Planeflyer wrote:Ozair wrote:Kiwirob wrote:
Thales is part of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance. It was the Thales design which won the Royal Navy Future Aircraft Carrier project. Thales is a French company. The French paid for the PA2 version of CVF to be designed. You do the math.
It is good to get this back to a discussion on the vessel itself and potential aircraft and leave the political rubbish that is not contributing to the discussion.
We have established then that
- EU members probably have enough support vessels available to maintain a carrier presence somewhere else in the world for at least a short period of time.
- The EU probably doesn’t need the carrier to come with an amphibious capability as there are additional ships in the pipeline that will provide enough sealift for this mission.
- It is likely that the vessel will be conventional powered. With France looking at conventional options for their next vessel and Germany ending their nuclear power industry a conventionally powered vessel seems likely.
- The FCAS is planned to have a carrier capable version and given the timeline to build a carrier if this project went forward it would likely be available at a similar time to FCAS.
Things we don’t yet know,
- Seems like CATOBAR would be the preferred option especially if FCAS is used, would the vessel pursue an EMALS CAT system?
- How will the vessel be crewed, multi-national, French dominated given their carrier experience or perhaps few French navy personal given they will be manning their own vessel?
- Where will the vessel undertake final assembly? With modern block design it could be built all over Europe and assembled in one location.
- Who will pay for this? Just Germany or would all EU members be required to contribute?
- How long will this capability take to stand up? It would only be the second CATOBAR vessel in Europe and with CdG down for extended periods of time maintaining proficency and training enough personnel may be difficult.
- Will the French piggyback on this design and build a second unit for themselves?Amazonski wrote:Another point is, that based on the long US experience, carriers create a very capable aviators. An elite of carefully selected and well trained pilots, that show remarkable results during military operations.
General feeling within the fighter avitaion community is the opposite. US naval aviators have been very focused on landing on the boat sometimes to the detriment of their combat skills. The newer automated landing systems have been a big assistance to USN fast jet aviation in lowering focus on landing on the boat and improving overall combat performance.
What you call political rubbish is intact the basic strategic questions for this project?
Here are just a few questions that need to be answered.
How does a carrier meet German defense needs?
How does it address major deficiencies now rampant across existing forces?
What are the chances Germany can successfully manage a carrier force given the lack of any experience?
Where will the carrier be based if German ports come under middle attack( one would think if you are building a carrier you plan to deal w near peer threats)?
And those are reasonably viable questions. But going deep into NATO and a history of European conflict really doesn't get us anywhere. That stuff is for the non-av board, not here.