Talk:Future French aircraft carrier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B	rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
High	rated as High-importance on the assessment scale

	France Portal Future French aircraft carrier is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

Contents 1 This article is referenced 2 Merger 3 Statement removed 3.1 Reason 4 Requested move 5 Propulsion

[edit] This article is referenced

This article is referenced here at defenseindustrydaily. WAS 4.250 11:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope that what they say is more intelligent than the discussion on Slashdot [1] ... Rama 11:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

On the basis of this article (and other similar ones, the two articles should be merged. Perhaps a new name should be chosen. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree. There is a lot of stuff about this carrier that makes it specific to the UK (mostly the "back story") and making a French and British carrier from the same design is not yet confirmed. Furthermore, there are likely to be differences between the two since the British government has cut out basically every system from this and every other ship its built while the present government has been in power that isnt absolutely necessary (armour, defence, etc). The French government does not have a tradition of doing this. 88.105.250.248 18:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• I also disagree. The Future French aircraft carrier article discusses many things not relevant to the British carrier, e.g. the history of French carrier procurement and why it's in this position now, the choice of powerplant, the French alliance and construction. The same is true regarding the CVF article. There is a large discussion on the history of the procurement, the different options considered and the carrier alliance — of little or no interest to someone interested in the French carrier. Finally the carriers have yet to be built. Unlikely as it seems both Britain and France could pull out. Mark83 19:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• I oppose to the merger. The French seem to be deciding that it may not want a common design with the British, so how can that be a future British design? If anything, neither article can be merged into each other, but into another article... say Future Franco-English aircraft carrier? 70.51.10.43 10:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement removed

"The choice may also be a quiet admission that the Charles de Gaulle’s propulsion system was inappropriate for an aircraft carrier of its size. The United States Navy has long regarded the concept of a small nuclear-powered carrier as being inefficient, as there is little benefit from having a ship that never needs refuelling if it does not have sufficient reserves of jet fuel and munitions to support combat operations for more than a week (such ships, however, can potentially be maintained on station for longer periods through the use of underway replenishment)."

[edit] Reason

I'm not an expert, but this doesn't make sense to me. Even US carriers sail with auxillarys for underway replenishment. Seems far better to me for the French Navy to have auxillaries full of jet fuel, all of which will support flight operations and none of which will be burned in the carrier's own turbines! --Mark83 11:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

• Disagree - "Future French aircraft carrier" is not an official term, but leaves readers in no doubt as to the subject. There is a very small portion of people who will know what "French PA2 programme" means. In summary, neither term official but one is very clear, one isn't. Mark83 11:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propulsion

The following has been quoted several times now off-wiki and may need a balancing opinion:

The price of accepting the British design is accepting a conventionally powered ship; the British government rejected nuclear propulsion as too costly. The idea of renouncing nuclear propulsion in this way is seen as a backward step for French technology. However, the numerous problems with the propulsion system of the FS Charles de Gaulle and the fact that the design was tailored to the Royal Navy's requirements leaves little choice.

A truly expert opinion, perhaps that of a high-level military discussion with technical assitance, like the governments of both countries surely had, might have a different view of this subject. Nuclear propulsion is obviously complicated and dangerous. Likely what the British saw as too costly was a necessary redesign of the fundamental power system, a next-generation nuclear core. If the design has a life of 50 years (and let's face it, it'll be sold and run for another 20 after that), it is an opportune time to project that future technologies may arrive in time for one of the refits. Without all the junk that goes along with an integrated nuclear design, you could easily rip out the turbines and use fuel cells. (Maybe even fusion electricity generation if that technology arrives in a compact or low-temperature form.)

--Brukmann 23:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The Charles De Gaulle uses four reactors of the same type as the French strategic submarines (France having declined an American offer to provide nuclear reactors of the type which powers the Nimitz type). I assume that the new carrier would need a new nuclear system, which might indeed be a costly system to design. Rama 13:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)