News reports surfaced this past week that in a drastic bid to trim government spending Britain and France were discussing sharing aircraft carriers. Britain currently operates two carriers, HMS Ark Royal and HMS Illustrious, with two more under construction, while France operates the large deck carrier Charles de Gaulle.
Today, British and French officials threw cold water on the idea with Britain’s defense secretary Liam Fox calling the carrier time share idea “utterly unrealistic.” The two countries are discussing sharing aerial refueling aircraft and maintenance on the A400M transport aircraft and further industry collaboration, reports the Financial Times.
In a related story, Britain’s Telegraph reports that the Royal Navy may abandon plans to buy the short take off and vertical landing version of the F-35 in favor of the carrier launch version to replace their Harrier jump jets. That would mean fixing catapults on the carriers under construction; the new carriers are not due to enter service until 2014 and 2016.
– Greg Grant
{ 53 comments… read them below or add one }
Of course it is silly.
One would insist upon sailing on the port side whilst the other would want the starboard.
I mean, have you driven a car in both countries?
One would insist on warm-fermented beer whilst the other would favor cool-fermented.
One helped us win our independence from the other.
How could they possibly agree on anything?
Well they did develop the Concorde together. Maybe they meant shared development on the next class of carrier? If the Brits are going to ditch the F-35B in favor of the F-35C and going for the catapults, that would make their next carrier more like the French and the US.
The Brits cannot afford a carrier. They are even more broke than we are.
we're currently building 2?
I disagree completely with Liam Fox , the idea is far from “utterly unrealistic.” . people shouldn't think about the idea as co-ownership or time-share , they should think about it as sharing assets on a specific mission by mission bases .
Half the missions that the carrier might be needed for will be missions where the UK and France have a shared interest and where they can work together to do the same job , the other half ( like invading Iraq ) fair enough they would have to do things on their own and pay for it on their own ( if they can afford to ).
But when you have the same interest and the same mission why not share and pool resources to save money and expand capability .
What they should be doing is start looking at where we have the same interests and imagining and planing joint missions .
I would start with Africa , and any possible African mission we could be involved with , its simple because we want the same things .
Imagine African country X invaded African country Y – we both need to evacuate all our european citizenship from Y – to do this we need control of the air and air defence for the ships – but we can't afford to maintain the capability independently but together we can if we work together – Why not have the capability to put French fighters on our new aircraft carriers for this mission , we cant put the fighters on our ships and the French have the aircraft but not the ship ?! – we would need helicopter carriers and assault ships to get troops into the country and physically evacuate citizens , so why not have the ability to operate UK helicopters of a French mistral ?! – we would need Air defence ships , anti surface ships and anti sub ships to protect the fleet – so again why not share the mission ? – lets have a German and Spanish warships picking up a piece also they have those capabilities . and helicopters .
None of us can afford all the cost and capabilities need to do all the mission in the future independently , its just reality , and we will not always want to work together when we don't have the same national interests ,
but half the time we will . and if we just look at the requirements on a mission to mission bases we will find we can work together and share the work load and the costs , save a lot of money and have a better capability in the same package – if only they can swallow some national pride .
I would go for the full UK carriers with catapults and buy half the number of F35c ( better aircraft than the B ) and train with the French so they can contribute a dozen rafale to operate of our carriers when we have the same interests and missions .
then start looking at how other European countries can contribute to a fleet with helicopters and ships .
that way we can all save money , the French don't need another carrier and we don't need 150 f35 b and they can do the job
How about the UK buying the US carriers that are retiring?
too expensive to buy operate .
We are already building the carriers , they were mostly a French design , so we already co-operated in the design phase , but the French want a new nuclear carrier with storage for nuclear weapons and more aviation fuel and different toilets , and a catapult so they were about 70% the same .
the carriers are being built but they are still to decide on what the top will look like , if it will be STOVL or a catapult because they can't make their mind up on what aircraft they will operate . we are already paying for them but we can't afford the aircraft and escorts .
the French have not started building their new carrier of similar design yet .
so it would make sense if they scrap their planed new one and put fighters on our one , but we need to chose the catapult version .
we cant afford 4 full carriers between us , so its either 3 good ones and work together or have 3 and not have fighters and escorts
The US carriers have a crew of over 5,000. That alone would rule them out for the UK. More importantly, the US plans to keep its carriers in service for 50+ years. The UK carriers are already being built. There is a lot of sunk cost involved; any cancellation would waste hundreds of millions pounds.
Just wondering because the Enterprise is supposed to be retired after its' current deployment.
And in the case of Iraq when the UK wanted to take action and the French did not, and the carrier is in a French port and they won't let it leave? The idea is a bad one.
I think that take action on Irak was in behalf of the US, not in behalf of UK and most americans today think that take action on Irak was a mistake.
Don't get wrapped up in the example of Iraq, you are missing the point., that being what if one country wants to take action, the other does not, and then one that does not has the carrier in its port? Its a bad idea.
In my opinion sharing carriers is a good idea. No one aside of the US have an economy big enough for keep a carrier allways deployed. From my point of view there are only three choices: merge in to a single EU armed forces, give up or go bankrupt.
How has the economy slipped this far down the hole? The U.S. and U.K. in the past could afford these aircraft carriers, giving millions of national people jobs, increasing research and development, and securing National safety and interest. Now the money gets wasted on worthless stimulus packages, enlarging the government, which in turn causes more dept. In the past, this wasn't an issue and buying a ship helped stimulate the economy in many ways. We are now on the big government dept sinkhole economic plan.
Was Europe and the U.S. better off economically Thirty years ago?
Enterprise is a unique design, with eight reactors, and would need big-money investments in electrical capacity, electronic systems of all kinds, and so on in order to be operable into the future.
I wonder what the UK's abandoning of the F-35B would mean to its' unit cost?
Granted it would be expensive to extend the Big Es life but if you take into consideration the cost of a new Gerald Ford Class Carrier it would be relatively cheap.The new CVNs cost-what- @20bil.per?If Enterprise was sold and refueled they could get 25yrs. out of it for probably @ 5billion-that would be a good deal-but then again,who knows if our govt. would ever sell one of our retired carriers to begin with.They seem to want them as floating museums instead of giving them a new life where they could still help the US and our Allies.
I wonder about the cost per unit for the F-35s? I wonder why we are assuming that if they place cats on the QE2 CVF that they would automaticly go to F-35Cs that will now break $135 million a piece? I wonder about current french cat design(from Pax river) that was design into the new CVF? I wonder why RAF & RN are doing familarization flights from FNS Charles DeGaule in Rafale Ms? I wonder how much MY taxes are going up in the next 6-10years?
As a former Grunt with sons in Afghanistan, I wondermostly about the 92 A-37 Dragonflys I drove by Monday, when commanders in the field need a low cost, low speed, effective CAS plane and the USAF does not want a aircraft with a prop?
What are you talking about?
We can trust the AF to do the right thing. A-37s are not fast, and don't fly very high. They are decades old, and of little strategic value. The only thing they are good for is CAS, which is a very minor and not even secondary mission for the AF. Airplanes suitable for CAS divert necessary resources away from the main mission of the AF, strategic air control and bombing, which are real war winners, not CAS. No modern AF fighter pilot wants to be caught dead in a prop driven plane. That is so WWII ish.
you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about – boots on the ground win wars and those boots need support.
aircraft bomb the land , tanks crush the land but its the boots that take and control the land – and the AF needs a good low and slow CAS aircraft
I assume your being sarcastic!
That should be "you're"
And to clarify, my post is directed at Bob's
What I hate is that we are really being sarcastic about such a serious issue. Yet South of Irvington Rd and East of Kold Rd. just to the North of where the chopped up B-52s are sit a Wing of T/A-37 with underwing hard points. I was in 2/75 Inf during "Just Cause". For all the hoopla over the F-117s, most of the PIN-POINT CAS in Panama was provided by 8 A-37 from Howard AFB. Fast Movers need not apply.
Wow. I don't even know where to begin. How many wars have you won, Bob? As an Army officer currently sitting on a remote COP in Afghanistan, let me tell you-all of the USAF's missions are important, but the one that matters to me most now is CAS. We have Kiowas and Apaches, but it REALLY sucks when they run low on fuel and have to RTB. F16s are great, but they are too high and fast. A good CAS fixed wing platform would be awesome to those of us on the ground. Slow enough to get really close (without hitting us), and enough loiter time to be effective. And they are cheap, too. I wish the powers that be would use some common sense and listen to the guys in the field sometime.
For that matter, gve them to the Army, if the USAF doesn't want them. I'd gladly fly it.
What happens if France declares war against some other country….does that mean Britain automatically declares war also? Or can the French take half of the ship to provide air support for their ground forces? xD
It would be really great news for us if Europe picked up a few more large deck carriers. It would be nice it GB brings online two lets call them Medium deck carriers for non-VSTOL airframes alone. But if we could get Europe to build 2 or 3 large deck boats maybe we could afford to drop one from our fleet. Having Europe pick up some of the cost of keeping the world safe would be great.
Hell–maybe get Australia a carrier,that would help a lot also.
but this is not a measure that would enable europe to bring more carriers to bear.
it's yet another measure that justifies our countries in cutting further.
How is this for an idea.
France and Britain buy one carrier each (of a common design) and operate them independently according to their own national agenda.
However, they buy a third carrier(same design) together, which is used predominately for the training of their personnel – and would have a mixed nationality crew.
The two independent carriers would conduct operations and exercises and deployments etc, but would not be used for training purposes normally. They would be full time fighting ships essentially, that would only need to come offline for major refits etc.
New crews and training, work-ups, etc, could be carried out on the joint carrier. That could ensure close operational cooperation experience with the two navies, and the carrier would not need to ever get too far away from home waters – under normal circumstances.
However, in a real emergency, the third carrier could be pressed into service as required. An agreement could be worked out in advance between France and Britain about how that could work.
This would cut costs and spread the costs, and increase commonality of equipment and training. ???
PS. They would probably have to go with a catapult design for all three.
As an European I'm all for it. First step is sharing carriers, second is sharing full armed forces and military assets, third is full unity of European nations. Ahh the United States of Europe, the dream..
More like a nightmare. Im British. My culture, Langauge, Law and Identity are distinct and have much more in common with the US and the Commonwealth. Sharing strategic assetts will be impossible if there is no unifying political strategy.
Of course it's silly. Will the French surrender only their half every time a German sneezes?
Ere, Guys, there is already a Joint Anglo-French Carrier Force, it was set up about six years ago. However it is just another politically correct European Fantasy. However, while the idea of sharing Carriers is just silly, the concept of sharing resources is not. The French are in the process of buying a CATOBAR version of the Queen Elizabeth Class, the British version is capable of being adapted from a V/STOL into a CATOBAR carrier. So the idea of sharing logistical and training resources is a good one as is sharing the cost of joint development of new weapons and equipment, the Europeans have got to get their act together on developing high cost equipment like warships, tanks and aircraft.
As for the fighters to be used on the Carriers, although my heart says buy American, my head is saying French, especially as a result of the ongoing debacle of the F-35. On a 1-10 scale of cock-ups the F-35 program rates a rating of 13! Scrap the F-35B & C variants and concentrate on the A variant, especially the B variant it is to expensive to buy and operate, especially with the on-going techical problems it is enduring. Buying the Rafaele and sharing training & other resources with the French makes sense, sharing Carriers, except to Cross-deck with the French and the US Navy on operations, doesn't.
Its like having two driver aged teenagers in your house. Hey Pop can I have the car tonight? No your sister asked first. How rediculous is this?
I suspect that the key issue that will prevent any shared carriers is the different toilets! no but seriously, what is the difference between the toilets? @Zap
I was joking about the toilets , its just that the French always want to do a joint project , they design it then in the last hour want to make some small change just for the sake of it which requires a redesign . 2 knots faster or some different accommodation
I'm sure some of you guys have noticed this but defense contractors and health care are the two most expensive things in this country and the U.S. gov just bends over for them and says be gentle.
Forget the F-35C's, either the Rafale or the Super Hornet would be a better buy, cheaper and more effective. The role envisagened for the F-35C as a first strike stealth fighter would be better done by a UCAS. Don't forget that Boeing already has a replacement for the F/A-18 waiting in the wings. The best thing that the US Navy could do is to scrap the F-35C programme and wait for the Super Hornet replacement while buying UCAVs such as the General Atomics Sea Avenger.
What UCAS? Because the only carrier capable one envisioned at the moment is the X-47B, and it is still in development. Integrating into carrier landings and such is not going to be a small feat and there is no guarantee it will work. Short of it working, then the ability for 1st strike from a carrier pretty much falls to the F35C. I'm not advocating the F35 over anything, just pointing out the stealthy first strike options for carrier aviation are thin.
How do you tell your partner if you accidentally get the carrier sunk?
Easy-Dear Mr. Prime Minister or in Frances' case Dear Mr. President–whoops
You're talking about two seperate carriers. The current plan is two UK carriers, with a debate going on about whether or not the French Navy would build a third of the same class.
The big argument is whether, if the French build a carrier of the same class, the RN can 'get away with' only building one ship, rather than two (which is normally required to ensure one is availible whenever it's needed.
I can see the French possibly operating a Rafale squadron off a British carrier alongside Brit squadrons for a cruise, or Brits with F-35Cs on a French carrier… but splitting the duties 50/50? Nah.
Interoperability is useful, but interdependence can be dangerous.
Not a good idea. The two contries have different soverign interests and have many times embarked on military "adventures" that were opposed by the other.
Would make a great sitcom……
The British halt operations for tea time and the French stay up to all hours of the night.
Hilarity ensues!
think about it half of the ship would run away if they get attacked… Just Kidding, need some humor here.
Europe, if they share costs, could operate 2 or 3 medium carriers. The US has got to stop being the "World Police"..
but what happens when some insurgant pionts a m9 at the boat and the french give up the ship? who pays for the new carrier?
the americans. when they come in and help save france and rebuild their country for a second time.
shameless french bashing….
seriously though; Italy have one carrier? spain have one? france have one, britain has 2 small ones.
2 british small ones to be replaced with 2 bigger ones (not huge..would call them medium despite their branding as 'supercarriers') but one is going to be used as a replacement for the HMS Ocean so its effectively a cut. The french plans to get a second off the plans of the brits has been pretty much ended…
Spain's carrier i think is nearing the end of its service, the italian one is new.
And if France and Britain go to war against each other?
Monsuier may have ze carrier every other day.
Wait a min you like the idea of having other european countries fighters on a UK carry but you don't like the idea of french aircraft on one ?
even though the French are the only other country with real experience ?
and are you aware that German would not be allowed to take part in any operations