PA NG - next gen French Aircraft carrier program

TomS said:
TomS said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
They look like deep Sylver VLS as well. I think there is room for Sylver A70 by the looks of it. Easy enough for the 7 metre height of them.

Makes sense for future proofing and for ballistic missile defence I guess.
 
H_K said:
timmymagic said:
They look like deep Sylver VLS as well. I think there is room for Sylver A70 by the looks of it. Easy enough for the 7 metre height of them.
Click to expand...

Good eye. The video interview by Naval News mentions Aster 15/30 so at the very least those are Sylver A50s.
Click to expand...

I see a comment on Reddit that the starboard nest is 16 cells, versus 8 each on the two port side ones. So, matching the total installation on CdG but possibly with longer-range SAMs
 
TomS said:
H_K said:
timmymagic said:
They look like deep Sylver VLS as well. I think there is room for Sylver A70 by the looks of it. Easy enough for the 7 metre height of them.
Click to expand...

Good eye. The video interview by Naval News mentions Aster 15/30 so at the very least those are Sylver A50s.
Click to expand...

I see a comment on Reddit that the starboard nest is 16 cells, versus 8 each on the two port side ones. So, matching the total installation on CdG but possibly with longer-range SAMs
Click to expand...
Had a look at some video walkrounds of the model and all 3 appear to be the same length as well so no division between different cells for 15 and 30.

Compared to the height of the Rafale's on the mockup, based on the reasonable assumption that every thing is to scale, they're definitely the full fat Sylver A70.
 
Archibald said:
You can bet they will build only one, unfortunately. Unless we find oil somewhere, or diamonds...
Click to expand...

Which will be sad if that is the case, after all the research and development that has gone into the carrier and that is before they get the carrier actually built, tested and put into service.
 
That the main issue with being a medium power, yet wanting Kitty-hawk size, nuclear carriers.
China can afford that, the USA, too - in large numbers. India, too.
Russia once could but nowadays barely can.
All those countries are huge, with big populations and lots of resources.
This leaves France and the UK as the last medium powers wanting full size carriers. It is a pity France cannot at least build from the Q.Es, say a nuclear & CATOBAR variant of them (PA2 & CVF, how we still miss you !)
 
Well, port elevators are essentially useless in the modern age, so you can see there is a VLS bank there, and PA NG has two VLS banks. So the reason there is no third starboard elevator on the 300m hull is because the second VLS battery takes up the place of it, as it does the port elevator. A 330m hull might accommodate a third starboard elevator though.
 
Last edited:
In addition to purchasing the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) for Miller, the modification awarded to General Atomics includes an effort for a “case study and developmental research in support of the potential future procurement of EMALS and AAG for the government of France.”
Click to expand...

news.usni.org

General Atomics Wins $1.2B Contract for EMALS, AAG on Future Carrier Doris Miller, French Carrier Study - USNI News

The builder of the electromagnetic catapults and advanced arresting gear used by the Navy’s Ford-class aircraft carrier won a $1.19 billion contract for the purchase of the systems aboard the future USS Doris Miller (CVN-81), the Pentagon said in a Wednesday contract announcement. In addition to...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
 
Oh, man that is an attractive ship. The French do make them pretty.

I do have a question about the lack of a port side elevator, I'd kinda expect one aft of the waist cat that should be clear of the angled deck.


Kat Tsun said:
Here's hoping they'll make two but they probably won't. :(
Click to expand...
Yes, only having one will make it a nightmare for scheduling. You really need 3 of any given ship to be able to keep one at sea.


Kat Tsun said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's not about the flexibility, it's about operating while not everything is working.

Two bow cats means you can have one down for maintenance and still not be totally screwed in terms of air operations.
 
Scott Kenny said:
only having one will make it a nightmare for scheduling. You really need 3 of any given ship to be able to keep one at sea.
Click to expand...

Alas, a three carrier fleet has been a pipe dream since 1959 (cancellation of PA58 Verdun then PA59 "third Clemenceau"). Or 1974 when Arromanches went to the breakers.

Nowadays France had given up a carrier fleet. Alternatives are a) AdA Rafales from forward bases (Djibouti, UAE, overseas territories) b) SCALP cruise missiles on frigates and submarines c) Tigres on Mistrals

As seen in Lybia, 2011.
 
starviking said:
And I note, that opposed to my screengrab in post #334, the port centre deck catapult seems to have gone, but is represented in outline under the forward wheels of the Rafales.

Fitted for but not with?
Click to expand...

It's a problem they have, planning for only 2 cats instead of 3. Notice, if I remember well, that the issue is not arrested as it transpired in the DCS with an extra one as an option.
 
An Island is an Island in my opinion, look at the USS Nimitz carrier Islands for example they were not designed for their looks. And any way they may redesign the Island on the PANG before it enters service.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yes, only having one will make it a nightmare for scheduling. You really need 3 of any given ship to be able to keep one at sea.
Click to expand...
The three-to-one ratio is for sustainment of a forward-deployed force. You can do one at sea from two ships, if you don't mind it spending a good portion of its time close to home. With dual crews, and short distances to patrol areas, ballistic missile submarines can do better than 50% of the force at sea.

A non-deploying aircraft carrier is a bit of an odd concept, I'll admit. But if you have an operating model that doesn't rely on sustained forward deployment - i.e. you surge to a crisis - two ships can work.
 
Yellow Palace said:
The three-to-one ratio is for sustainment of a forward-deployed force. You can do one at sea from two ships, if you don't mind it spending a good portion of its time close to home. With dual crews, and short distances to patrol areas, ballistic missile submarines can do better than 50% of the force at sea.

A non-deploying aircraft carrier is a bit of an odd concept, I'll admit. But if you have an operating model that doesn't rely on sustained forward deployment - i.e. you surge to a crisis - two ships can work.
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree with that for single crewed ships. Spending less time at sea means your crew is less practiced/skilled at basic navigation etc.

It's not exactly a fair comparison (some 200 years old now), but compare the skill levels of the British and French navies in the Age of Sail. The French couldn't sail up the St. Lawrence seaway/river, while the British considered the St L easier than sailing up the Thames. And it was mostly because the French ships in question had spent a long time blockaded in a harbor and not actively sailing around.
 
Yellow Palace said:
A non-deploying aircraft carrier is a bit of an odd concept, I'll admit. But if you have an operating model that doesn't rely on sustained forward deployment - i.e. you surge to a crisis - two ships can work.
Click to expand...
There’s also a middle ground, with shorter deployments.

If you look at CdG, she rarely spends more than 90 days east of Suez. Add 30 days for work ups and transit and that keeps deployments under 4 months so the crew still has gas in the tank for a surge deployment if needed. That’s how she was able to deploy on short notice (<72hrs) for 4 months of combat operations in Libya right on the back of a 4 month deployment to the Indian Ocean… the total deployment length was still less than some of the crazy USN CVN extended deployments (which go on and on, sometimes for 8-9 months).

Ultimately with such a limited asset the goal is to maximize surge readiness. That way even with only 1 carrier you can get pretty good readiness outside of docking overhauls (typically ~20% of service life is spent in overhaul).

P.S. The deployment schedules of USS Midway (when she was based in Japan) or HMAS Melbourne were also fairly similar to CdG.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Not sure I agree with that for single crewed ships. Spending less time at sea means your crew is less practiced/skilled at basic navigation etc.
Click to expand...
You're still at sea, and you're still deploying (potentially on a shorter cycle). The crew of any one ship is no less practiced than they would be if you had three or ten, you just don't always have ships on some far-off station.
H_K said:
There’s also a middle ground, with shorter deployments.
Click to expand...
Yep, that's where you wind up. And if you're a European navy deploying to the Mediterranean or Norway, that can be a very short deployment indeed.
 
H_K said:
There’s also a middle ground, with shorter deployments.

If you look at CdG, she rarely spends more than 90 days east of Suez. Add 30 days for work ups and transit and that keeps deployments under 4 months so the crew still has gas in the tank for a surge deployment if needed. That’s how she was able to deploy on short notice (<72hrs) for 4 months of combat operations in Libya right on the back of a 4 month deployment to the Indian Ocean… the total deployment length was still less than some of the crazy USN CVN extended deployments (which go on and on, sometimes for 8-9 months).
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, the USN carriers are only planned to be out for about 6 months. I think the first of the 9month trips was the Lincoln group in ... 2002/03? They'd just left the Persian Gulf and were supposed to be steaming for home when Iraq kicked off. The 2-star in charge of the group really wanted his 3rd star, and so he gave orders that every day, the ships were supposed to be 1nmi closer to home. He'd send a message saying "Ship's position currently (this), we can be back in the Gulf and flying strikes in X many hours! Requesting permission to turn around and join the party!" This went on for some 4-6 weeks. Finally, the big boss (PACFLT Himself) gave orders for the 2-star to fly his butt to Pearl Harbor and Explain Himself, while the Lincoln group made BEST SPEED HOME. Had a ... co-worker get assigned to the Lincoln group for that deployment, he was a 1st Class and needed some sea time and warfare qualifications to have any chance of getting Chief. He showed me the official cruise patch from that trip as he told me that story. It was a 2-star kicking a blue-shirt sailor square in the groin. Edit: 2-star never did get star #3.

And the worst one I've heard about was actually 11 months at sea.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
For what it's worth, the USN carriers are only planned to be out for about 6 months. I think the first of the 9month trips was the Lincoln group in ... 2002/03? They'd just left the Persian Gulf and were supposed to be steaming for home when Iraq kicked off. The 2-star in charge of the group really wanted his 3rd star, and so he gave orders that every day, the ships were supposed to be 1nmi closer to home. He'd send a message saying "Ship's position currently (this), we can be back in the Gulf and flying strikes in X many hours! Requesting permission to turn around and join the party!" This went on for some 4-6 weeks. Finally, the big boss (PACFLT Himself) gave orders for the 2-star to fly his butt to Pearl Harbor and Explain Himself, while the Lincoln group made BEST SPEED HOME. Had a ... co-worker get assigned to the Lincoln group for that deployment, he was a 1st Class and needed some sea time and warfare qualifications to have any chance of getting Chief. He showed me the official cruise patch from that trip as he told me that story. It was a 2-star kicking a blue-shirt sailor square in the groin. Edit: 2-star never did get star #3.

And the worst one I've heard about was actually 11 months at sea.
Click to expand...
A
Yellow Palace said:
You're still at sea, and you're still deploying (potentially on a shorter cycle). The crew of any one ship is no less practiced than they would be if you had three or ten, you just don't always have ships on some far-off station.

Yep, that's where you wind up. And if you're a European navy deploying to the Mediterranean or Norway, that can be a very short deployment indeed.
Click to expand...
All this discussion is very funny, so completely unaware of the facts such as the deployment concept and cycle. Anyway...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom