Le(s) PA de la Royale

[DEFA550]

Merci pour ces explications DEFA550. L'article de Mer et marine est toutefois plus mitigé, mettant moins d'avantages en avant.

De par son contenu, l'article semble antérieur à l'annonce officielle. Un article similaire écrit aujourd'hui aurait probablement un ton différent.

Pour le reste, la volonté de coopération est avant tout politique, et accessoirement financière. Cette volonté de coopérer fait que le projet Juliette n'est que l'ébauche d'un éventuel plan B. En d'autre termes, il n'est pas utile de concevoir un plan B si on est convaincu d'aboutir à une coopération, ce qui ne veut pas dire pour autant qu'on est prêt à tous les sacrifices. C'est un choix, il est calculé, et ils est probablement mal venu (surtout envers les anglais) de laisser supposer qu'on pourrait se passer d'eux. En clair, signifier qu'il n'y a pas de plan B prouve cette volonté de coopération, ce qui est 'rassurant' et diplomatiquement correct.

Mais comme on n'est pas plus c*n que la moyenne, on ne va pas non plus dépenser plusieurs millions en pure perte et risquer d'hypothéquer un second PA dont on sait qu'il sera nécessaire sans avoir certaines garanties. Sauf à considérer qu'après tout, il n'est pas si nécessaire que ça.

[P4]

@P4: No, but apparently the MoD admitted (source: Richard Beedall I believe) in private (to BAe) that 2.9 Billion is too little, they are looking more at 3.5 billion now.

thanks and what about best value for money?

la participation Française servira t'elle de levier pour faire baisser les prix dans ces tractations finançiaire entre le mod et les industriels(theorie des mains liées)?

[Invité Rob]

thanks and what about best value for money?

This is imo only a phrase. The MoD and BAe are good friends again, so I doubt that BAe will lose any of their CVF construction work, perhaps some work will be done really cheap in Poland or so.

[Fonck]

2Rob There is NO point coming into THIS forum trying to imply YOU didn't use the "British" design thing as a PURE flame subject. Thales is the lead design and the CVF Patents are Thales. If you don't HAVE the brain power to go over thsi fatc many others does. WE do not suffer of that complexion of yours. The fact that Thales is a French company (which I never denied) does not have any implications on the facts that. You ARE liar I CAN DIG many TOPICS in the WAFF where you pretended that Thales wasBritish, particularly aboutthe Watchkeeper programme. a) the CVF design belongs to the UK MoD So What hardly makes the patent MoD it's writen on it like on each box of bean Copyright Thales. b) the majortiy of the design work was done by BMT,BAe, VT and Babcock They all ARE part of Thales design team and were under Thales design LEADERSHIP using a majority of Thales techology database which majority is French in Thales facilities. Hardly a British design the patent is Thales. It is Thales which invest into Britain NOT the other way round. c) the CVF design, according to the Thales UK CEO was done 100% in the UK Doesn't MAKE it a British design it MAKES it Thales's because they are design lead and use a common technology database poll majoritary French. "d) France has no access to the CVF design in whatever way, except through paying the UK MoD 100 Million Pounds for the right to have a look at it, if the design was French (as you seem to imply with technological data pool) then surely France just has to turn to Thales in Paris?" They already did have access to it long ago to make sure it was compatible to the need of MN. So stop trying to spin and twist you way into your usual sick ultranationalism in this forum you already spayed this hillness of yours inthe WAFF i think it's enough BS an stipidity from your bunch... >>>>> P4 la participation Française servira t'elle de levier pour faire baisser les prix dans ces tractations finançiaire entre le mod et les industriels(theorie des mains liées)? Ca va pas empecher leur prix de monter en flaeche, c'est l'ineficacite de leur industrie qui est le probleme. Jettes un oeuil sur le PDF du NAO ca te donnera une idee plus precise de ce qui se passe ici. En fait il est evident que la Grande Bretagne a besoin de la France pour remetre leur industrie navale a flot..... Pour leur industrie aerospaciale c'est un peu tard...

[Invité Rob]

There is NO point coming into THIS forum trying to imply YOU didn't use the "British" design thing as a PURE flame subject.

Then why don't you prove your statements for once? Show me a link where I said Thales was a British company. What I always said is that Thales UK employs 11000 Brits who have British knowledge and that the flow of information regarding CVF between Thales UK and Thales France is severely limited by the MoD.

Thales is the lead design and the CVF Patents are Thales.

Here a quote from Navy Matters, yes Thales UK has design lead (never said anything else) but that does not mean that they do the major part of the design, apart from the fact that Thales subcontracted their early design work to BMT:

In December 2005, the MOD announced that VT Group and Babcock (who were both expected to play keys roles in the platform delivery) would now join the Aircraft Carrier Alliance as full members. All ACA members had, after lengthy negotiations, signed up to a charter on alliance roles and responsibilities. BAE Systems will take responsibility for the integration of design, build, commissioning and acceptance of the ships; lead the engineering team; have responsibility for mission systems design; and design and construct the centre and aft blocks. Thales will take the role of design lead for platform, power and propulsion and take responsibility for the aviation interface. KBR will provide project management services; and Babcock and VT will have responsibility for design and build of the two forward blocks, with Babcock managing integration and assembly at Rosyth.

You ARE liar I CAN DIG many TOPICS in the WAFF where you pretended that Thales wasBritish, particularly aboutthe Watchkeeper programme.

Please do so. IIRC my stance was that Watchkeeper was Israeli-British. Here again my definition of British was that Thales UK employs British engineers with British knowledge, something you can't deny.

So What hardly makes the patent MoD it's writen on it like on each box of bean Copyright Thales.

IF there are patents for CVF (I strongly doubt it as patents are for inventions not developing an existent invention (aircraft carrier)) why don't you come up with the patent number?

They all ARE part of Thales design team and were under Thales design LEADERSHIP using a majority of Thales techology database which majority is French in Thales facilities. Hardly a British design the patent is Thales.

NO. They are all part of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance with Thales UK only making up a small part of the design capability. The majortiy coming from BAe, VT Group, Babcock and BMT. Actually the Aircraft Alliance works in Bristol from Thales (Coldharbour lane, building 550) and BAe (Filton) facilities.

Doesn't MAKE it a British design it MAKES it Thales's because they are design lead and use a common technology database poll majoritary French.

Why are you keep going on about Thales database? Thales in France has no experience in aircraft carrier design, CdeG was designed by DCN. The design was designed 100% in the UK. (check the statement from Thales UK which you are trying to avoid)

They already did have access to it long ago to make sure it was compatible to the need of MN. So stop trying to spin and twist you way into your usual sick ultranationalism in this forum you already spayed this hillness of yours inthe WAFF i think it's enough BS an stipidity from your bunch...

They only had a limited look at it. The 100 Million is to assess in more detail if a joint programme can go ahead.

[Fonck]

@Rob Thanks a LOT for exposing how strong your French complexion is... Designed by a French company which happens to be LEADER of the desing TEAM it leads in its own facilities, period.. AGAIN even the state secretary reconised this as a FACT as does the whole of the industry, your little twist and spin is fooling NO one in this forum, everyone can READ THALES PDF. The Patents on CVF ARE THALES an they use a technology common to all their branch which happens to be majoritary FRENCH. All you can twist and SPIN about it won't change FACTS. Donner Posté le: 26 Jan 2006 11:24 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Citation: There is NO point coming into THIS forum trying to imply YOU didn't use the "British" design thing as a PURE flame subject. Then why don't you prove your statements for once? Show me a link where I said Thales was a British company. What I always said is that Thales UK employs 11000 Brits who have British knowledge and that the flow of information regarding CVF between Thales UK and Thales France is severely limited by the MoD. No need for this, a simple scroll of the WAFF topics would suffice, you're in dangerous territotry here i can DIG all your ultranationalistic LIES so easly soif i were YOU i'd stop NOW becasue you already made the WAFF a totally laughable forum for the number of time youposted "soft flames" abou thow Great Britan was in Aerospacial and Shipbuilding industries. You're a chronical LIAR and a Mythomaniac i can prove this ANY time. A tous: Jetez un coup d'oeuil sur les topics relatif au sujet cdans le WAAF..... Edifiant. Ca dure depuis des annees. Citation: Thales is the lead design and the CVF Patents are Thales. "Here a quote from Navy Matters, yes Thales UK has design lead (never said anything else) " You won't make it a "Ritish" design this WAY. Thales being French and using a majoritary French technology database is not helping Poor boy. Citation: In December 2005, the MOD announced that VT Group and Babcock (who were both expected to play keys roles in the platform delivery) would now join the Aircraft Carrier Alliance as full members. All ACA members had, after lengthy negotiations, signed up to a charter on alliance roles and responsibilities. BAE Systems will take responsibility for the integration of design, build, commissioning and acceptance of the ships; lead the engineering team; have responsibility for mission systems design; and design and construct the centre and aft blocks. Thales will take the role of design lead for platform, power and propulsion and take responsibility for the aviation interface. KBR will provide project management services; and Babcock and VT will have responsibility for design and build of the two forward blocks, with Babcock managing integration and assembly at Rosyth. Where oes it says ANYONE else is reponsible for the design itself than Thales? MBT have ONLY dispatched about 50technicians to work under Thales leadership and benn consultants to Thales Naval. Citation: You ARE liar I CAN DIG many TOPICS in the WAFF where you pretended that Thales wasBritish, particularly aboutthe Watchkeeper programme. "Please do so. IIRC my stance was that Watchkeeper was Israeli-British. Here again my definition of British was that Thales UK employs British engineers with British knowledge, something you can't deny. " You got is bastard. I'll SHOW everyone here how hatefull oyu can be. Not onluy so you're a knownprovocator trying to getr people banned all the time in the WAFF for denoncing YOU as a LIAR. Citation: So What hardly makes the patent MoD it's writen on it like on each box of bean Copyright Thales. IF there are patents for CVF (I strongly doubt it as patents are for inventions not developing an existent invention (aircraft carrier)) why don't you come up with the patent number? Citation: They all ARE part of Thales design team and were under Thales design LEADERSHIP using a majority of Thales techology database which majority is French in Thales facilities. Hardly a British design the patent is Thales. NO. They are all part of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance with Thales UK only making up a small part of the design capability. The majortiy coming from BAe, VT Group, Babcock and BMT. Actually the Aircraft Alliance works in Bristol from Thales (Coldharbour lane, building 550) and BAe (Filton) facilities. Citation: Doesn't MAKE it a British design it MAKES it Thales's because they are design lead and use a common technology database poll majoritary French. Why are you keep going on about Thales database? Thales in France has no experience in aircraft carrier design, CdeG was designed by DCN. The design was designed 100% in the UK. (check the statement from Thales UK which you are trying to avoid) Citation: They already did have access to it long ago to make sure it was compatible to the need of MN. So stop trying to spin and twist you way into your usual sick ultranationalism in this forum you already spayed this hillness of yours inthe WAFF i think it's enough BS an stipidity from your bunch... They only had a limited look at it. The 100 Million is to assess in more detail if a joint programme can go ahead. This doesn't MAKE this design British it makes it THALES's. Designed by a French company which happens to be LEADER of the desing TEAM it leads in its own facilities, period.. AGAIN even the state secretary reconised this as a FACT as does the whole ofthe industry. The Patents on it ARE THALES an they use a technology common to all their branch which happens to be majoritary FRENCH. All you can twist and SPIN about it won't change FACTS. Donner Posté le: 26 Jan 2006 11:24 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Citation: There is NO point coming into THIS forum trying to imply YOU didn't use the "British" design thing as a PURE flame subject. Then why don't you prove your statements for once? Show me a link where I said Thales was a British company. What I always said is that Thales UK employs 11000 Brits who have British knowledge and that the flow of information regarding CVF between Thales UK and Thales France is severely limited by the MoD. Citation: Thales is the lead design and the CVF Patents are Thales. Here a quote from Navy Matters, yes Thales UK has design lead (never said anything else) but that does not mean that they do the major part of the design, apart from the fact that Thales subcontracted their early design work to BMT: Citation: In December 2005, the MOD announced that VT Group and Babcock (who were both expected to play keys roles in the platform delivery) would now join the Aircraft Carrier Alliance as full members. All ACA members had, after lengthy negotiations, signed up to a charter on alliance roles and responsibilities. BAE Systems will take responsibility for the integration of design, build, commissioning and acceptance of the ships; lead the engineering team; have responsibility for mission systems design; and design and construct the centre and aft blocks. Thales will take the role of design lead for platform, power and propulsion and take responsibility for the aviation interface. KBR will provide project management services; and Babcock and VT will have responsibility for design and build of the two forward blocks, with Babcock managing integration and assembly at Rosyth. Citation: You ARE liar I CAN DIG many TOPICS in the WAFF where you pretended that Thales wasBritish, particularly aboutthe Watchkeeper programme. Please do so. IIRC my stance was that Watchkeeper was Israeli-British. Here again my definition of British was that Thales UK employs British engineers with British knowledge, something you can't deny. Citation: So What hardly makes the patent MoD it's writen on it like on each box of bean Copyright Thales. He thud: What does the little caption next to the picture says? Copyright Thales. Damned right. Keep lying and flamingh won't change a thing. Citation: They all ARE part of Thales design team and were under Thales design LEADERSHIP using a majority of Thales techology database which majority is French in Thales facilities. Hardly a British design the patent is Thales. "NO. They are all part of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance with Thales UK only making up a small part of the design capability. The majortiy coming from BAe, VT Group, Babcock and BMT. Actually the Aircraft Alliance works in Bristol from Thales (Coldharbour lane, building 550) and BAe (Filton) facilities. " LIAR = LIAR =LIAR =LIAR =LIAR =LIAR LIAR: Thales NAVAL UK are there and in ANY CASE, THE DESIGN lead IS Thales MEANING THERE IS NO OTHER DECISION MAKERS THAN THEIR TECHNICIANS AND NAVAL ARCHITECTS as for the desginof the ship... "Why are you keep going on about Thales database? Thales in France has no experience in aircraft carrier design, CdeG was designed by DCN. The design was designed 100% in the UK. (check the statement from Thales UK which you are trying to avoid)" I'm not avoiding anything. Thales UK are FRENCH and USING a common technology database pool. Meaning majority of what they dois iossued from French technology. That's YOUR block. Thales is DESIGN LEAD and ARE using THEIR onw technology DATABASE for it including their NAVAL branches..... Happy or NOT these are FACTS and you just try to spin reality about. All members of the Thales design team are under Thale sleadership and literally told WHAT o do. How tyhey do it is why the yare there inthe fiorst place That's WHY This is Thales design. All you are trynio to do is to interpert realityto maker this little habit of your (TAKING CREDIT FOR QUEEN AND COUNTRY FROM OTHERS) a reality.. Reality IS:Thales desgin. No more no less. And you'd better get use to th fact. AGAIN: They already did have access to it long ago to make sure it was compatible to the need of MN. So stop trying to spin and twist you way into your usual sick ultranationalism in this forum you already spayed this hillness of yours inthe WAFF i think it's enough BS an stipidity from your bunch... Another good topic wasted by this little flame hillness.

[c seven]

Ecoutez, arrêtez ça, ça devient peinible. Puisqu'on est dans le domaine naval, conduisez-vous commes des officiers de la navy ou de la royale plutôt que comme des vulgaires biffins... allons! :rolleyes: (scusez les biff' ... c'était pour illustrer la démo' ... pas taper ... haï-euuuu) (C'est à dire le sarcasme voir l'humour mais insultez-vous calmement et poliment) Maintenant voilà comment ça marche dans les coopérations Franco-Britaniques: 1) on s'insulte avant 2) on se met à bosser et on sort des choses meirveilleuses qui étonnent la terre entière -> Concorde, Renault F1, ... , voir la 1ère GM 3) on s'insulte après et chacun dit que 80% du crédit lui revient et que l'autre était un faignant incompétant et qu'il a fallu tout reprendre derrière. La phase 1), c'est fini! Maintenant on est à la phase 2) alors sortons un super porte-avion ultra-moderne, dans le budget et dans les délais. Vous pourrez reprendre votre petite discussion quand on sera à la phase 3) __________ (c-seven for moderator! 8) )

[Invité Rob]

Don't repeat yourself, your opinion doesn't matter try to get some proof, but I know you're incapable of just that. I 've proven you wrong on what you are saying.

[Invité ZedroS]

D'ailleurs, juste comme ça : mettre en majuscules sur un forum revient à crier. Et là je trouve que Fonck crie franchement beaucoup. A la limite, Fonck, met en gras, mais franchement les majuscules sont fatiguantes à la longue. Et ça te dessert plus qu'autre chose.

[P4]

http://www.news.mod.uk/img/pressdatabase/images/supportingImages/large/SofSFrance_tn.jpg

MAM:vous seriez pas en train de me draguer

J Reid:non non je suis marié

:lol:

[Fonck]

2Rob Don't repeat yourself, your opinion doesn't matter try to get some proof, but I know you're incapable of just that. I 've proven you wrong on what you are saying. you're sick man. You try to distort reality it's so obvious, it's laughable. Proving me wrong have been the drive for your obsessive behavious for years. Get a life. Pour les autres jetez un oeuil sur le WAFF et tout les topic France vs Britain etc. Sujets: Aerospace indutries/Air Forces etc. La plupart sont poste par Rob L..... Sans compter FOAS ou li essaie de nous faire croire que Thales est Britanique etc...... L'aure Mytho c'est RM Nod. Invernter des programmes et des buggets est leur specialitees mais dans le cas de Rob c'est les capacitees de leur industrie et le credits sur le dessins et conception etc.... http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/message/1130855408/ http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/message/1121176490/UK+Aerospace+figures+2004+out%2C+still+largest+in+Europe http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1137995398/last-1138266452/Britain+rejects+lousy+French+CVF+design+offer+of+less+than+100+Million+Pounds http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/message/1117959562/ http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/message/1134496776/ "How can a single person be such an idiot? Look, Thales UK is based in the UK, everything they do advances UK expertise, so what they do is UK technology, only from a shareholder view they are French, according to your insane argumentation Rafale is a German/French/Spanish plane, because the German/French/Spanish EADS own 46% of Dassault." A pat ca le mec n'est pas un Flamer anti-Francais... http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/message/1118839193/ http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/message/1125766865/UK+design+is+only+option+for+joint+carrier+development%2C+says+UK+minister http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/message/1118849404/British+UCAV+project+Nightjar http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1118849404/ http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/message/1130239109/ Celui ci ils se sont empresses de le fermer. Je me marre ETC J'en fais une liste et ca va vous edifier. Le pire c'est que meme la presse s'y met et des mecs comme Jackoniko editent des datas dans Jane's augmentant le poid a vide du Rafale de 750 kg sans raisons ou plubliant desarticles comme Typhoon ahead of Rafale etc.... Quand a moi je les alume regilierement jusqu'a ce que tout le mond ait une idee de la realite. Leur reponse: Plaintes EN MASSE de preference a un MOD british pour fermer le topic on me faire bannir.

[Fonck]

Celui ci est VRAIMENT frapant... http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1078593906/last-1079192766/UK+and+French+Defence+Aerospace+Industry+compared http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1105358441/last-1105376162/EUROMALE+%2C+the+European+solution.. http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1089395813/last-1104722936/RAF+vs.+FAF+once+and+for+all. http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1104410902/last-1104522366/Could+France+retake+the+Falklands+nowadays- Franchement si ca releve pas du domaine de la psychopatie c'est quoi? Ma repose etait: http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1083503578/last-1083693721/UK%27s+aerospace+Industries-+Who+designs+what- Meme des sujets completement hors topic. Ca doit atirer l'atention sur BAE' les UK et leur part dans la conception d'avions ertangers.... http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1085476857/last-1085821690/Rafale+gets+more+juice%2C+more+boost. http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1090081704/last-1090130790/Europes+shipbuilding+industry Encore un essayant de prouver les UK superieurs.... A la France. http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1090585161/last-1090601224/US+Air+Force+chief+praises+Eurofighter Le leche Cul a L'americaine... j'en passe et des meilleures. Enfin la totale qoui...

[glitter]

Excuse ME!!! YOU flamed US for month with this little "British" design bullshit of yours. Everyone reading the topics can see for themself.

C'est évident qu'un design de Thales UK, MBT et autres filliales de sociétés américains, appartnant au Royaume Unis, c'est super francais.

It's obvious that a Thales UK, MBT and subsidaries of american companies design, which belong to UK isn't really close to be french.

My postion is always been the same. Thales IS design lead. What other did is totally irrelevant as they were under their design leadership

On WAFF, your position had been different each days.

and more to the point: Thales use Thales common technology database.

Your skills in industry doesn't match those in aerodynamic ;)

tu n'en sait rien, c'est classé secret ce genre d'infos.

[seb24]

Pas la peine d'exporter vos histoires ici, si c'est pour rien apporter au forum vous pouvez poster vos messagges ailleur, au lieu de polluer le sujet. Merci :evil:

[Fonck]

@glitter Ma position n'a jamais change et tu mens. La seule girouette du WAFF c'est toi. Tout le monde peut se procurer le PDF de Thales et verifier ma position dans le WAFF. Thales est responsable du design un point c'est tout. Le copyright est Thales ainsi que la majorite de la technologie qu'ils utilisent en commun pour toute leur branches. Que ca te plaise ou pas c'est difficilement du 100% British design et en plus juridiquement c'est 100% Thales donc Francais. Quand a toi AKA Jesse04 tu passe ton temps a critiquer Dassault et la France en generale comme si tu t'etait fait virer de leur bureau d'etudes, a voir la quantite de conneries que tu as ecrite a ce sujet tout en te pretendent Francais, (ca me donne la nausee), tu ferais mieux de passer ton temps a aprendre tes sujets parceque la plupart du temps t'en a pas idee. http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1112537272/last-1112736083/Some+Facts+about+French+designed+weapons... Tiens encore un qui etait amusante... Je crois que tu soufre du meme probleme que Rob. Pas assez eduque pour faire impression sur le sujet. Faut bien compenser d'une facon ou d'une autre... et une des mienne pour compenser... http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1112862479/last-1113322556/Barracuda+and+Astute+SSNs+brief+comparison... << Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Index French aerospace moves up into second place April 14 2005 at 9:27 AM No score for this post Thunder (Login sampaix) France -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- French aerospace moves up into second place France confirmed its position as the world's second-largest manufacturer of aerospace equipment behind the US in 2004 by achieving record sales of EUR28.4 billion ($36.3 billion), despite a dip in revenue from military goods. [Jane's Defence Weekly - first posted to http://jdw.janes.com – 8 April 2005] http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1113467222/last-1113552471/French+aerospace+moves+up+into+second+place

[Fonck]

Pas de victoire a vanter... Mais ou trouver les docs sur Thales et leur role dans les programmes CVF et P-A2.

"Thales designed the Future Aircraft Carrier and is playing a major Role as a suplier to the project, as part of an alliance between the MoD, BAe Systems and Kellogg Brown & Root UK Ltd."

Si ils n'etaient pas "design lead", "copyright owners" etc je ne vois pas comment Thales pourrait revendiquer legalement leur droits sur le dessin du CVF... quand a leur facon d'operer en tant que compagine c'est AUSSI ecrit dessus comme le port Salut dans l'autre PDF. Rendons a Cesar......

FUTURE

Thales' external publication Future can be downloaded here!

Built around the underlying theme of security, the 32-page, six-monthly magazine covers various subjects of general interest, each of which is fuelled or facilitated by the development of cutting-edge technology. Future is aimed at the different players that make up Thales' environment: customers, industrial and commercial partners, the financial community, opinion formers, academics and the scientific community.

This Q1 2006 issue features:

an exclusive interview with Nick Witney, chief executive of the European Defence Agency,

a report on the changing naval sector,

an in-depth article about the security of oil and gas resources,

a close look at research in Europe and management of experts in high-tech companies,

a zoom on Thales's presence in Australia.

Download Future

January 2006.

January 2005.

April 2004.

Télécharger Future

Janvier 2006.

Janvier 2005.

Avril 2004.

We hope you enjoy reading Future

[Arnaud]

BON FONCK JE CROIS QUE TU N'AS PAS COMPRIS ! je vais donc te le dire une ULTIME fois devant TOUS le monde cette fois ci ! Je t'ai deja demandé 2 fois d'etre plus courtois avec les autres membres (notamment Rob et Glitter entre autre) ! la prochaine fois, ce sera l'exclusion. :rolleyes:

[Philippe Top-Force]

Sinon ,t'en penses quoi Arnaud ? d'une coopération franco-britannique sur nos futurs PA.

[Arnaud]

Et bien mon cher Philippe, j'aurais tendance à dire que cette coopération serait bénéfique dans la mesure ou elle réduirais les couts (je pense). Bon apres le PA2 devra impérativement etre opérable pour nos Rafale. je sais c'est assez simpliste ;)

[Fonck]

Je trouve les deux articles un peu extremes. Mais il y a un point qu'on ne peut nier: Les Britanique ont tout fait pour metre leur industriels en avant au detriment des Francais. Maintenant si MAM et Chirac acceptent de voir les troncons du PA-2 construits en Grande Bretagne, ca n'augure pas vraiment d'un climat politique favorable pour une re-election. C'est du domaine de l'abandon d'une charge de travail acceptable pour les chantier naval Francais. La question qui se pose est la suivante. MOPA2 vont-il faire evouluer le dessin au point de pouvoir le faire construire en France? On sait bien qhe l'operation ne sera pas vraiment rentable meme avec 3 examplaire car tout ce qui se fait au GBs revient plus cher. (Voir l'augmentation du devis etc). Ca veut aussi dire qu'a un certain point. la cooperation ne sera plus rentable ni economiquement ni politiquement a moins d'abandonner totalement tout control du PA-2 au British. Je ne crois pas qu'il n'y ait pas de plan B, officielement peu-etre mais derriere les murs de DCN/Thales en France qui peut le dire??? Tout ca sent l'arnaque a plein nez...... "Les Français doivent donc négocier leur ticket d’entrée car, au-delà de l’achat des études déjà réalisées par les Anglais, la France a son propre budget. Après avoir planché sur un modèle national (Roméo puis Juliette), DCN et Thales, regroupés au sein de la société MOPA2, ont commencé, en mai 2004, à travailler sur un double projet, national et en coopération. A ce jour, 120 millions d’euros ont été alloués au PA 2 et il faudra, bien évidemment, que Paris débourse encore des sommes conséquentes pour son navire, légèrement différent de ceux de la Royal Navy." Pas de plan B???

[docteur]

la coopération c'est du bidon toutes les études ont deja été réalisée pour le CDG ils n'ont qu'a refaire le meme avec qq legere modification mineures donc un cdg 2 sans tous les problemes du 1 en quelque sorte une maturation du concept petite question ce 2 eme porte avions sera t-il a propusion nucléaire ?

[P4]

une coopération comme celle qu'on fait avec les Italiens pour les Horizons et les Fremms. :arrow: etudes techniques :arrow: achats groupés pour la construction chacun fait a sa guise comme ça on reste bon amis. ;) si on compare BAE(+voper+...) a DCN/Thales on voit que BAE naval a la Royal navy comme seul client si je me trompe pas. par contre le couple DCN/Thales a du pallier la faiblesse des commandes de la MN et chasser pour des contracts a l'export batiments de surfaces a Taiwan,Arabie Saoudite,Sg sous-marins au Pakistan(agostab),au Chli,a l'Inde et a la malaisie.(face au U-boat et autre Kilo) en gros DCN/Thales a deja operé sa transformation industrielle alors que BAE naval est une boite sponsorisé par le DOD. DCN laisse tomber son outils de production de Brest et ne veut surtout pas d'un rapprochement avec les chantiers de l'Atlantique. de l'autre cote Tony Blair compte sur les CVF pour mettre a niveau les chantiers Brits alors que des commandes militaires ont rarement rendu des boites competitives. si on prend le prix le plus haut des CVF soit 4milliards de livres pour les 2 et qu'on compare avec les 800milions d'euro que ST-nazaire propose pour la coque.............on a de la marge. ;) respect pour Mr P M-G

[Fonck]

J'espere simplement que les chantier naval Francais vont le construire. J'ai toujours ete suspicieux des motivations des Brits parceque les symptomes qu'on voit dans les forum, c'est aussi tres representatif de ceux que montrent leur classe politique. En gros; Rock'n'Roll swindle des Pistols revisited et si c'etait pas pour une Europe plus forte je me demanderais bien pourquoi le gouvernement Francais se serait embarque dans cette galere..

[Stratege]

A mon avis les chances que le second porteavion soit construit sont desormais de moins de 50%. L'engagement des credits votés dans la loi de programmation n'interviendra qu' apres 2007 donc si la gauche ou Sarkosy passe, le PA2 sera annulé selon toute vraisemblance. Cette histoire avec les Anglais etait avant tout pour gagner du temps politique et ne pas avoir a prendre de decision. Chriac s'est défausse sur ses successeurs du PA2 qui est eminamment politique car il symbolise la capacité de la France à intervenir militairement et indépendamment ce qui hérisse la gauche et les altantistes de droite. Le programme FREM coute deux fois le prix du PA2 mais a été engagé. L'argent etait la depuis 2002 et rien n'a été fait.Tirez en les conclusions. PS: Nos porte avions n'ont pas été réellement disponibles pendant plusieurs années faute de chasseurs pour emplacer les Crusaders et de défénse antiaerienne de la flotte suffisante et ca n'a pas dérangé nos politiques.A l'heure des financements deja trop contraints et en voie de réduction, de la nécessité de remplacer les SNA et les frégates, alors que le PA2 n'aura ni avions et ne sera nécessaire que pendant l'indisponibilité du CdG, tirez en les conclusions. Le PA2 serait vraiment utile que si on avait les Rafale M pour mettre dessus donc en arbitrant les livraisons de Rafale supplémentaires (et le budget) au detriment de l'AdA ce que je souhaite mais qui n'est pas a l'ordre du jour.

[seb24]

Il me semble que le progmme suit sont cours. Est que la première grosse tranche de financement est prévu pour 2006.