I think the assault capability suits the requirement. Think of third world emergencies, disasters, political unrest. No wasted space at all. A fleet of 5-6 ships would be required if we include training, maintenance, upgrades etc. over the years. Nucleair power improves flexibility.
I think it would be most logical to define a base platform for the future and integrate current national assetts meanwhile, harmonizing financing, manning, and interoperability with a similar European MPA force and flexible army forces.
True, but the coming EU force will already have at its disposal (not including the UK):
1 conventional carrier
3 VSTOL carriers
6 helicopter carriers (LHD/LPD)
5 LPDs (ala the Galicia and Karel Doorman classes)
10 PPAs joining the Italian navy
A plethora of newer frigates optimised to undertake light land assault roles.
A pretty big number of LSTs, support and transport ships.
There are enough assault ships to cover third world emergencies, disasters, political unrest etc. There is only 1 proper carrier to cover them.
Nuclear power is prohibitively expensive, as was found on the Charles de Gaulle. The latest French design studies since PA2 have been conventional for a reason.
Its a design that the UK put into play, why would the French and Germans use it when they can design their own, this project is too important to cut corners and go cheap.
Leaving politics out, yes the French and Germans could create a new design but would it be significantly better than the QE design? Would it even be as good? They could spend hundreds of millions of euros extra on designing a carrier but still not improve on the QE design. What is the point financially or in terms of performance of designing your own wheel when a well designed wheel is already available?
Of course if politics enters the process common sense ceases to feature in decision making.
QE/PA2 is already an ageing design, it was first unveiled in an early form 20 years ago. It would likely require significant work to bring it up to date, work that DCNS has already done on its new design.
It isn't as if France doesn't know how to build a carrier either. Clemenceau and Foch were both very successful designs, and despite all the shortcomings claimed by certain shills, Charles de Gaulle has had one of the most active combat careers of any aircraft carrier since WWII. In any case, they have far more experience with conventional carriers than the British, who didn't design one between WWII and the QE class, and even then settled on a VSTOL solution.
And then the political issues as well. They are deliberately avoiding the US fighter jet because foreign powers can't be trusted, why then rely on a foreign power for an entire aircraft carrier?
We are speaking of Europe where the US track record is stellar.
in respect to which objectives?
Security and peace which Europeans have never experienced prior to the formation of NATO.
The EU will cease to exist within 20-40 years if NATO is disbanded.
Ridiculous. The EU is the primary factor in establishing peace in Europe since WWII, not NATO.
Peace was the very purpose of the original ancestors of the EU. France, Italy and Germany went from fighting each other every few years to becoming close trading partners between whom war would be impossible. The EU stopped the violence in Ireland. Since former Yugoslav countries have begun negotiating memberships or joining up, even they became peaceful.
NATO brought us to the brink of nuclear armageddon several times during the cold war, provoked Russia into a new cold war, sent waves of refugees and terrorists our way etc. There is nothing peaceful about NATO.