• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

PA NG - next gen French Aircraft carrier program

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
501
Surprised it's only got 3 cats.

Some of the drawings and the big model show only two. Four wouldn't fit, given that this ship has around half the deck area of a Ford.
Four fit on the smaller Forrestals.
OK, four possibly could fit, technically. PA NG has a similar flight deck area as Forrestal, though Forrestal herself had smaller cats compared to the likely C-13 equivalents on the new French ship. But would they be usable with an effective deck park?

Looking at the renders with aircraft on deck, there really isn't room to effectively use more than two or possibly three cats. Maybe two on the bow (in case one goes down) plus one in the waist for sequential launches. But the number of cats isn't going to be a huge limiting factor with a fixed-wing airwing of <36 aircraft (30 SCAF plus 3 E-2C).
What are the EMALS power requirements for four?
 

PMN1

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
793
Reaction score
231
Looking at these two shot really highlights that they have (at least) two different designs in play right now. Different arrangements on the flgiht deck (2 vs 3 cats, for starters, plus different cuts in the port quarter of the flight deck). And the arrangement of defensive armament is really different.

The stern quarter shot also shows why aircraft carrier designers are really uncomfortable with VLS. Look at the VLS nest right near the stern of the ship. It has an aircraft parked with its tail hanging over the edge of the deck directly above the VLS. I'd give even money on one of those missiles or bits from the canister cover hitting that aircraft when launched.

Also interesting to see Millennium 35mm mounts for close-in defense. I suspect it's just that the designer didn't have a 3d object for the new RAPIDFire 40mm CTA mount that seems to be the new standard for the MN.

Wonder what the two yellow semi circles are for, one is next to the VLS and the other is forward - could they be 'don't really want to park here'.....

There are also two small hatches leading to a small platform in the stern??
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
1,747
Wonder what the two yellow semi circles are for, one is next to the VLS and the other is forward - could they be 'don't really want to park here'.....

There are also two small hatches leading to a small platform in the stern??

Looks like two separate VLS nests on the port side. Yes, I assume those are keep-out zones. Similar to the painted lines paralleling the cat tracks, which probably show the keep-out for launching fighters (the white dashed lines) and E-2s (the yellow dashed lines).

And yet, they've parked an aircraft right in the middle of one. Granted, artist's conceptions do not always match operational reality. Still, if enforced all the time, those circles would cost a couple of deck spots.
 
Last edited:

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
231
Is that cut out on the waterline of the stern for the French Navy's water skiing team?
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
1,747
What are the EMALS power requirements for four?

The only solid number I've seen is that the average power draw for a single EMALS is 6.35 MVA. That should work out to something less than that in MW. So worst case maybe 24 MWe for four EMALS?

What fraction of the ship's total power that amounts to is really hard to estimate. We know that the target for the K22 reactor is 220 MWth (thermal), but how much of that comes out as MWe versus being sent straight to the shafts as propulsion power is anyone's guess. For comparison, the Nimitz A4W output is reported to be around 550 MWth, and the Internet guesses that the A1B in the Ford might be as much as 25% more (almost 700 MWth).

I've seen some discussions of PA NG actually having a combined nuclear-diesel plant (CONAD?), but that doesn't seem to be reflected in the data presented yesterday.
 

H_K

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
168
Reaction score
320
What fraction of the ship's total power that amounts to is really hard to estimate. We know that the target for the K22 reactor is 220 MWth (thermal), but how much of that comes out as MWe versus being sent straight to the shafts as propulsion power is anyone's guess.

Here’s my rough estimate of power requirements:

CdG: 300 MWth (2x 150)
—> 70-75 MW output, ie. ~25% efficiency
(61 MW propulsion power + up to 16 MWe generation + steam for the catapults)

PANG: 440 MWth (2x 220)
—> ~110 MWe output
(assuming similar ~25% efficiency)

This is similar to CVF. Propulsion will likely be ~75MWe (assuming 3x 25MWe Alstom motors... I’m not sure if they can go bigger). Hotel load ~10 MWe estimated. That leaves ~20-25MWe for the 2 EMALs catapults... should be enough.
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
95
Reaction score
69
What fraction of the ship's total power that amounts to is really hard to estimate. We know that the target for the K22 reactor is 220 MWth (thermal), but how much of that comes out as MWe versus being sent straight to the shafts as propulsion power is anyone's guess.

Here’s my rough estimate of power requirements:

CdG: 300 MWth (2x 150)
—> 70-75 MW output, ie. ~25% efficiency
(61 MW propulsion power + up to 16 MWe generation + steam for the catapults)

PANG: 440 MWth (2x 220)
—> ~110 MWe output
(assuming similar ~25% efficiency)

This is similar to CVF. Propulsion will likely be ~75MWe (assuming 3x 25MWe Alstom motors... I’m not sure if they can go bigger). Hotel load ~10 MWe estimated. That leaves ~20-25MWe for the 2 EMALs catapults... should be enough.

My understanding Thermal MW refers to thermal power produced by the nuclear plant, Electrical MW refers to the electric power produced by its generators, assuming ~ 3.6 MW thermal equals 1 MW electrical, based on A1B Ford figures from Wikipedia?

Assuming PANG is an all electric ship with its two nuclear K22 reactors, 2x 220 MW thermal, revised estimate approx 120 MW electrical output from its generators, 80 MW for propulsion (same as the QNLZ twin shaft, each with tandem 20 MW electric motors). If figures correct the balance of ~40 MW available for EMALS, ship systems, sensors, hotel load etc.

Alternatively it might use similar system to Ford, the steam turbines providing ~260 MW mechanical propulsion power to the four propeller shafts and four main turbine generators, MTGs, providing ~125 MW electric power, both powered by its two A1B nuclear reactors, 2x ~700 MW thermal.

Not sure if Wikipedia A1B figures are accurate, if they are reflecting on 260 MW for propulsion compared to 80 MW for PANG, might be partially explained by by one third larger displacement and the rule of thumb that for every 4 knot increase in speed you need to double the power, do expect Ford max speed will be faster than PANG by 4 knots if not more.
 

Thorvic

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
639
Reaction score
108
What are the EMALS power requirements for four?

The only solid number I've seen is that the average power draw for a single EMALS is 6.35 MVA. That should work out to something less than that in MW. So worst case maybe 24 MWe for four EMALS?

What fraction of the ship's total power that amounts to is really hard to estimate. We know that the target for the K22 reactor is 220 MWth (thermal), but how much of that comes out as MWe versus being sent straight to the shafts as propulsion power is anyone's guess. For comparison, the Nimitz A4W output is reported to be around 550 MWth, and the Internet guesses that the A1B in the Ford might be as much as 25% more (almost 700 MWth).

I've seen some discussions of PA NG actually having a combined nuclear-diesel plant (CONAD?), but that doesn't seem to be reflected in the data presented yesterday.

They will probably have secondary diesel engines no doubt to generate power as a back up but not really envisioned as part f the propulsion system
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,095
Reaction score
1,800
As with the UK carriers I am not sure whether a one or two ship carrier fleet is value for money compared with other options. I know there are strong arguments for the flexibility of carrier airpower but as unmanned aircraft have grown in range and capability, to give one example, a single carrier becomes too little to use and too much to lose.
It is perhaps unfair to compare a modern carrier and its task group with the ARA General Belgrano. But an SSN has only to disable a carrier for its air group to be inoperable.
That said, France like China attaches great symbolism to its military forces. Sending an aircraft carrier somewhere has great clout, as long as it does not go in harm's way. Even the US Navy has observed caution about this.
 

H_K

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
168
Reaction score
320
a single carrier becomes too little to use and too much to lose.

an SSN has only to disable a carrier for its air group to be inoperable.

Luckily there are very few SSNs out there and those that exist would entail a very hot war against Russia or China... one where even one carrier would be an extremely valuable asset within an allied order of battle. (Eg. If the USN deploys 3-4 carriers then having 1 RN + 1 MN would offer a substantial increase in firepower).

In all other situations a carrier is an extremely hard target and is certainly not “too little to use” given that it can almost single-handedly win a conflict against a regional power... which is why carriers continue to offer so much value as a conventional deterrent.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,095
Reaction score
1,800
Lego is famous for not making any military sets of toy blocks, but others have.
If you feel like designing your own French aircraft carrier this toy Charles De Gaulle by the Spanish firm TENTE is just the thing. No longer made but often found on Ebay.
 

Attachments

  • 38093761.jpg
    38093761.jpg
    43.6 KB · Views: 135

timmymagic

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
52
Reaction score
79
I suspect anyone thinking the French are going to get 2 carriers of this type needs to have a look at the OSD of the Triomphant Class SSBN's....to be honest looking at the timelines you have to wonder if a single ship will actually get built. Even the USN budget is getting seriously distorted by the costs of the Colombia Class.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,095
Reaction score
1,800
The UK cycle is relevant here.
Polaris from 1962 to 1968 pretty much kills off any resources for the carrier programme (despite Mountbatten's gutting of the RAF).
The three Invincibles are ordered in the 70s but when Trident is ordered under the 1979 Thatcher government the carriers are again hit.
The 1997 decision to order CVF comes after Trident is procured and before Successor/Dreadnought, but the programme still hollows out the RN.
France has to find reductions in other forces to finance its carriers and deterrent.
This can be seen in the types of equipment bought for the rest of its forces.
 

phil gollin

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
222
Reaction score
19
..... The conical arrangement on the island reminds me of the original structure on the Enterprises island - as a kid I thought that was to do with the reactor.

It reminds me (a very little bit) of the top of Big Ben (!)

I think they should make a mini replica of the Eiffel Tower.

.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
13,979
Reaction score
3,813

PARIS – Naval Group and the Chantiers de l’Atlantique have formed the joint venture MO Porte Avions to manage France’s new generation aircraft carrier program.

Pierre-Eric Pommellet told journalists during a videoconference on Tuesday that the joint venture (JV) was held two-thirds by Naval Group and one-third by Chantiers de l’Atlantique. “The program director will be somebody from Naval Group and the technical director somebody from our partner,“ the Naval Group CEO said.

Pommellet said the idea was to maximize the synergies and capitalize on the strengths of each company. Naval Group has responsibility for the overall architecture of the ship and the transverse systems. It will integrate the combat system, the navigation and aviation-related systems, the catapults and arrestor gear; it will supply the sub-systems of the nuclear boiler-room and integrate the boilers into the ship.

Chantiers de l’Atlantique, for its part, will be responsible for the design and construction of the platform itself, notably the structure, the electric propulsion, the living quarters, the steering system and overall activities such as the hydrodynamics.

The JV’s relationship with sub-contractor TechnicAtome, responsible for the nuclear-powered engine, is being finalized.

Pommellet added that the JV "will end when the aircraft carrier has been delivered.“ It will first be based in Lorient, Brittany, at the Naval Group shipyard during the design phase and then move to Saint-Nazaire where Chantiers de l’Atlantique have their shipyard and where the ship will be built.

The JV was signed in Lorient on March 29 by Pommellet and Laurent Castaing, the director-general of Chantiers de l’Atlantique in the presence of Minister for the Armed Forces Florence Parly. She had come not only to announce the notification of the preliminary outline study contract of the aircraft carrier and inaugurate its design office but also to notify Naval Group of the order for two FDI frigates.

The two 4,200 tonne (4,630 tons), 121m (397 ft) long, multi-mission frigates, the second and third in a series of five, will both be delivered in 2025. This is an acceleration of the program as the original plan was to deliver one ship every 18 months with the first FDI scheduled for delivery in 2024.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,125
Reaction score
3,000
..... The conical arrangement on the island reminds me of the original structure on the Enterprises island - as a kid I thought that was to do with the reactor.

It reminds me (a very little bit) of the top of Big Ben (!)

I think they should make a mini replica of the Eiffel Tower.

.

Look at it this way... the British are the illogical ones. Not the French.
Indeed - we name a railway station AUSTERLITZ according to a military VICTORY.
The British however call a London square TRAFALGAR - a military DEFEAT.

Either they are not logical or just masochistic - pick your choice...
 

Anderman

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
173
Reaction score
21
..... The conical arrangement on the island reminds me of the original structure on the Enterprises island - as a kid I thought that was to do with the reactor.

It reminds me (a very little bit) of the top of Big Ben (!)

I think they should make a mini replica of the Eiffel Tower.

.

Look at it this way... the British are the illogical ones. Not the French.
Indeed - we name a railway station AUSTERLITZ according to a military VICTORY.
The British however call a London square TRAFALGAR - a military DEFEAT.

Either they are not logical or just masochistic - pick your choice...

Trafalgar a militrary defeat for the british ????
 

H_K

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
168
Reaction score
320
Presentation from the French carrier program office last week:

"The loss of Western naval superiority requires us to refocus the carrier group on air-sea battle in order to maintain the freedom of action necessary in forced entry operations. An aircraft carrier for naval superiority is, above all, a platform capable of generating long-range, heavily armed sorties, at a sustained tempo over long periods of time."

30 fighter aircraft
3 AEW
5-6 helicopters
60 sorties per day

27 knots
All electric propulsion (3x shafts)
10 years between nuclear refuelings
65%+ operational availability

2,000 crew in 1- to 8- man rooms (They explicitly state that CVF-style manpower reductions have not been retained due to the potential risk of excessive automation on the ability to sustain high tempo operations).

Sea trials in 2036. Entry-in-service in 2038.
 

Attachments

  • 2021-04-09-12_10_45-point-presse-du-ministere-des-armees-du-jeudi-8-avril-2021-youtube.png
    2021-04-09-12_10_45-point-presse-du-ministere-des-armees-du-jeudi-8-avril-2021-youtube.png
    495.9 KB · Views: 81
  • 2021-04-09-12_11_13-point-presse-du-ministere-des-armees-du-jeudi-8-avril-2021-youtube.png
    2021-04-09-12_11_13-point-presse-du-ministere-des-armees-du-jeudi-8-avril-2021-youtube.png
    328.8 KB · Views: 81
  • 2021-04-09-12_12_09-window.png
    2021-04-09-12_12_09-window.png
    524.8 KB · Views: 76
  • 2021-04-09-12_12_27-window.png
    2021-04-09-12_12_27-window.png
    261.2 KB · Views: 75
  • 2021-04-09-12_11_51-point-presse-du-ministere-des-armees-du-jeudi-8-avril-2021-youtube.png
    2021-04-09-12_11_51-point-presse-du-ministere-des-armees-du-jeudi-8-avril-2021-youtube.png
    277.6 KB · Views: 65
  • 2021-04-09-12_12_44-window.png
    2021-04-09-12_12_44-window.png
    256.1 KB · Views: 55
  • 2021-04-09-12_12_59-window.png
    2021-04-09-12_12_59-window.png
    212.8 KB · Views: 52
  • 2021-04-09-12_13_13-window.png
    2021-04-09-12_13_13-window.png
    218.1 KB · Views: 56
Last edited:

H_K

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
168
Reaction score
320
Taking some of the images published to date, here are a couple of notional flight deck loads.

- The first picture is official, showing a 25-aircraft Alpha strike.
- The middle images is a personal (unofficial) rendering of a deck load for sustained cyclic operations (14-16 aircraft per launch with minimum respotting).
- The bottom image is a personal (unofficial) rendering of the recovery of a 25-aircraft Alpha strike.

Note the huge size of the futur NGF fighter (19.5m x 13.5m), which is the same size as an A-5 Vigilante!

PANG-v2.png
 
Last edited:

Ogami musashi

ACCESS: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2006
Messages
311
Reaction score
15
Note the huge size of the futur NGF fighter (19.5m x 13.5m), which is the same size as an A-5 Vigilante!

? 19.5 x 13.5 is roughly a super hornet/tomcat. The vigilante was 23.5m long/16.6m wide. Or did I miss something?
 

dan_inbox

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
870
Reaction score
418
Presentation from the French carrier program office last week:
Slide 12-12-09 says "ammunition for one week of high-intensity operations."
This seems awfully short. Even Gaddafool's Libya lasted longer than that. Just thinking of possible uses like, say, NK, Yemen, Iran, Turkey (not trying to start a political flame, just examples), any of them would last a lot more than a week.

What was the capability of WW2 carriers in the Pacific, and is that of a US CVN today?
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
1,747
Presentation from the French carrier program office last week:
Slide 12-12-09 says "ammunition for one week of high-intensity operations."
This seems awfully short. Even Gaddafool's Libya lasted longer than that. Just thinking of possible uses like, say, NK, Yemen, Iran, Turkey (not trying to start a political flame, just examples), any of them would last a lot more than a week.

What was the capability of WW2 carriers in the Pacific, and is that of a US CVN today?

Libya was not really high-intensity operations.

In the late 1990s, Nimitz had a highly publicized high-intensity surge exercise -- 1300+ weapons dropped in about 700 bomb-dropping sorties over 4 days. The exercise assessment was that she could have sustained maybe one more day before needing to replenish fuel and air ordnance (and more importantly, to rest the flight deck crews). That was pretty much a maximum effort -- very short range sorties to maximize sortie generation, with an average of roughly 2 weapons per strike sortie (not counting jamming, tanking, escort, etc.)

PANG sustaining a full week of high-intensity ops looks pretty good -- I'd expect the crews to wear out before they emptied the magazines.
 

H_K

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
168
Reaction score
320
What was the capability of WW2 carriers in the Pacific
About 750 strike sorties for an Essex class and 1,000 strike sorties for a Midway class carrier (per the ordnance tables in Friedman’s US Aircraft Carriers). That translates to roughly 7 days of sustained operations at 2 sorties per day per strike aircraft.

So a week of sustained ops has always been the maximum and this hasn’t changed in 65 years. And as TomS points out, the crew would need a break at that point anyway.
 
Top