PA NG - next gen French Aircraft carrier program

Interesting that they have VLS. Where would they fit it? I don't see in the pictures of the model
 
That sponson looks like a suspect to me:
 

Attachments

  • PA2+DEAC+Euronaval+2012.jpg
    PA2+DEAC+Euronaval+2012.jpg
    276.2 KB · Views: 1,004
Perhaps we should ewname the thread to reflect that PA2 as a programme has finally sunk but DCNS are still pushing an evolved none nuclear CdG design to potential export customers ?
 
DCN-PA-2 / DCNS ? Pointing to both
 
Yeap that's better, means the thread covers the original PA-2 requirement, covers the common CVF variant and the gradual switchback to evolutions of the original DCN Juliet design now aimed primarily at the export market.
I expect we will see another French Aircraft Carrier, but it will most likely be aimed as a Charles de Gaulle replacement, although that looks to be sometime off as yet and I can't much chance of export success this decade at least unless its as design consultants
 
Published on Feb 15, 2014

DCNS Evolved Aircraft Carrier (DEAC):
Providing power projection, sea control and air defence and based on French Navy CVN Charles de Gaulle's combat proven design and aviation system, the DEAC is compatible with all CTOL aircrafts (including Airborne Early Warning aircraft) and features the latest technologies including cutting-edge Combat System (SETIS®), UAV integration, advanced conventional propulsion and state-of-the-art platform stabilisation system (SATRAP/COGITE). In addition to the design, DCNS offers customised transfer of technology, material packages, dedicated infrastructures development (i.e. naval base and construction/maintenance shipyard) as well as life support solutions.

Footage from DEFEXPO 2014 and Euronaval 2012
www.navyrecognition.com

http://youtu.be/DWYg-VUAi7I
 
Model of DCNS Evolved Aircraft Carrier (DEAC) on display at Euronaval 2014.

Source:
http://topwar.ru/61470-euronaval-2014-ekspoziciya-dcns.html
 

Attachments

  • 1414607063_1.jpg
    1414607063_1.jpg
    51.4 KB · Views: 432
  • 1414607110_2.jpg
    1414607110_2.jpg
    60.7 KB · Views: 396
Some new CGIs of the "DCNS Evolved Aircraft Carrier" design (DEAC), courtesy of Meretmarine and DCNS.

A variant of DEAC will likely be pitched to India for its IAC-2 requirement, where its closest competitor will likely be BAE's larger CVF design. The design in these latest images seems unchanged from early 2014... though always nice to see some new angles.

Meretmarine gives a few updated specs:
http://meretmarine.com/fr/content/la-france-tres-interessee-par-le-projet-indien-de-nouveau-porte-avions

- Fuel capacity : 8,400t (an increase from the earlier numbers for PADSX : 7,200t, incl. 3,800t fuel oil + 3,400t JP5)
- Speed : 28 knots (up from 27kts earlier, though probably depends on the final propulsion choice)
- Range: 8,000nm @ 20kts (in line with PADSX's range of 8,000nm @ 15kts with 30% reserve)
- Munitions : 400t (down from 800t in PADSX... seems low)

NavyRecognition also speculates about options to fit DEAC with EMALS:
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2914
 

Attachments

  • deac2.jpg
    deac2.jpg
    521.4 KB · Views: 498
  • deac3.jpg
    deac3.jpg
    108.7 KB · Views: 468
  • deac.jpg
    deac.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 485
France Started EMALS Talks with U.S. for its future PA NG Aircraft Carrier

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/2018/euronaval-2018/6564-france-started-emals-talks-with-u-s-for-its-future-pa-ng-aircraft-carrier.html?fbclid=IwAR1VpdegOMO1F2WjP5KL26h_iqE8_GIMqhljws580oI6x-Dl5BU30w-yrUg
 
What would the overall tonnage be for the future French Aircraft Carrier? Would it be less than the Queen Elizabeth class?
 
In fact, before this article, it was not even sure that it would be built...
 
Yeah if Xav still comes by he would be able to provide nore insight, but my understanding is tat very little is set in stone and news of EMALS talks is the first definitive sign of life from the program in some time.
 
The article suggest that the EMALS discussions are sort of a precursor to actually designing a ship. Until they know more about EMALS, they don't know how big a ship it requires (or how small a ship it can allow).
 
For reference, here is the thread on the previous iterations of post-CdG French carrier designs.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=3974.75
 
It will be interesting to see what aircraft they choose for PA NG. If a new carrier is built and ready around 2025, then it places it in the same ballpark timeframe as SCAF. And adding naval capability to SCAF will probably need to be decided sooner rather than later.
 
So, is it closer from CdG or from Queen Elizabeth, or a mix of the two ? (the two carriers, not the two people)
 
Archibald said:
So, is it closer from CdG or from Queen Elizabeth, or a mix of the two ? (the two carriers, not the two people)
Click to expand...
We won't know until they proceed deeper into the program. They might not even stick with EMALS, this is preliminary work. Naval Group has put out some concepts on their own initiative, but the Navy itself hasn't done much to define their goals for a new carrier lately.
 
18 months study for the PA NG :

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-military/france-begins-deliberations-on-new-aircraft-carrier-idUKKCN1MX1CE
 
FighterJock said:
What would the overall tonnage be for the future French Aircraft Carrier? Would it be less than the Queen Elizabeth class?
Click to expand...

My guess: one tonne heavier and one meter longer.
 
Here is one of the recent French carrier design studies.

Things of note:
  • ~300m length OA (estimate based on flight deck markings). Noticeably longer than CVF, probably 65,000t+ displacement
  • Long hull with slim “wave piercing bow”... indicates a greater focus on hydrodynamics than the “boxy” CVF design
  • 6 diesel main propulsion engines with WWII-style uptakes (!) along the flight deck (2 groups of 3)
  • Likely a gas turbine under the island, as 6x main diesels won’t provide enough power
  • This implies total power generation of 90-100MW (30+MW GTG + 6x ~10MW diesels). This is noticeably less than CVF’s 112MW... hence the focus on hydrodynamics
  • Rear island placement (a la CVN-78) indicates an emphasis on optimized sortie generation and maximizing clear deck space
  • The gas turbine under the island can’t be mechanical drive (located too far back) so likely hybrid-electric or all-electric propulsion

All-in-all looks like an elegant compromise, trying to mix the best of CVN-78 (uncluttered flight deck) and CVF (widely separated propulsion & uptakes). Looks nicer than the previous designs. Of course, no way of knowing if this is just a teaser or one of the preferred options...

Original source: https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/futur-porte-avions-les-industriels-finalisent-leur-copie
English translation: https://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/french-military-developments.4545/page-16

pang-docexc.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hell of a terrific ship, really. An honest-to-God, balanced design, as you noted.
 
H_K said:
  • This implies total power generation of 90-100MW (30+MW GTG + 6x ~10MW diesels). This is noticeably less than CVF’s 112MW... hence the focus on hydrodynamics
  • Likely a gas turbine under the island, as 6x main diesels won’t provide enough power
Click to expand...


Wärtsila supplies 17 MW diesels which would get you 100 MW without needing a gas turbine.
 
Would be nice if (to save a lot of hassle and money) we could start from Q.E hulls, improved and done the *right* way, that is, CATOBAR. Nuclear is too expensive and 60 000 tons would be awesome (Forrestal class carriers, 70 years late).
 
The QE option seems to be rather dead, as there's been no movement on a teaming agreement since Sarkozy sank that option in 2008. Xav's coverage of the recent news indicates the MN leans heavily toward a nuclear carrier (or carriers) in the 70-ish thousand ton range, but Macron will make the call so we'll see. The big change compared to previous concepts is that they seem to be walking away from export aspirations, which kept downward pressure on displacement and nixed the nuke option, and focusing on the needs/desires of the MN which very clearly wants a bigger ship.
 
It's been written that the MN wants two carriers and nuclear in that priority order so most likely will get one nuke a tad bigger than the brit ones. Always been mostly a vanity thing for the French.
 
Ron5 said:
It's been written that the MN wants two carriers and nuclear in that priority order so most likely will get one nuke a tad bigger than the brit ones. Always been mostly a vanity thing for the French.
Click to expand...

! lol !! So classy. Of course... Sure, every things we do is mostly about vanity...
Nothing about ... Just needing a bigger ship that could replace the CdG.
You sure look like seriously well informed of Fr govs moves in defence spending.

This is hilarious.
- So the Brits build the QEII carrier, they needed a carrier , they now have one, fine, good, happy for them.
- Then there are news of the French wanting a new carrier. Turns out they want a bigger one.
Conclusion : it's mostly a vanity thing.
May i ask , vanity from whom ?.
The French ?
Or the Brit guy reading the news on the internet, saying a (not even built yet) French carrier bigger than QEII can only be a mostly vanity thing ?
 
Last edited:
Moose said:
The QE option seems to be rather dead, as there's been no movement on a teaming agreement since Sarkozy sank that option in 2008. Xav's coverage of the recent news indicates the MN leans heavily toward a nuclear carrier (or carriers) in the 70-ish thousand ton range, but Macron will make the call so we'll see. The big change compared to previous concepts is that they seem to be walking away from export aspirations, which kept downward pressure on displacement and nixed the nuke option, and focusing on the needs/desires of the MN which very clearly wants a bigger ship.
Click to expand...

Extremely detailed, thanks for the link.

Two 75000 tons nuclear carriers is going to be insanely expensive. A very difficult choice here...
1*nuclear carrier has been the situation for twenty years.
2*non-nuclear happened in 1960 - 2000.
Note that even in the 70's Foch and Clem' rarely sailed together. More 1.5 carrier fleet with one as helocarrier and undercrewed.
2 carriers is more flexible overall.

I would rather pick the two non-nuclear option but the article makes clear the nuclear naval lobby will prevail.
 
One large nuke (CDG class) , one USS America class, nuclear, one Garibaldi class, nuclear...
And a gamut of F-35.
 
Last edited:
MihoshiK said:
Shouldn't this thread be merged with this one?

Click to expand...
The French version of CVF, the DCN design series from that thread, and the current program are all related but distinct efforts. We could re-title the other thread as a blanket "unbuilt French CV concepts" thread, especially as the last concept in that thread seems more closely related to current plans than the 2008 design, but I'd prefer we keep a separate thread specifically for this present effort. If it falls apart before a hull is laid down, we could roll these posts into the "concepts" thread for archival purposes.
 
My gut feeling is that the French Navy will stick with one carrier if that makes it nuclear.
The reasons ?
- The naval-nuclear-lobby + past experience with Foch and Clemenceau (see my post above)
- present situation of the RN - two carriers, yes - but also, not enough manpower, aircraft, and escorts for the two.
But also
- the existence of "alternatives" that did not existed between 1960 and 2000
They are
- Tigre attack choppers on Mistral LPH (already done in Lybia, 2011)
- SCALP cruise missiles on submarines and surface ships.

Make no mistake: those are not "true" or "viable" alternatives to a full-blown carrier.

Yet, as far as "delivering firepower on ISIS sobs in Lybia or around the Mediterranean" it is more than enough
- even more if combined with Armée de l'Air Rafales: on forward bases (Djibouti or UAE)- or aerial refueled by MRTTs.

Basically, the hatred between the French AF and the French Navy is much less than the USAF - USN one (should we call this one "an embarassment of rich ?")
The lack of means and budgets greatly helps: "learn to cooperate, you idiot sailors and aviators."

Instead of a second carrier, the solution is a) send the SCALPs and b) clear the rubble with Tigres from Mistrals, with AdA Rafales flying cover.
 
Last edited:
*I am also amazed that the strategy is again to build an entire aircraft carrier around the promises of a private aerospace contractor. Instead of clothing it with the grandiloquent outfits of a General, please this time ship it with what suits it best: name it Marcel...

* this post is not much different from the one above
 
galgot said:
Ron5 said:
It's been written that the MN wants two carriers and nuclear in that priority order so most likely will get one nuke a tad bigger than the brit ones. Always been mostly a vanity thing for the French.
Click to expand...

! lol !! So classy. Of course... Sure, every things we do is mostly about vanity...
Nothing about ... Just needing a bigger ship that could replace the CdG.
You sure look like seriously well informed of Fr govs moves in defence spending.

This is hilarious.
- So the Brits build the QEII carrier, they needed a carrier , they now have one, fine, good, happy for them.
- Then there are news of the French wanting a new carrier. Turns out they want a bigger one.
Conclusion : it's mostly a vanity thing.
May i ask , vanity from whom ?.
The French ?
Or the Brit guy reading the news on the internet, saying a (not even built yet) French carrier bigger than QEII can only be a mostly vanity thing ?
Click to expand...

I am not British.

Vanity projects are common. Many of us, including me, drive cars and motorcycles with high end nameplates, that are capable of speeds more than twice the the speeds we actually drive, and corresponding high prices. Most of the reason is vanity.

CdeG was a poor military choice. Rather small, with poor availability, and accompanied by high build and running costs. A larger, cheaper conventional carrier would have provided a superior capability for France. Hence my opinion that the choice was influenced by national vanity. I fully expect the follow on carrier will follow the same pattern. Size will be set by the UK carriers, propulsion by matching the US. Vanity only requires one.
 
Archibald said:
My gut feeling is that the French Navy will stick with one carrier if that makes it nuclear.
The reasons ?
- The naval-nuclear-lobby + past experience with Foch and Clemenceau (see my post above)
- present situation of the RN - two carriers, yes - but also, not enough manpower, aircraft, and escorts for the two.
But also
- the existence of "alternatives" that did not existed between 1960 and 2000
They are
- Tigre attack choppers on Mistral LPH (already done in Lybia, 2011)
- SCALP cruise missiles on submarines and surface ships.

Make no mistake: those are not "true" or "viable" alternatives to a full-blown carrier.

Yet, as far as "delivering firepower on ISIS sobs in Lybia or around the Mediterranean" it is more than enough
- even more if combined with Armée de l'Air Rafales: on forward bases (Djibouti or UAE)- or aerial refueled by MRTTs.

Basically, the hatred between the French AF and the French Navy is much less than the USAF - USN one (should we call this one "an embarassment of rich ?")
The lack of means and budgets greatly helps: "learn to cooperate, you idiot sailors and aviators."

Instead of a second carrier, the solution is a) send the SCALPs and b) clear the rubble with Tigres from Mistrals, with AdA Rafales flying cover.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the UK has two carriers to ensure that one is available 100% of the time, for which they have ample manpower and escorts. France with CdeG has had a carrier operational perhaps 60% of the time(?) since her commissioning.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom