Aircraft Carrier Charles de Gaulle World Naval Ships Forums Archive

Naval History by Country :

ROYAL
NAVY

US
NAVY

GERMAN
NAVY

FRENCH
NAVY

*VIEW ALL OF OUR CURRENT ART SPECIAL OFFERS ON ONE PAGE HERE*
NAVAL ART	AVIATION ART	MILITARY ART	SPORT ART

ALWAYS GREAT OFFERS :

20% FURTHER PRICE REDUCTIONS ON HUNDREDS OF LIMITED EDITION ART PRINTS

BUY ONE GET ONE HALF PRICE ON THOUSANDS OF PAINTINGS AND PRINTS

FOR MORE OFFERS SIGN UP TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

Aircraft Carrier Charles de Gaulle World Naval Ships Forums Archive

Aircraft Carrier Charles de Gaulle

Posts 1 to 50

[I][SIZE="4"]CdeG immobilized for another 4-6 months (minimum)[/SIZE][/I] According to Mer et Marine (Link, in french), french Minster of Defence Hervé Morin this morning (02.04.09) in a radio interview gave an estimate that the "Charles de Gaulle" will be immobilized for at least 4 to 6 months. It can only be an estimate because analysis is still running on the source of the problems with the power train. The minister made clear it is an immobilisation, no suspension or standby. [I]oh my.............DFO[/I] :eek:

If memory serves me correctly this had carrier problems from the start. Hope the bug's can be worked with constraints of course. Regards Charles

a little more, not exactly a "GOOD LUCK" ship??? DFO :(
Attachments :

Interesting turn of events. I am not sure if other country's Navies run into this too but this sounds vaguely familiar to what has happenned to Canadian ships after having undergone 'extensive' maintenance periods. (We do not call them 'refits' anymore). The engineering side of the house seems to get neglected as it is not as 'sexy' as what is seen in the way of Ops Room/Bridge upgrades as well as weapons/sensors. I have taken 3 ships into DWPs (Docking Work Period) and it is amazing what gets turned down for engineering work. It is so bad that in the Canadian Navy, immediately following one of these DWPs, the ship goes into an extended work period for the crew to supposedly do all the things that the contractor didn't/couldn't. Obviously, much of this is impossible and lo and behold, 2/3 months after a major 'refit' what do we see; in one case, Canada's lone east coast AOR being towed back into Halifax. I cannot speeak for all but for the 3 DWPs I was involved in, the ship came 'out' in worse shape then when it went 'in' and in fact from an engineering standpoint, the high point for reliability is usually just before a docking work period. I hope that the people making the decisions for Canada's current Frigate upgrades aren't all about esthetics. Time will tell but I would almost bet a month's pay that if you talked to the Stokers on [I]Charles de Gaulle[/I], they would be able to tell you [B]exactly[/B] what should have been done in the refit. My musings...If out of line...apologies!

Here is a Video from the french aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle in Germany: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTXq4I7wXfI[/url] enjoy watching ;)

[QUOTE=Milo;111880]Here is a Video from the french aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle in Germany: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTXq4I7wXfI[/url] enjoy watching ;)[/QUOTE] Milo, Many thanks - at least she is looking in better condition than when we saw her at the Fleet Review in the Solent in 2005. Did you put the film clip on YouTube?

Yes, its my Youtube Channel... Most of the Videos are Fireworks, but i'm also interested in Ships an airplanes. I travelled a lot of miles to see this carrier. This is the first carrier who visit Germany since 1988. So it was a very unique experience for me. And you are right...It was in a good condition. A bit rusty, but ok (saltwater^^). Some Background... The Charles de Gaulle was on the way to an exercise in the North Sea. It was convoyed by two destroyers. So it does an intermediate stop in Cuxhaven (germany). This maneuver included ships from all over europe. In total 40 ships an 6500 soldiers. The maneuver was called Brillant Mariner and was organized by the NATO. (sorry for my broken english skills)

Did the propeller fall off this time?

Some pictures of her. I find her an interesting, if somewhat "unlucky" ship. Of course without her CATS she would be a glorified LPH! Proves that one doe NOT need 100,000 tons to build a useful carrier...altho a bit more speed, from what I've read, would make air ops easier! Latest word I read recently was that she was going to deploy for air support in Afghanistan...true??? Were the French constrained by infrastructure size as they were with Jean Bart, Richilieu...therefore her dimmensions were shall we say: "predetermined"?? Given that the latest Queen Mary was built in France I would [I]guess[/I] that was not a problem. DFO ;)
Attachments :

The old Charlie B does not prove you don't need 100,000 tons to build a useful carrier. The US builds carriers that size because that's exactly the size needed for the job they do globally all the time -- endurance. speed and striiking power are everything and you don't get a useful package of all three on less than 100,000 tons (give or take 20,000 tons -- :) ). the Charlie B does not have their job description. Lack of speed and lack of a heavy airgroup would be fatal to the carrier in the type of combat our carriers are designed to face. Considering the French aren't facing the German hordes or any serious threat from anybody, Charlie B is a nice nuclear pretty piece for the publicists. An Iron Dog she is not. There has been constant arguing since day one over the "size" of a carrier needed to project airpower properly and efficiently against an enemy. The Essex, Midway, and then Enterprise and her descendants were exactly the size needed for the jobs they were called on to perform (keeping in mind the big nukes have never had to face the worst case scenario simply because the other side fell on their collective duff morally and economically). Every attempt by "naval experts" and government "bean counters to creat a smaller ship that will do the same job has ended in dismal failure because some critical factor has to be sacrificed, making the ship useless, basically. Carriers have to be built arond the aircraft they are designed to carry, including the fuel, ordnance and spares required to keep those planes working and flying. In World War II, 35,000 tons was sufficient for that task, but just barely. It is just like the attempt to build "cruiser carriers" or "battleship carriers," designs for which floated about in the 30s to the 50s. The problem is they look good, but when you need a battleship, you only get half of one, and when you need a carrier you only get half of one. Half measures don't cut in in naval combat and neither do carriers too small to meet the threats out there. Of course, with the Evil Empire gone, one can make the case that those 100,000 tonners seem a bit extreme, but I didn't see anyone sending them home as not needed during the Gulf Wars.

Hi Don.Well said! You have Carriers to meet the demands of your defence commitment.Everyone else builds to their needs.We ran two enormously man-power heavy Carriers in the 1960's-1970's.That was because we were still deployed East of Suez.We do not need ships of that manpower-intensive types today,because we have little overseas commitments outside our own territorial waters.(Unless you count the Persian Gulf,but you run big guys up there!!)So while the USA is willing to take on this frontal load,no one but no one is going to build a carrier bigger than they need for home defence. Many Many Regards Steve.

The Charles de Gaulle will be deployed to the Indian Ocean where it is expected by the U.S. to ease their own aircraft carrier I read an earlier post on vessel size and a person asked why he built a queen the answer is simple the charles was built in Brest and the steamer to St. Nazaire for political reasons, it was necessary to offer employment to workers brest if there's another aircraft carrier, it will be built in St. Nazaire to overcome the size of the pools because they can receive from toulon pa us smoothly

I know the USN's "reasons" for 100K ton carriers, that now mainly don't even have enough planes to fill the designed for Air Groups. I do think carriers are still needed, but not at their current size given the advances in aviation and especially weaponry: i,e. "smart bombs and missiles". Even we are very hard pressed to afford those monsters, and the numbers are falling. In reality what will we soon have...8? IMO we have way to much tied up in way to few hulls; while the requirements for "flight decks" are not shrinking......... India's new locally built (and LATE) CV design looks to be a very interesting attempt to get more combat air power out of a "small" hull. Agreed that C d Gaulle is a flawed design, apparently, and certainly not what USN Admirals say they NEED. Of course, it is amazing that we swept the Pacific with[I] tiny [/I]27,500 ton Essex class against a Navy that ALSO had carriers...not many pilots, but carriers. Yup, the American way: if big is good...HUGE is BETTER!!! BTW, I'd still be interested to know the rationale for building the CdG as she is instead of larger and faster? Dock size, cost???? DFO :eek:

the french have provided air support in afghanistan before from their carrier a couple of years back, according to some aviation sources the rafales put the usn aircraft to shame in some mock combats.

Given that the original F-18 LOST out in a fly-off competition to the F-16....one might wonder just how effective the F/A-18 really is??? Aren't POLITICS a wonderful thing; a loser becomes a production "winner" and all our huge CVs now carry it as their MAIN/only fighter-attack plane, IIRC......makes me feel good. DFO :rolleyes:

There is a little distortion in the fly-off between the F-18 and the F-16. 1. The F/A-18 was not in the fly-off, then it was known as the F-17 Cobra being offered to the USAF, not the USN. 2.The size difference of the 2 aircraft is striking. Thrust to weight ratio is different. As for the size of the carriers currently in use by the US i would have to agree with Don. Regards Charles

Yes it was in a USAF "flyoff", but then was politically salvaged and evolved into the F/A-18. As far as size of the USN CVs, I know what the "conventional wisdom" is; just like before WW2...the BATTLESHIP was going to decide things at sea. Again, I do not question the NEED for carriers....just the need for a declining HANDFUL of 100K ton ones that can only be in one place at a time with an awful lot of the USN's "power" stuck in one basket. Not to mention the cost which is so high that even the USA is finding it increasingly difficult to fund and field them. DFO :eek:;) Also, does anyone have the specs of Rafale versus F/A-18???

To answer my own question: Wiki specs of Rafale...... Specifications General characteristics Crew: 1–2 Length: 15.27 m (50.1 ft) Wingspan: 10.80 m (35.4 ft) Height: 5.34 m (17.5 ft) Wing area: 45.7 m² (492 ft²) Empty weight: 9,500 kg (C), 9,770 kg (B),[68] 10,196 kg (M) () Loaded weight: 19,500 kg (42,988 lb [69]) Max takeoff weight: 24,500 kg (C/D), 22,200 kg (M)[70] (54,000 lb) Powerplant: 2× Snecma M88-2 turbofans Dry thrust: 50.04 kN (11,250 lbf) each Thrust with afterburner: 75.62 kN (17,000 lbf) each Performance Maximum speed: High altitude: Mach 2 (2,390 km/h, 1,290 knots)[68] Low altitude: 1,390 km/h, 750 knots Range: 3,700+ km (2,000+ nmi) Combat radius: 1,852+ km (1,000+ nmi) on penetration mission Service ceiling: 16,800 m (55,000 ft) Rate of climb: 304.8+ m/s (1,000+ ft/s) Wing loading: 326 kg/m² (83 1/3 lb/ft²) Thrust/weight: .80 Armament Guns: 1× 30 mm (1.18 in) GIAT 30/719B cannon with 125 rounds Hardpoints: 14 For Armée de l'Air version (Rafale B,C), 13 for Aéronavale version (Rafale M)[citation needed] with a capacity of 9,500 kg (21,000 lb) external fuel and ordnance Missiles: Air-to-air: MICA IR/EM or Magic II and in the future MBDA Meteor Air-to-ground: MBDA Apache or SCALP EG or AASM or GBU-12 Paveway II or AM 39 Exocet or ASMP-A nuclear missile Others: Thales Damocles targeting pod RECO NG reconnaissance pod up to 5 drop tanks Avionics Thales RBE2 radar Thales SPECTRA electronic warfare system. Thales/SAGEM OSF (Optronique Secteur Frontal) infrared search and track system. and the F/A-18 Super Hornet....... Specifications (F/A-18E/F) Data from U.S. Navy fact file,[13] Aerospaceweb[85] General characteristics Crew: F/A-18E: 1, F/A-18F: 2 Length: 60 ft 1¼ in (18.31 m) Wingspan: 44 ft 8½ in (13.62 m) Height: 16 ft (4.88 m) Wing area: 500 ft² (46.45 m²) Empty weight: 30,600 lb (13,900 kg) Loaded weight: 47,000 lb (21,320 kg) (in fighter configuration) Max takeoff weight: 66,000 lb (29,900 kg) Powerplant: 2× General Electric F414-GE-400 turbofans Dry thrust: 14,000 lbf (62.3 kN) each Thrust with afterburner: 22,000 lbf (97.9 kN) each Internal fuel capacity: F/A-18E: 14,400 lb (6,530 kg), F/A-18F: 13,550 lb (6,145 kg) External fuel capacity: 5 × 480 gal tanks, totaling 16,380 lb (7,430 kg) Performance Maximum speed: Mach 1.8+[13] (1,190 mph, 1,900 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,190 m) Range: 1,275 nmi (2,346 km) clean plus two AIM-9s[13] Combat radius: 390 nmi (449 mi, 722 km) for interdiction mission[86] Ferry range: 1,800 nmi (2,070 mi, 3,330 km) Service ceiling: 50,000+ ft (15,000+ m) Wing loading: 92.8 lb/ft² (453 kg/m²) Thrust/weight: 0.93 Design load factor: 7.6 g[87] Armament Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61 Vulcan nose mounted gatling gun, 578 rounds Hardpoints: 11 total: 2× wingtips, 6× under-wing, and 3× under-fuselage with a capacity of 17,750 lb (8,050 kg) external fuel and ordnance Rockets: Missiles: Air-to-air missiles: 4× AIM-9 Sidewinder or 4× AIM-120 AMRAAM, and 2× AIM-7 Sparrow or additional 2× AIM-120 AMRAAM Air-to-surface missiles: AGM-65 Maverick Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM-ER) AGM-88 HARM Anti-radiation missile AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) Anti-ship missile: AGM-84 Harpoon Bombs: JDAM Precision-guided munition (PGMs) Paveway series of Laser guided bombs Mk 80 series of unguided iron bombs CBU-87 cluster CBU-78 Gator CBU-97 Mk 20 Rockeye II Others: SUU-42A/A Flares/Infrared decoys dispenser pod and chaff pod or Electronic countermeasures (ECM) pod or AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR Targeting pods or up to 3× 330 US gallon (1,200 L) Sargent Fletcher drop tanks for ferry flight or extended range/loitering time or 1× 330 US gal (1,200 L) tank and 4× 480 US gal (1,800 L) tanks for aerial refueling system (ARS). Avionics Hughes APG-73 or Raytheon APG-79 Radar Seems to be a rather LARGE difference in combat radius...altho the terminology used isn't exactly identical, but LOOKS like F/A-18 comes out way behind the French plane???

I do not know of any funding problems for the deployment of these carriers, nor maintanence schedule other than the Big E, which is funded many years in advance. It may very be a long time coming before we or anyone see's the US Navy's carrier's "down sized" to even come close the Charles. Regards Charles

I've always wondered if the F/A-18 was becoming a bit worn in comparison to newer aircraft. It's usually always the case, and this is an airframe that seems to have been been upgraded to death.

And the only F/A-18 replacement on the horizon is the running late/costs are CLIMBING....F-35. Oh joy............:eek: DFO

from the journal of the French Navy col bleu the rafale was higher than the standard 01 f 18 f 14 and see the américians dogfiht have refused to avoid shame in front of the planes that was recalled just testing Then the design of charles de gaulle, it is not wrong but you should know that was begun in 1986 and commissioned in 2001, while commissioning was scheduled for 1995 between time of new standards nuclear and new material emerged which has burdened the ship its small size would account for its contruction in Brest Basin forms Laninon have 250 meters long and holds are owned by the French navy in contrast to Saint Nazaire is a project that would deny civil and delays the rafale is also a more modern aircraft that f 18 and there are versions navalized only by action of President Francois mitterrant wanted no more foreign fighter in the French armed forces we must understand something in defense in France, political issues are more important than operational issues

Thanks for the explanation...........DFO :)

Would never suggest the CdG was "wrong" -- she fits well with French needs and expectations. My point was that she cannot serve as an "example" of being able to create an "effective" carrier on less than 100,000 tons. The big girls are designed for much different expectations than the French carrier. The political hassles accompanying her construction are a shame, really, but we have our own "hassles" constantly with a Congress and public that would prefer spending our billions on our social and economic issues rather than "defense," like most other countries. Defense issues today read almost as if one were re-reading Arthur Marder's first volume of "From Dreadnought to Scapa Flow." And that was 100 years ago!

yes I agree with you the CVN technology has many treasures such as calming of the platform, his problems are largely financial delays

Well she seems to be mobile now: [B]Charles de Gaulle Deploying to Afghanstian [/B] According to this source (in French), the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle is deploying for 4 months to the Indian Ocean to support operations in Afghanistan. "Agapanthus 10," as the mission is called, was presented at a press briefing of the Ministry of Defense by Admiral Jean-Louis Kerignard. The carrier battlegroup will consist of the aircraft carrier FS Charles de Gaulle (R91), FS Forbin (D620), FS Tourville (D610), the naval auxiliary vessel FS Meuse (A 607), and the submarine FS Amethyst (S605). The air group on board the aircraft carrier will have 12 upgraded Super Etendard, 10 Rafale, 2 Hawkeyes, and helicopters. The operation is expected to begin in mid October and last until February. In any context, the contribution of an aircraft carrier in support of operations over Afghanistan is a significant coalition contribution by France.[B] This will be the 5th deployment by the FS Charles de Gaulle (R91) in support of military operations in Afghanistan (the previous four were in 2001/2002, 2004, 2006 and 2007).[/B] Vive La France! DFO :D:D
Attachments :

Two Charles de Gaulle Carrier threads merged.

Hello. I love the French aircraft carrier, thanks.

Looks like she has made it........... ARABIAN SEA (Dec. 10, 2010) USS Halsey (DDG 97) assigned to Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, sails in a formation with the French aircraft carrier[B] Charles De Gaulle (R 91)[/B] during a photo exercise. The Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group is deployed in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility supporting maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts to establish conditions for regional stability. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Spencer Mickler/Released) DFO ;)
Attachments :

I cant help but feel thoroughly annoyed to see a French carrier knowing that we will not have one in service for almost a decade. [and even then we will probably share it with the French as well] This should never have been allowed to happen.... :mad:

Well it is nice to hear that you are an optimist and think that the RN will actually have a [B]functional CVF[/B] some year!! DFO :eek:;)

Always take a grain of salt with Wikipedia. ;) The Rafale international flyer below quotes an 800nm combat radius, but I've seen lower radii quoted (590nm over here: [URL]http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avrafa.html[/URL]) [URL]http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/sponsors/sponsor_rafale/img/fox3_1.pdf[/URL] [quote=designeraccd;125252]To answer my own question: Wiki specs of Rafale...... Specifications General characteristics Crew: 1–2 Length: 15.27 m (50.1 ft) Wingspan: 10.80 m (35.4 ft) Height: 5.34 m (17.5 ft) Wing area: 45.7 m² (492 ft²) Empty weight: 9,500 kg (C), 9,770 kg (B),[68] 10,196 kg (M) () Loaded weight: 19,500 kg (42,988 lb [69]) Max takeoff weight: 24,500 kg (C/D), 22,200 kg (M)[70] (54,000 lb) Powerplant: 2× Snecma M88-2 turbofans Dry thrust: 50.04 kN (11,250 lbf) each Thrust with afterburner: 75.62 kN (17,000 lbf) each Performance Seems to be a rather LARGE difference in combat radius...altho the terminology used isn't exactly identical, but LOOKS like F/A-18 comes out way behind the French plane???[/quote]

Is the CDG back in service yet, sounds like a bad fault to have put her off the "gunline" for so long

[QUOTE=ludsie;10008819]Is the CDG back in service yet, sounds like a bad fault to have put her off the "gunline" for so long[/QUOTE] Had you read the rest of the thread, you would find that since the original set of posts, she had deployed to the northern Indian Ocean to support Afghanistan operations (30 October 2010 to 21 February 2011... and then (not previously mentioned in this thread) she spent the spring & summer of this year conducting combat flight operations off the Libyan coast (20 March 2011 to 12 August 2011).

For a " tiny" (per USN standards)carrier, and despite her teething problems the MN seems to be getting a good bang for the[B] Euro [/B]with her. Now can they afford to build, operate and maitain a second CV??? DFO ;)

[quote=designeraccd;10009149]For a " tiny" (per USN standards)carrier, and despite her teething problems the MN seems to be getting a good bang for the[B] Euro [/B]with her. Now can they afford to build, operate and maitain a second CV??? DFO ;)[/quote] Looking at the French economy then the answer would have to be a resounding No.

Perhaps it could be built with a MASSIVE cutback in size of le wine cellar??? Of course, that might be deemed to drastic? DFO ;):rolleyes:

Blackbat must have missed it picked up the reference to the 08 deployment No need to be rude

[quote=ludsie;10009471]Blackbat must have missed it picked up the reference to the 08 deployment No need to be rude[/quote] Sorry Ludsie - you have totally lost me with this. Who are you asking not to be rude??

I think he is saying that he missed the reference to the 2010 deployment of De Gaulle (which was the subject of a rather large post starting page 2 of this thread) or confused that with with her 2008 deployment. He is also saying that my "if you had read the rest of this thread" was rude... I suppose it was blunt, but I still can't understand how someone who HAD read the rest of the thread could have missed the post about the 2010 deployment.

Fair enough thank you for the translation. I think you fairly surmised that perhaps you were a little blunt with your comment. Not everybody has the time to read through a complete thread although I would agree that in an ideal world, etc....:)

Must not be as observant as you blackball as I have served with a few Americans and have come to recognize that discretion is the better part of valor Will leave it there cause I think this could get personal

Astral Apologies about the last have been off the site for a couple days due to the festive season I missed the piece of information that blackball refers to and asked an honest question and got a blunt reply hence my comment Am getting older in the tooth and try to catch evertything but occasionally miss something When I was young and in the navy they used to say if you're not sure ask guess some people don't subscribe to that axiom

To return to France's one carrier: does anyone have a current status report on her? As an aside, the [B]CORPS[/B] drills it into ALL recruits that the only stupid question is the one you don't ask.........and I do mean [B]DRILL IT IN![/B] USMC 1965-1969 DFO :D

I see as well as the Rafale, CDG is also operating the Old Super Etendard (dont like them :mad:)

[QUOTE]Wednesday, 11 January 2012 09:09 Royal Navy and Marine Nationale plan to deploy a large naval force in the Mediterranean in the fall of 2012 with aircraft carriers, amphibious vessels, destroyers and frigates. Royal Navy will deploy its Response Force Task Group, which will include the Landing Platform Helicopter (LPH) HMS Ocean and Light Aircraft Carrier (CVL) HMS Illustrious used as helicotper carrier. French Navy is expected to deploy its carrier battle group with the nuclear powered aircraft carrier (CVN) Charles de Gaulle, and probably an amphibious group, with a Mistral class amphibious assault ship. Both navies will desploy destroyers, frigates and submarines to escort the capital ships of the common naval force as well as auxiliary ships to ressuply the large number of vessels. This deployement will also involve ground units: Royal Marines, French Marine Infantry (9th BLBMa) as well as several helicopter transport and combat helicotpers are expected to be detached to the various amphibious vessels and carriers. [/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=277"]http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=277[/URL]

At least the French still have a proper carrier and are using it - "[B]Warplanes have taken off from France's Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, newly deployed to the eastern Mediterranean, for operations over areas held by the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, military sources said. The following pictures, taken in the lead up to the start of operations, show preparations aboard the vessel." [/B]The last I heard we had one ship helping to defend it. Photo and quote from Daily Telegraph ~ [URL]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/12012021/France-deploys-the-Charles-de-Gaulle-aircraft-carrier-in-pictures.html[/URL]
Attachments :

That photo from the Torygraph is a stock file photo, not from this current deployment. I have it on my computer with the following metadata: ‎ Modified: Monday, ‎June ‎04, ‎2007, ‏‎23:21:54 And the title: Spring 07 Afgan support ops The others are from this deployment, but are from a couple of months ago. Note the caption of the 3rd photo in the gallery: [QUOTE]The exact nature of the operations, which come 10 days after the deadly attacks in Paris that left 130 dead, is unknown.[/QUOTE] In other words, the operation started 23 November 2015.

I think that CDG is currently off the Syrian coast. Does any one know if she may return to her home port of Toulon or another port in the Med over the next few weeks? Thanks in advance

The Flagship of the "La Royale" (French Navy), CHARLES DE GAULLE, at anchor in its homeport of Toulon. A cool but sunny day in February 2014 had us going around the port of Toulon on an un-crowded sightseeing cruise.
Attachments :

More Posts

Everything we obtain for this site is shown on the site, we do not have any more photos, crew lists or further information on any of the ships.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE. ALL IMAGES DISPLAYED ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW, AND ARE OWNED BY CRANSTON FINE ARTS OR THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS. NO REPRODUCTION OR COPYING ALLOWED ON OTHER WEBSITES, BOOKS OR ARTICLES WITHOUT PRIOR AGREEMENT.

Contact Details
Shipping Info
Terms and Conditions
Cookie Policy
Privacy Policy

Sign Up To Our Newsletter!

Stay up to date with all our latest offers, deals and events as well as new releases and exclusive subscriber content!

This website is owned by Cranston Fine Arts. Torwood House, Torwoodhill Road, Rhu, Helensburgh, Scotland, G848LE

Contact: Tel: (+44) (0) 1436 820269. Email: cranstonorders -at- outlook.com

Return to Home Page