much for a very compromised design, BUT, this is not the kind of systemic fault that is a significant issue like the screws goof. Its bad insulation in an engineering space. It’ll be fixed and the ship will sail in a couple of days. Not a big deal!
Taken in isolation its not a big deal, but taken as a whole its another failure when they head out on a major operation, adding to its already terrible record.
By: Jonesy - 15th October 2010 at 11:59
At least the media in Europe is consistent!
“A fault was found in the insulation of an electrical cabinet in the propulsion system”
I’m not a fan of the Charles de Gaulle by any means. I think they paid far too much for a very compromised design, BUT, this is not the kind of systemic fault that is a significant issue like the screws goof. Its bad insulation in an engineering space. It’ll be fixed and the ship will sail in a couple of days. Not a big deal!
By: Stan hyd - 15th October 2010 at 11:00
It’s a typical story in european projects. Constantly changing the gaol posts. I dont know when they decided to operate the E-2 off it but then they realised that the deck wasnt long enough. Really 40k aint enough it should have been 55k.
I still think its a great Carrier though with a typical setup of 22 jets plus 2 hawks plus helicopters its the best carrier out there after the CVN classes. I know its not a big field but it aint bad.
Sign In
October 15, 2010 at 10:27 am