PA NG - next gen French Aircraft carrier program

Archibald said:
Budget cuts, "peace dividends". In his heydays De Gaulle insisted the defense budget shall be 3% of the GNP. This gradually shrunk to 2%, post Cold War. Yet before the 2015-2016 terror attacks that killed 273 people, President Hollande 2013 defense review would have shrunk the defense budget to merely 1%.
Since then it has been gradually augmented, presently hanging around 2% or a bit more. From memory, objective is 2.5%.

France independently produce world-class military systems but afterwards, procurement is only in peanut numbers. Think of the CAESAR guns when Ukraine asked more. Same for Rafale, for frigates... France military budgets are very tight.

30 years ago at the end of the Cold War, the AdA insisted on a non-negociable number of combat jets : 450. Since then the fleet, Aéronavale included, has been cut to 225 : Rafale final objective. Except that objective has recently been pushed to 2035.
Click to expand...
France has always had an export oriented military industrial base. Domestic procurement numbers for various Mirage variants always seem unimpressive in comparison to long term export sales. However, the core of the French military seems better funded and more operable than what you’d see across the English Channel. The RAF was getting half the annual flight hours on their Typhoons than the AdA were getting on their Rafales. Similarly, French SSNs get more sea days than any other SSNs in the entire world. Compare that to the RN’s Astute class.
 
TinWing said:
However, the core of the French military seems better funded and more operable than what you’d see across the English Channel. The RAF was getting half the annual flight hours on their Typhoons than the AdA were getting on their Rafales. Similarly, French SSNs get more sea days than any other SSNs in the entire world. Compare that to the RN’s Astute class.
Click to expand...

French SSN's have briefly got more sea days, due to the RN and USN's recent travails around maintenance. But it certainly hasn't been the case for many years before that. French SSN patrols were never that long...and never strayed too far from home. They hardly ever went north to play with the big boys...the Rubis Class just weren't up to it.

But....there is an element of 'all fur coat and no knickers' to the French Military....their munition stockpiles for example are pitiful across the board. You only have to look at purchases of complex weapons to see that (compare the French SCALP EG order to the UK's Storm Shadow order, F21 torpedo stockpile compared to Spearfish, AdA Meteor purchase to RAF, remember the RAF also has Amraam on top of that as well....and on and on...).
 
Please, try to avoid off-topic. This is the PA NG thread.

Thanks
 
Moderation

Please start a thread about cruisers if you want to discuss about it. Next off-topic post will be deleted.
 
Hello people!
I'm new and don't know much about carriers and planes but I'm very curious :)
I know the design isn't final yet but does anyone know why the stern of the carrier is designed like that? I haven't seen carriers with sterns like that before.
screen 1.png

Also, why aren't they using this deck space like the newer carriers do? (circled in red)
Wouldn't that reduce the aircraft capacity?
screen 2.png
Sorry if these questions have already been answered in the thread.
 
Kurapika444 said:
Hello people!
I'm new and don't know much about carriers and planes but I'm very curious :)
I know the design isn't final yet but does anyone know why the stern of the carrier is designed like that? I haven't seen carriers with sterns like that before.
View attachment 745131
Click to expand...
Stretches the waterline, which reduces how much power it takes to go a given speed.



Kurapika444 said:
Also, why aren't they using this deck space like the newer carriers do? (circled in red)

Wouldn't that reduce the aircraft capacity?
View attachment 745133
Sorry if these questions have already been answered in the thread.
Click to expand...
It does, but even the Ford-class has a notch there. That's kinda a dead spot in terms of what you can do with it. If you build the deck out, all you can do is use it as parking for the waist catapult, which gets in the way of landing operations. The Ford-class basically uses it as a spot to put the port-side elevator. Without an elevator there, putting planes there blocks the landing pattern while the planes are in motion.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Stretches the waterline, which reduces how much power it takes to go a given speed.
Click to expand...
Ah thanks. It kind of makes it look like a big yacht haha
Any idea as to why other carriers aren't using the same trick? Could that indicate that the K22 reactors are somehow a bit underpowered?
It would be a shame if they didn't learn any lessons from the K15.

Scott Kenny said:
It does, but even the Ford-class has a notch there.
Click to expand...
Yeah the Ford and Fujian do have a notch but it seemed less dramatic than the PANG one.
The Queen Elizabeth has a square-ish deck with no notch though. Is that beacause the flight deck isn't angled and so it is less bothersome for the landing planes if you park planes there?

Personally, I think France will never have the budget to build a second one unless they find oil in the 2030s (although it seems they've commissionned a feasibility study for the end of this decade).
Hopefully they somehow manage to come up with 2 smaller and cheaper carriers to replace this 2nd PANG. That would offer them more flexibility. Maybe the replacement of their Mistral class can come with a carrier version for STOL planes (not amphibious, ski jump, bigger hangar than the LHD version) ?
 
It is more similar in layout to the Forrestal and Kitty Hawk classes
.
 
It seems that they've updated the visuals of the carrier yet again with changes all around it.
The article has more pics.
www-meretmarine-com.translate.goog

PA-NG : les nouveaux visuels du futur porte-avions français | Mer et Marine

Alors que les études d’avant-projet détaillé se poursuivent en vue d’une commande du bâtiment fin 2025, le design du porte-avions français de nouvel...
www-meretmarine-com.translate.goog www-meretmarine-com.translate.goog
It's less curvy and more realistic looking.

New / old
1730737301206.png 1730737398204.png
It still unofficially shows 3 EMALS.
Can anyone tell what changes have been done to the island?
Also, interestingly enough, they aren't showing the 6th gen fighter anymore on the deck.
 
Very interesting thanks for sharing. CdG being granted another decade would be pretty interesting, but the article makes clear about the many issues it would trigger.
I agree with you there is no way France can afford two carriers again, even more two such beasts. CdG sistership went nowhere, CVF went nowhere.
Going back further in time, seems even PA 55 Foch, coming after PA54 Clemenceau, was only saved through some smart accountancy trick by the French Navy, circa 1956 (I'll try to find back where I red that, suffice to say it was a close call). What is sure is that the third one, PA59, was strangled in the craddle.

Besides that, I often found SCAF to be severely overweight for any carrier - until I just realized EMALS could handle the weight much better than plain old steam catapults. 35 mt instead of a Rafale-M 25 mt ?
 
Archibald said:
Very interesting thanks for sharing. CdG being granted another decade would be pretty interesting, but the article makes clear about the many issues it would trigger.
I agree with you there is no way France can afford two carriers again, even more two such beasts. CdG sistership went nowhere, CVF went nowhere.
Going back further in time, seems even PA 55 Foch, coming after PA54 Clemenceau, was only saved through some smart accountancy trick by the French Navy, circa 1956 (I'll try to find back where I red that, suffice to say it was a close call). What is sure is that the third one, PA59, was strangled in the craddle.

Besides that, I often found SCAF to be severely overweight for any carrier - until I just realized EMALS could handle the weight much better than plain old steam catapults. 35 mt instead of a Rafale-M 25 mt ?
Click to expand...
Yeah EMALS is a beast compared to the small steam catapult of CdG
 
Archibald said:
Very interesting thanks for sharing. CdG being granted another decade would be pretty interesting, but the article makes clear about the many issues it would trigger.
I agree with you there is no way France can afford two carriers again, even more two such beasts. CdG sistership went nowhere, CVF went nowhere.
Going back further in time, seems even PA 55 Foch, coming after PA54 Clemenceau, was only saved through some smart accountancy trick by the French Navy, circa 1956 (I'll try to find back where I red that, suffice to say it was a close call). What is sure is that the third one, PA59, was strangled in the craddle.

Besides that, I often found SCAF to be severely overweight for any carrier - until I just realized EMALS could handle the weight much better than plain old steam catapults. 35 mt instead of a Rafale-M 25 mt ?
Click to expand...
I genuinely think that outside of the US, China and India, no country realistically has the budget and people to operate 2 fully loaded carriers anymore.
Didn't the British have to sell their HMS Ocean and retire their 2 Albion class assault ships (both were under 20 years old) to spare the crew and budget to operate a 2nd carrier? France would never get rid of their LHDs as they need them for operations in Africa and Middle East.
Getting a 2nd carrier is nice but if it comes at the expense of the other components of your navy, it's not that smart.

At the end of the day, getting a 2nd PANG will come down to how well the french economy is doing in the next decade.
I think the CVF would've definitely been built if it wasn't for the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression.

SCAF is going to be chunky yeah, I wonder if all 6th gen fighters are gonna be like that. But the EMALS can definitely accomodate that weight. They're longer than the CdG too (105m vs 75m).
 
The article says
Significantly longer (105 meters instead of 75) and more powerful than the two C13-3 type steam catapults (already of American origin) with which the Charles de Gaulle is equipped, the EMALS will make it possible to launch much heavier aircraft (more than 35 tons compared to 25)
Click to expand...

Didn't the British have to sell their HMS Ocean and retire their 2 Albion class assault ships (both were under 20 years old) to spare the crew and budget to operate a 2nd carrier?
Click to expand...

Yep, Ocean went to Brazil and the Albions, to "extended reserve". France did hardly better with the Foudre class. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foudre-class_landing_platform_dock
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I'm sure French and the USN had been talking for quite a long time and glad to see the French developing a new carrier, good for France. Plus PA-NG will benefit from many decades of US carrier evolution plus the French Navy will of course put their experience and tech into the design as well, France also is very good with reactor technology, they do have a leg up on us (the US) involving civilian reactors. Theoretically, USN carriers could be 100 year ships, with upgrades, scheduled overhauls, has potential. CVN-65 my old ship, 52 years of service and was still viable for another at least 20 years, Nimitz class even more viable.

Hopefully, the next class of USN carriers may use advanced magnetohydrodynamic, radioactive hemp slurry propulsion with wind-driven turboencabulating regurgitation for secondary backup, wow!
 
Archibald said:
France did hardly better with the Foudre class. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foudre-class_landing_platform_dock
Click to expand...

France had intended to build 4 Foudres (11,880 tonnes full load)... but thought better of the idea.

Instead, the last two (intended to replace the 2 Ouragans [8,500 tonnes full load]) were ordered as full LHDs of 21,500 tonnes full load (Mistral & Tonnerre).

Then a 3rd LHD was built (Dixmude)... so the French replaced 4 LPDs totaling 40,760 tonnes full load with 3 LHDs totaling 64,500 tonnes full load - a 58% increase in tonnage and a significant increase in capability.
 
BlackBat242 said:
France had intended to build 4 Foudres (11,880 tonnes full load)... but thought better of the idea.

Instead, the last two (intended to replace the 2 Ouragans [8,500 tonnes full load]) were ordered as full LHDs of 21,500 tonnes full load (Mistral & Tonnerre).

Then a 3rd LHD was built (Dixmude)... so the French replaced 4 LPDs totaling 40,760 tonnes full load with 3 LHDs totaling 64,500 tonnes full load - a 58% increase in tonnage and a significant increase in capability.
Click to expand...
Yeah getting rid of those Foudre class wasn't so bad as the Mistrals are vastly superior.

It will really be interesting to see how they'll tackle the 2nd carrier problem over the next decade.
 
Kurapika444 said:
It seems that they've updated the visuals of the carrier yet again with changes all around it.
The article has more pics.
www-meretmarine-com.translate.goog

PA-NG : les nouveaux visuels du futur porte-avions français | Mer et Marine

Alors que les études d’avant-projet détaillé se poursuivent en vue d’une commande du bâtiment fin 2025, le design du porte-avions français de nouvel...
www-meretmarine-com.translate.goog www-meretmarine-com.translate.goog
It's less curvy and more realistic looking.

New / old
View attachment 746735View attachment 746737
It still unofficially shows 3 EMALS.
Can anyone tell what changes have been done to the island?
Also, interestingly enough, they aren't showing the 6th gen fighter anymore on the deck.
Click to expand...
starboard deck in front of island is full of SCAF... so, not so interesting comment.
 
Manuducati said:
The picture with SCAF is the old one. The new one, on top (as stated), only has Rafale (and a partially erased row of Hornets, remnant of the US carrier that was photoshopped I'd say).
Click to expand...
Yep
I truly hope this doesn't mean that they plan on SCAF not being ready on time.
 
kqcke for you said:
Well duh FCAS is supposed to be in service by 2040 or later so atleast 2 years after PANG. PANG will sail with Rafale for probaly 5 years or more
Click to expand...
That we know, but that 2 year gap might actually be longer...
Rafale will look quite old in 2040 compared to the newer 5th gen fighters that will be coming out. Although they will keep updating it.
 
kqcke for you said:
Same as F-15 today and its doable
Click to expand...
Hardly if you haven't any stealth component among your fighters.

Regarding the extra length catapult, I wonder if that doesn't result from a trade study regarding a/c maintenance and service life. Longer means a slower acceleration and less strain on the airframe.

Nevertheless, it´s undeniably a beautiful boat. I just wonder why the port catapult is so encroached on the edge of the deck.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom