PA NG - next gen French Aircraft carrier program

[marauder2048]

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]

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]

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.

 

[JohnR]

Is that cut out on the waterline of the stern for the French Navy's water skiing team?

 

[TomS]

Is that cut out on the waterline of the stern for the French Navy's water skiing team?

I suspect the hatches there are boat hangars.

 

[TomS]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[timmymagic]

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]

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]

..... 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]

Naval Group, Chantiers de l’Atlantique team up for France’s new aircraft carrier

The new joint venture is held two-thirds by Naval Group and one-third by Chantiers de l’Atlantique.

www.defensenews.com

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]

..... 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]

..... 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 ????

 

[Archibald]

It was a joke - an old one by this (forgotten) gentleman

Alphonse Allais - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[H_K]

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.

 

[H_K]

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!

 

[isayyo2]

Fascinating @H_K !

 

[H_K]

And it floats ;-)

10 meter (1:30?) scale model being used for seakeeping trials on a lake.

 

[Ogami musashi]

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?

 

[Anderman]

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?

If Wikipedia is correct you are too.

 

[H_K]

@Ogami musashi Sorry I meant they have a similar spot size, as the folded dimensions of the A-5 are similar to the NGF (which doesn’t fold).

 

[dan_inbox]

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?

 

[Ogami musashi]

@Ogami musashi Sorry I meant they have a similar spot size, as the folded dimensions of the A-5 are similar to the NGF (which doesn’t fold).

Ah I see thanks

 

[TomS]

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]

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.

 

[helmutkohl]

France – Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

France cleared to buy EMALS and the new AAG for next carrier

 

[H_K]

France cleared to buy EMALS and the new AAG for next carrier

$1.3 BILLION dollars for 2 catapults and 3 arrestor wires? For a lot less money they could have bought the license rights to the old steam catapults and hydraulic brakes and paid for custom manufacturing in France.

Not sure it was an option of course. But I can’t help but feel that down the line the Marine Nationale will regret choosing this expensive new technology, which doesn’t really do anything better despite what was advertised.

 

[TomcatViP]

?!?

Naval news concludes for two catapults only. But what are the odds for that to be only an initial setup before a third launch station is to be added (or a mix of the two technologies (emal & steam) for redundancy)?

Regarding the nbr of arresting wires, let's keep in mind that pilot assistance has come through such length that precision landing might push the need for more bundle into obsolescence.

United States Approves Possible FMS of EMALS and AAG to France - Naval News

The United States' State Department approved a possible Foreign Military Sale (FMS) to France of Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), and related equipment for an estimated cost of $1.321 billion.

www.navalnews.com

 

[zen]

Arrestor engines are needed, not just wires.

 

[Archibald]

For a lot less money they could have bought the license rights to the old steam catapults and hydraulic brakes and paid for custom manufacturing in France.

"Of course it's a good idea !" Remember, CdG catapults are shortened Nimitz's (75 m rather than 90 - 100 m)

 

[Forest Green]

French Navy releases video about the future aircraft carrier PA-Ng

According to a tweet published by the French Navy on April 13, 2022, the Navy released the first video about the future French aircraft carrier (PA-NG),&nb

www.navyrecognition.com

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPEtA4ZlwvU




The French Navy is actively planning for a future aircraft carrier and new flagship. It is known in French as Porte-avions de nouvelle génération (PA-Ng) for "new generation aircraft carrier".

Construction of the PA-Ng is expected to begin around 2025 and it will enter service in 2038; the year the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle is due to be retired. The ship will be nuclear-powered and feature the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) catapult system.
In October 2018, French Minister of the Armed Forces Florence Parly announced the start of a second carrier program, as a replacement for Charles de Gaulle.

The aircraft carrier will have a displacement of 75000 tons, a length of 305 meters, and a beam of 40 meters (131 ft 3 in). She will have two elevators.
She will be equipped with the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) which is a type of aircraft launching system developed by General Atomics for the United States Navy. The system launches carrier-based aircraft by means of a catapult employing a linear induction motor rather than the conventional steam piston.

The PA-Ng will carry aircraft and helicopters including E-2 Hawkeye early-warning fixed-wing, 30 Dassault Rafale fighter jets, or FCAS (French: Système de combat aérien du futur; SCAF), Airbus Helicopters H160M, and NHIndustries NH90 helicopters.

 

[H_K]

Note that those are NOT official renderings.

(There’s a few details, e.g. aircraft locations & flow, that were bothering me until I realized that).

 

[Archibald]

Not as sexy as South Korea carrier CGI video, but we are getting closer. The CGI is a bit cheap, however.

 

[Hydroman]

Interesting the French are considering a US nuke-type regarding their new carrier concept, alot to be said for the big nuke flatops. No matter what size the carrier, everything is vulnerable to modern weapons, might as well carry as much capability as possible and hopefully strike first and fast. As a note, took a lot to sink CV-66.

 

[Ogami musashi]

Note that those are NOT official renderings.

(There’s a few details, e.g. aircraft locations & flow, that werbothering me until I realized that)

What do you mean? There are certainly some inaccuracies but the video was released by the French navy.