PA NG - France libre-class French Aircraft carrier program NEWS

Titus K

Titus K

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
6 September 2025
Messages
817
Reaction score
2,777
https://fr.linkedin.com/posts/direc...reexpertise-activity-7377370363447373824-NyNr
PANG | First Welding of the Containment Vessels

The ceremony for the welding of the first plate of the containment vessels, which will house the nuclear reactors of the next-generation aircraft carrier PANG, took place in Cherbourg on September 25, 2025.

The construction of these iconic elements of the ship began with its most complex, technical, and demanding phase: the base, at the NAVAL GROUP shipyard in Cherbourg, a site with unique and highly specialized expertise, particularly in boilermaking.

Unprecedented in scale, these metal vessels will measure 14 meters in height and 13 meters in diameter, weighing 1,300 tons each. They are a distinctive feature of aircraft carriers, unlike submarines, whose thick hulls provide the equivalent protective function for their nuclear reactors.

The future next-generation K22 nuclear reactors will be integrated into these vessels, which will then in turn be integrated into the ship. Designed by TechnicAtome under the responsibility of the CEA, these containment vessels represent a major industrial challenge for this extraordinary program, led by the DGA, with commissioning scheduled for 2038.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    145.6 KB · Views: 64
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    78.5 KB · Views: 82
The budget draft submitted by the PM (and former MoD) this week contains the following paragraphs about PANG (translated):
For the Next Generation Aircraft Carrier (PANG) program, the main commitments planned for 2025 and 2026 include:
• continuing the detailed preliminary design of the ship and the associated risk-reduction studies;
• continuing the early production preparations launched in 2024, particularly regarding long-lead procurements and the development of the integration of the EMALS catapults and AAG arresting gear;
• placing the main construction contract for the next-generation aircraft carrier.

Funding for the third catapult rail and the data-centric evolution of the Combat Management System (CMS), as part of its incremental development approach, is provided under the supplementary budget announced by the President during his speech at the Hôtel de Brienne on July 13, 2025, and covered by the additional appropriations.

For the PANG Infrastructure program, the main commitments planned for 2025 concern the continuation of diagnostic work and preparatory design and service continuity studies, as well as preliminary works required for the construction phase of the future aircraft carrier’s support facilities.
In 2026, these works will continue, along with related implementation studies, dredging, civil engineering, structural works, and handling facilities, paving the way for the construction of the basin and berth for the Next Generation Aircraft Carrier.
Click to expand...
(https://www.budget.gouv.fr/documentation/file-download/30673 - page 440)

Second paragraph pretty much confirms (although it was implied before) that they intend to fit it with 3 EMALS and I'm glad to hear that as 2 would've been a huge waste. Still no official order and budget though, the current political turmoil will be considerably slowing things down.
 
H_K said:
Currently ~€13 billion has been budgeted for PANG...

... but that number will go up with periodic adjustments for inflation and changes in scope as PANG's build progresses.
Click to expand...
Wow, that has really escalated....

The smaller conventional PA2 variations were 3-4 billion. Would be more now with inflation, emals etc, but you'd still get probably two of them for that money.... which would have been the initial navy preference.

I'm still surprised that there is no hot debate about cancellation, given the political situation and budget problems....
 
orlovsky said:
Wow, that has really escalated....

The smaller conventional PA2 variations were 3-4 billion. Would be more now with inflation, emals etc, but you'd still get probably two of them for that money.... which would have been the initial navy preference.

I'm still surprised that there is no hot debate about cancellation, given the political situation and budget problems....
Click to expand...
Carrier seems to be the one thing the different french parties at the parliament seem to agree on.

CVF FR with steam catapults isn't possible anymore as the US doesn't make steam catapults anymore, that would've reduced the cost. And the main cost reduction from CVF FR initially came from the simultaneous construction with the British carriers.

It is honestly extremely expensive but what other choice does France have? Buy F-35Bs and operate 2 STOVL carriers? That would end up being more expensive than this PANG. We have to look at the naval aviation cost as a whole, of which the carrier is just one item, though the single most expensive one. When looking at the overall cost, I'm not sure the 2 STOVL carriers would come out that cheaper (I'd need to crunch the numbers). But then comes the hard question of: how will they procure a 2nd carrier now that we're out of the peace dividends era that allowed the French Navy to operate only one carrier safely?
 
Dcns had the catobar projects juliettte etc. Conventional, about 60k tons, 3-4 billion.
With inflation, say 4-5 billion. Emals etc 5-6 billion? Still two within 13 billion and some change....
 
orlovsky said:
I'm still surprised that there is no hot debate about cancellation, given the political situation and budget problems....
Click to expand...
Probably because the CVN is a non negotiable pillar of French national security and foreign policy. As well as providing plenty of jobs during construction and down the line. The benefit, some of which not immediately tangible, outweigh the cost in the end. Even if that cost may appear massive at first.
 
EmoBirb said:
Probably because the CVN is a non negotiable pillar of French national security and foreign policy. As well as providing plenty of jobs during construction and down the line. The benefit, some of which not immediately tangible, outweigh the cost in the end. Even if that cost may appear massive at first.
Click to expand...
Had the Russian invasion of Ukraine not happened, I'm sure that there would've been calls to cancel or downsize it.
 
Kurapika444 said:
Had the Russian invasion of Ukraine not happened, I'm sure that there would've been calls to cancel or downsize it.
Click to expand...
Downsize, perhaps. But France giving up their carrier force was never on the table, even the people least concerned with foreign policy would admit that. It's just too good of a tool to give up for France, as it makes them one of only two European navies with proper carriers and the only navy outside of North America to field a nuclear powered carrier. That brings a certain aspect of prestige with it, but also the fact that if that capability dies, recovering it later on when needed will be incredibly costly and time consuming, perhaps not even viable. So swallowing the cost to be among the world's top naval powers and all the benefits and duties that come with it has never been in doubt.

The warhawks get a kick out of showing off a CVN and growing NATO naval power, the pro EU folks view it as the only truly European carrier and thus as a valuable tool to guarantee European autonomy, the socialist folks see the yards busy and workers employed and the people in ties and suits see the money flow.

Ultimately there are little downsides to France going through with their next gen CVN and that is a circumstance that existed in this form well before 2022. Which is why I'm positive that this thing will enter service in the future no matter what and most likely in an adequate time frame.
 
Totally agree with you EmoBirb about France giving up their carrier force, hell will well and trully freeze over before that ever happens. Don't forget that the Charles de Gaule is getting on in terms of life expectancy.
 
Some slight differences from earlier reports, coming from the always well-informed Mer et Marine.
https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/defe...son-porte-avions-de-nouvelle-generation-pa-ng
Crewed by 2,000 service members:
  • 1,200 ship’s crew,
  • 500 personnel of the embarked air wing,
  • 200 specialists,
  • 100-person command staff.
The PA-NG will be able to embark at least 40 aircraft, as its facilities have been designed to accommodate:
  • 36 combat aircraft (Rafale, NGF, UCAV),
  • 2 to 3 E-2D Advanced Hawkeye airborne early-warning aircraft,
  • 5 to 6 helicopters,
  • around 10 lighter drones with either fixed or rotary wings.
Equipped with a flight deck of more than 17,000 m² (compared with 12,000 m² on Charles de Gaulle), the ship will feature an angled landing deck with 3 arresting wires and an emergency safety net, as well as 3 catapult tracks (two axial catapults forward and one on the angled deck).
Click to expand...

Also, the PANG might initially operate alongside CdG instead of replacing it ... That's if the latter can undergo a 4th and final nuclear refueling in 2038.
The issue of the permanence of the carrier strike group

Normally, at that date, the PA-NG is meant to replace Charles de Gaulle. However, a study will be conducted on the issue of the permanence of the French carrier strike group, which has been lost since France no longer operates two aircraft carriers, as was the case with the former Clemenceau (1961–1997) and Foch (1963–2000). This will notably involve examining the construction of a second PA-NG, or a complementary solution, for example drone carriers, or possibly an alternative based on a conventionally powered aircraft carrier or one fitted with new modular nuclear reactors (SMRs).

At the same time, as the French Navy will need between 2035 and 2038 to field two crews to man both its current and its new aircraft carrier, the possibility of extending the service life of Charles de Gaulle, in service since 2001, is being considered. This option depends on the condition of its nuclear boiler rooms, which will be thoroughly inspected during its next (and normally final) major refit, scheduled for 2027–2028. During this overhaul, the reactor cores will be reloaded with nuclear fuel (these reloadings take place every 10 years, during major refits).

Given that this refit will also include a major modernization of the ship’s combat system, with the installation of the new Sea Fire fixed-panel active electronically scanned array radar, if its reactors can be technically extended, it would be worthwhile to carry out one final refueling in 2038 in order to keep Charles de Gaulle in service for an additional 5 to 10 years—enough time to build an additional platform.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
That reactor extension is going to require some significant analysis of just how many neutrons the reactor vessels and primary loop piping have absorbed. (Neutron embrittlement)
Click to expand...
The hull itself is much older than 2001 as the ship was launched in 1994 but only commissioned in 2001 after many delays. The nuclear reactors were first "started" in 1998. If extended for another 8-9 years, the ship will be 52 in 2046 and the reactors will be 48 years old. It's honestly not too extravagant. And CdG will still be very capable in the 2040s. I think the main driver behind the decision will be the cost of the life extension.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
That was mostly due to waffling. The initial decision to go no-cats was poor, but they waited far too long to reverse it. Much of the ship would have had to be torn apart to install cats, which raised the cost far above what the UK could pay.

Lessons learned:
1) design for the most capability
2) do NOT attempt to change specifications mid-way, it will only make you look stupid.
Click to expand...
A 3rd rail is far cheaper if you already have the power gen systems and arresting gear in. the first contract for the Emal and AAG setup was over a billion.
 
Kurapika444 said:
Does the last sentence of the article say that the availability could reach 300 days per year or am I reading this wrong?
Click to expand...
Yes that's the target. I believe CdG is at 235 days on average (65%) over a refueling cycle.
This 300 day target is outside of refueling periods though.
PANG will be refueled every 10 years instead of 7-8 years for CdG so that's also a positive

For reference the SSN (Suffren/Barracuda) fleet target is "at least 270 days per year per sub". Which is very much needed since 2 crews need at least 100 days at sea.
 
Last edited:
Mallard said:
A 3rd rail is far cheaper if you already have the power gen systems and arresting gear in. the first contract for the Emal and AAG setup was over a billion.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.


Kurapika444 said:
Does the last sentence of the article say that the availability could reach 300 days per year or am I reading this wrong?
Click to expand...
That's seriously impressive.

I mean, yes, US carriers have been out for 11 months before, but that was an extreme.



Mallard said:
View attachment 800769
View attachment 800770
First pic from Navy lookout, have to ask, why has Pang not adopted the more optimal layout used on american carriers of the forward cats being angled from the starboard to port side rather than straight on, this would allow for simultaneous takeoffs and landings with 2 cats rather than the current version which can barely do a single cat launch while leaving the landing strip open?
Click to expand...
Overall length? Nimitz class is ~80ft longer.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Absolutely.



That's seriously impressive.

I mean, yes, US carriers have been out for 11 months before, but that was an extreme.




Overall length? Nimitz class is ~80ft longer.
Click to expand...
True, i supposed there wouldnt be enough space to swing the catapaults over without cutting into where the lift is.
 
It is just like the SSN, we don't have many of them so we milk them to the last drop, see the Rubis class. Plus, SSN, boomers and carrier share the same reactor.
 
Kurapika444 said:
The PANG island looks so tiny. Nice additional space freed on the deck.
I'm crossing fingers that everything goes smoothly as planned and that the construction of this carrier doesn't face the hardships its predecessor went though. Let's pray for FCAS as well...
Click to expand...
The Charles de Gaulle construction was only affected by slow down due to economic reason (after the iron wall collapse, it was decided to cut the defense budget. So Leclers MBT, Rafale and Charles de Gaulle were or cut in Qty or slowdowned).
 
Mallard said:
View attachment 800769
View attachment 800770
First pic from Navy lookout, have to ask, why has Pang not adopted the more optimal layout used on american carriers of the forward cats being angled from the starboard to port side rather than straight on, this would allow for simultaneous takeoffs and landings with 2 cats rather than the current version which can barely do a single cat launch while leaving the landing strip open?
Click to expand...
Forward elevator is in the way, that's where the extra 20-25 meters (maybe even more as it seems that the 310m of the PANG include the extended stern) of the of the US carriers come in handy. Fujian has the same problem. I don't have precise numbers but I also think that the angle of the angled deck on US carriers is slightly wider, allowing for more room at the bow. Ultimately it comes down to cost.

Titus K said:
For reference the SSN (Suffren/Barracuda) fleet target is "at least 270 days per year per sub". Which is very much needed since 2 crews need at least 100 days at sea
Click to expand...
Does CDG have 2 crews currently?
 
do y'all think PANG will still largely be equipped with rafales by her fitting out date or do you think france will have a 6th generation ready for her?
 
That's a very pertinent question. The way SCAF goes those days, I very much doubt it will be in service by 2038. So Rafale it will be, most probably. They are planned to last until the 2050s at least. (just like S.E spanned 1976 to 2016, or close)
 
Archibald said:
That's a very pertinent question. The way SCAF goes those days, I very much doubt it will be in service by 2038. So Rafale it will be, most probably. They are planned to last until the 2050s at least. (just like S.E spanned 1976 to 2016, or close)
Click to expand...
my question is with air forces around the world working on 6th gens and many having adopted or currently designing 5th generation fighters, will the rafale not start to become technology outdated and put the pang at a significant disadvantage to her peers?
 
illRoyalPanda said:
my question is with air forces around the world working on 6th gens and many having adopted or currently designing 5th generation fighters, will the rafale not start to become technology outdated and put the pang at a significant disadvantage to her peers?
Click to expand...
The Rafale F5 deployed on the PANG will come with a UCAV loyal wingman.
There will still be a significant amount of Super-Hornets deployed on US carriers by 2040.
 
illRoyalPanda said:
do y'all think PANG will still largely be equipped with rafales by her fitting out date or do you think france will have a 6th generation ready for her?
Click to expand...
2038 => full Rafale squads.
SCAF, even now in a nearly fully french configuration, is not expected before 2045 I'm afraid.
 
Titus K said:
The Rafale F5 deployed on the PANG will come with a UCAV loyal wingman.
There will still be a significant amount of Super-Hornets deployed on US carriers by 2040.
Click to expand...
Theyll be getting on a bit though, F18 production has ended far as i recall.
 
Titus K said:
They figured it out on the Etendard / Super-Etendard... I’m pretty sure it was a conscious design choice (just like the fixed probe)
Click to expand...
My point is it significantly limits the carry capacity of these ships. CDG can carry 20 aircraft optimally, but with folding wings could almost certainly carry more. The SCAF concepts are practically twice the size, and in turn instead of getting a significant increase in capacity with PANG will probably be limited to 20-30 of these new fighters due to space contrictions.
 
illRoyalPanda said:
my question is with air forces around the world working on 6th gens and many having adopted or currently designing 5th generation fighters, will the rafale not start to become technology outdated and put the pang at a significant disadvantage to her peers?
Click to expand...
Of course it will be outperformed by other nuclear naval powers at that point. But unlike the US in the pacific, the PANG will operate in the North Atlantic, Mediterranean Sea and around Africa mostly. And there isn't a hostile Navy in those corners that deploys a carrier with 5th or 6th Generationen fighters. For interventionist policies in the MENA region and Africa the combination of Rafale F5 and stealthy UCAV should suffice. Perspective and potential use is important.

I'm aware that China and the US are seen as the benchmarks for that sort of thing, but it's important to keep in mind that their needs are very different than the needs of France, or Italy or the UK to an extent as well.

Would France prefer to have a next gen jet on their CVNs as soon as possible? Surely. But it's not something that is absolutely crucial for them. Fujian or Type 004 probably won't sail through the Mediterranean or the Channel.
 
EmoBirb said:
Would France prefer to have a next gen jet on their CVNs as soon as possible? Surely. But it's not something that is absolutely crucial for them. Fujian or Type 004 probably won't sail through the Mediterranean or the Channel.
Click to expand...
It isn't meant for carrier warfare - sure, but it's still by default meant for high end land one.
French carrier(s) are key part of french nuclear warfighting capability(actual warfighting, not just deterrence).
 
Ainen said:
It isn't meant for carrier warfare - sure, but it's still by default meant for high end land one.
French carrier(s) are key part of french nuclear warfighting capability(actual warfighting, not just deterrence).
Click to expand...
ASN4G can ensure that the Rafale can fulfill the nuclear mission at that point too. And neither now, nor in the 2030s or 2040s is France interested in "high end land warfare". French foreign policy has been characterized by interventionism in MENA and Africa and their military is accordingly exceptionally suited and geared towards expeditionary warfare. France neither has the interest nor the means to engage in the upper echelon of land warfare. Even the most capable branch of the French Military, the Marine Nationale, which is arguably the most powerful Navy in western europe couldn't sustain prolonged high end warfare against a peer or superior naval force, mostly due to limited numbers, less so because of the systems and sailors.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom