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

UCAV will be covering for the Rafale's lack of stealth. Current jets are quite upgradable and won't be that outdated 20 years from now, the way older generation jets were. The PANG carrying the Rafale + UCAV in 2040 will not be as problematic as the CdG still carrying a few super etendard in the 2010s (I think the last super etendard was retired in 2016) or the Harrier that are still in service today in the Italian Navy or USMC.

As usual, it's a matter of what are you fighting against.
 
As already outlined in #576.

The talk about "high end land warfare" was the questionable part of this thread.
 
Very short-sighted view...

The Rafale was designed from the ground up to operate from medium-sized aircraft carriers. Even without folding wings, it is only marginally wider than the Super Hornet with folded wings (10.86m vs 9.94m) and still 3 meters shorter (15.27m vs 18.31m).

So its very size is optimized for the type of carrier it is operating from, the wing choice being only a part of it. With the benefit of lower cost (and commonality with the land-based model), lower complexity and maintenance, lower technical risks, faster development, higher strength, wingtip hardpoints compatible with radar-guided missile, and so on...

Dassault could easily have designed a folding outer wing panel, with marginal spotting factor benefit, but losing every advantage listed above.

As said by BonPlan2, the optimal airwing of the CDG is around 40 aircraft. The usual 24 Rafale number is linked to the number of Flotilles (Squadrons) embarked, not to congestion.

If the width of a parked aircraft is the only metric to judge an aircraft carrier effectiveness, then the optimal fighter wing for the Ford Class supercarrier is probably around 250 F4F Wildcat.
 
Manuducati said:
Very short-sighted view...

The Rafale was designed from the ground up to operate from medium-sized aircraft carriers. Even without folding wings, it is only marginally wider than the Super Hornet with folded wings (10.86m vs 9.94m) and still 3 meters shorter (15.27m vs 18.31m).

So its very size is optimized for the type of carrier it is operating from, the wing choice being only a part of it. With the benefit of lower cost (and commonality with the land-based model), lower complexity and maintenance, lower technical risks, faster development, higher strength, wingtip hardpoints compatible with radar-guided missile, and so on...

Dassault could easily have designed a folding outer wing panel, with marginal spotting factor benefit, but losing every advantage listed above.

As said by BonPlan2, the optimal airwing of the CDG is around 40 aircraft. The usual 24 Rafale number is linked to the number of Flotilles (Squadrons) embarked, not to congestion.

If the width of a parked aircraft is the only metric to judge an aircraft carrier effectiveness, then the optimal fighter wing for the Ford Class supercarrier is probably around 250 F4F Wildcat.
Click to expand...
40 Rafales? You’re having a laugh, that would involve stuffing the entire carrier just to fit them.

I never judged the carriers effectiveness, I questioned the size of the aircraft being designed, if SCAF is ever finished that is.
 
Back in 2019 CDG embarked 35 aircraft for an exercise. That comprised
30 Rafale M
2 E-2C
1 NH90 NFH Caiman helicopter
2 Dauphin helicopters.

Photos here of her with her entire air group less one Dauphin (well someone had to carry the photographer) on the flight deck.
https://www.seaforces.org/marint/French-Navy/Aircraft-Carrier/R-91-FS-Charles-de-Gaulle.htm
AIUI her hangar can accommodate 25 aircraft. Fill the hangar and full use of both catapults, both lifts and the entire landing area should be possible. So operating 40 aircraft / helicopters while sacrificing use of a catapult should be possible.

A more normal sized air group is as she deployed with on Mission Clemenceau in 2024/25 that comprised:-
24 Rafale M
2 E-2C
2 Dauphin helicopters
2 NH 90 NFH helicopters.
 
Manuducati said:
40 aircraft airwing. Not 40 Rafale.
Click to expand...

EwenS said:
Back in 2019 CDG embarked 35 aircraft for an exercise. That comprised
30 Rafale M
2 E-2C
1 NH90 NFH Caiman helicopter
2 Dauphin helicopters.

Photos here of her with her entire air group less one Dauphin (well someone had to carry the photographer) on the flight deck.
https://www.seaforces.org/marint/French-Navy/Aircraft-Carrier/R-91-FS-Charles-de-Gaulle.htm
AIUI her hangar can accommodate 25 aircraft. Fill the hangar and full use of both catapults, both lifts and the entire landing area should be possible. So operating 40 aircraft / helicopters while sacrificing use of a catapult should be possible.

A more normal sized air group is as she deployed with on Mission Clemenceau in 2024/25 that comprised:-
24 Rafale M
2 E-2C
2 Dauphin helicopters
2 NH 90 NFH helicopters.
Click to expand...
Thats more what i was referring to, you dont want to lose use of a catapualt because youre carrying so many aircraft, as at that point you cant make good use of the extra planes if you cant get them off the deck.
 
Mallard said:
I literally said, “optimally” any more than that and the flight deck is too congested to be effective
Click to expand...
32 was not a config where no plane can take off and land. It is the max possible in a war scenario.
24 is more a peace time config, so as to leave enough jets at ground for trainees training and overhaul (as the fleet is narrow : 44 units only).
 
Perhaps more relevant than CdG is the 73,000t CVF “Alpha” design, which was designed for 36-48 F-35s (the higher number being a wartime surge) flying 120 sorties/day.

PANG being of similar size should be able to support a similar sized air group, adjusting it slightly downward due to FCAS’s larger deck spotting factor. So the PANG numbers of 30x FCAS fighters (not counting Hawkeye or helicopters) seem credible, with some room to spare for a wartime surge.
 
H_K said:
Perhaps more relevant than CdG is the 73,000t CVF “Alpha” design, which was designed for 36-48 F-35s (the higher number being a wartime surge) flying 120 sorties/day.

PANG being of similar size should be able to support a similar sized air group, adjusting it slightly downward due to FCAS’s larger deck spotting factor. So the PANG numbers of 30x FCAS fighters (not counting Hawkeye or helicopters) seem credible, with some room to spare for a wartime surge.
Click to expand...
30 fighters + how many UCAVs?
 
BonPlan2 said:
32 was not a config where no plane can take off and land. It is the max possible in a war scenario.
24 is more a peace time config, so as to leave enough jets at ground for trainees training and overhaul (as the fleet is narrow : 44 units only).
Click to expand...

You keep adding to my statements things I didn’t say. I never said “no plane can take off and land” I said would be congested and slow down flight deck operations, defeating the use of more planes
 
Mallard said:
You keep adding to my statements things I didn’t say. I never said “no plane can take off and land” I said would be congested and slow down flight deck operations, defeating the use of more planes
Click to expand...
My answer is no, because you can put 25 Rafale in the hangars. So 7 Rafale + 2 Hawkeye + 2 Helo on deck is easy (and even easier because some are probably flying).
 
BonPlan2 said:
My answer is no, because you can put 25 Rafale in the hangars. So 7 Rafale + 2 Hawkeye + 2 Helo on deck is easy (and even easier because some are probably flying).
Click to expand...
If a large number of aircraft are stuck in the hangar due to insufficient space on deck then the only thing theyll be doing it providing a replacement for aircraft that require maintence or nothing because youre not going to be able to get them in the air at the same time.
 
Personally I like the idea of honoring the thousands of people who fought in WWII, rather than just one somewhat pompous individual (De Gaulle).

Other historical names being largely meaningless and anachronistic in the current era (Richelieu, Colbert, Jeanne D’Arc, Napoléon, Pompidou, Clemenceau, Foch…).

As @Archibald said this is also a very important statement about France’s diplomatic positioning and continued independence vs other powers (both friends & allies like the US and EU, and less friendly powers)
 
PANG now given the official name France Libre? I like the sound of that, better than naming the carrier after a person I think. You will quickly run out of people to call an aircraft carrier after.
 
H_K said:
Personally I like the idea of honoring the thousands of people who fought in WWII, rather than just one somewhat pompous individual (De Gaulle).

Other historical names being largely meaningless and anachronistic in the current era (Richelieu, Colbert, Jeanne D’Arc, Napoléon, Pompidou, Clemenceau, Foch…).
Click to expand...
Nope - alas. Problem with any historical name (even Jean Moulin and other Panthéon heroes) : polarization and political correctness. The two plagues of our times.

I bet you, somebody would have said "Sorry but no way the name Jean Moulin is borrowed from such a weapon of destruction as an aircraft carrier". (this, I can respect)

De Gaulle besides the existing carrier would have been instrumentalized by the French Right proliferating clique of buffoons (all the way from Macronists to Zemmour with the Wauquiez, Retailleau and Ciotti morons between them)

Older names from WWI and colonization days would have been criticized by Mélenchon and his clique (fact is, WWI ravaged an entire generation of 8 million men - the ones not killed were maimed, and the physically intact ones were traumatized for life).

So better to stick with symbolical names BUT there are far better choices out there, in the distant past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberté-class_battleship

Say what you want, but Liberté and Justice are pretty cool names. "The aircraft carrier of Justice gonna kick your ass !"
 
Last edited:
Name is kinda underwhelming, most reactions I've seen tend to think the same.
Macron was doing quitee well lately, but this is a communication mishap
 
Pictures of the 2 PANG models presented today, showing different launch configurations with 27-28 aircraft on the flight deck:
  • 10-11 Rafale
  • 8 FCAS/NGF
  • 6 UCAS
  • 2 E-2 Hawkeye
  • 1 NH-90 helo
 

Attachments

  • PANG 1.jpg
    PANG 1.jpg
    244.1 KB · Views: 188
  • PANG 2.jpeg
    PANG 2.jpeg
    2.7 MB · Views: 179
  • PANG 3.png
    PANG 3.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 172
No, sorry, France Libre is an awful name.

I have seen rumors, but haven't searched to see if they were true or not, that St Michel was also a named that had been considered.

But France Libre is just... bad.
 
y-v-r said:
No, sorry, France Libre is an awful name.

I have seen rumors, but haven't searched to see if they were true or not, that St Michel was also a named that had been considered.

But France Libre is just... bad.
Click to expand...
Frankly it sounds like a desktop app, Liberté on the other hand i think sounds good.
 
Apparently, the following justification has been given regarding the name: it is to honor the fighters of the French Resistance during WW2.

Which is, okay, very fine.

However, the explanation coming a day after, and especially following the rather intense backlash, it kind of sounds like a wonky attempt at damage control.

Naming her La Hire would have been profoundly badass.
Lafitte would have been fine, while keeping with the naval heritage.

Oscar de Négrier however was an obvious no-go. :D
 
It disappoints some because they were perhaps expecting something more typically French or traditional.
That's how new things are usually received in subjects that are very traditional, like naming big mil ships is obviously what people expect to be.
But I think it will grow on people and they’ll come round to it, because it honours something great, and the political symbolism of honouring the Free French nowadays is very welcome.
That said, I am still disappointed that ‘Le Nonobstant’ was not adopted.
 
But would France be able to afford three large carriers of the size of PANG/France Libre? Two at most is what I am suspecting the total purchase will be.
 
FighterJock said:
But would France be able to afford three large carriers of the size of PANG/France Libre? Two at most is what I am suspecting the total purchase will be.
Click to expand...
I think 2 new large drone carriers to replace the current 3 Mistral LHDs would be a good way to complement the carrier in the event that they don't order a second one. Drone technology will have greatly advanced by the 2040s and mistrals aren't due for replacement before 2040 so they still have a good 10 years to decide what to replace them with.
 
That is another possibility and one that cannot be ignored Kurapika444.
 
Kurapika444 said:
I think 2 new large drone carriers to replace the current 3 Mistral LHDs would be a good way to complement the carrier in the event that they don't order a second one. Drone technology will have greatly advanced by the 2040s and mistrals aren't due for replacement before 2040 so they still have a good 10 years to decide what to replace them with.
Click to expand...
Given how intensively the Mistral-class ships have been used, especially since 2022 (they are everywhere), I’d argue that having just 3 units instead of the originally planned 4 is likely already a constraint for the MN.

Reducing to only 2 amphibs would be completely unrealistic … unless you adopted a mixed structure with 2 different designs, 2 larger drone-focused carriers complemented by 2 simpler LPDs.

I think i’d still favor 4 slightly improved Mistral-type ships … slightly larger, UAV-capable (mostly VTOL, with no small EMALS), surface drones, and upgraded CIWS.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom