PA NG - next gen French Aircraft carrier program

[galgot]

I am not British.

Good to know, so its just mundane francophobia then... carry on.

Vanity projects are common. Many of us, including me, drive cars and motorcycles with high end nameplates, that are capable of speeds more than twice the the speeds we actually drive, and corresponding high prices. Most of the reason is vanity.

You seems indeed to know a lot about that. Maybe try not to project on others ?

CdeG was a poor military choice. Rather small, with poor availability, and accompanied by high build and running costs. A larger, cheaper conventional carrier would have provided a superior capability for France. Hence my opinion that the choice was influenced by national vanity. I fully expect the follow on carrier will follow the same pattern. Size will be set by the UK carriers, propulsion by matching the US. Vanity only requires one.

Sure … For a country like France with constrained defense budget to spend billions on a nuke carrier, it can only be about vanity.
Nothing about defining what their navy and industry needs...
Oh , and to have the nerve to put French made aircrafts on it , that must be the maximum of arrogance...
You should sell your expertise to Fr Govs. What a waste.

Btw, if you care to inform yourself about all the vanity operational missions,
Héraclès, Agapanthe, Harmattan, Bois Belleau, Arromanche, Chamal... In Afghanistan, Lybia, syria...
carried by that poor military choice, since 2001:

Charles de Gaulle (porte-avions) — Wikipédia

fr.wikipedia.org

(in French, you'll have to translate)
Vanitas vanitatum...

 

[Ron5]

I translated, this was the first sentence..

"The Charles de Gaulle is the largest European warship, and above all the most powerful, capable of projecting an air group of 40 aircraft and which will remain so in the 2020s despite the entry into service of the two new British aircraft carriers, more large but with lower capacities... "

Clearly cow manure (you'll have to translate). And that's the end of my side of this conversation. We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Jemiba]

Perhaps it is possible on one side to give taunts a miss, and on the other side not to overemphasise huffiness ?

 

[galgot]

I translated, this was the first sentence..

"The Charles de Gaulle is the largest European warship, and above all the most powerful, capable of projecting an air group of 40 aircraft and which will remain so in the 2020s despite the entry into service of the two new British aircraft carriers, more large but with lower capacities... "

Clearly cow manure (you'll have to translate). And that's the end of my side of this conversation. We will have to agree to disagree.

You are clearly an expert on the subject... End of my side too.

 

[sferrin]

But. . .but, I've been told carriers are old-fashioned white-elephants. . .

 

[ceccherini]

It's been written that the MN wants two carriers and nuclear in that priority order so most likely will get one nuke a tad bigger than the brit ones. Always been mostly a vanity thing for the French.

! lol !! So classy. Of course... Sure, every things we do is mostly about vanity...
Nothing about ... Just needing a bigger ship that could replace the CdG.
You sure look like seriously well informed of Fr govs moves in defence spending.

This is hilarious.
- So the Brits build the QEII carrier, they needed a carrier , they now have one, fine, good, happy for them.
- Then there are news of the French wanting a new carrier. Turns out they want a bigger one.
Conclusion : it's mostly a vanity thing.
May i ask , vanity from whom ?.
The French ?
Or the Brit guy reading the news on the internet, saying a (not even built yet) French carrier bigger than QEII can only be a mostly vanity thing ?

I am not British.

Vanity projects are common. Many of us, including me, drive cars and motorcycles with high end nameplates, that are capable of speeds more than twice the the speeds we actually drive, and corresponding high prices. Most of the reason is vanity.

CdeG was a poor military choice. Rather small, with poor availability, and accompanied by high build and running costs. A larger, cheaper conventional carrier would have provided a superior capability for France. Hence my opinion that the choice was influenced by national vanity. I fully expect the follow on carrier will follow the same pattern. Size will be set by the UK carriers, propulsion by matching the US. Vanity only requires one.

Size per se has a very little impact on the cost of a naval vessel. Ford class CVNs cost 3 times as much as the very close sized Nimitz class CVNs themself only one and an half as expensive as the 2/5 sized CDG. Systems and economy of scale made the difference, a country that built 1 or 2 carriers every 30 years inevitably will pay much more than the US or China on ton per ton basis for a carrier with similar systems. Also a country with few escort and support vessels will need to pack in the carrier a greater number of systems further increasing cost. Dimensions are mainly limited by the infrastructures available. The trade off for France had never been size vs nuclear power, the smaller than the optimal size of the CDG being dictated by the unavability of a large enough dock. Nuclear power has nothing to do with vanity, it offers huge operational advantages in the form of a massive reduction of logistics needs, vast increase in cruise speed and unlimited range. Also I don't think the choice of the nuclear propulsion had much to do with the cost increase, the reactor being of the very same model previously installed on the SSBNs. The second carrier was both programmed and hard pushed for 2 decades but defense is not the only voice of the state's budget and defense spending larger than the strict need to maintain the basic military capabilities was hardly justifiable in the years immediately following the Cold War, not only in France but in every democratic country. One carrier doesn't assure permanent availability but still give a projection power that very few countries can afford and is more than sufficient to preserve the know how to operate a naval aviation branch and know how to build a carrier or a large size naval vessel in general. So one carrier mantain a very important capability whose loosing would have very negative political, military and industrial consequences, two carrier don't double the aforementioned advantages but (nearly) double the cost. I'm not French too but that doesn't mean I can't recognize the specific environment that determines the requirements and the industrial choices of a foreign military purchase program.

 

[galgot]

It's been written that the MN wants two carriers and nuclear in that priority order so most likely will get one nuke a tad bigger than the brit ones. Always been mostly a vanity thing for the French.

! lol !! So classy. Of course... Sure, every things we do is mostly about vanity...
Nothing about ... Just needing a bigger ship that could replace the CdG.
You sure look like seriously well informed of Fr govs moves in defence spending.

This is hilarious.
- So the Brits build the QEII carrier, they needed a carrier , they now have one, fine, good, happy for them.
- Then there are news of the French wanting a new carrier. Turns out they want a bigger one.
Conclusion : it's mostly a vanity thing.
May i ask , vanity from whom ?.
The French ?
Or the Brit guy reading the news on the internet, saying a (not even built yet) French carrier bigger than QEII can only be a mostly vanity thing ?

I am not British.

Vanity projects are common. Many of us, including me, drive cars and motorcycles with high end nameplates, that are capable of speeds more than twice the the speeds we actually drive, and corresponding high prices. Most of the reason is vanity.

CdeG was a poor military choice. Rather small, with poor availability, and accompanied by high build and running costs. A larger, cheaper conventional carrier would have provided a superior capability for France. Hence my opinion that the choice was influenced by national vanity. I fully expect the follow on carrier will follow the same pattern. Size will be set by the UK carriers, propulsion by matching the US. Vanity only requires one.

Size per se has a very little impact on the cost of a naval vessel. Ford class CVNs cost 6 times as much as the very close sized Nimitz class CVNs themself nearly as expensive as the 1/3 sized CDG while QE and Cavour cost per ton about the same of the CDG even being conventional powered and without catapults. Systems and economy of scale made the difference, a country that built 1 or 2 carriers every 30 years inevitably will pay much more than the US or China on ton per ton basis for a carrier with similar systems. Also a country with few escort and support vessels will need to pack in the carrier a greater number of systems further increasing cost. Dimensions are mainly limited by the infrastructures available. The trade off for France had never been size vs nuclear power, the smaller than the optimal size of the CDG being dictated by the unavability of a large enough dock. Nuclear power has nothing to do with vanity, it offers huge operational advantages in the form of a massive reduction of logistics needs, vast increase in cruise speed and unlimited range. Also I don't think the choice of the nuclear propulsion had much to do with the cost increase, the reactor being of the very same model previously installed on the SSBNs. The second carrier was both programmed and hard pushed for 2 decades but defense is not the only voice of the state's budget and defense spending larger than the strict need to maintain the basic military capabilities was hardly justifiable in the years immediately following the Cold War, not only in France but in every democratic country. One carrier doesn't assure permanent availability but still give a projection power that very few countries can afford and is more than sufficient to preserve the know how to operate a naval aviation branch and know how to build a carrier or a large size naval vessel in general. So one carrier mantain a very important capability whose loosing would have very negative political, military and industrial consequences, two carrier don't double the aforementioned advantages but (nearly) double the cost. I'm not French too but that doesn't mean I can't recognize the specific environment that determines the requirements and the industrial choices of a foreign military purchase program.

Can't be put better.
Happy to see someone with more patience than me explain that.

 

[Thorvic]

Nuclear power for CdG was because they needed Steam to operate the Catapults and arrestor gear, at a time when ships building had switched to Gas Turbine and Diesel propulsion.
As the next French Carrier has slipped from being a sister ship to CdG but instead a replacement then the technology has moved on and its now Electrical power that's the key. Again Nuclear does have the advantages in that in can generate electricity though turbines, where as Gas Turbines would probably require additional units to provide the power.

Its still damned expensive and requires long refit periods for refuelling which impair availability so a 2nd ship would be the ideal solution to maintain a constant availability.

As for funding I suspect the French may be looking to the EU to subsidise the construction and running of two as EU force projection capability, in a similar manner to the SSBNs capability.

 

[TomcatViP]

That's why a smaller ship, let's say 10 to 15kt with nuclear power could have been a path to follow: the available power in board could have enabled emal for a dual component and CoD, the ship would have outsped most opponent at range (think at the vastness of oversea territory under the responsability of the French marine) and the power available for systems would have lessen the need for an escort (laser for close-in threat (air, surface or sub) leaving only a fregate as necessary) etc*...

Two large ships, nuclear or not, are just a waste of opportunities.

* Introducing a large panel of new systems should also ask for some modesty in the sizing (think USN).

 

[Archibald]

By the way, I never realized it before... could the EMALS breakthrough result in shorter catapults and thus drive carrier size downwards again ?
I mean, not easy to fit 60 m, 75 m or 90 m steam catapults on a flattop: needs a pretty large hull. CdG struggled to fold a cut down nimitz catapult (90 m to 75 m) into a 43 000 tons hull instead of 90 000 tons+.
Can EMALS change that ?

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

That's why a smaller ship, let's say 10 to 15kt with nuclear power could have been a path to follow:

There is no way you can get a useable CATOBAR aircraft carrier under 40,000 tons. 10-15,000 tons wouldn't even get you a good aircraft carrier in the 1920s or 30s let alone now.

Aircraft Carriers are volume-critical warships. The airwing requires hangars, the associated workshops for everything within the aircraft form engines to radars, crew briefing areas, crew quarters for the ship's complement, the airwings pilots, it's maintenance staff and and the flighdeck crew. Not to mention magazines for the airwings weapons, whilst simultaneously requiring volume for the ship's machinery stores etc.

Crew numbers, Nuclear Power and Sensors will make up most of the cost of a carrier. Building more, smaller carriers will massively increase those costs, not decrease them. A small carrier will require the same sensors, will still require the reactors (and if you want a small ship, you may have to develop a new reactor) and the crew for several small ships combined will be larger than that required for a larger ship.

 

[TomS]

By the way, I never realized it before... could the EMALS breakthrough result in shorter catapults and thus drive carrier size downwards again ?
I mean, not easy to fit 60 m, 75 m or 90 m steam catapults on a flattop: needs a pretty large hull. CdG struggled to fold a cut down nimitz catapult (90 m to 75 m) into a 43 000 tons hull instead of 90 000 tons+.
Can EMALS change that ?

EMALS requires less below-deck hardware volume than steam cats, so that alone helps. In theory, you could also make a cut-down version that doesn't handle the very heavy aircraft that the C13 scale version does. I'm not sure that saves a lot more volume, though, since a lot of the remaining volume is in power machinery, not the track itself, and the machinery doesn't shrink that much.

GA has a very simple sketch showing smaller ships with EMALS fits, but notably the actual tracks look about the same length to me. They also have a brochure that labels the 250m ship as 20,000 tons, the 280m ship as 65,000 tons, and the 337m ship as 100,000 tons.

 

[Ron5]

Size per se has a very little impact on the cost of a naval vessel. Ford class CVNs cost 3 times as much as the very close sized Nimitz class CVNs themself only one and an half as expensive as the 2/5 sized CDG. Systems and economy of scale made the difference, a country that built 1 or 2 carriers every 30 years inevitably will pay much more than the US or China on ton per ton basis for a carrier with similar systems. Also a country with few escort and support vessels will need to pack in the carrier a greater number of systems further increasing cost. Dimensions are mainly limited by the infrastructures available. The trade off for France had never been size vs nuclear power, the smaller than the optimal size of the CDG being dictated by the unavability of a large enough dock. Nuclear power has nothing to do with vanity, it offers huge operational advantages in the form of a massive reduction of logistics needs, vast increase in cruise speed and unlimited range. Also I don't think the choice of the nuclear propulsion had much to do with the cost increase, the reactor being of the very same model previously installed on the SSBNs. The second carrier was both programmed and hard pushed for 2 decades but defense is not the only voice of the state's budget and defense spending larger than the strict need to maintain the basic military capabilities was hardly justifiable in the years immediately following the Cold War, not only in France but in every democratic country. One carrier doesn't assure permanent availability but still give a projection power that very few countries can afford and is more than sufficient to preserve the know how to operate a naval aviation branch and know how to build a carrier or a large size naval vessel in general. So one carrier mantain a very important capability whose loosing would have very negative political, military and industrial consequences, two carrier don't double the aforementioned advantages but (nearly) double the cost. I'm not French too but that doesn't mean I can't recognize the specific environment that determines the requirements and the industrial choices of a foreign military purchase program.

Nuclear power is very expensive, very much more than conventional which is why so few ships are nuclear powered. They are very expensive to build, very expensive to run and very expensive to maintain, especially in CdeG's case with periodic refuelings. Any logistical gains by not having to refuel with diesel on deployments are more than offset by the need for her escorts to refuel and for her to take on aviation fuel and weapons for embarked aircraft. Similarly, CdeG is unable to take advantage of a faster cruise because she is limited by the speed and range of her escorts and logistics support vessels. In other words, one nuclear carrier in a rather small navy of conventionally powered ships is totally pointless.

Another comment claims that nuclear power was chosen in order to provide steam for the catapults. A case of the tail wagging the dog. The UK gas turbine carriers in an early CATOBAR configuration would have had a donkey boiler to provide steam. A simple and cheap solution.

In military capabilities, one of anything is avoided. France does not have one nuclear capable bomber, or one nuclear missile submarine, or one AA escort, or one ASW frigate etc etc. The reason is obvious. One leaves availability gaps, two is better, three even more so. For the large cost of CdeG, it is not hard to image France building two conventional carrriers to replace the two it had previously. So why not? My theory is vanity. Just my opinion. What is yours?

 

[Ron5]

By the way, I never realized it before... could the EMALS breakthrough result in shorter catapults and thus drive carrier size downwards again ?
I mean, not easy to fit 60 m, 75 m or 90 m steam catapults on a flattop: needs a pretty large hull. CdG struggled to fold a cut down nimitz catapult (90 m to 75 m) into a 43 000 tons hull instead of 90 000 tons+.
Can EMALS change that ?

Surely the length of the catapult is set by the aircraft rather than the ship.

 

[Moose]

In theory replicating the performance of the CVN cat would be possible, but it's not easy. You'd have to increase rate of acceleration to compensate for a shorter track, which means you'd need new EMALS hardware and landing gear for the aircraft that were strengthened for the harder shot. Not an ideal solution

 

[Purpletrouble]

Size per se has a very little impact on the cost of a naval vessel. Ford class CVNs cost 3 times as much as the very close sized Nimitz class CVNs themself only one and an half as expensive as the 2/5 sized CDG. Systems and economy of scale made the difference, a country that built 1 or 2 carriers every 30 years inevitably will pay much more than the US or China on ton per ton basis for a carrier with similar systems. Also a country with few escort and support vessels will need to pack in the carrier a greater number of systems further increasing cost. Dimensions are mainly limited by the infrastructures available. The trade off for France had never been size vs nuclear power, the smaller than the optimal size of the CDG being dictated by the unavability of a large enough dock. Nuclear power has nothing to do with vanity, it offers huge operational advantages in the form of a massive reduction of logistics needs, vast increase in cruise speed and unlimited range. Also I don't think the choice of the nuclear propulsion had much to do with the cost increase, the reactor being of the very same model previously installed on the SSBNs. The second carrier was both programmed and hard pushed for 2 decades but defense is not the only voice of the state's budget and defense spending larger than the strict need to maintain the basic military capabilities was hardly justifiable in the years immediately following the Cold War, not only in France but in every democratic country. One carrier doesn't assure permanent availability but still give a projection power that very few countries can afford and is more than sufficient to preserve the know how to operate a naval aviation branch and know how to build a carrier or a large size naval vessel in general. So one carrier mantain a very important capability whose loosing would have very negative political, military and industrial consequences, two carrier don't double the aforementioned advantages but (nearly) double the cost. I'm not French too but that doesn't mean I can't recognize the specific environment that determines the requirements and the industrial choices of a foreign military purchase program.

Nuclear power is very expensive, very much more than conventional which is why so few ships are nuclear powered. They are very expensive to build, very expensive to run and very expensive to maintain, especially in CdeG's case with periodic refuelings. Any logistical gains by not having to refuel with diesel on deployments are more than offset by the need for her escorts to refuel and for her to take on aviation fuel and weapons for embarked aircraft. Similarly, CdeG is unable to take advantage of a faster cruise because she is limited by the speed and range of her escorts and logistics support vessels. In other words, one nuclear carrier in a rather small navy of conventionally powered ships is totally pointless.

Another comment claims that nuclear power was chosen in order to provide steam for the catapults. A case of the tail wagging the dog. The UK gas turbine carriers in an early CATOBAR configuration would have had a donkey boiler to provide steam. A simple and cheap solution.

In military capabilities, one of anything is avoided. France does not have one nuclear capable bomber, or one nuclear missile submarine, or one AA escort, or one ASW frigate etc etc. The reason is obvious. One leaves availability gaps, two is better, three even more so. For the large cost of CdeG, it is not hard to image France building two conventional carrriers to replace the two it had previously. So why not? My theory is vanity. Just my opinion. What is yours?

Well that obviously they planned to build a second...

They might not have done, but that would be their plan and logic explaining the choice.

USN CVNs aren’t useless because the escorts and auxilliaries cant keep up - not needing refuelling greatly eases the logistical task as the ship would be a major source of consumption. When you have SSBN and SSNs then you have a personnel pipleline also.

 

[TomcatViP]

That's why a smaller ship, let's say 10 to 15kt with nuclear power could have been a path to follow:

There is no way you can get a useable CATOBAR aircraft carrier under 40,000 tons. 10-15,000 tons wouldn't even get you a good aircraft carrier in the 1920s or 30s let alone now.

Italian aircraft carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

(look also at @TomS post above)

You would use Emal mainly for CoD at range.
Also a small ship could be compatible with a ssn reactor.

 

[Purpletrouble]

That's why a smaller ship, let's say 10 to 15kt with nuclear power could have been a path to follow:

There is no way you can get a useable CATOBAR aircraft carrier under 40,000 tons. 10-15,000 tons wouldn't even get you a good aircraft carrier in the 1920s or 30s let alone now.

Italian aircraft carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

(look also at @TomS post above)

You would use Emal mainly for CoD at range.
Also a small ship could be compatible with a ssn reactor.

The flaw with your small ship is that 10-15k is a guided missile cruiser. There just isnt space on it for many aircraft, left alone the numbers people want.

The diagram you show is also completely flawed by that UAV not being equal to the large jet. A manned ac does not require threefold the mass of an unmanned just for the pilot.

F35 is supersonic and agile plus has a very capable sensor system. The UAV has none of that. If you built a UCAV that can do what an F35 can do, it will be F35 sized and mass. The lack of a pilot will merely give more internal space, most likely for fuel.

So nothing very useful gets off this small ship, and we’ve not addressed yet how it gets back on.

Nor have we considered sortie rate - the main metric for carriers and why the latest CVNs are so big to decobflict launch/recovery and give the deck space and lift config to maximise movement ease of aircraft.

None of that is happening on 15k.

Unless we are building niche Reaper carriers, the minimum is far, far higher as the CVF design shows (and every other modern carrier!)

 

[galgot]

Dunno how many times was mentioned in this thread that it was planned to have 2 CdeG class. Second was delayed and finally canceled cause cuts in defense spendings.
Nuclear power was chosen cause they could use existing stuff used in subs. Also because a nuclear carrier can do longer cruises with less support ships. For conventional carrier, you have to build more support ships (tankers) that goes with it , and man them, adding to cost. So using nuclear for CdeG made perfect sense for a navy the size of Marine Nationale, moreover knowing it was planned to have two at the time. But if you end up with just one, well ... you do with it.
The size was dictated by the size of the dry docks available in France (btw, dunno how they would do for a bigger one).

Note , no-one knows for sure how the next Fr carrier will be like. Moreover with the crisis coming. There as been numbers projects over the years , some conventional , some nuclear powered. Projects been started, then canceled, then re-started…
So until the deal is signed , no one for sure knows if it will be nuclear , even less if there will be more than one build anyway.

If they manage to build two nuclear powered carriers, then fine, they would have managed to get what they wanted with the CdeG class, only 50 years later, when replacing it.
If they go for just one new nuclear carrier to replace CdeG from the beginning, well it seems they find advantages with that. Be it for operational , or industrial reasons.
Can be for the reasons mentioned above, or because it suits them better to spend money on nuclear .

I’m not very fond of our politicians choices in general, but to say that they would make a decision of an expense worth billions such as an aircraft carrier propulsion system and size, based on vanity "for the French" , is plain stupid. And insulting.

 

[TomcatViP]

It's not like acting stupid or with vanity was not part of their ordinary...

@Purpletrouble : Don't focus on the size. A small hull under 30kt would do the trick

 

[Jemiba]

... My theory is vanity...

Ok, I think, that is clear now. Some agree, some disagree, but further harping on about that opinion probably
won't bring any good to this thread. So, please back to more essential arguments.

 

[Archibald]

As galgot said... from 1980 (when PA75 was started) to the beginning of the CVF studies (circa 2000) a second CdG was to be build, strictly identical to the first - just like Foch and Clemnceau were.

Then it was CVF with the british, 2000 to 2011, when Sarko screwed it for good (and he was right, for once in his stupid life).
CVF had the major issue of being 100% different from CdG.

Similarly, CdeG is unable to take advantage of a faster cruise because she is limited by the speed and range of her escorts and logistics support vessels. In other words, one nuclear carrier in a rather small navy of conventionally powered ships is totally pointless.

Completely wrong. CdG is actually slower than the previous Clemenceau class, 27 kt vs 31 kt. Also a little slower than the 29-31 kt escorts.
Except that's not as much an issue as it was during WWII: when cruisers and battleships were ultra-fast, 31 to 33 kt, and carriers had to follow them because they provided massive AAA cover.
Nowadays carriers can afford to be a tad slower. Also aircraft recovery needs less speed and wind-over-the-deck than 70 years ago.

The reason for the 27kt speed relates to the K-15 reactors which provides 80 000 hp vs 120 000 hp for the Clems steam powerplant.
These reactors were adapted from the Rubis SNA and Triomphant SSNLE submarines, although they were far from ideal for the job, admittedly.

In other words, one nuclear carrier in a rather small navy of conventionally powered ships is totally pointless.

CdG is not a lone nuclear ship - not with the SNLE and SNA submarines. And (not by a coincidence) they actually share their reactor designs even if, once again, the K-15 were not optimal for a carrier.

 

[PMN1]

The size was dictated by the size of the dry docks available in France (btw, dunno how they would do for a bigger one).

The dry dock at Toulon can take Nimitz class carriers.

 

[galgot]

The size was dictated by the size of the dry docks available in France (btw, dunno how they would do for a bigger one).

The dry dock at Toulon can take Nimitz class carriers.

Thanks.

 

[Archibald]

There is a similar (and very unclear) story about the shipyards.

Basically,
In 1914 France tried to build 250 m long battleships, the Normandie class (end result: the lone Béarn hull become a carrier)
In 1939, bis repetita with the Richelieu class (Richelieu and Jean Bart, the second one very nearly pulling out another Béarn)
And in 1954, 260 m long aircraft carriers - the Clems
Then the same rumor (wether true or not) say that all three big ship classes were difficult to build because the shipyards dry docks were too small (in the 200 m length).

Somebody can bust or confirm this ? never got the record clear on this one.

 

[PMN1]

The size was dictated by the size of the dry docks available in France (btw, dunno how they would do for a bigger one).

The dry dock at Toulon can take Nimitz class carriers.

Thanks.

There are also a few others, this is from French Battleships 1922 to 1956, the Vauban dry dock modification to take Nimitz class was in the 60's IIRC.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

That's why a smaller ship, let's say 10 to 15kt with nuclear power could have been a path to follow:

There is no way you can get a useable CATOBAR aircraft carrier under 40,000 tons. 10-15,000 tons wouldn't even get you a good aircraft carrier in the 1920s or 30s let alone now.

Italian aircraft carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

(look also at @TomS post above)

You would use Emal mainly for CoD at range.
Also a small ship could be compatible with a ssn reactor.

That isn't really an aircraft carrier though is it? Certainly not CATOBAR and it belongs to a navy that doesn't venture outside of the Mediterranean. Hardly a viable option for a navy that actually wants to project power.

 

[galgot]

The size was dictated by the size of the dry docks available in France (btw, dunno how they would do for a bigger one).

The dry dock at Toulon can take Nimitz class carriers.

Thanks.

There are also a few others, this is from French Battleships 1922 to 1956, the Vauban dry dock modification to take Nimitz class was in the 60's IIRC.

View attachment 637074

Indeed. The CdeG been build at Brest (ma bro), second smallest. Dunno why.
Nowaday, there is also St Nazaire, but these are civilians...

 

[TomcatViP]

@A Tentative Fleet Plan : The fact that you bring a handful of stealth aircraft in the fight changes all: you remain hard to locate and still knock down high value targets at will (the Raider strategy) .
In effect, you trade mass effect for selected attrition and that has a huge military value.

Imagine one such ship in the vast pacific ocean with nuke compatible airplanes on-board and you've become the hardest nut to crack in the fight influencing the entire strategy of your opponent. Not bad for such a small investment.

 

[TomS]

Italian aircraft carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

(look also at @TomS post above)

You would use Emal mainly for CoD at range.
Also a small ship could be compatible with a ssn reactor.

I'd argue that Garibaldi isn't a very good carrier, and that General Atomics aren't ship designers. An Invincible (roughly what they're showing) with an EMAG catapult and arresting gear could probably carry around a half-dozen F-35-sized aircraft, which is pretty poor air wing. Maybe if you have a bunch of UCAVs instead?

 

[Purpletrouble]

@A Tentative Fleet Plan : The fact that you bring a handful of stealth aircraft in the fight changes all: you remain hard to locate and still knock down high value targets at will (the Raider strategy) .
In effect, you trade mass effect for selected attrition and that has a huge military value.

Imagine one such ship in the vast pacific ocean with nuke compatible airplanes on-board and you've become the hardest nut to crack in the fight influencing the entire strategy of your opponent. Not bad for such a small investment.

You’d be easy to find over time - your emissions, log train and complete inability to defend yourself would see you made irelevant very quickly.

The fact your aircraft were slow, subsonic, non-agile and completely dependent upon permissive airspace makes it even more pointless.

Hermes in 1942 is what you’d be.

 

[zen]

By the way, I never realized it before... could the EMALS breakthrough result in shorter catapults and thus drive carrier size downwards again ?
I mean, not easy to fit 60 m, 75 m or 90 m steam catapults on a flattop: needs a pretty large hull. CdG struggled to fold a cut down nimitz catapult (90 m to 75 m) into a 43 000 tons hull instead of 90 000 tons+.
Can EMALS change that ?

Surely the length of the catapult is set by the aircraft rather than the ship.

Only in part.
Major factors being energy at landing and the acceleration and deceleration limits of aircraft and pilot. For a given G limit, a plane's landing speed dictates the amount of distance it takes to come to a stop.
Then the aircraft has to turn off the recovery zone (turning arc distance) to either park or go on a lift.

 

[Ron5]

... My theory is vanity...

Ok, I think, that is clear now. Some agree, some disagree, but further harping on about that opinion probably
won't bring any good to this thread. So, please back to more essential arguments.

I was explaining my point of view in clear, unemotional, non-insulting language in compliance with board guidelines, in reply to a poster who expressed his opposing view in similarly polite language. There is no need for you to be involved.

 

[Ron5]

As galgot said... from 1980 (when PA75 was started) to the beginning of the CVF studies (circa 2000) a second CdG was to be build, strictly identical to the first - just like Foch and Clemnceau were.

Then it was CVF with the british, 2000 to 2011, when Sarko screwed it for good (and he was right, for once in his stupid life).
CVF had the major issue of being 100% different from CdG.

Similarly, CdeG is unable to take advantage of a faster cruise because she is limited by the speed and range of her escorts and logistics support vessels. In other words, one nuclear carrier in a rather small navy of conventionally powered ships is totally pointless.

Completely wrong. CdG is actually slower than the previous Clemenceau class, 27 kt vs 31 kt. Also a little slower than the 29-31 kt escorts.
Except that's not as much an issue as it was during WWII: when cruisers and battleships were ultra-fast, 31 to 33 kt, and carriers had to follow them because they provided massive AAA cover.
Nowadays carriers can afford to be a tad slower. Also aircraft recovery needs less speed and wind-over-the-deck than 70 years ago.

The reason for the 27kt speed relates to the K-15 reactors which provides 80 000 hp vs 120 000 hp for the Clems steam powerplant.
These reactors were adapted from the Rubis SNA and Triomphant SSNLE submarines, although they were far from ideal for the job, admittedly.

In other words, one nuclear carrier in a rather small navy of conventionally powered ships is totally pointless.

CdG is not a lone nuclear ship - not with the SNLE and SNA submarines. And (not by a coincidence) they actually share their reactor designs even if, once again, the K-15 were not optimal for a carrier.

@ceccherini and I were discussing the advantage of a nuclear powered ship of being able to travel further at cruise speed and not maximum speed. Please reread our original comments for clarification.

On the other point, I should have said, that one nuclear carrier in a rather small navy of conventionally powered surface ships is totally pointless. My meaning is twofold, not having nuclear powered escorts and logistics ships, means the CdeG out runs the conventionally powered equivalents and is soon on her own and her aircraft are left without fuel and weapons and she is vulnerable. Secondly, being a rather small navy, the MN unlike the USN cannot preposition escorts and supply ships around the world in places where the carrier might be dispatched.

Hopefully I have made both points clearer.

 

[Purpletrouble]

As galgot said... from 1980 (when PA75 was started) to the beginning of the CVF studies (circa 2000) a second CdG was to be build, strictly identical to the first - just like Foch and Clemnceau were.

Then it was CVF with the british, 2000 to 2011, when Sarko screwed it for good (and he was right, for once in his stupid life).
CVF had the major issue of being 100% different from CdG.

Similarly, CdeG is unable to take advantage of a faster cruise because she is limited by the speed and range of her escorts and logistics support vessels. In other words, one nuclear carrier in a rather small navy of conventionally powered ships is totally pointless.

Completely wrong. CdG is actually slower than the previous Clemenceau class, 27 kt vs 31 kt. Also a little slower than the 29-31 kt escorts.
Except that's not as much an issue as it was during WWII: when cruisers and battleships were ultra-fast, 31 to 33 kt, and carriers had to follow them because they provided massive AAA cover.
Nowadays carriers can afford to be a tad slower. Also aircraft recovery needs less speed and wind-over-the-deck than 70 years ago.

The reason for the 27kt speed relates to the K-15 reactors which provides 80 000 hp vs 120 000 hp for the Clems steam powerplant.
These reactors were adapted from the Rubis SNA and Triomphant SSNLE submarines, although they were far from ideal for the job, admittedly.

In other words, one nuclear carrier in a rather small navy of conventionally powered ships is totally pointless.

CdG is not a lone nuclear ship - not with the SNLE and SNA submarines. And (not by a coincidence) they actually share their reactor designs even if, once again, the K-15 were not optimal for a carrier.

@ceccherini and I were discussing the advantage of a nuclear powered ship of being able to travel further at cruise speed and not maximum speed. Please reread our original comments for clarification.

On the other point, I should have said, that one nuclear carrier in a rather small navy of conventionally powered surface ships is totally pointless. My meaning is twofold, not having nuclear powered escorts and logistics ships, means the CdeG out runs the conventionally powered equivalents and is soon on her own and her aircraft are left without fuel and weapons and she is vulnerable. Secondly, being a rather small navy, the MN unlike the USN cannot preposition escorts and supply ships around the world in places where the carrier might be dispatched.

Hopefully I have made both points clearer.

That still doesnt make sense.

The USN does not preposition escorts - it forms battlegroups that work up, get certified and sail and operate. Yes ships do come and go but the idea the CVNs charge round between “prepositioned escorts” simply isnt true.

You simply do not need a full nuclear fleet to have CVNs justify themselves.

Your point is wrong, a CVN offers significant logistical advantages in reducing the very considerable demand of the main ship (including its sprints for flying ops) to make replenishment far more practicable as it can focus on the airwing and escorts - which do need that fuel if they are to accompany a relocating carrier group. Trying to refuel a conventional carrier with a task force aiming for 20+ speed of advance would be a nightmare. Hence why CVF is unlikely to achieve that and why the UK has to fund 6 large fleet tankers (7 including Fort Vic) vs 3 (4?) of the French Navy.

 

[TomcatViP]

You’d be easy to find over time - your emissions, log train and complete inability to defend yourself would see you made irelevant very quickly.

The fact your aircraft were slow, subsonic, non-agile and completely dependent upon permissive airspace makes it even more pointless.

Hermes in 1942 is what you’d be.

F-35 have a higher cruise speed than most airplane outthere, are supersonic, outperform all but a few in term of agility and are operationally the most capable fighter jets in term of penetrating IADS defended airspace.

 

[galgot]

And again… TWO CdeG class were planned at the origin.
Two, that was the program, that couldn’t be finished. Of course two would be better.
Now if one is totally pointless, what do you do with it ? Trash it cause it would be « vanity » just to have one ?
Or use it , like for the numbers of missions she already as completed in 20 years ?

 

[GTX]

There is no way you can get a useable CATOBAR aircraft carrier under 40,000 tons.

Define "useable"

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

There is no way you can get a useable CATOBAR aircraft carrier under 40,000 tons.

Define "useable"

One that can carry a reasonable number of high-performance aircraft.

 

[TomcatViP]

I'd argue that Garibaldi isn't a very good carrier, and that General Atomics aren't ship designers. An Invincible (roughly what they're showing) with an EMAG catapult and arresting gear could probably carry around a half-dozen F-35-sized aircraft, which is pretty poor air wing. Maybe if you have a bunch of UCAVs instead?

Italian aircraft carrier Cavour - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Better indeed.