PA NG - next gen French Aircraft carrier program

[H_K]

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

The video was made by a naval enthusiast well known for his CGI. It’s an unofficial rendering.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1515272094375886854

View: https://twitter.com/photos_floues/status/1515272094375886854?s=20&t=kL8c2n_MqieimqHdudyoew

 

[TomTom]

Some cool rendering from an artist on Artstation called Rama.

• French Navy in the 2030s
• PAnG conducting simultanous launch and recovery in heavy sea
• PAnG, the French Future Aircraft Carrier
• Rafale launch from PA-Ng
• (Marine) SCAF New Generation Fighter

 

[H_K]

Here’s the latest official rendering, showing the hull number R92, a slightly modified (larger?) island, and little details such as 40mm Rapidfire guns. 2 catapults.

Gives a good idea of how they plan to organize simultaneous aviation operations, eg. preparing a strike forward, while launching and recovering a CAP at the same time.

Futur porte-avions français : le design s’affine | Mer et Marine

Voici les dernières images en date du porte-avions français de nouvelle génération (PA-NG), dont les études se poursuivent en vue de sa livraison en 203...

www.meretmarine.com

 

[FighterJock]

Interesting carrier design.

 

[TomcatViP]

A single catapult (at the bow) looks very risky and also reduced the range and reactivity of the strike missions (strike package would spend more fuel circling and more time refueling before penetrating the enemy airspace).
Any damages on the forward catapult would force the entire fleet out of scheduled operations (you can't sustain normal flights in full safety with a single one that would have to be shared for landing a/c).
Given the cost of a catapult, isn't that a bit of a poor judgment from the cost cutter?
Wouldn't having a smaller ship be way more efficient in reducing the fiscal burden?

 

[H_K]

@TomcatViP That’s been the case for every 2 catapult carrier in the USN, RN and MN since the Essex SCB-27 modernisations in 1950.

Personally I would prefer to cut costs with conventional non-nuclear propulsion, rather than making the carrier smaller. And also look hard at the cost of EMALS and AAG as I suspect that the marginal operational benefits and technology risk is not worth it - would be worth looking into license building the C13 catapults and MK 13 arrestor gear in France instead (as the US production lines are probably shut down).

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Wouldn't having a smaller ship be way more efficient in reducing the fiscal burden?

No, not really. The vast majority of the cost of a ship is taken up by the systems on it (and in the case of nuclear powered ships, their propulsion).

Aircraft Carriers are especially volume-critical, and reduction in size will result in a considerable reduction in capability for very little reduction in cost.

If the French want to reduce the price of PANG, then they should go to a combination of Diesels and Gas Turbines with Integrated Electric Propulsion, before cutting the size of the ship.

 

[FighterJock]

@TomcatViP That’s been the case for every 2 catapult carrier in the USN, RN and MN since the Essex SCB-27 modernisations in 1950.

Personally I would prefer to cut costs with conventional non-nuclear propulsion, rather than making the carrier smaller. And also look hard at the cost of EMALS and AAG as I suspect that the marginal operational benefits and technology risk is not worth it - would be worth looking into license building the C13 catapults and MK 13 arrestor gear in France instead (as the US production lines are probably shut down).

How much did the nuclear powered CdeG, cost when it was brand new? That is why the Royal Navy went with the conventional powered Queen Elizabeth class carriers plus VSTOL instead of nuclear (Though they did consider going with nuclear early on during the early stages of the design).

 

[TomcatViP]

@H_K : EMAL are supposed to have a direct impact on the service life of an aircraft by mitigating the need for heavy maintenances. Although not a fully proven result, as of now, the inherent principles of their beneficial actions is generally straightforward to be considered consistent. It might even lead to a direct price reduction for the future Naval fighter that could save in structural reinforcement and with construction margin since launches constraints would be more predictables and repetitives.

I wasn't however aware that size was today not such a key paramater in aircraft carrier cost. WoW

@FighterJock : CdG cost was around 3b€. But I can't guarantee that included fishing out the Propeller's blades.

 

[Archibald]

Wouldn't having a smaller ship be way more efficient in reducing the fiscal burden?

No, not really. The vast majority of the cost of a ship is taken up by the systems on it (and in the case of nuclear powered ships, their propulsion).

Aircraft Carriers are especially volume-critical, and reduction in size will result in a considerable reduction in capability for very little reduction in cost.

If the French want to reduce the price of PANG, then they should go to a combination of Diesels and Gas Turbines with Integrated Electric Propulsion, before cutting the size of the ship.

Case in point: CVV vs Nimitz circa 1977. Did not cost appreciably less; yet the overall loss in capability was very strongly felt. This, for a carrier that was still as big as a Forrestal / Kitty Hawk / America / JFK - I mean the last non-nuclear supercarriers before Nimitz. Ships still bigger (75 000 tons +) than any other foreign carrier - French, British, Russian or Chinese, although the latter country is getting closer from Nimitz those days.

CVV studies were very interesting because they showed than any step back / sacrifice from a Nimitz to try and save some money - has capabilities dropping much faster than overall cost. Which de facto makes it wholly unacceptable to USN. What's the point of paying marginally less for a grossly inferior ship ?

My personal feeling is - that's an embarrassment of riches. You bet that France, Russia, China and GB would be perfectly happy with a modern-day Forrestal or Kitty-Hawk or JFK. But the USN has moved on to something even bigger and better.

 

[FighterJock]

My personal feeling is - that's an embarrassment of riches. You bet that France, Russia, China and GB would be perfectly happy with a modern-day Forrestal or Kitty-Hawk or JFK. But the USN has moved on to something even bigger and better.

You are right Archibald, the US Navy have moved on to the more advanced Ford class aircraft carrier but it has had its own fair share of troubles mainly with the Advanced Arrestor Gear and the equally advanced catapult system.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Here's hoping they'll make two but they probably won't.

A single catapult (at the bow) looks very risky and also reduced the range and reactivity of the strike missions (strike package would spend more fuel circling and more time refueling before penetrating the enemy airspace).
Any damages on the forward catapult would force the entire fleet out of scheduled operations (you can't sustain normal flights in full safety with a single one that would have to be shared for landing a/c).
Given the cost of a catapult, isn't that a bit of a poor judgment from the cost cutter?
Wouldn't having a smaller ship be way more efficient in reducing the fiscal burden?

A single starboard bow cat is ideal because bow cats are generally unavailable to begin with though? You stage your DLIs and BARCAPs off the port bow.

Unless you're a STOBAR carrier like Soviet or English designs, you are using the bow for storage of aircraft most of the time. If you're not doing that, then you're prepping an alfa strike with the entire combat ready air wing and probably have another carrier (or two) providing both local air/seaspace control and strike group escort, and probably have a diminished air wing size to begin with.

Two bow cats is marginally more flexible, but in practice this won't be appreciated without a air wing of (presently) impossible size. A single bow cat is adequate for any conceivable current or future air wing size and in all likelihood will probably go unused in the majority of cases.

 

[FighterJock]

Here's hoping they'll make two but they probably won't.

I hope that the US Navy order more, but you can never know for sure.

 

[Ogami musashi]

Here’s the latest official rendering, showing the hull number R92, a slightly modified (larger?) island, and little details such as 40mm Rapidfire guns. 2 catapults.

Gives a good idea of how they plan to organize simultaneous aviation operations, eg. preparing a strike forward, while launching and recovering a CAP at the same time.

Futur porte-avions français : le design s’affine | Mer et Marine

Voici les dernières images en date du porte-avions français de nouvelle génération (PA-NG), dont les études se poursuivent en vue de sa livraison en 203...

www.meretmarine.com

Press says the number of catapult is not decided. 2 or 3

 

[Kat Tsun]

Here's hoping they'll make two but they probably won't.

I hope that the US Navy order more, but you can never know for sure.

What? I was talking about PA NG replacing CdG.

One carrier is enough for like...8 months of immediate availability every 2 years or so lol, which is about what CdG manages. France isn't exactly a high seas naval power so this is adequate for its purposes, but this isn't great for defending the Pacific holdings. Two nuclear carriers is adequate for round the clock availability at 30 days notice for 2-year cycles.

Three carriers will cover every 5-year cycle of refueling for the carriers, assuming their maintenance schedules resemble the R91, and be available on relatively short notice for a major war in the Pacific. However it seems France can only afford one carrier, so it really shouldn't have any if it's intent on husbanding resources for more available systems like A-400M-borne airmobile brigades, but I guess they're some kind of industrial subsidy or something.

I guess that assumes France has any interest in retaining either its Pacific holdings, or assisting America in that regard, though. Which itself is somewhat of an open question, although they seem to be getting closer to the Quad, it just isn't clear what they can actually bring to the table besides "more nukes" which isn't something the Quad really needs tbh. They have some Rafales? A couple airmobile brigades? These aren't great benefits when we're talking about the largest conventional ground force (and growing) in the world (India) and the largest, but shrinking, naval power in the world (USA) opposing the second largest ground force (and growing) and second largest Pacific naval force (and growing).

USA needs ships in the sea not boots on the ground and France is well positioned to provide more ships if they want to, just like Japan is willing to throw in something more SSKs by the 40's. Unfortunately, France might only have CdG and PA NG (or just the latter) at that point.

If they get more nuclear subs, maybe four or six or eight or so in the next 20 years (basically doubling the Suffrens would be nice), they can help shore up the submarine cliff that's gonna clap America's nautical cheeks sometime in 2042 and is only getting worse. That would also be a tangible benefit.

If they had two, or better three, nuclear carriers akin to PA NG the French would actually be able to shore up American surface naval power in the Indo-Pacific and potentially release a US supercarrier for combat operations in the South Pacific, but there's an open question whether carriers are useful in a potential US-PRC conflict in the Pacific since they would require strategic attacks on the 2nd Artillery Corps by the USAF to operate anywhere near the SCS to begin with.

It's not required, and subs would probably be more useful, but it would be nice in any case and is the topic of the thread.

 

[Archibald]

Here's hoping they'll make two but they probably won't.

I hope that the US Navy order more, but you can never know for sure.

What? I was talking about PA NG replacing CdG.

One carrier is enough for like...8 months of immediate availability every 2 years or so lol, which is about what CdG manages. France isn't exactly a high seas naval power so this is adequate for its purposes, but this isn't great for defending the Pacific holdings. Two nuclear carriers is adequate for round the clock availability at 30 days notice for 2-year cycles.

Three carriers will cover every 5-year cycle of refueling for the carriers, assuming their maintenance schedules resemble the R91, and be available on relatively short notice for a major war in the Pacific. However it seems France can only afford one carrier, so it really shouldn't have any if it's intent on husbanding resources for more available systems like A-400M-borne airmobile brigades, but I guess they're some kind of industrial subsidy or something.

I guess that assumes France has any interest in retaining either its Pacific holdings, or assisting America in that regard, though.

You nailed it... going from two Clems to just one CdG was a very, very difficult decision in fact that can was kicked down the road for 20 years or so (!) broadly from 1987 (CdG final decision was the year before) to 2007 when Sarko decided there would be no anglo-french carrier.
Fact that a Q.E is too different from the CdG, in every aspect. Two oddballs instead of one - too expensive for the French Navy. Plus one non-nuclear one, that was not acceptable even if the ship was larger and more powerful than CdG in every other aspects.

Some british decisions related to the Q.Es also made them incompatible with the French Navy requirement.

 

[H_K]

Latest stats of the PANG design… slightly longer at the waterline than a Kitty Hawk class!

Displacement: ~75,000t full load
Length: 305m waterline / 310m overall
Width: 39m waterline / 85m overall
Design Draft (max): 10.8m
Flight deck area: 17,000m2

https://twitter.com/x/status/1570704474653724672

View: https://twitter.com/xaviervav/status/1570704474653724672?s=20&t=A18f2EIFE3ek8ERV_Al3kw

 

[H_K]

More pics of the PANG model, from a Polish journalist who attended the pre-Euronaval press tour:

Przed Euronaval 2022: lotniskowiec PA NG

Od 12 do 16 września grupa przemysłowa skupiająca firmy sektora morskiego i obronnego we Francji Groupement Industriel des Constructions et Armements

zbiam.pl

 

[Kat Tsun]

Here's hoping they'll make two but they probably won't.

I hope that the US Navy order more, but you can never know for sure.

What? I was talking about PA NG replacing CdG.

One carrier is enough for like...8 months of immediate availability every 2 years or so lol, which is about what CdG manages. France isn't exactly a high seas naval power so this is adequate for its purposes, but this isn't great for defending the Pacific holdings. Two nuclear carriers is adequate for round the clock availability at 30 days notice for 2-year cycles.

Three carriers will cover every 5-year cycle of refueling for the carriers, assuming their maintenance schedules resemble the R91, and be available on relatively short notice for a major war in the Pacific. However it seems France can only afford one carrier, so it really shouldn't have any if it's intent on husbanding resources for more available systems like A-400M-borne airmobile brigades, but I guess they're some kind of industrial subsidy or something.

I guess that assumes France has any interest in retaining either its Pacific holdings, or assisting America in that regard, though.

You nailed it... going from two Clems to just one CdG was a very, very difficult decision in fact that can was kicked down the road for 20 years or so (!) broadly from 1987 (CdG final decision was the year before) to 2007 when Sarko decided there would be no anglo-french carrier.
Fact that a Q.E is too different from the CdG, in every aspect. Two oddballs instead of one - too expensive for the French Navy. Plus one non-nuclear one, that was not acceptable even if the ship was larger and more powerful than CdG in every other aspects.

Some british decisions related to the Q.Es also made them incompatible with the French Navy requirement.

My heart still aches that we will never see Anglo-French (Franco-British?) combined battlegroups of 4-6 CVF Alfas cruising the seven seas.

 

[FighterJock]

Here's hoping they'll make two but they probably won't.

I hope that the US Navy order more, but you can never know for sure.

What? I was talking about PA NG replacing CdG.

One carrier is enough for like...8 months of immediate availability every 2 years or so lol, which is about what CdG manages. France isn't exactly a high seas naval power so this is adequate for its purposes, but this isn't great for defending the Pacific holdings. Two nuclear carriers is adequate for round the clock availability at 30 days notice for 2-year cycles.

Three carriers will cover every 5-year cycle of refueling for the carriers, assuming their maintenance schedules resemble the R91, and be available on relatively short notice for a major war in the Pacific. However it seems France can only afford one carrier, so it really shouldn't have any if it's intent on husbanding resources for more available systems like A-400M-borne airmobile brigades, but I guess they're some kind of industrial subsidy or something.

I guess that assumes France has any interest in retaining either its Pacific holdings, or assisting America in that regard, though.

You nailed it... going from two Clems to just one CdG was a very, very difficult decision in fact that can was kicked down the road for 20 years or so (!) broadly from 1987 (CdG final decision was the year before) to 2007 when Sarko decided there would be no anglo-french carrier.
Fact that a Q.E is too different from the CdG, in every aspect. Two oddballs instead of one - too expensive for the French Navy. Plus one non-nuclear one, that was not acceptable even if the ship was larger and more powerful than CdG in every other aspects.

Some british decisions related to the Q.Es also made them incompatible with the French Navy requirement.

My heart still aches that we will never see Anglo-French (Franco-British?) combined battlegroups of 4-6 CVF Alfas cruising the seven seas.

That is the same with me Kat Tsun, I wanted the Franco-British CVF carrier program to succeed. But I fear that the PANG will just be too expensive for France.

 

[Archibald]

I wanted the Franco-British CVF carrier program to succeed

Me too, but the ship and the timing were all wrong. Small nuclear versus big conventional propulsion... too differents.

As for PA-NG, fine impressive big ship, but wholly unaffordable, or perhaps just a single one, but stretched over a veeeeeeeeery long time.

 

[FighterJock]

As for PA-NG, fine impressive big ship, but wholly unaffordable, or perhaps just a single one, but stretched over a veeeeeeeeery long time.

I wonder why France don't purchase two PA-NG it would make more sense if they did, and it would be easier to have one aircraft carrier in getting serviced and one combat ready or out on patrol somewhere in the world that is why the Royal Navy built two CVFs (in fact we should have built three aircraft carriers but that is another story).

 

[Archibald]

Money, money and money. They badly wanted two CdGs to replace the two Clems and get the same flexibility, but late 1980's France, followed by Peace dividends France, could no longer afford the expense.

As of 1993 both political system and financial resources were on their knees (Mitterrand end of reign after 1990 and until 1995 was a political and economical abomination, one political scandal after another, plus his agony of cancer).

That's why they had to learn living with one CdG, and while France may be in a better shape than in 93' (whatever dumbarse declinists say) PA-NG is so huge, I really can't see France being able to fund two.

Great Britain (another medium power quite comparable) did it, but a touch smaller, non-nuclear, and not CATOBAR, with preciously little F-35Bs on the deck (they have to ask USMC to fill the numbers, as done during that trip to China recently).

 

[FighterJock]

Great Britain (another medium power quite comparable) did it, but a touch smaller, non-nuclear, and not CATOBAR, with preciously little F-35Bs on the deck (they have to ask USMC to fill the numbers, as done during that trip to China recently).

Not wanting to get too off-topic. Both the Royal Navy and RAF are still wanting to purchase more F-35Bs, it all depends on what the new Westminster government wants.

 

[timmymagic]

Not wanting to get too off-topic. Both the Royal Navy and RAF are still wanting to purchase more F-35Bs, it all depends on what the new Westminster government wants.

No change with the new government. In fact Truss wants to increase the defence budget further. UK will be getting 74 F-35 total at present. However, 1 is already lost and 3 a/c are non-combat capable test aircraft. So in reality it will be 70 a/c split into 4 x 12 a/c Sqn's. One of which will be 207 Sqn Operational Conversion Unit. The remaining 22 a/c will be in maintenance, reserve and an active pool. This will mean that the 4 Sqn's will always have 12 a/c available for tasking. If the UK wanted an additional 4th operational squadron it's likely they'd need to order an additional 20 x F-35B (12 for the Sqn, additional a/c for the OCU and some for the pool).

 

[FighterJock]

If the UK wanted an additional 4th operational squadron it's likely they'd need to order an additional 20 x F-35B (12 for the Sqn, additional a/c for the OCU and some for the pool).

I would think that if the UK want's more F-35Bs they should buy enough for an additional fourth and fifth squadrons and additional aircraft for the OCU and extra for the pool. The fourth and fifth squadrons could be split between the Fleet Air Arm and RAF.

 

[timmymagic]

If the UK wanted an additional 4th operational squadron it's likely they'd need to order an additional 20 x F-35B (12 for the Sqn, additional a/c for the OCU and some for the pool).

I would think that if the UK want's more F-35Bs they should buy enough for an additional fourth and fifth squadrons and additional aircraft for the OCU and extra for the pool. The fourth and fifth squadrons could be split between the Fleet Air Arm and RAF.

The Combat Air budget will only have limited space up to 2030. There are Typhoon upgrades as well to be accounted for, and integration costs for new munitions. After 2030 all the money will go into Tempest. I can't see another purchased after the 26 to be honest. It would be lovely to reach 90+ but its not doable I suspect.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Via a WarshipPorn thread on the model shown earlier by H_K:

level 1
MGC91
OP·7 days ago

Credit to Xavier Vavasseur
Key Points:

• A 2nd carrier remains a possibility 2 or 3 EMALS configuration is still being investigated
• Will be compatible with V-22 and MQ-25
• Launch end of 2034

Preliminary design data:

• Full Load Displacement 75,000 tonnes
• Overall length 310 m
• Length at waterline 305 m
• Overall width 85m
• Width at water line 39 m
• Flight deck surface 17 000 m'
• (Max. design) draught 10.8 m

 

[FighterJock]

Via a WarshipPorn thread on the model shown earlier by H_K:

level 1
MGC91
OP·7 days ago

Credit to Xavier Vavasseur
Key Points:

• A 2nd carrier remains a possibility 2 or 3 EMALS configuration is still being investigated
• Will be compatible with V-22 and MQ-25
• Launch end of 2034

Preliminary design data:

• Full Load Displacement 75,000 tonnes
• Overall length 310 m
• Length at waterline 305 m
• Overall width 85m
• Width at water line 39 m
• Flight deck surface 17 000 m'
• (Max. design) draught 10.8 m

I like the fact that France are still considering a second aircraft carrier, they should do the decent thing and release more funds for it now.

 

[Archibald]

Via a WarshipPorn thread on the model shown earlier by H_K:

level 1
MGC91
OP·7 days ago

Credit to Xavier Vavasseur
Key Points:

• A 2nd carrier remains a possibility 2 or 3 EMALS configuration is still being investigated
• Will be compatible with V-22 and MQ-25
• Launch end of 2034

Preliminary design data:

• Full Load Displacement 75,000 tonnes
• Overall length 310 m
• Length at waterline 305 m
• Overall width 85m
• Width at water line 39 m
• Flight deck surface 17 000 m'
• (Max. design) draught 10.8 m

I like the fact that France are still considering a second aircraft carrier, they should do the decent thing and release more funds for it now.

Alas... took 20 years (1987 - 2007) to decide NOT having a second carrier - either CdG twin or a Q.E with the british. The money was never there, and even without that second carrier billion euros expense, the French Navy is presently stretched very, very thin - it has been trimmed to the bones. Not as dismal as the RN, but the present situation is NOT good.

PA-NG is nearly twice bigger than CdG and the "british option" is out of the table. Bottom line: can't see how my country could afford two nuclear Kitty Hawk -size & tonnage carriers. Not today, not in 2030, not in 2040 or beyond.
It is not a matter of "France is declining" (screw you, Eric Zemmour and your clique) just that my country is a medium power with limited resources and some serious present and future issues to solve.

 

[H_K]

New official rendering of PANG presented at Euronaval 2022:

 

[TomS]

New official rendering of PANG presented at Euronaval 2022:

Looks like a third VLS nest has been added, on the starboard side just ahead of the elevator? Or something else? Whatever that multi-deck structure is, I don't think it was there in earlier renders.

 

[H_K]

@TomS Yesvit looks like they moved one of the 2 VLS launchers. Here’s a video of the model also at the show:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1582364943050907649

View: https://twitter.com/OpexNews/status/1582364943050907649?s=20&t=4J30QTrDEfqK7EvVr2IkgA

 

[TomS]

Ah, so not a third but just the second relocated to the other side of the ship and moved forward a bit. Makes sense -- having them distributed like this reduces the need to launch missiles across the flight deck.

 

[TomS]

Close up pics of the new island configuration. Looks like a lot of dishes got relocated off the island to the catwalks around the deck edge. Probably better for interference issues that way.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1582368543349256195

View: https://twitter.com/MartinMnche/status/1582368543349256195

 

[aonestudio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1582374631364706304

View: https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1582374631364706304

 

[H_K]

Super high def image of PANG:

PA-NG : le design du futur porte-avions français continue dâévoluer | Mer et Marine

A lâoccasion du salon Euronaval, Naval Group et le ministère des Armées ont dévoilé hier une nouvelle maquette du porte-avions français de nouvelle g�...

www.meretmarine.com

 

[timmymagic]

Super high def image of PANG:

PA-NG : le design du futur porte-avions français continue dâévoluer | Mer et Marine

A lâoccasion du salon Euronaval, Naval Group et le ministère des Armées ont dévoilé hier une nouvelle maquette du porte-avions français de nouvelle g�...

www.meretmarine.com

I know its early days...but I can guarantee that the life raft placement gets amended in future iterations...do wonder about the boat bay as well, quite surprised they've not adopted the rather elegant QE Class solution.

 

[Archibald]

Impressive ! Make no mistake, having even one such ship build and in service would be completely awesome. Two would be formidable. But these beasts of ships won't be cheap by any mean.
IF build, they would be by far the heaviest ships ever build for the French navy. AFAIK the record must still be held by the Richelieu & Jean Bart battleships, ahead of the present day CdG carrier (they must be close, around 45 000 tons).

 

[TomS]

Ah, so not a third but just the second relocated to the other side of the ship and moved forward a bit. Makes sense -- having them distributed like this reduces the need to launch missiles across the flight deck.

Hmm. I've had a closer look at that third Navy Lookout picture and there are clearly two VLS nests to port, for a total of three.