Alternate future French carrier (CdG replacement 2038)

Archibald

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
6 June 2006
Messages
11,693
Reaction score
13,271
Putting that into the "speculative" section rather than "alt-history".

France current plan to replace CdG by 2038:
- 75 000 tons
- submarine nuclear reactors
- EMALS from Uncle Sam
- SCAF on the flight deck

I'm not convinced.
-NOT technically: it is rather logical there: SCAF driving CdG replacement upwards - and still nuclear because CdG.
- FINANCIALLY... I don't like it.

Everybody complains about the RN present (dire) situation (escorts, procurement), but the French Navy also has its own miseries.
It financially going into the wall.

Now or in the close future, that 75 000 tons beast will starve everything else. And 1 carrier is not enough.

More on this later.
 
Now or in the close future, that 75 000 tons beast will starve everything else. And 1 carrier is not enough
I have the same fear. IMHO the size of the carrier is less the issue than the gold platting with complex, expensive systems (nuclear power plant, EMALS, AAG, top notch bespoke combat system)… trying too hard to be the USN.

Except the Marine Nationale isn’t the USN and can’t afford a Gerald Ford.

A large conventional carrier using proven, high reliability systems (such as steam cats, hydraulic brakes for the arrestor wires, and the same combat system as an FDI frigate), would have been a reasonable choice.
 
Last edited:
Here is my own take...

- start from Q.E that is, where France stopped in 2008 (I hate to say those words, but... Sarkozy was right on that point.)

Then... engines & catapults combinations

- Option 1 Q.E + K22 submarine reactors + EMALS
- Option 2 Q.E + K22 submarine reactors + licence-build C-13 catapults
- Option 3 Q.E + non-nuclear + C-13 catapults

The main unknowns
- can K22 nuclear reactors power a Q.E to 27 kt at a minimum ?
-I have no idea if a non-nuclear carrier can use EMALS ? those things need so much electrical power, I wouldn't bet on this.
 
And 1 carrier is not enough
I’m OK with one carrier if it has high availability (at least 60%, preferably 75%) and if the savings get spent on a proper land-based UCAV + A400M-launched cruise missiles that could provide transcontinental deep strike with air refueling support.

When operating together the carrier, UCAV and cruise missiles would be highly complementary. Even if the carrier wasn’t available (or not in the right place), the UCAV + cruise missiles would provide some level of conventional deterrence.
 
- Option 1 Q.E + K22 submarine reactors + EMALS
- Option 2 Q.E + K22 submarine reactors + licence-build C-13 catapults
- Option 3 Q.E + non-nuclear + C-13 catapults

Option 3 is the only one that would deliver significant savings from the current path.
 
Option 1: you fork out big bucks to build a proper aircraft carrier
Option 2: you faff about with F-35Bs on a glorified LHA platform

Any French option 1 is hideously expensive, the $1.5bn for the catapults is just the start, it means designing and building one carrier, adapting the K22 for surface use, developing the SCAF-N to put aboard it (and doubtless an AEW drone too) = mega Euro spend.

France and China are probably the only nations in the world going it alone to get a CVN and a 5th/6th Gen naval fighter concurrently (I'm not counting the USN as the F-35C has a degree of amortisation across the Lightning brand and by the time they get a 6th Gen the Fords will be a tested design).
 
this is what should have happened

3012cc475922048d612463708a1a39fe.jpg
 
France and China are probably the only nations in the world going it alone to get a CVN and a 5th/6th Gen naval fighter concurrently

And France has perhaps 10% or even less, the resources and military budget of China...
That's why I think that thing is unaffordable. Even only ONE. In fact it is a bit more subtle than that.

Option 1: you fork out big bucks to build a proper aircraft carrier

That point, yes. I'm rather confident France (and its Navy) can eventually find the time, money and determination to correctly build and use it: CdG did it, even smaller.
Born in 1982 (May, Falklands climax - how about that !) I grew up in the pre-Internet days of the 1980's - 1990's as Rafale and CdG entry of service was delayed, and delayed and delayed again, by the "peace dividends" after 1989 and the end of Cold War.
It took until 2000, antiquated Crusaders, castrated Rafale F1s, broken propellers and too short a deck for E-2s - but at least the Navy pulled out CdG and it had worked fine since then ...and despite what populists (we have three of them this time: Ciotti and Zemmour and the usual Le Pen, geez) say, 1973-1998 France was in poorer economic shape that nowadays.

The real risk is elsewhere: that the rest of the surface fleet ends trapped between
a) Force de frappe / boomers + attack subs, all three hideous expensive
(the Navy has suffered from the cost burden since the 1960's)
b) the carrier: same story.

Wait, that sounds familiar... the RN has two carriers and nuke subs for deterrent... but the rest of the fleet has greatly suffered, and still suffers, from their cost.

And surely enough, same trend at work for French frigates: not enough FREMM, not enough Horizon, Lafayettes getting old, and patrollers for overseas territories... very antiquated.

Plus the three Mistrals are lucky the CdG did not get a brother, otherwise I can't see where the money would have came from.

Their forerunners the Foudre-class were dumped to foreign navies although they still had plenty of potential.

There is a very risk the escort and surface fleet suffers terribly from the carrier expense.
 
Last edited:
I have my doubts steam + conventional arresting gear would be any cheaper than the planned EM + AAG combo. Given the target 2038 date, acquiring either would mean either refurbishing a half-century set from a decommissioned Nimitz, or else a custom, boutique order given the US hasn't made any of either for over ten years and sure as hell isn't going to be making any for themselves between now and 2038.

And custom boutique orders have a tendency to balloon in cost very quickly. Notably, Prince of Wales' conversion would've cost 2 billion pounds, with the obvious caveat of this being a refit job to a ship not designed for them. I'm not surprised the French are going with the in-production option and crossing their fingers for some economy of scale savings.

Now, the combat system, yes, that's a place where the French are reaching and paying more than they need to. Porting over the FDI system is a no-brainer, it's what the US was and is doing with the Fords, with an unfortunate hiccup when the Zumwalts were cancelled and rendered Ford's system an orphan.
 
Back
Top Bottom