You didn’t have to mention 4 1/2 years. It’s how much time has elapsed.

I explained this.

They’re spending very small amounts, just to keep in touch with what the options are, & to keep their people skilled. They’d spend that anyway. Most of the design options published have come from industry. As for just building CVF when they get round to it – well, that should be obvious. Think! They might do that (they have the drawings), but –
1) they don’t have a complete design. Work on the cat & trap version stopped when they pulled out. They’d still have to do a lot of work.
2) EMALS is now looking like a safe bet, & steam catapults are on the way out. The design they have is steam. More rework needed.
3) by the time they get round to it, they may have to redo a lot more, for component obsolescence & so on.
All of this makes ‘just building CVF’ not much different from producing a new design, & that gives French shipbuilders an argument for making it all French, regardless of the quality of the basic CVF design.

Anyone who knows anything at all, & has paid any attention to what’s happened should know this. It’s not exactly difficult, is it? This raises the question of whether you’re really not understanding all this, or whether you’re trolling.

Ah. When all else fails, accuse the person you cant decieve of being a troll. You are a piece of work pal.

So wrong? Look at the dates. Sarkozy pulled France out of CVF on financial grounds, in 2008. There were questions raised about affordability for months before that. Remember when the financial crisis started?

And do you really think the French would have got to the point of ordering catapults, & spending over 100 million euros on design work, if they’d disliked the design? They had input into the design! They’d agreed to pay a third of the design cost, in return for it taking account of their requirements. According to you, they rejected a design tailored to their requirements, by themselves, because it didn’t meet those requirements.

You report French examination of alternative designs in 2009. That was after the cancellation, when there was no budget or timescale for detailed design or construction. There is still no budget or timescale for design or construction – but you maintain that for 4 1/2 years, the French have been spending no money on a new carrier project, not advancing beyond keeping current on outline design proposals, solely because they don’t like CVF.

Did I mention 4 and a half years? If I did sorry. I dont remember writing that. I agree with you that the French pulled out for monetary reasons in 08……..ok….settled. In 2009 they had more studies on a second CV. If they were so impressed with CVF design, why do this? Why spend ANY money at all if they wanted CVF? Why not wait until budget improved and then build CVF? Your just not making any sense.

You have the sequence of events wrong:
1. French postpone carrier decision, on budgetary grounds.
2. French withdraw from CVF.
3. French start looking at other designs, without spending money on any detailed design work.
4. Further postponements of decisions.

Once you’ve postponed the decision because you don’t have the money to start building a carrier, it no longer makes sense to keep paying in to the project. But it does make sense to keep tabs on possible designs, if only to keep your design review office busy, so you still have people who know what they’re doing when you eventually get round to ordering a new carrier.

1. That contradicts your argument that they backed out of CVF because of the design. If they’re not going to buy a carrier – any carrier – then the design is irrelevant. Make up your mind.
2. So far, India has struggled to design & build a far less ambitious ship than CVF, despite buying in foreign expertise. They paid tens of millions for design consultancy. The areas covered by those contracts seem to have gone smoothly. The rest is a mess. “[M]ore than capable” is clearly nonsense. “Capable, eventually, with great difficulty” is probably more like it. There are plenty of clever & skilled people in India, but serious deficiencies in specific skills & experience, & political barriers to efficiency in military procurement & state-owned enterprises.

I expect IAC 2 to be built – but not in this decade.

You really need to study up on it. I mean….wow! You are so wrong. Not only were they looking at another design, but they were even talking nuclear power again. I do agree that money has killed the prospects for a second cv, but they most deffinately were looking at a design more compatible with their requirements. Just on an aside…..I come into contact with Navy pilots and even a few exchange pilots every day (Im about 2 miles from NAS Oceana) and (this is only casual conversation mind you) I( have yet to meet the pilot that thinks CVF is a good design.

Kind of insulting to India really. And CVF is in “mass production”? Not really the case. As pointed out, India is quite capable of designing and producing its own ships. What is proposed in this thread is akin to the RN purchasing a modified “Nimitz” (no cats, ski-jump equiped conventional power) because loads of them have been built and Newport News is good at building them. National pride aside, it just makes good stratigic sense for India to produce their own designs now that they are capable.

The French backed away from a design which they were doing a lot of the work on (so they didn’t like their own requirements, according to you) for budgetary reasons. That was made clear at the time, & the total lack of progress on a second French carrier since the withdrawal from CVF confirms it. Where is the French alternative? I don’t see it being built.

Well in 2009 the French Navy began studying alternate designs but the whole question seems to have been put off till eary 2013. Now, please explain why the French would begin looking at different designs if they were so pleased with CVF.

Get a few (6-8) Shinmaywa US-2s from Japan.