French Carrier Disaster Gets Very Strange

StrategyPage ^ | December 4, 2003 | 'Dirty Little Secrets’

[quidnunc]

December 4, 2003: France is considering quietly retiring their new nuclear powered aircraft carrier and joining with Britain to buy a new carrier of British design. Actually, the French had planned to built a second nuclear powered carrier, but they are having so many problems with the first one that they are quite reluctant about building another one. Britain is building two 50,000 ton conventionally powered carriers, at a cost of $2.5 billion each. France would order a third of this class, and bring down the cost of all three a bit. The new French nuclear carrier "Charles de Gaulle" has suffered from a seemingly endless string of problems. The 40,000 ton ship has cost over four billion dollars so far and is slower than the diesel powered carrier it replaced. Flaws in the "de Gaulle" have led it to using the propellers from it predecessor, the "Foch," because the ones built for "de Gaulle" never worked right. Worse, the nuclear reactor installation was done poorly, exposing the engine crew to five times the allowable annual dose of radiation. There were also problems with the design of the deck, making it impossible to operate the E-2 radar aircraft that are essential to defending the ship and controlling offensive operations. Many other key components of the ship did not work correctly, and the carrier has been under constant repair and modification. The "de Gaulle" took eleven years to build (1988-99) and was not ready for service until late 2000. It's been downhill ever since. So the plan is to buy into the new British carrier building program and keep the "de Gaulle" in port and out of trouble as much as possible. The British have a lot more experience building carriers, and if  there are any problems with the British designed ship, one can blame the British.

-snip-

[reagan_fanatic]

I feel like lighting up a cigarette after reading this one.

[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

"It's been downhill ever since. So the plan is to buy into the new British carrier building program and keep the "de Gaulle" in port and out of trouble as much as possible. The British have a lot more experience building carriers, and if there are any problems with the British designed ship, one can blame the British."

Can you say, 'IRONY'? SHEEEEEEEEEESH!!!! General de Gaulle fled to Britain after the Battle of France was lost. The Britts saved the man, de Gaulle, then, why shouldn't we expect them to save the ship, de Gualle, now?

[nevergiveup]

de Gaulle: "Je suise France"

[dts32041]

The P3 Orion story is more interesting, than a frog ship that won't float, something the frogs ships have been good at since the 1790's

[Arkie2]

Maybe the French should hire some Americans to fix the dang thing? The real problem is they forgot to requisition a white flag to run up the mast. As soon as they realize their mistake and correct it the ship will run just fine in the secure knowledge it will never have to suffer the indignities of combat.

[IncPen]

What's the German word for gloating at others' misfortune?

[demlosers]

A related thread about the Frenchy carrier: French Has No Seaworthy AirCraft Carriers

[demlosers]

ShadenFruede!

[Conservative4Ever]

Bwahahahahahahaha.....sorry, that wasn't kind. He He. :)

Red

[Centurion2000]

schadenfruede..... and yes it is

[demlosers]

When the washer machines were running on the ship, it would shake the whole carrier. Hehehee...

[freedomlover]

You can bet your boots it will really scoot in reverse though.

[AmericanVictory]

Rather than making a carrier that works, the French would rather tell us how to use ours. This is the strategic position now being adopted by Senator Kerry: rather than have America win the War on Terror, he would prefer if we let the French tell us how to lose it. Assume the French position, America, the Democrats will show you how.

[bray]

Flaws in the "de Gaulle" have led it to using the propellers from it predecessor, the "Foch," because the ones built for "de Gaulle" never worked right

Does this one write itself or what? Foch de Gaulle and Foch de French! The propellers kept spinning in reverse! What in the world could the frogs ever need a carrier for???

Pray for W and The Troops

[Quick Shot]

"Flaws in the "de Gaulle" have led it to using the propellers from it predecessor, the "Foch," because the ones built for "de Gaulle" never worked right. "

Quite the understatement. The propellers broke on the initial seatrial. The French propeller mamufacturer was accused of corruption/payback. The night before the pre-announced raid on the factory the building and all it's records burned.

The replacement propellers were built in the USA, but to their design which is suspect....

[PMCarey]

Flaws in the "de Gaulle" have led it to using the propellers from it predecessor, the "Foch,"

Is that why the carrier is all "Foch'd" up?

[leadpenny]

Flaws in the "de Gaulle" have led it to using the propellers from it predecessor, the "Foch," because the ones built for "de Gaulle" never worked right.

What, the ones built for the de Gaulle wouldn't go into reverse?

[Oatka]

I wonder if the Indians will have similar problems with the Russian carrier they just bought. Don't know if it is nuclear, so maybe not.

[PsyOp]

I wonder how many planes they lost before they realized that that CVs need arresting gear...