Verdun French Aircraft Carrier (images)

Jackryan

Ability is nothing without opportunity. - N
Joined
4 July 2011
Messages
13
Reaction score
2
I have been looking for some drawings or pictures of the unbuilt Verdun aircraft carrier that the French government ordered at the end of the 1950s, but I've been unable to find any. According to wiki, it would have had size and displacement similar to today's Marine Nationale CDG, albeit with a different main purpose of carrying a full nuclear strike-orientated air wing (some sources say navalized Mirage IV).

Regarding the project's life, I haven't found anything relevant, but I have speculated with its birth as a means of nuclear deterrent after de Gaulle's rise to power in 1958 and his withdrawal from NATO's deterrent programme (wiki dates the project's order in 1958) in order to pursue France's own independent strike capability. Likewise, I imagine it was cancelled in favour of the much sought-after SSBN programme (experimental Gymnotte was ordered in 1961, the date of the cancellation once again according to wiki).

P.S. I have used the search engine in this site to look for any previous related topics, which I've been unable to find. If there are any, I apologise.
 
No luck on drawings so far, but I did dig up an entry on it over on the French version of Wikipedia with some more info: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdun_(porte-avions)

Bing translation
 
Found whilst looking for information about early Masurca ship plans, from: http://lefauteuildecolbert.blogspot.jp/2011/03/pa-58-du-pa2-vers-le-pa3.html
 

Attachments

  • PA58.JPG
    PA58.JPG
    68.5 KB · Views: 1,917
Found a larger version, looks like a Masurca launcher aft on each corner with an associated director stepped slightly above but still on the same sponson/deck cutout as the launcher. Forward of the forward 100mm guns is what is probably a Malafon launcher, apparently one on each beam too.
 

Attachments

  • PA58 Larger.jpg
    PA58 Larger.jpg
    296.8 KB · Views: 1,942
The aircraft on the aft part of the deck appear to be of the Etendar family. But the forward ones appear to be Mirage, but I have never seen any details of a maritime version of the Mirage, any details please?

Regards.
 
Mirage IV-M, I have not been able to identify the exact role but my understanding is that it was intended both as a heavy interceptor and nuclear strike aircraft for PA58.

The following seems relatively comprehensive: http://www.mirage4p.com/slides/Historique/p03.html

If I am reading it correctly it was based on the Mirage IV-C interceptor proposal of October 1956 with the navigator position and associated equipment deleted, the engines moved forward, fuel capacity limited to 6,000l, nose shortened and made foldable (possibly including the cockpit itself) and the tail able to be folded down.

Edit: The existing secret projects thread on the Mirage IV-M: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=30.0

I keep seeing references to an AEW Alize too.
 
Also, the more I look at the picture of the PA58 model the more I think the MASURCA launchers (aft of the 100mm guns on the aft sponsons) are single-arm and not twin-arm as they are shown in most drawings. Firstly they just don't look like they are twin-armed and secondly there only appears to be one missile loading hatch under the flight deck (visible, I believe, as a black square just under the flight-deck adjacent to the launcher) whereas the twin-armed launchers used on Colbert and the Suffren class obviously had two missile loading hatches.

Furthermore, looking closely at the image it looks like the missile is actually sitting on top of the launcher (not unlike MALAFON) rather than hanging underneath as it would be on the standard twin launcher. I may however be reading too much into quite a low resolution image of what looks like quite a small model.
 
I found a different drawing and it does state 2 x Masurca SAM am not sure on the accuracy though

at http://thekristoffersuniverseinwar.wikia.com/wiki/Verdun_class_aircraft_carrier

and this:

Career (France)
Ordered: 1958
Fate: Cancelled in 1961
General characteristics
Displacement: 45,000 tons
Length: 262 m (860 ft)
Beam: 34 m (112 ft)
Propulsion: Steam turbines
4 shafts
200,000 shp
Speed: 33 knots (61 km/h; 38 mph)
Armament: 2 × Masurca SAM
4 × 100 mm DP guns
Aircraft carried: Unknown

https://www.onwar.com/weapons/warships/boats/French-aircraft-carrier-Verdun.html
 
That site is for fictional ships in a fictional universe.

PA 58 - Verdun would carry two twin Masurca SAM

Many accurate sites and books state this.
Also:
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?58143-PA-58-Verdun

In 1958, while Clemenceau and Foch were still under construction, a third carrier was approved. The PA 58 design was larger and heavier, and although it bore a superficial resemblance to PA 54, was clearly influenced by the new 'super carriers' built by the US Navy. The shape of the flight deck, which was given considerable overhang on either side amidships, enabled the island to be positioned farther outboard. Parking space amidships was thereby increased, and the 200m hangar was positioned centrally. Two deck-edge lifts, each 17m x 14m, were sited forward and aft of the island to starboard. The length of the catapults was increased to about 75m so that larger aircraft could be handled. They were, however, positioned in the same way as those on Clemenceau so that there was a clear separation between flying operations, which were confined to the port side of the ship, and parking and handling operations. The angled deck measured 192m and was angled at 8° as on Clemenceau.
The significant increase in power needed to sustain fleet speed led to a corresponding increase in the number of shafts from two to four. Protection of flight deck and machinery was on a similar pattern to Clemenceau, but the thickness of the armour was slightly increased.
The eight single 100mm of Clemenceau were to be retained but, in addition, it was planned to fit a twin launcher for the new Masurca SAMs on either side of the flight deck aft (as in the US Navy's Kitty Hawk).
In addition to Alize ASW aircraft and Etendard fighter-bombers, PA 58 was to operate Mirage IVM heavy strike aircraft. The latter, under development for the Navy since 1956, had a length of 19m, a wing-span of 12m, and a take-off weight of 20t.
PA 58, possibly to be named Verdun, was delayed by financial problems, and the Defence Staff considered a smaller design, derived from Clemenceau, in which the after guns would have been replaced by Masurca before the project was finally abandoned in 1961.
 
Agreed on the fantasy site, but Haze Gray has this for the Verdun:


Displacement: 45,000 tons full load
Dimensions: 860 x 112 x ?? feet/262 x 34 x ?? meters
Extreme Dimensions: 939 x 190 x ?? feet/286.3 x 58 x ?? meters
Propulsion: Steam turbines, 4 shafts, 200,000 shp, 33 knots
Crew: ???
Armor: none
Armament: 2 Masurca SAM, 8 single 100 mm DP
Aircraft: unknown
Concept/Program: A larger carrier, intended as a nuclear-strike ship. Cancelled due to cost; one of a series of projects to meet this fate.
 
Let me just put some observations down.

Firstly, the drawings/diagrams of the PA58 design that have made it online all seem to be either the drawing used in the Conway volumes or a derivative of it. These drawings were posted in Ripper's 2012 post above and they show distinct detail differences with the photo of the model I posted, most significantly in terms of armament layout which suggests the Conway drawing is not based on the model. My suggestion therefore is that these drawings are inaccurate in some details- it wouldn't be the first time this has been the case with drawings in Conway publications.

Secondly, the photo of the model I posted is, I understand, from the book 'Les porte-avions français des origines (1911) à dos jours' by Francis Dousset which as far as I can tell is the go-to text for French aircraft carriers. I have just ordered what I believe to be a 1996 reprint that will hopefully provide more answers to this subject though I won't have it for over a week.

Finally, it doesn't matter how I look at that picture of the model I can not find any evidence for the Masurca launcher being a twin launcher, there is only one missile loading hatch, and the launcher itself looks too small compared to the 100mm guns to be a twin launcher.
 
Thank you for the title - going on my got to have list PDQ.

I was not being critical - am just looking for answers too. Subject is one that interests me and I know too little and do consider Haze Gray to be an fairly good authority (in that I may be incorrect).
 
I assume that it is only available in French. Unfortunately my French; and languages in general, make Allo Allo look fluent.

Regards.
 
Try look at this French naval forum:
http://forummarine.forumactif.com/forum

The topic about the French carriers:
http://forummarine.forumactif.com/t4793-des-limbes-de-l-histoire-2-les-porte-avions
It states 2 Masurca and/or 2 Malafon launchers
according to google's very bad grammar translator!
 
There is no dispute over the number of launchers, there are definitely two, the question is whether they are single or twin rail launchers. The photos of the model suggest they are single rail launchers.

Given how massive the Masurca system was it certainly wouldn't surprise me if the French did opt for single rail launchers on the PA58 design.

'Les porte-avions français des origines (1911) à dos jours', by Francis Dousset, may be the original source of the confusion, see below:

  • The book does contain the photo of the model posted previously, even under a magnifying glass the Masurca launcher still looks single armed
  • At no point does the text say anything other than two launchers- there is no text reference to twin-arm launchers
  • In the appendix there is a line drawing of PA58- however this not an accurate drawing and the accompanying text states that. The drawing is described as a reconstruction and it is stated the armament and radar is indicative. The drawing shows twin-armed launchers- I suspect this is inaccurate and just a product of the only Masurca launcher being known to the person responsible for the drawing being the twin-armed version

'Les porte-avions français des origines (1911) à dos jours' is an excellent book that covers multiple unbuilt French naval aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Or a more logical conclusion that there were different versions studied and we only know about these two versions now.
 
Interesting topic Jackryan, thank for bring it up!!
Seems it would have been more versatile in the actual wars/Operations France was involved, compared to the single role SSBN's!!


Regards
Pioneer
 
G'day gents
Taking a look back at this topic, and I would like to ask, in the following posted text of the Conway's article.

In 1958, while Clemenceau and Foch were still under construction, a third carrier was approved. The PA 58 design was larger and heavier, and although it bore a superficial resemblance to PA 54, was clearly influenced by the new 'super carriers' built by the US Navy. The shape of the flight deck, which was given considerable overhang on either side amidships, enabled the island to be positioned farther outboard. Parking space amidships was thereby increased, and the 200m hangar was positioned centrally. Two deck-edge lifts, each 17m x 14m, were sited forward and aft of the island to starboard. The length of the catapults was increased to about 75m so that larger aircraft could be handled. They were, however, positioned in the same way as those on Clemenceau so that there was a clear separation between flying operations, which were confined to the port side of the ship, and parking and handling operations. The angled deck measured 192m and was angled at 8° as on Clemenceau.
The significant increase in power needed to sustain fleet speed led to a corresponding increase in the number of shafts from two to four. Protection of flight deck and machinery was on a similar pattern to Clemenceau, but the thickness of the armour was slightly increased.
The eight single 100mm of Clemenceau were to be retained but, in addition, it was planned to fit a twin launcher for the new Masurca SAMs on either side of the flight deck aft (as in the US Navy's Kitty Hawk).
In addition to Alize ASW aircraft and Etendard fighter-bombers, PA 58 was to operate Mirage IVM heavy strike aircraft. The latter, under development for the Navy since 1956, had a length of 19m, a wing-span of 12m, and a take-off weight of 20t.
PA 58, possibly to be named Verdun, was delayed by financial problems, and the Defence Staff considered a smaller design, derived from Clemenceau, in which the after guns would have been replaced by Masurca before the project was finally abandoned in 1961.


Can I request the forums knowledge about anything to do with the ending context regarding -
the Defence Staff considered a smaller design, derived from Clemenceau, in which the after guns would have been replaced by Masurca before the project was finally abandoned in 1961.

I'd be very interested in knowing more about anything to do with this proposed/studied smaller design, derived from Clemenceau

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
I have notes saying a 3rd Clemenceau with Terrier was wanted in a (post PA58) 1959-64 plan, but abandoned in 1961.

Sadly I have no source for this.

The French navy did begin converting DD´s with US SAMs from 1961, so if a US SAM was a better fit in size and/or finances for the next carrier, that might have been so.
 
The French Navy however picked the medium-range Tartar for six T-47 / T-53 frigates. Never heard of the long range Terrier before.
 
Thank you Kugelblitz for that information - very interesting!!
If you have/find those
notes saying a 3rd Clemenceau with Terrier was wanted in a (post PA58) 1959-64 plan, but abandoned in 1961.
, Id love to see them!!
Anyone else on the forum know of this
3rd Clemenceau with Terrier
?

Regards
Pioneer
 
There were kind of two Verdun. PA58 and PA59.
PA58 (1958) was the large 45000 ton carrier for nuclear strike, Mirage IVM being kind of Vigilante.
PA59 was a Clemenceau clone like Foch so less than 40000 tons. Nuclear strike was gone. It was a last ditch effort to get a third carrier and replace the Arromanches.
 
Is it only me or is there somebody else who thinks thats the PA58 numbers are strange, the dimensions of a Midway class carrier with the tonnage of a Audacious carrier ?
 
Is it only me or is there somebody else who thinks thats the PA58 numbers are strange, the dimensions of a Midway class carrier with the tonnage of a Audacious carrier ?
The full load displacement and length are broadly consistent. Circular M works out at 7.43, which is pretty much the same as an AUDACIOUS class as designed, and full draught can be estimated at about 9 metres. None of that screams 'out of proportion'.

The AUDACIOUS class were actually 10,000 tonnes lighter as designed, and MIDWAY was designed at a very similar displacement. Both classes gained a considerable amount of weight during their lives, so comparing the 'as designed' condition of PA 58 to the final displacement of her near-contemporaries isn't really appropriate.
 
In a sense, the Audacious grew from 36 000 to 54 000 tons between 1946 and 1971...
 
Not to mention that Midway was quite well armoured while Verdun PA-58 would only carry 50mm belt and 50mm deck (Compared to Midway's 89mm Deck and 178mm Belt) That thick armour over the large surface of a carrier gives rather serious tonnage!
 
ok that with the armour was something i didn´t saw. I was looking at the standard displacement Audacious 36 000t when completet 43 000t with a length of 215 m pp; Midway 47 000t completet with a length of 274 m at the waterline compared to PA 58 36 000t with a length of 262m pp and 286m oa.
 
Not to mention that Midway was quite well armoured while Verdun PA-58 would only carry 50mm belt and 50mm deck (Compared to Midway's 89mm Deck and 178mm Belt) That thick armour over the large surface of a carrier gives rather serious tonnage!
Irrelevant, really. A given size ship can only carry so much weight, if there's less in armour then there's more in something else. The proposed dimensions of PA58 is entirely consistent with a full load displacement of 45,000 tonnes, draught is maybe a little shallow compared to the MIDWAY or AUDACIOUS but not unreasonably so.
 
Not irrelevant at all! Armour adds weight considerably. Modern Battle Tanks were not that heavy because they are large, they carry thick armour plates which IS heavy!
In one of the post war GW series of British Missile ships GW.12 for example had a full load displacement of 16.815tons of which 2.000tons allocated to the protection alone! 625ft long and that protection only allows like 1,5" deck and 2-2,5" Belt! It would be accurate to get info on the weight distribution on the Midway but to these two:
The deck armour alone would be around in the 4-6.000ton area the thicker but smaller area of the belt would probably add around the same and voala:
47.000ton-"8-12.000ton" = 35-39.000tons well within the range of the thinner armoured Verdun.
 
Modern Battle Tanks were not that heavy because they are large, they carry thick armour plates which IS heavy!
Main battle tanks don't float. This is a significant difference between main battle tanks and aircraft carriers. If you add several thousand tonnes of anything to a ship, it will sit lower in the water unless you make it larger to compensate.
Not irrelevant at all! Armour adds weight considerably.
Looking at PA58 purely on its own merits, the dimensions and weight make sense. A full load displacement of 45,000 tonnes is approximately correct for a 33-knot ship length of 262 metres, beam of 34 metres, and draught of 9 metres, all of which are the figures claimed for PA58 further up in the thread. The proportion of that weight that is armour is irrelevant - the ship's size corresponds to its weight, which will be the case whether she carries armour, artillery, or aardvarks.

The MIDWAY was, as built, 60,916 tonnes full load, and generally a larger ship. In that weight she is credited with 9,422 tonnes of armour. The AUDACIOUS class were comparable in displacement to PA58, shorter but of shallower draught. The two more or less offset one another, and it comes out in the wash. Both MIDWAY and AUDACIOUS are fuller ships than PA58, but PA58 is in turn fuller than the ESSEX class.
 
Correct me if i am wrong but as i read the numbers Midway and PA58 have nearly the same size in dimensions other then displacement. Both classes have a beam of 34 m, Midways length at the waterline is 274m and PA 58 length is 262 m between perpendiculars (not at the waterline). Draughts is 10,5 m for Midway i found no draught number for the PA58.
So if Midway had about 9 000 tons more armour then it would be a good explanation for the difference in tonnage 47 000 commisioned vs. 36000 t plannes for PA58.

 
Draughts is 10,5 m for Midway i found no draught number for the PA58.
9 metres is quoted upthread. Unfortunately there's no depth figure (keel to main deck) that would allow the MIDWAY weight to be scaled down to compare to PA58.

A very crude comparison would be to scale only by length and beam, and assume similar depth. Deduct the armour weight from MIDWAY and she's 51,949 tonnes. Reduce that in proportion with length and beam and you get to 48,770 tonnes. That's still 3,770 tonnes heavier than PA58 - and the French ship isn't unarmoured. So there's more going on than just a reduction in armour.

It's hard to say what without more information. If I were to guess, I'd say that the French ship has maybe two-thirds the range of the American ship, with corresponding savings in fuel oil, and the smaller air wing (45 aircraft vs. 70-100) is likely to mean a commensurate reduction in aviation fuel, ordnance and stores. She may also be more lightly built, though I think that's less likely.

Standard displacement really isn't a good basis for comparing ships. It's a political fudge for the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty: for ship design purposes, full load is really much more useful.
 
AFAIK yes. Phantoms were tested on Hermès, which was smaller than a Clem'. Phantoms and Hornets were considered for the Clems, too, at different times.

The larger PA58 could have had the full length BS-5A, the one only Ark and Eagle got; the Clems had a shorter variant.
 
Note that the "third carrier" (beyond Clem and Foch, PA54 and PA55) was, first, a 45 000 tons PA58 including Vigilante-like nuclear bombers; and in despair, by 1959, a Clemenceau clone thus 35 000 tons and the well known limits for Phantoms.

On the 45 000 tons PA58 Phantoms would have been "no problem".

Had the original 45 000 tons carrier been build, it would added to the 1962 aéronavale dilemma between Crusaders and Phantoms.
 
On a slightly OT note, considering that the Clems had very high hangers. It might be possible to rework this down and spend the metal weight strengthening the deck for F4s.

Though strictly the cheapest longterm option is to sell the Clems to help fund the PA.58s.
 
AFAIK yes. Phantoms were tested on Hermès, which was smaller than a Clem'. Phantoms and Hornets were considered for the Clems, too, at different times.

The larger PA58 could have had the full length BS-5A, the one only Ark and Eagle got; the Clems had a shorter variant.
Archibald
Thanks for all your ansewer.
As far I knows, US F-4 only make touch and go on HMS Hermes
I found this phot from IWM
F-4 on HMS Victorious- March 1965 (Subic bay)
1624636048609.png
I knew (Netmarine web) that the F-18 was evaluated on Clems, but I thinks was only for AAR
F-4 for Clem? Too big, I think
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom