Blair blocked ship deal to snub Chirac

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-02-04 12:57am

http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/news ... altop.html

Blair blocked ship deal to snub Chirac
By Michael Smith and George Jones
(Filed: 04/02/2003)

Tony Blair blocked a decision to award a French
company a £3 billion contract to build the Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers because of anger at President Jacques Chirac's behaviour over Iraq and Zimbabwe.

The industry journal Defence Analysis will say today that the reason for snubbing the French company was "purely political".

M Chirac's decision to invite President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe to Paris for a summit on Africa this month in defiance of EU travel sanctions proved to be "the last straw".

The disclosure that Mr Blair intervened to ensure that Britain's BAE Systems was made the prime contractor will increase tensions between him and M Chirac at today's Anglo-French summit at the resort of Le Touquet, near Calais.

The French are likely to be further affronted by the disclosure by defence sources that the decision to give BAE Systems the leading role was discussed in advance with Washington. America is angry about M Chirac's attempts to delay President George W Bush's plans for military action against Iraq.

Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, announced last week that BAE Systems would build the Royal Navy's two new carriers, overturning the original recommendations of the Defence Procurement Agency that the French firm Thales should be the leading contractor.

Ministers said that giving the contract to BAE would secure 10,000 jobs in Britain. It said that, whichever company won, the carriers would be built in Britain.

Thales won a £100 million competition to build the ships and is said to have produced by far the best design. Having been reduced to the junior partner in what has been described as "an uncertain alliance", it will have a third of the contract at best, with the prospect of making very little profit.

The choice of BAE as prime contractor was made despite a rift between the company and the Ministry of Defence, which is angry at BAE's failure to complete several expensive programmes on time.

There have been long-running problems with the Astute submarine and the Nimrod maritime surveillance aircraft programmes. The ministry recently refused to indemnify the company against further losses.

Francis Tusa, the editor of Defence Analysis, said yesterday that officials had made a series of attempts to cover up the truth behind the affair by suggesting that negotiations had been going on for well over a month.

"But every industry source we have spoken to said the deal was sprung on both sides at the very last minute," he said. "There were no serious discussions of an alliance until two weeks before it was announced - and the Pentagon knew just about the same time they did."

That claim was confirmed by American defence sources, who said that the decision to reduce Thales to junior partner was well known in the Pentagon a fortnight before the decision was announced.

The French government had thrown its weight behind Thales. In talks with Mr Hoon, the French ambassador suggested that France might order the same type of carrier, thereby reducing overall costs.

British defence sources confirmed that Mr Blair made the final decision. A source said: "He was already pretty angry at the way Chirac was behaving over Iraq and the decision to invite Mugabe to France tipped the whole thing over the edge."

The Prime Minister was concerned that awarding the contract to France would have provoked a political row at a time when relations between London and Paris are their most strained since Labour came to power.

Mr Blair will seek to patch up his differences with M Chirac at today's summit, which was originally due to have been held in December. It was postponed after they argued vehemently over the common agricultural policy in October.

M Chirac is said to have told Mr Blair: "You have been very rude and I have never been spoken to like this before."

Although differences over Iraq, Zimbabwe and farm subsidies will dominate today's talks, the two leaders are expected to sign a joint declaration on defence.

The declaration will seek to put political force behind the development of a European rapid reaction force and plans to pool military equipment such as aircraft carriers for peacekeeping and humanitarian missions.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-02-04 01:22am

Go Tony! Go Tony! Way to step up and have a pair , Mr. Prime Minister! Fuck the French!

Dont stop there, go for broke , annex Normandy and Calais, Im sure the Royal Marines would love a day trip to the continent!!!

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-02-04 01:31am

Heh, Blair is finally doing something right. Way to go.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-02-04 02:07am

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:Ooh, new carriers. Are these going to be little Harrier carriers, or the real thing? Any idea of the specs?

Looks like they'll be the real thing, yeeeeeeehaw!

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-02-04 02:10am

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/index.html

The UK Future Aircraft Carrier, CVF, requirement is for two 55,000t to 60,000t carriers which will enter service in the years 2012 and 2015. They will be the largest warships built in the UK. Each carrier will be capable of embarking an air group of 50 aircraft. The carriers will be twice the size of the three Invincible Class carriers and accommodate twice as many aircraft. The crew will be about 600, only 15 more than the Invincible, indicating the high level of automation being integrated into the ships' systems. It has been decided that Portsmouth will be the carriers' home port.

In 1999, the UK Ministry of Defence Procurement Executive MOD(PE) awarded contracts for the one year initial assessment phase of the UK Royal Navy's Future Carrier programme to teams led by BAE SYSTEMS and Thales Naval Ltd . The contract involved comparing the three proposed configurations for the carrier and examining the key enabling technologies. In November 2001, the MOD awarded these two companies contracts for Stage 2 of the assessment phase, involving further design and risk reduction work, providing the basis for the choice of Prime Contractor in early 2003. The first steel is to be cut in 2005 and the two carriers will enter service in 2012 and 2015.

The BAE Systems team includes: Vosper Thorneycroft, Lockheed Martin, Alenia Marconi Systems, Rolls Royce, Strachan & Henshaw, Babcock BES, Northrop Grumman, Qinetiq and Swan Hunter. If successful, BAE intends final assembly of the vessels to take place at Babcock's Rosyth yard. The Thales team includes: Devonport Management Ltd (commissioning, through life support, procurement), Lockheed Martin (combat systems integrator), Alsthom Naval Systems (propulsion and power systems), Raytheon, Halliburton, CAE (platform management systems integration), Swan Hunter, Harland & Wolff and BMT. Both teams plan that the carrier will be built as separate sections or "superblocks", which could be built by different shipyards and assembled in dry dock, five "superblocks" for Thales and three "megablocks" plus island structure for BAE.

In parallel, a study of the options for the Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA), formerly known as the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA), resulted in the selection of the STOVL (short take-off vertical landing) version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) in September 2002.

DESIGN

The ships will be designed to ensure the maximum flexibility for their service life of up to 50 years. The "future proof" carrier will be designed for STOVL operations but optimised for future conversion for conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) operations. The UK MOD has stated that the carriers will be built "for, but not with" catapults and arrester gear for conventional landings. It is planned to fit a ski-jump ramp on the forward deck, but this could be removed in the future if required. Space will be made in the design for the future fitting of catapult launch and arrester wires.

STOVL aircraft have greater flexibility than (CTOL) aircraft. They can operate in worse weather conditions and have a higher launch rate.

AIRCRAFT

The STOVL variant of the US F-35 JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) has been chosen to succeed the Royal Navy Sea Harrier from about 2012. Up to 150 aircraft are to be procured. This variant is also being developed for the US Marine Corps. The UK MOD is providing 10% of the cost of the STOVL concept demonstration phase of the JSF programme.

The carrier will support up to 150 aircraft sorties per day with an air group of up to 50 aircraft in a time of crisis. Normally the carrier will have 40 aircraft, comprising typically 30 multi-role F-35 STOVL fighter aircraft, six helicopters and four airborne and early warning (AEW) platforms.

MARITIME AIRBORNE SURVEILLANCE AND CONTROL (MASC)

The Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control (MASC) programme, formerly the Future Organic Airborne Early Warning Aircraft (FOAEW), will select the AEW aircraft to operate from the new carriers. Candidates for MASC include the Northrop Grumman E-2C Hawkeye, the Boeing/Bell V-22 tiltrotor, a helicopter such as the AgustaWestland EH101 Merlin or a UAV. However, the choice of the STOVL F-35 may mean that a fixed-wing aircraft such as the E-2C will no longer be viable. MASC is currently in the Concept Phase, with an Initial Gate decision planned for 2003, followed by a Main Gate decision in 2006. An in-service date of 2012 is planned.

PROPULSION SYSTEM

The MOD has decided not to use nuclear propulsion for the aircraft carrier because of high costs. The carrier's propulsion system will be Integrated Full Electric Propulsion (IFEP) based on four gas turbines. The optimum location for the position of the main propulsion system is being examined, with maximising the hangar space below decks a major consideration. The range of the carrier will be 8,000 miles.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-02-04 03:22am

This is all well and good , cheers to the Pommies

But why in the hell do the British even NEED two , 60,000 ton conventional angled deck carriers? Who are they going to fight with them.....its not like they have an Empire to protect or even anywhere that they would need to project that kind of fire power to. Carrier Battlegroups by definition are designed and built expressly for the purpose of power projection beyond the range of landbased airpower and national borders, where do the Brits need tp project their power to ? Anywhere that needs a good pounding in the next half a century will be paid a visit by the USN......so why waste the billions of pounds on carriers?

And if the Royal Navy has a hard on for Carriers it seems that for the same money they could build 4 replacements for the aging Invincibles rather than two mini-supercarriers. Am I just pissing up a rope here or does this strike anyone else as goofy ? [/i]

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2003-02-04 03:59am

It is very simple. The British understand that:
1. It is nice to have the option of doing something besides pissing and moaning if the US sits one out.
2. If you want to have clout with US decisions you need to have more than a token commitment. Especially if the Americans have hardliners in offfice. Whom will the US listen to, the guys who send 10 outdated plans, a couple of mine sweepers and a frigate ... or the guys who have two carriers, kickass spec ops, major ground forces, and a significant air prescence.
3. There is also the idea that if the UK makes significant contributions to US efforts ... the favor will be reciprocated later. So if the UK picks a fight with a despot the US doesn't immediately want to go to war the UK can point to past favors paid.

Military these carriers are more flexible than the current class and give a better return. My only thought is that nuclear would be better ... but hey it isn't a huge issue.

Frankly more and more of British politics seems to be about the DC-London axis ... which is immensly more powerful than the Paris-Berlin axis.

As far as France ... the only way to redeem dealing with Mugabe is to shoot the bastard when he enters France. I don't suppose there is any chance he will attend a football match where he can be killed easily?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-02-04 05:38am

Sokar wrote:This is all well and good , cheers to the Pommies
But why in the hell do the British even NEED two , 60,000 ton conventional angled deck carriers? Who are they going to fight with them.....its not like they have an Empire to protect or even anywhere that they would need to project that kind of fire power to. Carrier Battlegroups by definition are designed and built expressly for the purpose of power projection beyond the range of landbased airpower and national borders, where do the Brits need tp project their power to ? Anywhere that needs a good pounding in the next half a century will be paid a visit by the USN......so why waste the billions of pounds on carriers?

And if the Royal Navy has a hard on for Carriers it seems that for the same money they could build 4 replacements for the aging Invincibles rather than two mini-supercarriers. Am I just pissing up a rope here or does this strike anyone else as goofy ? [/i]

The only thing goofy here is your idea. The jump in capability between harriers and real fixed wing is massive, and the in AEW capability using fixed wing rather then helicopters even more so. If the British had had a single real carrier with F-4's at the Falklands they easily wouldn't have lost a single ship.

It would be criminal for the RN to buy direct I class replacements.

If you doubt the UK's need for power projection, then you've obviously paid no attention to the last 25 years of their history and the military operations within it.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-02-04 08:12am

It's good that Emperor Blair has done something to piss off the French for once, every good UK leader has to do that at least once to warrant respect.

Here's some more on the carriers: http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showt ... ht=carrier

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-02-04 08:49am

she's a fine ship! and upon completion of the two of them, the Royal Navy will completely overpower the combined naval forces of Europe and mark it's return as Europe's supreme naval power. Jolly good show Tony!

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-02-04 08:53am

Col. Crackpot wrote:she's a fine ship! and upon completion of the two of them, the Royal Navy will completely overpower the combined naval forces of Europe and mark it's return as Europe's supreme naval power. Jolly good show Tony!

One had better be named Ark Royal as usual and the other I want to be a Victorious again or Eagle.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-02-04 09:03am

I'm interested to know how they plan on being able to put in catapults at a later time if the ship is going to use gas turbine propulsion. Catapults have historically been steam driven although there has been talk of trying to make future versions electromagnetic.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-02-04 09:06am

Tsyroc wrote:I'm interested to know how they plan on being able to put in catapults at a later time if the ship is going to use gas turbine propulsion. Catapults have historically been steam driven although there has been talk of trying to make future versions electromagnetic.

I think BAE Systems has been working with groups like NASA on producing EM catapults which will be one step below ship based railguns practically.

Sparkticus · Post by **Sparkticus** » 2003-02-04 10:16am

Ok, off topic but Admiral Valdemar, it is nice to see another fan of the TSR-2 out there.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-02-04 10:29am

One had better be named Ark Royal as usual and the other I want to be a Victorious again or Eagle.

Time to get with the more impressive names
Or better yet name one after the UK's most succesful spy

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-02-04 11:24am

The new carriers for the UK will initially be configured for STOVL operations. They will later be converted into CTOL as the need arises.

Dirty Harry · Post by **Dirty Harry** » 2003-02-04 12:14pm

Does anyone know if were going to get a navalised version of the Eurofighter Typoon? If the carrier could operate both this and the F-35, that would be pretty sweet.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-02-04 12:38pm

Mr Bean wrote:
One had better be named Ark Royal as usual and the other I want to be a Victorious again or Eagle.
Time to get with the more impressive names
Or better yet name one after the UK's most succesful spy

Johnny English?

Sparkticus: Yes, TSR-2 lives on. I saw the sister craft of the one in my avatar, XR-219 at RAF Cosford. Lovely baby.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-02-04 12:39pm

Dirty Harry wrote:Does anyone know if were going to get a navalised version of the Eurofighter Typoon? If the carrier could operate both this and the F-35, that would be pretty sweet.

So far the EFA has an arrestor hook and strong frame, I doubt it could be used on a carrier just yet without a major overhaul like with the Rafale M.

Dirty Harry · Post by **Dirty Harry** » 2003-02-04 12:44pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Dirty Harry wrote:Does anyone know if were going to get a navalised version of the Eurofighter Typoon? If the carrier could operate both this and the F-35, that would be pretty sweet.
So far the EFA has an arrestor hook and strong frame, I doubt it could be used on a carrier just yet without a major overhaul like with the Rafale M.

Fair enough. I just want to know if we are just going to be using the F-35 and thats it, or will we be aquiring some other type of fighter.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-02-04 01:01pm

Dirty Harry wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Dirty Harry wrote:Does anyone know if were going to get a navalised version of the Eurofighter Typoon? If the carrier could operate both this and the F-35, that would be pretty sweet.
So far the EFA has an arrestor hook and strong frame, I doubt it could be used on a carrier just yet without a major overhaul like with the Rafale M.
Fair enough. I just want to know if we are just going to be using the F-35 and thats it, or will we be aquiring some other type of fighter.

The F-35 is going to be around a long time and is an ideal multi-role craft, the carriers will have a life of 50 years so they can upgrade for any new models of JSF should they need to. Maybe one day a naval EFA will be made, but not in the near future.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-02-04 01:26pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Sokar wrote:This is all well and good , cheers to the Pommies
But why in the hell do the British even NEED two , 60,000 ton conventional angled deck carriers? Who are they going to fight with them.....its not like they have an Empire to protect or even anywhere that they would need to project that kind of fire power to. Carrier Battlegroups by definition are designed and built expressly for the purpose of power projection beyond the range of landbased airpower and national borders, where do the Brits need tp project their power to ? Anywhere that needs a good pounding in the next half a century will be paid a visit by the USN......so why waste the billions of pounds on carriers?

And if the Royal Navy has a hard on for Carriers it seems that for the same money they could build 4 replacements for the aging Invincibles rather than two mini-supercarriers. Am I just pissing up a rope here or does this strike anyone else as goofy ? [/i]
The only thing goofy here is your idea. The jump in capability between harriers and real fixed wing is massive, and the in AEW capability using fixed wing rather then helicopters even more so. If the British had had a single real carrier with F-4's at the Falklands they easily wouldn't have lost a single ship.

It would be criminal for the RN to buy direct I class replacements.

If you doubt the UK's need for power projection, then you've obviously paid no attention to the last 25 years of their history and the military operations within it.

Well feel free to enlighten me Skimmer. My post wasn't meant to be faceious or smarmy, I'm just wondering how in an era of strapped finances in England, that they would want to build these things. I mignt add that I find the concept and the ship itself to be quite cool. If they work out it might be worth while for the US to retire one of the older supercarriers in favor of two or three of these , what to call them, Medium-carriers...although the current generation of carriers probably still have over 25+ years of life left to them so its a bit moot

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-02-04 01:37pm

It's because the RN requires a level of power projection that the "minicarriers" simply cannot provide.

The 60kton UK carriers do not meet the USN's needs, hence why we will not build any. We may build an LHD in that range, however.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-02-04 01:38pm

phongn wrote:It's because the RN requires a level of power projection that the "minicarriers" simply cannot provide.

The 60kton UK carriers do not meet the USN's needs, hence why we will not build any. We may build an LHD in that range, however.

Well some idiot thought that SSNs were the main enemy of the RN now, forgetting that ASW ops are best done by other subs or fast and light surface vessels, not pseudo carriers.

The Ocean is a better idea as a commando carrier like the LHDs the US Marines use.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2003-02-04 04:59pm

Nice to see thr Navy is getting fixed now when is the army getting new rifles to replace the piece of shit ones we use now.