CVF News

Pretty sure Trafalgar came after the act of Union, therefore French-British wars thank you…..

Came after both Acts of Union (with Scotland & Ireland) & the earlier (C16) union of England & Wales. France & Spain fought the United Kingdom at Trafalgar.

Do you know “European” that that Battle of Trafalgar happened two centuries ago, and that the French-English wars have been over for a long time now ?

Pretty sure Trafalgar came after the act of Union, therefore French-British wars thank you.

About the French and English who “don’t like each other”, I usually see this kind of dislike in the medias (especially the english press, in fact), but I never saw it from any English person I had the the oppotunity to meet. And I met many of hem…

So, pardon me, but the Cliché of the so-called “traditionnal French-English hate” is BS, pure and simple!!!

There is still dislike, but I think it is much more on a national level i.e. its not individual persons, but what the relevant nation/government does. Just consider all the ranting about Iraq!

Of course it could be that all the English people you meet are showing their well-renowned good manners;)

The true problem is :
‘ Are there enough money in RN ? ‘.
Astute, T45, F35, ecc. are expensive and to save money is always good.

Good luck to RN, if they want their carrier ready to 2012-2014 they need to decide quickly.

To be honest, the Anglo-French relationship is a very healthy love-hate relationship! The best deal for the carriers would arguably be to have all of them built as the French CTOL version, with the hulls all built together in the UK or France, then have them all completed with a mix of British and French systems, which is what will happen anyway, due to Thales involvement. It is arguable that the best deal would be to simply give BAE the contract to build three bare carrier hulls, and then hand them over to Thales to be fitted out!

Ed, thing is that BAE might have agreed to that if they had been asked about it early last year or in 2005. Doing it on the verge of a huge industry merger is late notice!

All I can say is that any changes MUST be in the interest of the project and not trying to shave pennies off to the point where the whole thing might be jeopardised.

If we go with the rough estimates for how the cost for modern naval warships break down we would have 1/3 building the hull, and 2/3 outfitting, systems, sensors, armaments etc. I don’t think BAE/VT would be entirely satisfied with this, even with 3 hulls. And that again completely ignores the fact that expertise, capacity and opportunities to reduce cost exist abroad in the hull construction segment. I fear this whole debate is going to roll around before too long when MARS gets under way, somebody is bound to propose building some of those in a yard in the far east, for outfitting in the UK.

Funny you should say that….

From Janes

UK’s DESO examines potential for warship-building in Southeast Asia
Senior officials from the UK’s Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO) are exploring options for building hulls for future UK Royal Navy (RN) warships in Southeast Asia.Representatives of the UK government’s military sales arm are attending the International Maritime Defence Exhibition in Singapore (15-18 May 2007) to seek export opportunities for UK defence companies.
[Jane’s Navy International – first posted to http://jni.janes.com – 16 May 2007]

Unicorn

To be honest, the Anglo-French relationship is a very healthy love-hate relationship! The best deal for the carriers would arguably be to have all of them built as the French CTOL version, with the hulls all built together in the UK or France, then have them all completed with a mix of British and French systems, which is what will happen anyway, due to Thales involvement. It is arguable that the best deal would be to simply give BAE the contract to build three bare carrier hulls, and then hand them over to Thales to be fitted out!

Concerning the systems: BAE Systems has managed to get most of their systems onto CVF. The radars for example will be BAE Insyte S1850 and perhaps the BAE Insyte Sampson radar.

It is arguable that the best deal would be to simply give BAE the contract to build three bare carrier hulls, and then hand them over to Thales to be fitted out!

If we go with the rough estimates for how the cost for modern naval warships break down we would have 1/3 building the hull, and 2/3 outfitting, systems, sensors, armaments etc. I don’t think BAE/VT would be entirely satisfied with this, even with 3 hulls. And that again completely ignores the fact that expertise, capacity and opportunities to reduce cost exist abroad in the hull construction segment. I fear this whole debate is going to roll around before too long when MARS gets under way, somebody is bound to propose building some of those in a yard in the far east, for outfitting in the UK.

For now, I wish, agreement of any sort, on actually getting to work.

To be honest, the Anglo-French relationship is a very healthy love-hate relationship! The best deal for the carriers would arguably be to have all of them built as the French CTOL version, with the hulls all built together in the UK or France, then have them all completed with a mix of British and French systems, which is what will happen anyway, due to Thales involvement. It is arguable that the best deal would be to simply give BAE the contract to build three bare carrier hulls, and then hand them over to Thales to be fitted out!

… In my minds BAE and VT should tell Drayson to f*ck off, cancel the merger and tell him to get the French to build the whole damn thing because they’ve wasted enough time on lies and empty promises.

Then when he comes crawling back, begging for forgiveness they increase the price. That would teach him right too! :diablo:

Oy! That’s my taxes you’re talking about!

No doubts that for many centuries (and probably for a lot still) Uk and France have each other a sentiment of non-feeling. They don’t like each other… but that’s another story :p

Do you know “European” that that Battle of Trafalgar happened two centuries ago, and that the French-English wars have been over for a long time now ?

About the French and English who “don’t like each other”, I usually see this kind of dislike in the medias (especially the english press, in fact), but I never saw it from any English person I had the the oppotunity to meet. And I met many of hem…

So, pardon me, but the Clich? of the so-called “traditionnal French-English hate” is BS, pure and simple!!!

End of the rant.
________
POT NEWS

Budgets are tight, schedules looking ever more ambitious, yet British industry and Politicians can seemingly always rely on the media to whip up some anti-French sentiments when it suits their purposes, when in actual fact an argument could (and is) being made that having some of the steelwork and cabin fittings etc done by an enormous (Norwegian owned) French commercial yard that is capable of churning out big cruise ships at an impressive rate (and has done 2 front halves for the Mistral LPHs on the side) should speed things up and reduce cost.

If all players really wanted to, that is. And it does not sound like it: “You can kiss goodbye to the carriers being delivered on time if the French are involved”

It isn’t about the French being incompetant or people making racist comments. It’s the simple fact that if the French are involved it will take ages to sort out workloads, delivery, etc because all the companies will fight over every single pound/euro on offer.

Also BAE and VT are very pissed off because up until a few weeks ago they believed that they were going to do all the UK build themselves and had a huge industry restructuring plan agreed contingent on it. The first they hear about working with the French is through a newspaper.

How would you like it if you had agreed on a multi-billion pound merger, with a multi-billion pound contract being dangled in front of you, only suddenly for it to be snatched away and told you might have to work with someone else on terms that no one has any idea of?! With the constant delays and foot-dragging from the government over giving CVF main gate approval, British shipbuilding industry was already getting fed up. In my minds BAE and VT should tell Drayson to f*ck off, cancel the merger and tell him to get the French to build the whole damn thing because they’ve wasted enough time on lies and empty promises.

Then when he comes crawling back, begging for forgiveness they increase the price. That would teach him right too! :diablo:

So, the total opposite of the Eurofighter idea ?

No, during EF era where the french that went alone. Uk remained alongside the other EU partners.
As well as in EF era the Uk prefer to stay far from France.
Saving the costs is the only reason to share work for France and Uk. No doubts that for many centuries (and probably for a lot still) Uk and France have each other a sentiment of non-feeling. They don’t like each other… but that’s another story :p

If they share the same project and build their respective carriers it will be already a saving of the costs.

So, the total opposite of the Eurofighter idea ?

Apples and Oranges. The partnership with the Eurofighter makes sense because there is a big export market for combat aircraft that is more likely to be won by a programme with 4 partners behind it. CVF has no export market, except for the design and that export market has been won. 😉 Well there might be Indian interest, but that isn’t terribly likely. It also made sense because our politicians at the time might have gone for some rubbish US jet without any British involvement. This is not the case with CVF, I think it will go ahead anyway.

So, you prefer to build two CVF and paying 240 millions instead of building three 2/3 of CVF ?

It depends. First would we get 2/3s? With these negotiations I always fear UK politicians might sell out the UK just to save 1 penny more. Secondly, what to do with the Barrow yard? If HMG could guarantee enough work by ordering A-05, A-06, A-07 and A-08 I wouldn’t mind too much. And thirdly, once in a while a “we are the best” nationalistic flag waiving, “Rule Britannia” programme, even it doesn’t make as much sense as a partnership, is good. As a French person, you surely are familiar with the concept? 😉

Sound very like a french socialist

What should I be more shocked about, “French” or “socialist”? Just joking, about the “French” only though. 🙂

The savings are not big. They are apparently 120 million euros for each ship. That means about 5% of the 2.7 billion euro ships or so. I’d prefer having enough work to go around for Barrow too (the French would apparently build their section). With such small savings I think it would be good to have these ships built completely in the UK.

So, the total opposite of the Eurofighter idea ?

So, you prefer to build two CVF and paying 240 millions instead of building three 2/3 of CVF ?
Sound very like a french socialist :p

Don’t get this wrong. The plan does not envision the French building the UK hulls. The plan sees the UK building 2/3s of three CVFs and the French 1/3 of three CVFs. The savings are not big. They are apparently 120 million euros for each ship. That means about 5% of the 2.7 billion euro ships or so. I’d prefer having enough work to go around for Barrow too (the French would apparently build their section). With such small savings I think it would be good to have these ships built completely in the UK. It might be a big factor in gaining more recruits for the RN and engineering in general. In that sense it’s always better to have a fully British product. 🙂

Budgets are tight, schedules looking ever more ambitious, yet British industry and Politicians can seemingly always rely on the media to whip up some anti-French sentiments when it suits their purposes, when in actual fact an argument could (and is) being made that having some of the steelwork and cabin fittings etc done by an enormous (Norwegian owned) French commercial yard that is capable of churning out big cruise ships at an impressive rate (and has done 2 front halves for the Mistral LPHs on the side) should speed things up and reduce cost.
If all players really wanted to, that is. And it does not sound like it: “You can kiss goodbye to the carriers being delivered on time if the French are involved”

Latest from today’s Telegraph. Basically BAE and VT don’t want to play with the French 😮

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/05/29/cncarriers29.xml

I don’t generally have a lot of sympathy for BAE, but I’ll make an exception here. It strikes me as another delaying tactic to save having to sign up. Perhaps its just so GB can have his “look what I’m buying” moment, but I suspect they are trying to get the carrier alliance to cut the cost.

Latest from today’s Telegraph. Basically BAE and VT don’t want to play with the French 😮

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/05/29/cncarriers29.xml

Personally, I wouldn’t think it to be likely? Remember, much of the money for the CVF Program goes back in the local economy…………I don’t think you average UK Taxpayer would be happy with the idea!

Why not? They build part of our carriers, we build part of theirs. It balances out.

Unless something went very amiss the first contact with a picket line of SSK’s in blue water should be from USN SURTASS!. First contact for the SSK’s should be from an alerted USN or Allied SSN!.:diablo:

Seriously, identifying such picket lines is part of the whole raison d’etre for SURTASS and its a system that I can not praise too highly. Often under-rated and overlooked bizarrely enough – seeings the accepted wisdom of AWACS in the aerial arena – one suspects that its the way the USN and JMSDF quite like it though!. If I had to face either of those services the SURTASS boats would be top of my want-to-kill list and I’d expend many assets to achieve the goal.

The Japanese and Aussie boats I mentioned would stand a better chance because of their near-SSN sensor fits. The AIP alleged to be on the new Oyashios would help a bit too, but, the disadvantages are ever-present. SSK’s just aren’t great at long submerged transits with any discretion. The UK O’class boat that went down to the Falklands in 82, for example, travelled on the surface a great part of the way – quicker but obviously not very discrete either!.

IF the surface group happened to tramp along straight at an SSK, IF the group commander lost all his marbles and decided not to zigzag, IF the SSK happened to have a good battery charge and could get away without snorting for a bit, IF it had sensors acute enough to catch an SSN after it dropped off the sprint THEN the SSK has a fighting chance at achieving something. Otherwise the smart SSK skipper stays in the shallows were he can hide in the flow noise.

Is SURTASS really that good? If, so I take its not used in the many exercises with SSN’s and Surface Units. As Diesel Subs seems to win more often than not…….:(