PA NG - next gen French Aircraft carrier program

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.
 
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.

FS Charles de Gaulle R-91 aircraft carrier French Navy Marine Nationale

r-91 fs charles de gaulle aircraft carrier french navy marine nationale dcns porte avions
www.seaforces.org

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.

FS Charles de Gaulle R-91 aircraft carrier French Navy Marine Nationale

r-91 fs charles de gaulle aircraft carrier french navy marine nationale dcns porte avions
www.seaforces.org

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.
 
Last edited:
helmutkohl said:
I wish they continued using historical names, like Vauban
or a place name like Marseille, Nice or Brest

www.navalnews.com

France's Next-Generation Aircraft Carrier Officially Named 'France Libre' - Naval News

French President Emmanuel Macron unveiled the official name of France's next-generation nuclear-powered aircraft carrier: France Libre
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
Click to expand...
It just barely manages to edge out US Politicians as far as carrier names goes (though even most of those don't have the indignity of being named after a man who wanted to kill the USN).

Hopefully there's enough backlash to rename it.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom