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.
