France has formally decided to proceed with the construction of a next-generation nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.
President Emmanuel Macron confirmed the decision over the weekend, telling French troops that approval for the programme had been taken this week. The announcement, reported by Reuters on Sunday, clears the way for France to move from long-running design work into the execution phase of the project, known as the Porte-Avions de Nouvelle Génération (PA-NG).
The new carrier is intended to replace the Charles de Gaulle, France’s sole aircraft carrier, which entered service in 2001 and is expected to retire in the late 2030s. At around 78,000 tonnes, the PA-NG will be substantially larger than its predecessor and, once built, would become the largest warship ever constructed in Europe.
French defence officials have previously indicated that the carrier will be equipped with three electromagnetic aircraft launch systems and three advanced arresting gear systems, supplied by US firm General Atomics under a contract worth $41.6 million. These systems, already in use on the US Navy’s Gerald R. Ford-class carriers, will allow the French Navy to operate a broader mix of aircraft, including heavier future fighters as well as lighter uncrewed systems.
The carrier is expected to embark more than 40 aircraft, including Rafale M fighters, E-2D Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft, helicopters and drones. Over time, it is also intended to support France’s future next-generation combat aircraft being developed under the Future Combat Air System programme.
Design work points to a significantly enlarged flight deck of around 17,000 square metres, providing greater sortie generation rates and operational flexibility than the Charles de Gaulle. Propulsion will be provided by two new K22 nuclear reactors, each generating roughly 220 megawatts of electrical power to support all-electric ship systems as well as the demands of electromagnetic launch equipment.
While Macron’s confirmation signals political commitment, major milestones remain ahead. Defence industry reporting from France earlier this year suggested the formal construction order was expected before the end of 2025, with physical build work likely to begin in the early 2030s. Full operational capability is currently targeted for around 2038.
Image via Rama, CC3.
I can’t see them ordering just one. Shame they didn’t go with PA2. Also, I love that image rusted the ship up. lol
I meant “I can see them ordering just one”
I believe it is only one.
There was talks in a French article, but not at 10 billion a hull.
“There can be only one”🗡️
Will.it have plansa on it??? Ohhh.
Won’t Rafale M be a bit ing in the tooth then? But I think it would dit the next gen of French fighter on it. Must be an expensive aircraft though for a small construction run even though modified from the Armee del L Air design
The Future European combat aircraft has hit a snag. France will have to go it alone. I can see the Germans joining Tempest/ GCAP alongside UK, Italy, Japan
Saudi Arabia are likely customers of Tempest as are many European NATO states.
The Franco-Germsnic programme is in well documented deep trouble as the French tried to push for sole production, intellectual property rights on joint developed tech and for a whole host of other fine details that would have cost the Germans and only lead to French industrial and jobs growth.
lol what a bunch of nonesense
France and Germany had an agreement – Dassault was lead on next gen fighter and Airbus DS Germany lead on combat cloud as well as wingman drones. since the start it has been a case of 1 step forward 2 steps back all done by Germany. There were 4 red lines for France from start (similar as the ones for Rafale) need a nuke capacity, a naval version, no blocks to exports and no purchase of F35. All this was accepted by Merkel, and now all this subject to renegociations.
France never pushed for sole production – complete lie, that is not even a claim made by Germany
France never requested control of IP, esp for jointly developped tech – complete lie. Dassault doesn’t need any IP from Airbus DS in Germany. /roll eyes
in fact it is the contrary, Airbus DS in Mancing Germany wanted access to all of Dassault IP, including unrelated Ratale, Dassault said NO categorically. Dassault knows fighter development, avionics, flight controls etc… Airbus DS has no competence in that and has nothing to share, since it didn’t develop those on Typhoon or Tornado. Even Airbus civilian airliner flight controls are done By Airbus France in Toulouse.
This request by Airbus DS to get Dassault IP a couple of years ago is where all this started. By adding Spain to the project, Airbus Germany thought it could now control 66% of the whole program and be the decider on all ‘project pillars’, except Dassault never backed down, and Spain is more interested in pushing Indra than Airbus Spain.
Germany justs wants to syphon french IP on flight controls, engines etc… France has all the required expertise, experience, and now funds since military budgets are back on the increase since 2020, and the increase is going to grow even more to meet Nato 5% requirements.
Furthermore in initial discussions with Saab, Germany has been trying to do the same, to which Saab CEO responded we are williong to cooperate but forget Germany putting its paws on Saab’s IP re flight controls etc..
.Personally I can’t wait to see this program to be officially terminated, so that France can do it solo, as it did with Rafale.
Are French finances going to allow then to go it alone on a peer project?
They’re in even worse shape than the British, and definitely worse off than the Japanese, coffers, and those two nations are having to band together.
Ignore the Japanese lol.
yes I am sure. debt is BS argument
FYi – IMF 2025 debt figures:
Japan 235%,
Italy 137%,
US 123%,
France 116%,
UK 104%
Funny that France can’t afford one carrier or a gen 6 aircraft, but everyone else can.
ie US can afford 2 Gen 6 programs and 11 carriers, UK, Iraly, Japan can afford GCAP as well as F35 fleets and operate 2 carriers, (Italy even a 3rd nuke powered cat carrier)
and ofc Korea can afford KF21, 2 carriers planned and F35 fleet
ofc Turkey can afford a carrier and a Kaan
etc.. etc..
but anglo saxons assure everyone France cannot do it
I tell you now, PANG is happening (no ifs ands or buts) and french gen6 solo will happen (stay tuned for announcement – latest afetr 2028 election), in fact I am feeling more confident a 2nd PANG will happen having followed these debates in french parliament
*2027 french election
I wasn’t actually going for the debt argument, mainly because as you point out, it’s pretty meaningless.
I was moreso commenting on the fact that comparable nations – for example, the UK, are going for collaborative programmes, or are stripping back their ideas, as various budget pressures squeeze available funding in many different directions. My question focuses more on why the French believe they can produce a peer capability given they ostensibly spend less overall on their military than the Brits, whilst the Brits are pursuing a collaborative route. Essentially, what does France have that makes it different in this regard? Why can it afford a solo sixth-gen effort (the carrier seems plausible, so I’m not asking about that)?
You compare to the USA – the USA operates on different orders or magnitude, with spending looking to cross into the trillions. By all rights, they shoulding be looking to run multiple next-gen fighters, alongside a host of other programmes. Yet, for budget issues, they’re reducing one of those programmes to little more than a skeleton, and pushing ahead with just a single initiative.
You compare to the UK, Italy and Japan, without acknowledging that each of these nations are collaborating on a peer level programme, primarily because it was seen as too expensive for a single nation of the three to viably pursue. So, comparing a solo French effort to the GCAP is a misleading comparison.
The Italian nuclear carrier is a far future aspirations, and not a particularly viable one at that. Nor is it being seriously considered in the near future.
The Koreans recently gave up their large carrier ambitions, again for budgetary reasons. The KF-21 is essentially an equivalent to the Typhoon or Rafale, and is not comparable to a sixth-gen effort.
Turkey benefits from a decently sized ship-building industry in much the same way Italy does – a conventional carrier filled with drones is not a massive step-up for them in terms of construction. The development of Kaan again is not comparable to a sixth-gen effort.
So, far from the ‘Anglo-saxons’ (I’ve only ever heard the French refer to modern Germanic-language speakers in that way) constantly dismissing French capability, it seems more as though examples from around the world all point towards the solo procurement of a sixth gen fighter as being a great struggle, if not totally out of reach for the French.
FYI PANG already has €7,5 billion earmarked until 2030 as per LPM 2025-2030
no offence but UK wastes tons of money on defense, honestly not much bang for buck when you compare with France or Italy
not to mention inflation in UK, cost of living, labour etc… is much higher than in France or Italy
it is well established that these international cooperations for military equipment are nothing like the private sector. In fact these military cooperations are inefficient with many duplications, diwcussions etc… almost all over budget, delivered late, ages to get fixes, poorly upgraded thoughout lifetime, etc…
France gets a lot more bang for buck than UK because France has a clear strategy, centralized procurement agency with clear priorities and roadmap , budgets earmarked by law for circa 5 year periods which enables better industrial planning, the french govt has a stake in all its key defence contractors, which allows better cost control and oversight instead of private firms primarily focused on maximising profits for shareholder throughout the world.
There is no way a thing like Ajax would happen in France, heads would roll off the guillotine. The UK just dumps equipment prematurely – Crowsnest retired after just entering service, E7 procurement mess, 1/4 of Typhoon fleet scrapped because no upgrade roadmap, Nimrod, Albion class, no commitment to Foxhound, and ofc always selecting the most expensive option Boxer and RCH155, are they really worth many times the price of other APC or SPG? US still ok using Striker and Bradley, and still upgrading them.
France is not reliant on imports (tech and products) like the UK > Trident, nuclear tech from US, intel from US, aircraft (F35, E7, P8, C17, Apache, Chinook), weapons, etc… this is money out. just look at latest UK reports re actual F35 costs – France funded Rafale program for similar money yet it is 100% french IP, french industry, french jobs, french weapons etc.. what does UK really gain from F35? F136 engine was cancelled, weapons take ages to be integrated (interim buybof US weapons), source code denied, no choice in upgrade roadmap, no control over maintenance etc… France has its own military satellites, UK is dependant on US (what and when they decide to share). Sure the US has much better capability than France, it is not even close toncomparable, but France has what it needs and can afford. To be that dependent on a foreign country is an anathema to a frenchman. We got belt to ass in WW2 and like the Israeli, we say never again.
Let’s say JD Vance is president in 2028, have you heard is diatribes on UK? what if US decides to increase costs on F35, restricts use to an operation is does not support, or simpky decides nuclear sharing is over ,or just simply used a s leverage to get what it wants (access to NHS market, lift restrictions on GMO, etc…)
Two completely different approaches.
As for Gen 6 – been there done that, I am old enough to remember the exact same arguments given when France went solo on Rafale, it’s deja vu! FFW 40 years and Rafale was a success both technically and commercially – it was delivered faster and cheaper than Typhoon, yet offers more capability, clearer upgrade path, controlled maintenance costs etc… Rafale was the gen 6 equivalent of its time.
Crowsnest is not retired yet
you are right, but my point is that the upgraded Crowsnest just entered service and is due to be retired around 2030. so that is less than a decade of service.
Crowsnest may not be as good as E2, but it is still usefull and I find it nuts to retire it without a replacement (similar to retiring Albion class, coukd been used for other tham amphib, like beingba platform for UUV or UAV until replacement is in service, right now design of replacement is not even final),
maybe the Royal Navy will change their mind and extend their service, but that is not my understanding.
It’s not going to be retired around 2030 unless a miracle happens with drone AEW development. Most likely it’ll keep going as long as Merlin does or until a more capable replacement is developed, which will probably be 2035-2040.
I know nothing, but given your two arguments, yours is the least convincing of the two. Good debate
Well presented argument. The French believe in themselves; that’s the key difference from the UK.
I’m on holiday right now, so I’ll give you a longer response when I get back, but for now, I’d question a couple of things:
Why, if French procurement is able to avoid wastage and is particularly well controlled and targeted, was a collaborative effort ever given the go-ahead in the first place, especially following the Typhoon/Rafale problems?
Secondly, if it was clear that a French sovereign effort was possible, what was the requirement for FCAS? Why dive into a programme, knowing you will lose some sovereign capabilities, whilst having had terrible experiences with previous similar collaborative fighter programmes?
You say that France couldn’t have an Ajax – perhaps not, but they’ve definitely had their fair share of procurement disasters.
If I may, Macron pushed a lot (massively) for a collaboration on FCAS, not everyone was convinced and another person might not have pushed that much. Saying this, having the Germans on board could have been good for selling in Europe. Worth a try.
What is suprising with FCAS, is that the Germans have not walked away yet despite Dassault’s behaviour.
Well that end result would be interesting to witness considering the state of the French economy and borrowings. Actually trying to take a more external objective view on this matter, the exact details and conflict in negotiations isn’t actually in the public domain only certain generalities and opinions presented with innate bias from interested parties depending upon which side they are on.
The true situation however is obviously rather more nuanced than that you make here as you are clearly presenting your own particular bias predominantly from the French/Dassault side. You can take that as unquestioning truth if you wish, the rest of us don’t have to believe your take however as set in stone. Now the argument presented by Airbus sounded at least on the surface quite reasonable to me, they have accepted Dassault lead on the fighter design but but LEAD is the significant term to be defined and agreed upon, clearly it is totally unreasonable that as such they should be excluded from ALL IP for the aircraft, which is what Dassault is in their view essentially wanting. If the Germans agree to that they will find their own incorporated IP could be controlled by France while they have no compromise for a degree of French IP heading the other way. That would effectively bring an end to German prospects of being able to design or even significantly contribute to major new aircraft projects in the future if the arrangement is simply Black and White and does it work the other way round too where Germany leads, I have my doubts but either way without nuance it will inevitably be heavily weighted towards the French in the project as a whole.
As I repeat the exact expectations from both sides are filtered through their own subjective mouth pieces political and media based and as such should be taken with a pinch of, indeed a mountain of salt but I think it important in the name of fairness and objectivity to hear both sides of the story as presented rather than the single one you are presenting here and thereafter judge accordingly. I will only state that focusing Continental European high tech aircraft design, development and production overwhelmingly in any single entity would be very bad for all of us longer term, one where economic wins are preferred to military ones when the latter is vital for the protection of us all collectively.
But can France afford it? That’s the question.
of course it can. it is 7th biggest economy in the world,
the budget has already been earmarked and signed off by the Assemblee Nationale -> €7.5 billion to be spent until 2030
Should have had a Ski Ramp 😎😎😎
As I have said in past postings, RN should convert the Prince of Wales carrier into a CATABOR carrier with a 20 meter plug in front of the front island to lengthen the bow (needed so that the so that port side catapult on the front of the ship is not in way of the angled deck like the Chinese Fujian carrier, which prevents that catapult’s use while recovering aircraft), while adding the angled deck etc.
This modification is going to cost upwards of £1.5-2.0 billion in total to transform current carrier into a CATABOR (incorporate EMALS and aircraft recovery systems, and probably additional power in form of additional gas turbine and diesel with larger electrical motors and storage batteries). I think it will be worth it in light of the problems with the F35 (especially the B variant) upgrades. In my view the B variant is a “dead end” model.
With the CATABOR modifications the RN can cap its F35B acquisition at maximum 60 units for the remaining STOVL HMS QE, numbers more than enough for the carrier to operate 3 front line squadrons and an OCU squadron with spares.
The converted HMS PoW can then be equipped with a choice of aircraft from France, the USN, or a U.K. navalized Tempest
😂
1, No Navy launches jets and recovers at the same time. You will never see a US Navy super Hornet landingat the same time other jet’s are launching. 2, Tempest is not being designed as a carrier capable aircraft. Its to much of a design compromised to make them carrier capable. You need excellent low speed handling qualities, which means you have to compromises in other area’s of the performance envelope. 3, the cost simply isn’t worth it just to operate aircraft that are less capable than F35B or the equal (F35C)
A stronger argument is that CATOBAR can handle E-2, MQ-25 and collaborative platforms. We helped create a fighter that didn’t need catapults and arrestors, but we aren’t putting the same effort into AEW and tanking.
One route is going hybrid, adding catapults and arrestors while keeping the ramp-launched fighters. A second is to double down and develop a group of STOL fixed wing aircraft, whether that’s tiltrotor or a conventional super short take off and landing (they’ve landed a Hercules on a carrier, so we know it can be done). The third is the route we are currently taking, which is to dither and end up with nothing.
The French seem better at accepting the consequences of their decisions.
You are right Jon, the UCAV is the key decider if they will choose to invest in a catapult alongside the ramp. Especially if they want a drone as a strike platform alongside our limited number of F35s.
We wish the French well, long way to go. Hopefully emals will be reliable and they will get gen 5/ 6 carrier jets. These flagships, generate a lot of interest. Think Uk has done well with 2 big carriers designed when emals was unproven. Politically how different it would have been if French had joined with uk carrier build and maybe shared carrier jet build. If we move over to emals in future we maybe customer for a French emals jet???
FYI – EMALS had its troubled development, but now the kinks have been ironed out and it has been operational for several years.
On one deployment from May 2023 to January 2024, the USS Ford completed 8,725 catapult launches using EMALS.
That is a huge amount of launches for such a short period
earlier this year, France sent a Rafale to US land based testing facility for testing of EMALS / AAG.
French military seem satisfied with the results
A true aircraft carrier that wouldn’t need Yankee planes on its deck to fill it.
Considering the state of FCAS it risks only have 4th gen fighters in an era of 6th gen.
Yep. FCAS is pretty much dead in the water after French industrial shenanigans and arguments over production site, work share, intellectual property and export rights.
The Germans will wait for Tempest or F46 and see which one they can get authorisation to purchase.
Mr Bell, you’re out t by “one” again…F-47…I think your “7” button may not be eorking? Lol..
*working
The French could buy into the F/A-XX programme if it happens, and that wouldn’t exclude Dassault creating a 4G+++ in a rolling upgrade of the Rafale. The combination could be extremely effective.
Like the US Ec-2 Haweye ?
Yeah those ‘Yankee’ carriers are terrible aircraft carriers right?
Yeah those ‘Yankee’ carriers are terrible aircraft carriers right?
Tho reliant of course on US kit to the airplanes airborne…three EMALS systems from General Atomics will set you back far more than $40 mil btw…
yes a lot more!
in Dec. 2021 the US approved the sale of $1.32 billion dollars for 2 EMALS launch systems and one AAG arrestor system for french carrier, PANG.
1 EMALS is desighed to operate 2 rails. additional rail is estimated to cost between $100m and $200m.
in Oct 2025, France confirmed PANG would have 3 rails (2 front, 1 for oblique),
All this to say with a 3rd rail we are talking about $1.5 billion
It needs effective planes on its deck, otherwise its money better spent elsewhere as a continental power.
it does – Rafale F5 with stealty wingman drone based on Neuron in 2030s, then a gen 6 aircraft in 2040s (probably solo)
France is not just a continental power, 2 million citizens live in overseas territories in Indian, Atlantic and Pacific Oceans
It has a smaller economy than the UK. France has enormous national debt, a hugely bloated state that can’t really afford the public services you have now because you all want to retire at 62.
ok if you want to be technical, but it is fractionally smaller than UK edonomy, and UK debt isn’t rosy either.
IMF 2025 figures: UK has 104% govt debt, France 116%, US 123%, Italy 137%, Japan 235%
people used exact same arguments when France did Rafale solo, it turned those arguments were bogus
furthermore borrowing to build a french fighter program with 100% french components built by french companies and workers is also an investment that pays returns in sales, in taxes collected as well as developping tech for other endeavours
It’s not like borrowing money to pay for a holiday, etc…
The French previously had to follow particular rules for the Euro, but the EU changed some of the rules to allow for a proportion of military spending not to count, at least for now. Which means they could borrow to spend an extra 40 billion euros under the new rules.
But apparently needs Yankee Catapaults
Personally I would say 2 slightly worse carriers are better than 1 better carrier.
Whenever the CDG is in port France effectively has no carrier.
That said, with the state of their finances I can’t see either happening. And by the time this carrier will enter service the Rafale will be pretty outdated
A shame they didn’t go with the smaller PA2 i.e. Queen Elizabeth class but with the angled deck.
Yes but they at least contribute a small sum of money into the QEC designs, then took those designs and will no doubt be adapting them. PANG will be very similar to the PA2 hull form, lengthened and nuclear propulsion added minus 2 islands.
Respectfully stop making stuff up and do some research on so many topics you are completely ignorant on. it is tiring to read your nonesense
PANG is nothing like PA2
– it is different dimensions
– It is completely different hull design, the bow is completely different, I suggest you take a look at the stern too!
– it uses nuclear power,
– it has 3 propeller shafts and 3 propellers,
– it has 1 island
– it uses EMALS and AAG
– it has VLS with Asters
– it has a 4D radar array
By the way, QE class was designed by french company CSF Thomson and carriers were built by BAE
Respectfully re-read what I actually said. PANG will be heavily based upon a revised QEC hull form. Lengthened for nuclear tractors and gearing.
I never said the same as the QEC. The twin island Vs single island is fairly irrelevant to the hull form argument I was making. Although twin islands do offer a superior deck working ability for the aircrews helping to improve and break up cross deck wind and weather as well as supporting more sheltered locations on deck for aircraft turn around without requiring a trip down to the hangar.
It is not based on QE or PA2 in any way. as Isaid those were desighed by CSF Thomson a different company
PANG is 100% designed by Naval Group, that has been building ships since the 1600s.
You are funny with that spin of 2 islands, the reason there are two islands is simply because it is optimal for the chimney exhausts of the propulsion system. It just takes more valuable deck space and impedes shifting and parking planes on deck.
All maintenance is done in hangars because exposing engines, etc… to corrosive sea environment is self defeating. the only thing that is done on deck is loading weapons and fuel for safety reasons.
If there was any advantage to twin islands, fairly sure the US, chinese and french carriers would have adopted twin islands, its not hard to do.
All your wind, cross wind explanation is nothing more than more wind from your mouth. FYI carriers face into the wind to maximise lift on takeoff, there is no cross wind since its head on.
laughable
“Nuclear Tractors”
Oh you do make me chortle at times !!!
That’s true they are mostly the Thales design concept though to a uk design requirement of course. I don’t think there is any true relationship as such between these designs, the French in the end decided not to continue their interest in the QE design way back though originally interested, but a long time has passed. However it’s also true that the design studies (I have seen most of them during a research project) for QE Class included all manner of variations by Thales and Bae along similar lines, before the end design was chosen. These proposed an 80,000 ton ship initially (considered too expensive) single island, a hybrid two island with joint bridge over a lift (that was a Bae concept) nuclear power (rejected reasonably early and reducing the tonnage substantially), angled deck (which is effectively mostly still there in effect but concealed in the present ships which is why its deck area isn’t massively less than US carriers) and cats and traps, again the area below the flight deck for the proposed Emals is still there in the present ships. Britain was designing its own Emals system and considering the US design the former cancelled along the way). Can’t remember if more powerful armament was included in original concept designs but I think it was considered and again rejected especially once size was reduced, but don’t hold me to that one. So this new French design certainly has similarities to the original QE concept that was deemed too expensive and ultimately scaled back to what we have now but as I say these proposals were 20+ years ago so things move on though equally true you don’t re-invent wheels when basics haven’t fundamentally changed but as HM Govt hold the rights to the Thales QE design it’s not going to be the fundamentals very true, though no doubt the process is easier when you did similar concept work twenty years ago to do similar work now than if you are starting from scratch without that experience.
state of finances? what do you know of it? France has better debt situation than US, Italy and Japan. funny no one questions their financial capacity to fund anything.
same arguments as always, same was said dor Rafale at the time (yes Inam old enough to remember), but what you fail to understand is that PANG and Gen 6 fighter are a fundemental part of french nuclear doctrine which was established under de Gaulle, and no politician (left or right) has ever waivered from that doctrine, it si fully supported by generations of the french population., even the Greens don’t dare challenge it
So if France has to increase debt or make cuts, one thing is sure PANG will happen (in fact over €7 billion have already been earmarked from the LPM 2025-2030 (french defense budget) which was already approved by the Assemble Nationale.
In fact production of the K22 recators has already started.
I have no doubt that this carrier will get built, and it will be a fantastic piece of kit. On what budget, time frame and what aircraft fly from from it, are all very much unknown. As indeed is the impact on the wider French defence budget/general government debt situation….🤷♂️🤷♂️
Yes that sort of concerns me. Carriers are already looking especially vulnerable in any peer to peer conflict, the Chinese, indeed Russians too (mind you they would) claim that such major ships are just nice target practice, the US is concerned that its jets and their weaponry simply won’t have the required range come the thirties especially as present stealth technology will be seriously put to the test at that stage so is this very expensive programme too much too late? Time will tell I guess, it will be too good a ship to exploit the Raffle’s limitations by then so its replacement will need to be special, with serious size, capability and hybrid power plants to be effective. That’s alone two very expensive projects to handle alone amongst a lot of wider required military equipment to employ. Britain couldn’t do it alone so can France realistically without seriously jeopardising defence elsewhere. Hope they can, but seems very optimistic.
The Chinese are claiming carriers look vulnerable, while running one of the world’s largest carrier production programmes.
There’s more than debt to GDP ratio that matters. You can have lots of debt, but if your economy is doing well you can pay it back easily. France is not doing well, almost defaulting on its loans in the past couple months.
Rafale France only just managed to afford, 6th gen are even more expensive proportionally as a project. And FCAS has failed, ministers from both France and Germany have said it will probably never happen.
And just because reactors have started doesn’t mean anything. How many times have projects been cancelled midway through.
Not to mention the whole thing isn’t a great idea, 2 carriers beats 1. France doesn’t and will not have constant carrier coverage, and it’s not like you can time defensive wars to happen when it isn’t in for maintenance or refit.
I see that they have already given the contract to redevelop the port for the new Carrier.
yes, work srared earlier this year, apparently they discovered some archeological finds.
FYI the new installation in Toulon will be an island in the harbor linked by bridge,
this island features 2 long docks to host 2 carriers and in the middle is a 360m dry dock for maintenance work
Well here we go again, France will cut back on just about anything to fund this one single carrier and it’s mainly down to prestige as no sane country would commit to having a part time Carrier capability (not even we were that daft).
The K22 will again be a LEU reactor so needs to refuel every few years, only sensible way to operate would be to mainly run with one reactor at a time to conserve core life and then refuel one at a time.
This is all mainly due to the French Nuclear industry running out of work there just isn’t enough workload to maintain it with just 10 boats. One of the consequences of building the CDG was the existing SSN Rubin had to soldier on way longer than designed for due the budget being hoovered up.
IMHO they should have been more pragmatic, built to new Carriers based on the QE plans (which they bought off UK) and enlarged their Submarine fleet instead.
That is unless France persuades the EU to stump up for a 2nd one, which is unlikely as Italy is doing a feasibility study of building their own CVN.
Agree to all that.
The EU won’t fund a second “Euro” carrier. They are fed up with France trying to call the shots and control EU defence programmes.
FCAS is dead in the water.
Many EU nations are striving to agree bilateral defence export and trade deals with the UK after the UK was effectively banned from bidding for SAFE funded programmes owing to the ludicrous contribution fee. £6-14 billion asked for originally not sure final figure, it was somewhere around £2-3 billion just to bid for funding as a MINORITY programme contributor. The UK was banned from market share over 40% on any programme within SAFE as well as compelled to share it’s defence intellectual property with the EU. France pushed for that, leading to the UK having to decline joining.
It’s an exercise in Gallic pride, they have the only nuclear carrier in Europe and have made it ever so slightly larger and longer than the QEs where CdG was much smaller. They were going to do the same with PA2 even though it was based off the same design.
Thinking France builds carriers because of pride and comparing size says more about you than about France.
Then why have they moved from a 43,000t carrier to a 78,000t one? CdG was perfectly capable of operating E2 and a 50-60,000t design would have been a lot cheaper with two catapults and smaller nuclear plants. You might even have been able to afford two of them!
Instead France has repeatedly locked itself into having half a carrier strike capability for the sake of having the only nuclear carrier in Europe, while as the QEs have shown it is more efficient for smaller navies to go conventional and have much more capability even if it were still CATOBAR.
It is bigger because next Gen fighter are expected to be bigger, 3 catapults bring more capabilities. Also, the current situation where the is only one carrier isn’t the “normal” design of what was planned in the 60s: without the 08 crisis and Sarkozy, there would be a second one. Navy is now pushing hard for 2 P-ANG. Also, France needs those carriers, not to compare itself to UK (again, says more about you than about France) but because it totally makes sense when you have 3 millions citizens in overseas territories, natural ressources and other capabilities there.
You know how you could have two carriers that aren’t £8bn each? Go conventional!
More seriously, the French only did their first deployment to the Pacific with CdG this year and I’m struggling to find a deployment west of the Mediterranean, which suggests that global reach and support of overseas departments isn’t their main priority.
PANG will be hugely capable (when it’s at sea, at least) but the French navy don’t seem to do much with their carriers that justifies the expense except a bombing campaign against ISIS from the Syrian coast, which the UK does using Akrotiri (just ask!) and exercises with India. NATO has very little use for a carrier group in the Mediterranean or the Indian Ocean.
TorpedoJ from internet knows best what to do to protect French overseas territories. You confuse long deployment with ability to reach. Also, CdG frequently exercised in Atlantic (Saint Pierre, Canada etc…) which is west of Mediterranean. Don’t care what is useful to NATO, it comes after what is useful to France.
Come now, that’s hardly a rational argument. All I need is one example of the CdG visiting an overseas department. If France wants a nuclear carrier in order to make sure of being the dominant power in and around the Mediterranean then say so, that’s a perfectly reasonable explanation even if it could be disputed.
As I’ve said on the other threads I admire France’s pig-headed stubbornness, you’ve done very well by refusing to compromise on sovereign capability but in this case I think nuclear carriers just aren’t worth it.
As I wrote, Saint Pierre. Also, when there is a deployment in Indian Ocean, it shows you can protect southern territories there, same for Caraibes when deploying in Atlantic. Funny you ask tbh, how many times Hermes or Invincible were deployed in Malouines before 1982? 😉
And Italy are not so stupid as to blow their wad on a single huge nuclear carrier.. if they do it I would imagine it will be in a sustainable way.
sounds more like personal jealousy and pride.
how do you know a second PANG won’t be built?
in fact it has been a debate since cancelling PA2, and these discussions have been picking up steam with more politicians across the political spectrum (even radical left and nationalist parties – for different reasons like jobs, pride, etc…). Just recently the military chief of staff was advocating for it to parliament, saying a decision needs to be made by 2029. The case for a 2nd carrier is being pushed for at every parliament arms committee, and the opinion is unanimously for. The last one a few weeks ago was revealing, same as doing a gen 6 aircraft solo.
french nuclear industry is doing fine and not running out of work. Macron announced a pivot back to increase nuclear energy production, currently at 70% of all energy production in France. France is building new power stations (even in UK too if I am not mistaken), building reactors for subs, continuing to develop and modernize a sovereign nuclear deterrence program
Ironic that you think Italy can build a nuke carrier with catapults. Italy has no nuclear industry, never operated a CATOBAR carrier, has a worse debt situation than France and a smaller GDP. – and Italy said they could do all this in a decade max.
I personally don’t doubt Italy’s resolve and that it will ultimately reach its goal, although i seriously doubt their timeline.
FYi – IMF 2025 debt figures: Japan 235%, Italy 137%, US 123%, France 116%, UK 104%
IMHO it’s a stupid move; be that 1 or 2 PANG and the reason I don’t think there will be a 2nd is exactly the same reason PA2 didn’t get built, the costs of CDG and its air-group sucked the life out of French defence budget for over a decade.
Much better idea to build 2 CVA and more SSNs with change to spare.
As to why I think the French Reactor Industry is about to run out of work well it’s simple arithmetic and the realisation that there are other players in the export game these days (even the US is getting back its mojo).
At present there are 70 Civilian Nuclear reactors being built worldwide, 46 of those are in China and Chinese built. France itself has zero New Civilian Power Stations being built or on order there are just the 6 proposed by Macron so decades away. At present there are the 2 Civilian EPR reactors for Hinkley Point C1 & C2 and ordered by the French State owned EDF from its own subsidiary’s Framatome, RPV1 is being installed and RPV2 is not far behind it. As far as published data is concerned there are no other Civilian Reactors in build of on order.
Other than those they only have the military ones for the last Suffren SSNS (K15) and the 4 K22 for the next generation of SSBNs in build or on order.
Which pretty well means that the 2 extra K22 would just plug the gap until the new gen of EPR comes into build.
Also out of 107 new civilian reactors planned or on order world wide those that have been ordered so far are mainly of Chinese, Russian and Swedish origins. Let’s face it when you are competing against China it’s a pretty tough sell and France isn’t doing to well. On the other hand they are doing very well with the production and export of nuclear fuel and Electricity.
By contrast between the 2 RR Nuclear Companies based here in Derby we have 5 (2 PWR3 and 3 PWR3+) in build, long lead items for 5 more PWR3+ in the supply chain and projected orders for 3 SMR and 7/9 PWR3+. And that’s not counting the SMR contract being negotiated with the Dutch and Czech governments.
All this information is in the public domain ! RR Submarines Ltd, RR SMR and WNA.
The CdG didn’t suck the life out of anything, it is an essential capability for France armed forces which by the way are in much better state than the UK forces. Pot calling the kettle black
FYI EDF is not only building 2 reactors at Hinkley Point, but also 2 at Sizewell C
France is building 6 reactors for France (2 more on option). In 2024, work started on 3 sites, Penly, Gravelines and Bugey
EDF is planning to build 30x Nuward 400 MW SMR by 2050, first scheduled in 2035
tbe 2x K22 for PANG have already been ordered and production started in april 2024. there are still 3x Suffren class with K15 to be delivered by 2030, there are 4x K22 SNLE 3G, first to enter service in 2035
There is increasing talk and growing support among french politicians for ordering a 2nd PANG – decision needs to be made by 2029 according to Fabien Mandon, France’s top general in charge of french armed forces. It seems more likely than not, that this will happen. French military budgets have been continuously been Increasing since 2019 and planned to increase even more to meet 5% NATO pledge. FYI work has begun on port installations at Toulon. It is an island in the harbor with 2x 400m docks for carriers and a 360m dry dock in the middle. Long story short that would be an additional 2x K22 reactors
spare me your flag waiving, the PWR3 is a licensed built version of the US S9G reactor from the US Virginia class sub
I agree tbh. They were trying to get the Germans to come in on it at one stage years back but that won’t happen now. I certainly feel money might be better spent at this stage, new carriers is a big decision with big strategic risk. They had terrible problems getting CDG into service as well, indeed had to change the regs to make it compliant. I certainly would not be supportive if Britain was undertaking such a project now with the added threat of compromising Tempest (and their equivalent) as an undesired result when powerful long range fighters with large weapon capacity are now deemed vital, if a little less so for a Continental Power to be fair. I guess if you are going to design a carrier now then it has to be large to remotely achieve that but this carrier seems focused on the needs of a Pacific power rather than Atlantic (which France I think still sees itself as) but that I feel is erroneous such a ship won’t last five minutes in a peer to peer there without all the massive support the US can provide, and that makes it far less viable in present and I fear future scenarios. But perhaps they know best.
It’ll be a part time Carrier strike availability, just like Charles de Gaulle, but great to see nonetheless. She will be a fabulous Carrier, one of the best in the world.
More to do with prestige than common sense. Maybe fifteen years to build? I’m not sure what the future is with carriers. A couple of hypersonic missiles fired from hundreds of miles away?
Naval group reckon they can build PANG for €7-8 billion.
I think 15-20 year build and at least €16-18 billion equivalent too twice the cost of BOTH QEC carriers. Discussed with a naval architect friend and he agreed, there is zero chance this huge ship is coming in on budget, on time and not costing around €16 billion minimum, potentially upto €20 billion
I’d rather have 4 QECs, at least they are efficient and can be fitted with EMALS in the future.
The French should have just got PA2 and ordered two.
In what eras money though? This will be commisioned at least 20 years after the QE carriers.
£7.6bn is the 2019 cost attributed to 2 QE’s and without wishing to get bogged down into the detail they are extremely limited in their capability.
Please share the details, I am interested
That’s what worries me, prestige comes to nothing when the bullets start flying, a painful lesson we learned in WW2 with battleships amongst others. I fear a similar fate for carriers as the thirties progress certainly without overwhelming support which this won’t have especially if ventures east of Suez where nuclear becomes a clear advantage but negligible or arguable in European waters.
It’s only the carrier with nuclear power Mr. B. The escorts are still limited. U.K. defence is worse now than it was two years ago so I really don’t know where we’re going. The concern I have is that the Carrier is the new Battleship. Like the thirties the world has moved on. New weapons, new capabilties and severe shortages have reduced the navy to a skeleton. Will the carriers even have ‘Planes to fly? The RAF are desperate as well.
“A painful lesson we learned in WW2 with Battleships”
Not really. The RN got pretty good use out of it’s Battleships during WW2, the idea that they where “obsolete prestige pieces” is mostly oversimplification and application of American Carrier centric operations in the Pacific (and even there Battleships where still needed, and had more than a few Battleship-Battleship engagements). Even the Rumour of a Battlecruiser showing up was enough to scuttle Graf Spee. Gneisenau and Scharnhorst had multiple run ins with British Battleships and Battlecruisers and generally didn’t enjoy the experience, either getting shot up, or straight up giving up on convoy raids and running away when confronted by Battleships.
While the Torpedo attacks by Swordfish are remembered for stopping Bismark from running back to France, remember it was one of Prince of Wales’s 14inch shells that had made her run back home in the first place, and while Bismarks torpedo defence ate Swordfish Torpedoes it was Rodney’s 16inch shells that rendered him combat ineffective and sent him to the bottom of the sea. (In fact of the four German Battleships, two where sunk at sea by British Battleships, one was scuttled, and only one sank by airpower). And while Taranto was a effective Port Strike by the FAA, the Battleships got their own Port Strike in against the French (arguably more successfully than the FAA at Taranto, as all three of the Battleships the Swordfish torpedoed where salvagable, while Bretagne was unsalvagable)
Then there where Asymetric fights like Narvik and Cape Mattapan, where, to put it mildly, lighter ships really didn’t enjoy getting close range attention of Battleships. And while Force Z’s loss often gets headlines it’s worth remembering that the Royal Navy lost as many Aircraft Carriers during the War as it did Battleships.
must be why chinese and yanks are building new ones
Back in the days when there was serious discussion about the French Navy using a modified CVF design, I recall reading on Beedall’s old site, Navy Matters, the French Military’s preference for aircraft carriers as such:
1 – Two nuclear powered
2 – Two conventional powered
3 – One nuclear
4 – One conventional
The first preference is prohibitively expensive and the second is seen as a backwards step technologically. Third choice it is then, but what a beast it’ll be. Comfortably the finest carrier outside the USN, if everything pans out.
Think the Chinese will have something to say about that. They’ve got two very large nuclear powered carriers in build right now. Carrier 004 and 005.
Don’t think PANG will be ready before 2042. So until then CdG will have to soldier on.
I think only one of the carriers in construction is nuclear.
It’s what they have by 2042 mind that’s important in regard to that question.
Where does the figure of $41.6 million for EMALS come from? 15 years ago, the UK was quoted $1 billion per unit and I read about the same for the French a few months ago?
It’s probably the feasibility cost. The Ford class carriers EMALS and Advanced arrestor gear cost around $2.5 billion per carrier hull. That’s for 4 EMALS launchers and the arrestor gear.
It’s a really weird aircraft carrier. That stern just doesn’t look right and cuts down on deck area for apparently no benefit.
In the picture, It looks like It’s running away !
(look, I’m only saying what It looks like, no ref to white flags or any sort of anti frog feelings, I actually love the French, they make great food and I met one once. )
Taste like chicken.
I blame the Druids.
In the forest of Carnutes.
The French or frogs?
Both ! 🐓🧄🧄🧅
Running away? You’re confusing with brits running away to dunkirk after 4 days of fught!
You’re confusing my humour with your complete lack of it !
Maybe read It again and not be selectively antagonistic ?
I’m guessing you’re not really French ?
Silly to just have one, unless they already have an agreement that one of ours will represent them.
Hopefully they order something soon CDG is getting on and if they go with this design it’s going to take well over a decade.
it is ordered, and is scheduled to enter service in 2038 to replace CdG
The US Navy couldn’t build a nuke carrier that quickly. Not a hope in hell will it be done that quickly.
FYI – US carriers takes about 3 years to build
USS Ford took a long time because they were innovating with many new tech that took longer than expected to fix, elevators, EMALS – also US shipbuilding hasn’t been the best example of how it can and should be done -> Zumwalt, LCS, Cancellation class, not to mention the slow build rate of their subs
Naval Group has been working on the PANG design for many years now, they have done extensive hull tests in pools with scaled down models. Work on the K22 reactors has already started. EMALS has been fixed by US and has been operational for several years.
They are doing the last detailed design phase and start build in 2030, sea trials in 2036/7 and entry into service in 2038, and FOC a couple of years after that.
Oh la la, magnifique !
It’s how I like my women — big and beautiful.
Seriously though, good luck to them. We need our European friends to stay in the carrier game.
🇫🇷🛩️ (F-35C) 🥖🏳️🍷
F-35C ? hmmm.
Bonsoir halfwit, I wasn’t being serious. Even if FCAS breaks down, they would build on their own if needed. They’d rather surrender than buy a foreign fighter! OK, probably the wrong analogy there 🏳️
They operated Crusaders for a while TBF.
Fair point Leh, they did operate Crusaders, but that was out of necessity. Think of it as a temporary fling with foreign hardware before France went back to building its own. Vive la France ! 😏🇫🇷
At least they don’t run away like the brits ! 😏
With FCAS in doubt the only 6th Gen option will be F/A XX…which is also in doubt.
I personally would like to see them go to a 2 carrier fleet, not the one HMS massive..
I don’t get all the anti comments, it’ll be a fantastic capability when it exists.
I wish we would display more gallic pride in ourselves, who cares if it’s about prestige.
We have our own exceptionalism in the UK, it just manifests itself in a far less helpful way.
The French seem to always want to ‘do it themselves’ whatever the cost, so they have completely sovereign nuclear reactors, weapons, fighters, tanks etc. It’s ended up meaning that they spend a lot less than we do, because the protectionism means that their industry is able to plan for the future on the understanding that any work is guaranteed to come their way- see Naval Group and their ability to just roll through ship designs knowing that they have a monopoly. Somehow they seem to avoid most the problems that monopolies usually bring in terms of poor quality and loss of bargaining power, I think because Dassault and Naval Group have become such political footballs that they are as liable as the government if things go wrong, and they will simply make a loss.
We in Britain, on the other hand, seem to always want the best individual capability, wherever it can be found. That usually means being dependent on the US for example with Trident, F35B and E7/Rivet Joint, but it also emerges in things like Ajax where each individual vehicle was very capable but the actual force available to us as a result of the procurement is terrible. This is as far as I can tell a result of the strange attitude to programme management the MoD has where the very largest projects (GCAP, Ajax and T26 etc) get passed to preferred contractors without scrutiny or an analysis of alternatives but tiny contracts have to be bid and competed for over the span of a year. It’s also because the MoD has no way of quantifying both how much cheaper it is for the government in the long run to spend money in the UK rather than abroad and the potential cost of inactivity, through a loss of deterrence or an increase in future spending.
My suggestion for the UK is a blend of both solutions. For the really huge procurements where competition is counterproductive the ‘industry partner’ approach works well, for example in GCAP, Dreadnought and the other budget-defining programmes. That also applies to armoured vehicles IMO due to the huge problems with setting up new production runs and the necessarily smaller capital budget of the Army. For everything else*, there is usually a fixed price we are willing to pay and an obvious supplier, we just need to analyse the options ourselves before announcing a procurement- test runs included- and just use the best choice without a huge fanfare of assessing detail, with some sort of offset to prioritise UK sovereign capacity. The onus would therefore be on industry to have ready-made product lines available when they believe the MoD has a need, rather than extensive development costs and moving factories around.
Even Poland are able to develop their own IFVs it’s ridiculous we aren’t able to do the same.
*Shipbuilding is slightly weird now that we have two possible suppliers for each of escorts, large warships and auxiliaries, the government needs to engage with everyone but the performative ‘bid’ system is unnecessary.
A vastly better and genuine aircraft carrier design than the two UK glorified helicopter carriers
Different priorities, but very expensive and drawback of not being available especially with frequent reactor refuelling.
LOL. compared to what ? to some glorious brexitian coal-propelled marvels ? LEU will just fit in the planned repairss for every ship.
If the UK had any sense we would be exploring the possibility of a run of 3 of these with France and both seeking to have 1 ready to go to sea at any time with the the 3rd interchageable during refits.
The in service date will not be a million miles of the end of life for the QE’s and its absolutely obvious any attempt to cat and trap them is going to be a money pit and a lack of a nuclear reactor is going to be challanging for cat launched aircraft plus you might find it really useful to have a nuclear ship for directed energy weapons.
It is in fact, a million miles off, the Qnlz class are designed for 50 years, theyll not even be 20 years old when this is commisioned.
Given QE has been in the water since 2014, that the French carrier timeline seems optimistic and that there is set to be a decade between Ford and the next boat of class you could easily be looking at 2050-2060 for carriers 2 and 3 at which point QE is into her 40’s. Let’s also not forget the build was slowed so and as we found out with the audacious class slowing the build isn’t great for longevity.
There isn’t going to be a carriers 2 and 3 because we don’t have the money for it! Inbetween now and the first pangs comissioning we have Dreadnought, MRSS, MCM, T83, Aukus, and a litany of other programs than another set of carriers
Thats certainly true if we fund as we historically have done and lurch from one lifex to the next. It would be strategically prudent for Europe to operate some carriers so that it has the capability to deal with the unknown in 20+ years and it would be even more sensible to be able to inter operate between not only European carriers but more importantly US ones too.
Either we have the stomach to fund our military or we do not.
I personally hold the opinion that the carriers should be the last thing to be funded but we’re now in the upside down position where having commited to 2 carriers presently our naval posture is being dictated by them which means it would seem sensible to put their replacements into the timeline. Its quite possible that the French program will face significant delays at which point we are in the zone for end of life for the QE’s.
I’d rather see us just plough on the STOVL on them and plan in replacement carrier(s) that would actually be useful against a well armed enemy.
No one in their right mind is sending a QE close to a well armed opponent without a US carrier group to provide AEW and refuel which does bring into question what role could they ever be deployed in that couldnt be covered off by the RAF.
Yup for better or worse we have 2 carriers and should make the most of them. Disappointing not to have reasonable AEW by now. Will be interesting to see how drones get used off the carriers in the future. Must be remembered that uk f35b do double duty land and sea at times of need quite an efficiency of scarce resources.
Finally, an intelligent and constructive comment!
The UK should make the GCAP carrier capable. Kowtowing to the US has to stop. It never made sense to buy the f35 for the UK in any variant. The UK now has an opportunity to navalise the GCAP and have cross deck operations with the French. The current QE carrier situation is absurd. You either do something properly or you don’t bother. About the time of Blair given the UK success with the Sea Harrier and Invincible class what the UK should have done was go it alone on a Sea Harrier replacement designed and built at Dunsfold with the Sea Harrier replacement being a) mildly stealthy b) supersonic c) greater range than the Harrier d) fully FBW using the VAAC Harrier FCS e) able to land vertically with a full war load (possible with a vectored thrust derivative of the XG40 engine – none of the silly lift fan nonsense). The US invented the second Iraq war and Afghanistan campaigns to undermine the UK defence budget and industry (the real motivation of the US deep state where these wars were concerned – the French did not fall for it) leading to whole sale scrapping of the UK’s independent foreign policy and things like a credible and independent FAA. Plus the f35b failed to be a worthy follow on to the Sea Harrier which even its most ardent supporters must admit. Meanwhile, the UK could have had three thirty thousand ton (i.e. bigger than the Invincible class) VSTOL carriers as like for like replacements of the Invincibles (which could have stayed in service up to two decades longer than they did – scrapped to fund UK diplomatic cover for US imperial wars – that’s right, some of us knew what was really going on!). But no, we have two large carriers that are really of a size better suited to CATOBAR operations but not fitted with catapults and tool slow, under armed and too reliant on the capricious nature of the totally untrustworthy Whitehouse/US defence contractors and their failed f35b Yak 141 wannabe. Meanwhile, the f35 has more or less killed the UK aerospace industry – its real purpose all along. Tier one idiots! Definition of madness – don’t keep making the same mistake over and over. Be like the French. An ally of the US but not a client state of the US! Vive l’Angleterre! Oh, and the French will see the FCAS and their new super carrier to operational status and success. Because they elect leaders not Global Inc middle managers!
Its far too late to navalise GCAP and certainly wed be footing the entire bill for that, apart from derailing the entire project.
And enough with this 3 smaller carriers argument, the treasury was only ever going to pay for 2, so why make them piddly little boats.
The invincibles were knackered, are you seriously suggesting they could have stuck around till the late 2020s, 2030s?
FCAS is a disaster waiting to happen, the french cannot afford the project themselves and theyre pissing off their only partner germany.
The French are more likely to complete FCAS than we are GCAP. Have you noticed the government we have right now. Pulling out of GCAP (scrapping it in other words) just before the next GE because of the state our economy will be in by then as a parting shot from the liberal globalists behind the facade. And yes, the GCAP design is not finalised at this stage, the Tempest one off demonstrator is but not the actual GCAP. It can and should be done.
The aircraft is far too large, FCAS is already comically large for a carrier aircraft and Tempest is larger than that.
GCAP by all accounts is about the size and weight of the Buccaneer, which operated off carriers one third more piddling than the QE barges we have now. Get ya facts right sunny! Oh, and the Invincible class carriers were built with a fifty year service life like all capitol ships, the youngest, Ark Royal was scrapped after twenty eight years service and the Sea Harrier never received the full upgrade planned for it (Mk 107 Pegasus and FBW).
Bucaneer had folding wings, GCAP will not, its a Delta wing, even the French FCAS wont.
The invincible class were not “capital ships” they were originally designed as ASW carriers and ended up as our only carriers, 30 years is more realistically their life span and by all accounts we were running out of parts to fix them with.
The QE carriers have bigger side elevators and there is no reason they cannot accommodate GCAP folding wings or otherwise. The Invincible class were probably better built than the QE class and the parts situation was caused by a treasury preemptive strike closing Ansty in Coventry whilst the Invincible class using the Olympus engines was still operational. A deliberate act of vandalism. Tragic pictures of HMS Ark Royal looking brand new post refit on her last seagoing trip . Other countries would call it corruption.
Its not about fitting it on the elevators its about total carrying capacity, France may be building this massive new carrier but it cant take any more aircraft than its current one!
The invincibles were limited in capability and outdated. They shouldve served to their intended service dates in the mid 2010s but id hardly like to see them around now.
In my sane world the Invincible class carriers would be retiring about now replaced by three one third bigger replacement STOVL carriers (fifty year operational life – see Gariboldi) with the fa3 Mk107 Pegasus powered Sea Harrier FBW fa3 also starting to be replaced by a supersonic tri nozzle vectored thrust mildly stealthy Sea Hornet fa1 with avionics and weapons fit similar to the Typhoon tranche 4. The Sea Hornet would be benefitting from wide scale export having beaten the f35b in international sales due to its obvious performance advantage over the f35b together with the UK’s much more generous full operational maintenance and bespoke modification potential compared to the very limited and protectionist policies on the f35.
You’re living in fantasy land then.
An example of an “innovate” cheaper aircraft is Gripen. Plenty of people agree it’s great except no one buys it because it’s not the best of the best
Gabraldi only served 40 years and was insufficient for modern aircraft by the end of her life. Again, treasury was not going to pay for 3 carriers, only 2, the fleet was not big enough to use 3 carriers anymore or staff them so 2 larger ones was the logical option.
You keep going on about Catobar Tempest but you wouldn’t be able to launch that off your “Invincible+” class
Buccaneer was 28t MTOW, GCAP is supposed to be beyond 40t and it doesn’t have the high-lift wing for lower landing approach speeds. Depending on the details it would become the largest aircraft ever to operate from a carrier, where the current leader is the 1950s subsonic, long-wing A3D Skywarrior that required 100,000t supercarriers.
It isn’t going to happen.
The f35b is also similar in size and weight to the Buccaneer. You are just wrong.
Aaaand GCAP is a) a lot bigger than F35B and b) Can’t be developed into a STOVL version because it’s twin engined.
F35C is the closest modern jet to Buccaneer by your standards and GCAP would be vastly more difficult to operate from a carrier.
GCAP by all accounts is about the size and weight of the Buccaneer, which operated off carriers one third more piddling than the QE barges we have now. Get ya facts right sunny! Oh, and the Invincible class carriers were built with a fifty year service life like all capitol ships, the youngest, Ark Royal was scrapped after twenty eight years service and the Sea Harrier never received the full upgrade planned for it (Mk 107 Pegasus and FBW). Mk
Martin, I applaud your vision, ambition, self belief and patriotic zeal. Are you sure you are not French😂
You have to admire the French (if not get a little frustrated with their chauvinism) because they manage to maintain great power status with a truly independent nuclear deterrent (unlike the Trident and now f35a franchise) and defence industrial base all whilst having a smaller defence budget. Note when ever there is a new US President they visit France in Europe first. That’s because France is their only pier country in Europe. The UK turned into a client dominion of the US from 1997 onwards. We need to learn from France and stand on our own two feet and stop this absurd special relationship nonsense only the British elite seem to believe exists. The man on the street is sick of it and knows it for the exploitative relationship it is.
Sadly, notwithstanding Brexit, the UK is still characterised by a cap doffing mentality and this manifests itself too often as lack of self belief. The Frenchman lives in a republic and therefore consider himself to be the equal of an American, and the French revolution to be the inspiration of the United States – land of the free and home of the brave.
The engineers who produced Canberra, Lightning, Buccaneer, Vulcan and Harrier don’t need to doff their cap to anyone. What they need is a government which has faith in them.
UK needs a De Gaulle.
UK had Churchill, as a frenchman I say thanks
😂
Worth remembering that UK government decided as long ago as 1966 not to build new aircraft carriers. Ark Royal and Eagle would remain in service until the 1970s. No subsequent government changed this decision, based largely but not wholly on cost.grounds. With the concentration of naval strategy on countering Russian submarines, the Invicibles were a logical replacement.
The rationale for the QEs was different, intended for the expeditionary role set out in the 1998 SDR.
What is the main purpose of the carriers now that expeditionary interventions are far less likely? Despite the disappointing sustainment cost and poor availability of the F35A, we still have 2 ships providing both fleet air defence and supporting ASW, now once again the main naval threat we face. Maybe 3 smaller carriers would have been a better choice but the 2 we have are likely to be more consistently useful than a single CATOBAR design which may well have to rely on Rafale for many years.
Whether France can sustain the likely very high cost of the carrier in the face of its mounting budget deficits without harming other major defence projects must be doubtful.
F35B
Then again, if Rassemblement National win the presidential election in 2027 they might cancel it.
Or worse, we’ll see it operating with Russian escorts.
They would be the last party to cancel it. They would almost definitly call it Jeanne d’Arc, they gather every year to her statue
even the radical left support it because it is a jobs program
Putin will be pleased then to hear he’s going to gain an aircraft carrier at the expense of the French taxpayer.
salad of words. the RN is certainly less embedded with russia than farage with the agent orange
Try again in English 🤷🏻♂️
It looks like a very nice ship, a very expensive one too. But the fact remains, that a single carrier, no matter how good can only be available for limited periods. In my opinion this is more of a status symbol, a white elephant rather than a serious carrier capability.
French carrier projects have a long history of cancellations so I’ll believe it when I see it enter service.
could you share with us the names of this “long history” ? . BTW the construction has begun.
Joffre class cancelled due to the fall of France.
Verdun a third enlarged Clemenceau cancelled due to costs
PH75 Nuclear powered helo carrier cancelled costs
2ns CDG cancelled end of cold war.
and PA2 cancelled dure to costs.
You are playing with words: since 1960, France has had two Clemenceau-class aircraft carriers, followed by the Charles de Gaulle, the second of which, with an alternative conventionally powered replacement, was never produced: a reduction in the number of units does not mean that projects have been canceled. As I have already pointed out, construction work has already begun and the commissioning date has been set, as required by the planning due to its nuclear nature: 2038. A study will be undertaken to determine whether the CdG’s reactor vessel is in good enough condition to allow for refueling after 2038, which would allow the renovated CdG to be used as a replacement for the PANG until the budget allows for a second PANG vessel to be built.
Huh? I never meant to argue, I just stated the facts.
List of aircraft carriers of France – Wikipedia You can see cancelled projects there it clearly states so, whether cancelled while under construction or at the planning stage they were cancelled. I mean CVA-01 was cancelled just as much as TSR2.
God all mighty the French live in the same cloud cuckoo land Starmer lives in it seems. If this ever happens it will be years late and billions over budget and then too short for something. They must be praying lasers are the new thing by then so they can defend it against swarms of hypersonic AI driven mega drones. Say goodnight Gracie
“…two new K22 nuclear reactors, each generating roughly 220 megawatts of electrical power…”
440MW electrical power, really? The estimate for a Ford Class appears to be around 250 MW from its two reactors. Maybe that’s the heat output, given about 30% efficiency.