Sinking fast: French aircraft carrier set to defend Britain breaks down

The French aircraft carrier which is set to play a key role in defending Britain over the next decade has broken down. As President Nicolas Sarkozy prepares to use a London summit this week to announce that RAF jets will fly from the carrier Charles de Gaulle, his naval chiefs have told him that she is no longer seaworthy. ‘She is meant to be heading to Afghanistan but is instead in her home port with a faulty propulsion system,’ said a French Navy source.

"Faulty propulsion system", eh?

Note that the nuclear reactor isn't mentioned. The rest of the system - steam turbines, gear reduction assemblies and propeller shafts - is dead simple. IIRC, the French are planning on collaborating with the Brits on future carriers... or at least they *were* before the world economy hit a reef. From what I recall of the article I read, the U.K./French vessels would all be based on the Queen Elizabeth class of British vessels and would have a substantially different reactor design that that used on the Charles de Gaulle.

The shipyards at Brest have been building naval vessels for quite a long time. Was this France's first attempt at nuclear propulsion?

Found this online...

"The cause of the problems can be traced to the decision to install nuclear reactors designed for French submarines, instead of spending more money and designing reactors specifically for the carrier."

Reading online seems to be radiation levels were high also.

I have a friend who was a bubble head on an attack sub and said the reactors on a sub use the surrounding water along the sides of the boat for shielding so they just worried about shielding fore and aft of the reactors (as near as I can understand it - hope I got it right).

Anyway sound like the usual story of design / construction screw-ups - attempts to save a few dollars (by not designing a new reactor specifically for the aircraft carrier) wound up costing them a lot more in time and money...

Which recently-retired (w/in 10 years) CV's remain in the reserve fleet?

My short list from Navy.mil, not including five retired carriers (including Midway and the Intrepid) that have been converted to museums, includes

USS Forrestal (CVA 59) 1 Oct 1955 / 30 Sep 1993 Stricken from the Navy List 11 Sep 1993; At the Naval Education and Training Center, Newport, R.I., 14 Sept. 1998 on hold as museum donation.
USS Saratoga (CVA 60) 14 Apr 1956 / 20 Aug 1994 Stricken from the Navy List 30 Sep 1994; berthed at the Naval Education and Training Center, Newport, R.I., 7 Aug. 1998.
USS Ranger (CVA 61) 10 Aug 1957 / 10 Jul 1993 In inactive reserve in the Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility (NISMF), Bremerton, Wash.
USS Independence (CV 62) 10 Jan 1959 / 30 Sep 1998 In inactive reserve in the Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility (NISMF), Bremerton, Wash.
USS Kitty Hawk(CV 63) 29 Apr 1961 / 12 May 2009 --
USS Constellation (CV 64) 27 Oct 1961 / 7 Aug 2003 Towed 12 September 2003, to be placed in inactive reserve in the Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility (NISMF), Bremerton, Wash.
USS John F. Kennedy(CV 67) 7 Sep 1968 / 23 Mar 2007 --

Wonder what it would take to SLEP and/or re-engine these carriers and return them to service?

If the Nav just doubled up the number of carriers in a CBG, they'd be in for a hell of an airplane buy, but wouldn't need but a few escorts from mothballs (or newbuilds) to bulk up their existing CBG's from one to either one or two carriers.

Someone tell me those two-stars riding around out there wouldn't be able to use an extra wing of F/A-18's in their air group.

I had thought Saratoga had been sunk as a reef, but it was the Big "O" that got that job, and America was expended as an ASM target and b/d assessment testbed. Like the 35-knot hull of USS Spokane, last of the CLAA's, was expended as an AG "target" in the 10kt conventional explosive tests to study structural blast damage on Navy hulls from nuclear weapons effects.

Really for all concerned it would be better and likely quicker to award two contracts to NNSBDD to build two new conventional. Several reasons. Initial cost is cheaper. Less construction time using either the Kitty Hawk or JFK class plans. It would allow at least two carriers not dependent on Erwin. It would help what is left of our capable and skilled carrier builders keep their skills polished. You can't just hire an entire crew off the streets and expect to build a carrier. You can train a conventional Snipe much quicker to be at sea and competent on watch than it would take to get a Nuke out of school. Not knocking Nuke Snipes that course is very demanding. But for the sake of Mass Casualties in war conventional could mean winning or loosing.

Next reason is the urban legend myth that nukes can deploy indefinitely. They can't anymore than a conventional. Yea the reactor might take the abuse but the other equipment won't. The every five year overhaul and following every six month deployment a three-four month yard time policy worked. If some of the Pin Heads get the notion they can cut corners on Nukes like they did conventionals GOD Help Us All. The Navy nuke program can only work with no less than the operational standards Rickover demanded.

One thing the Navy is doing is a smaller version of carriers. Actually a combination carrier and Amphib Assault . AMERICA LHA 6 is scheduled for active service in 2014 I think. It will carry the Osprey and F-35B V/STOL. Not as efficient as a full Air Wing though. But that's my own feelings on it. I was partial to the F-14's also and think it's replacement was a downgrade. Most of the time when you heard "Now launch the alert Cat" over the 1MC at night you could usually roll over and go back to sleep. Hopefully soon something will be in production that's better. That was another Cheney era Boondoggle.

One other thing. We really and truly do need a second carrier capable builder. At one point we had four. Now we have one. Can you guess where it is located? We've been very, very, lucky. Most sailors know what I am saying on that matter. I saw some stuff in the news the past four years that made my blood boil as to how stupid and arrogant some of the planners are as to what ship is where and when. Three CVN's were in the same place at the same time and they could not get out of. Yards means opened decks and no water tight integrity among other things. It was at Portsmouth Yards.

Oh that was just one of several logistical boo boo's. Like five carriers sitting at NOB Norfolk at Piers 7, 10, and 12. Pier Ten should have not been built. One reason is you don't won't five carriers in the same location ever. The other is wind sheers common in that area. Pier 7 is somewhat wind protected as is 12. We are making a mistake after mistake we made prior to WW2. Can we expect different results from an enemy?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.