French military developments

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
10,438
Likes
5,379
Country flag
The situation in Lybia is becoming serious. Where is the architect of the Lybian invasion --- the French? Can't Franch lunch several super duper Rafales on their own defended only by Spectra to protect the Lybian quagmire it and UK pushed its allies to participate in?

I don't here reports of French Rafales patrolling Lybian skies to maintain the peace.
 

Deathstar

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2019
Messages
2,037
Likes
5,799
I suggest you read your history.

1. In Korea it was the NoKor's that lunched a surprise attack against Sokor with Soviet and Chinese support to unify SoKor under NoKor. The SoKors were routed until America mustered a defensive stance. The US, Sokors and allies (including India and the Philippines although I must say that the Philippine BCT kicked more Chinese asses than Indian forces) pushed backed. A see-saw ensued pitting qualitative power of US and allies versus vast numerical advantage of Nokors, Chinese and Soviets. But in the end, NoKor went nowhere than back to the line that it first crossed.

Is that a loss for America?

2. Blame the French in US' Vietnam debacle. Actually, Ho Chi Min was supported by America against Japan in WW2 and had close ties to America. But when forced to choose between Ho Chi Min and caucasian (ingrate) De Gaulle the Americans preferred its European ally. Now, look at how Vietnam welcomes America?

In any case, while America lost the war in Vietnam, it never lost a battle there. But in the end the American public could not anymore stomach the senseless violence against a people (Vietnam) who just wants i dependence.

3. Somalia was not a US war. It was a peace keeping operation that the US military objected to in the first place. The Americans could have simply annihilated every sibgle crazy Somalian there but that country then had no strategic importance to America. So America simply stopped its peace keeping role.

4. Lybia, well ask Gaddafi.

5. Iraq, were you hybernating these last 20 years?

6. Afghanistan (explained above)

7. Syria, before the Syrian civil war Asssd was in control of whole Syria. But now US has bases all over Syria with its allies. The Americans can easily keep these bsses where it not for crazy Trump.

8. Ukraine, well, Ukraine is now 100% anti-Russia save for some parts in the East. I would say, if Ukraine is planned by America, its a f#cking brillant move without America getting its hands dirty. Russia hss lost its most powerful and biggest ally in Ukraine!

So again, please read, read, and read more. Stop watching RT.
Oh man chill , no need to turn defeat into a victory giving ridiculous funny explanations.
1.
 

nongaddarliberal

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
1,865
Likes
5,590
Country flag
The best way to not go to war is to prepare for it ---- ironic isn't it? Why do you think France and Germany are investing billions in dollars for a new fighter, new radars, missiles, IFVs, nuke subs, etc? To fly on airshows, display on military parades, or play around the World's deep oceans? I thought you're a military observer...
Maintaining military power is crucial to the sovereignty of any country. Even countries without a clear threat modernize their militaries. Europeans invest in defence as much to maintain their own industrial capacity as to protect themselves. The Russia threat is completely overblown. What Russia did in Ukraine was a result of deep state actions from the US. To think that Germany and France are in danger from Russia is a little absurd. It's not the Soviet union. Poland is under some threat, and they're cooperating extensively with the Americans. So are the Baltic states. Germans spend only 1.3% of GDP on defence. France barely spends 2%. That shows their priorities.
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
10,438
Likes
5,379
Country flag
Maintaining military power is crucial to the sovereignty of any country. Even countries without a clear threat modernize their militaries. Europeans invest in defence as much to maintain their own industrial capacity as to protect themselves. The Russia threat is completely overblown. What Russia did in Ukraine was a result of deep state actions from the US. To think that Germany and France are in danger from Russia is a little absurd. It's not the Soviet union. Poland is under some threat, and they're cooperating extensively with the Americans. So are the Baltic states. Germans spend only 1.3% of GDP on defence. France barely spends 2%. That shows their priorities.

How can you maintain sovereignty if you don't have "credible deterrence?"

Russia threat is overblown? Have you not asked why almost every neighbor of Russia fear it, hate it and wants the protection of the Western alliance from Baltic countries to Eastern Europeans? Only the despots in central Asia are mum on Russia, they don't actually have much choice.
 

Akim

Professional
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
6,195
Likes
2,799
Country flag
Maintaining military power is crucial to the sovereignty of any country. Even countries without a clear threat modernize their militaries. Europeans invest in defence as much to maintain their own industrial capacity as to protect themselves. The Russia threat is completely overblown. What Russia did in Ukraine was a result of deep state actions from the US. To think that Germany and France are in danger from Russia is a little absurd. It's not the Soviet union. Poland is under some threat, and they're cooperating extensively with the Americans. So are the Baltic states. Germans spend only 1.3% of GDP on defence. France barely spends 2%. That shows their priorities.
I even want to comment on this nonsense.
 

nongaddarliberal

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
1,865
Likes
5,590
Country flag
How can you maintain sovereignty if you don't have "credible deterrence?"

Russia threat is overblown? Have you not asked why almost every neighbor of Russia fear it, hate it and wants the protection of the Western alliance from Baltic countries to Eastern Europeans? Only the despots in central Asia are mum on Russia, they don't actually have much choice.
Yes, Russia's neighbours are worried. I adressed them in my earlier comment. Germans are making nord stream with them. France is calling NATO brain dead.
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
10,438
Likes
5,379
Country flag
Yes, Russia's neighbours are worried. Germans are making nord stream with them. France is calling NATO brain dead.

Germany and France are driven by greed. You don't expect much from the country that produced Hitler and the other one that enslaved the IndoChinese.

But just survey the sentiments of Finland, Sweden, Baltic states, and Russia's Eastern neighbors. They would like to vomit Russia. They're so sick and tired of being Russia's slaves and human shields.
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
2,740
Likes
7,528
Country flag
Can't Franch lunch several super duper Rafales on their own defended only by Spectra to protect the Lybian quagmire it and UK pushed its allies to participate in?
...Or they could do the sensible thing by not spending their taxpayers' money to babydit Libya & let them kill each other like middleeast/north-africans have always done.
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
10,438
Likes
5,379
Country flag
...Or they could do the sensible thing by not spending their taxpayers' money to babydit Libya & let them kill each other like middleeast/north-africans have always done.
If I remember my history correctly, it was France and UKs bright idea to remove Gaddafi.
 

BON PLAN

-*-
Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
4,473
Likes
2,189
Country flag
But T-90 is better than Cold War era Soviet tanks and T-14, if produced in sufficient numbers, which is unlikely, will be an overmatch to existing Western MBTs. So NATO countries now have to invest to maintain their qualitative edge.
The answer of the west european country may be :
1) at short term the 140mm gun on actual MBT (already developped).
2) a new Germano French MBT for 2035/40

What are the special features of T14? The crew is in a very armored hull, so difficult to knock out, but the rest of the tanks (engine, weapon...) can be hit by actual 120mm NATO guns. I don't see T14 as a game changer.
 

BON PLAN

-*-
Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
4,473
Likes
2,189
Country flag
Macron is just trying to out-Trump Trump. Besides, Macron's stand is another cynical French move to profit from Russia. French are the most corrupt powers in its time. No wonder they've been kicked out forcibly from most of their colonies.

French just want 1 thing, money. Macron would even sell the hyde of his mother to Putin and Salman. No wonder the German's are feeling uneasy wofking with French in FCAS.
As seen so many time with you, those who speak so easily about some subjects are the ones who know nothing.

Stop speaking about the French and France. You don't understand anything.

STOP YOUR PITIFUL FRENCH BASHING.
 

Aaj ka hero

Has left
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
1,711
Likes
3,820
Country flag
Fun fact: Taliban controls more of the country today, than they did before NATO interventio
Becuase at that time masood was there.
Americans can only make weapons they don't know how to fight these type of wars?
I think now there only saving grace is their superiority over their conventional enemies like Russia and China even there they will resist to fight directly, because it will cost lot's of their guys.
Problem is they are loosing more guys in these unconventional wars.
 

Wolfhound

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2019
Messages
20
Likes
12
Germany and France are driven by greed. You don't expect much from the country that produced Hitler and the other one that enslaved the IndoChinese.

But just survey the sentiments of Finland, Sweden, Baltic states, and Russia's Eastern neighbors. They would like to vomit Russia. They're so sick and tired of being Russia's slaves and human shields.
As seen so many time with you, those who speak so easily about some subjects are the ones who know nothing.

Stop speaking about the French and France. You don't understand anything.

STOP YOUR PITIFUL FRENCH BASHING.
You should pay attention to what you just wrote and see where you can also apply it.
 

Akim

Professional
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
6,195
Likes
2,799
Country flag
Are we talking about development or politics here? We live NOW. The time of colonial conquests has passed. Economic influence is now important. The scientific potential of France is interesting.:santa:
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,813
Likes
6,563
Country flag
An air force marathon
10/01/2020 10:39| Justine BOQUET



The Air Force mobilized air resources as part of the Marathon-Monfreid exercise, thus demonstrating France's power projection capabilities.

Since January 7, the air force has started the Marathon-Monfreid exercise, thus deploying combat, transport and supply aircraft on air base 188 in Djibouti. On the occasion of this training, which will end on January 15, "three Rafales from the fighter squadron ¼ '' Gascogne '' from air base 113 in Saint-Dizier, an A330 MRTT Phoenix and a C135 FR refueler from the air base 125 of Istres are deployed, "reports the Ministry of the Armed Forces.

A mission which aims to be able to rapidly deploy French means outside the national territory, in this case 5500 km, and which is reminiscent of the Hamilton operation. The Marathon-Monfreid exercise therefore has "a double objective: to provide training for fighter long-distance flight crews by simulating a raid by the airborne nuclear component (Marathon) and to train them on entry first on a theater of high intensity in a tactical environment representative of reality ”, adds the MinArm.

The opportunity also for hunters to continue their training once on Djibouti, in particular with the Mirage 2000-5 from the 3/11 "Corsican" fighter squadron. For this, still as part of a strategic mission, the Mirages will be used as enemy aircraft, to prevent penetration of the territory by the Rafales.

https://www.air-cosmos.com/article/un-marathon-pour-larme-de-lair-22363
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,813
Likes
6,563
Country flag
Future aircraft carrier: manufacturers finalize their copy

© NATIONAL NAVY Article reserved for subscribers
Posted on 01/14/2020 by Vincent Groizeleau

Lasting 18 months, the series of studies launched in 2018 by the Ministry of the Armed Forces on the succession of Charles de Gaulle is coming to an end. Industrialists are in the process of finalizing their copy around the two main options that will be proposed: a conventional propulsion vessel or, as is the case for the current Navy aircraft carrier, nuclear propulsion. The copies must normally be returned very soon and, if certain aspects (particularly financial) are acceptable, they will be analyzed in February during a Ministerial Investment Committee. From there, when the Minister of the Armed Forces Florence Parly validates the proposals, they will then be transmitted to the Elysée Palace so that Emmanuel Macron can take a decision during the year, in particular as to the type of propulsion retained and possibly the number of aircraft carriers to be built. Two new units would indeed make it possible to recover permanent operational availability of this leading diplomatic and military tool, which France has lost since the withdrawal from service of the Clémenceau / Foch tandem, the abandonment of the construction of the Charles de Gaulle sistership and the failure of an alternative solution (PA2).

As a reminder, two major studies were initiated at the end of 2018 as part of the PANG project (new generation aircraft carriers): a technical-operational study, based on military needs, involving Naval Group, Thales, MBDA and Dassault on the industrial side. Aviation. And a design study, entrusted to Naval Group, Chantiers de l'Atlantique and TechnicAtome.

During these studies, different concepts were imagined, some very original. But it is logically more conventional solutions that emerge, however integrating the various technological developments and innovations in progress or planned in the coming years. As you might expect, the models on offer are considerably larger than the Charles de Gaulle, a 261-meter-long building for 42,500 tonnes of laden travel. The PANG will be a platform of around 280 meters and 70,000 tpc. A difference which is mechanically justified by the fact that the future on-board combat aircraft (called to be developed within the framework of the SCAF program) will be of the 30-ton class, against a little more than 20 tons for the current Rafale Marine. It will also be necessary to provide much more space for new armaments and drone packs than the aircraft will implement, which will entail a new approach in terms of logistics flows and freight elevators between the flight deck and the holds in ammunition. A problem that may seem quite anecdotal but which seems to be giving the Americans a hard time on the new USS Gerald R. Ford, a juggernaut of 333 meters and 100,000 tpc.


One of the designs studied by manufacturers for the conventional propulsion version of the PANG

The larger size of the PANG compared to the CDG also results from the fact that, unlike its predecessor, the future French aircraft carrier will not be limited by the reduced size of the Brest construction basins. It will indeed be carried out in the enormous holds of Saint-Nazaire, blowing up this strong constraint of size which obliged at the time of Charles de Gaulle to opt for a very compact building and to make compromises. The first of them, having regard to the too short length of the building, was the choice not to be able to simultaneously carry out decking and catapulting operations, the catapult before overflowing on the oblique track. This resulted in the decision to place the island very forward in order to favor a large parking space on the back to be able to put in the air massive decks.

A compromise which it is now possible to dispense with thanks to the upper gauge of the PANG, although the latter is equipped with two longer catapults (90 meters instead of 75). From there, it also becomes possible, as on the new American aircraft carriers of the Ford class, to deport the island to the rear so as not only to be able to catapult a large number of aircraft in a short time but also to recover more easily a massive decking with larger parking areas at the front.

In terms of catapults, the trend is to adopt the new American electromagnetic technology (EMALS) integrated in the Ford. The exercise of studying the creation of a French catapult industry has been carried out in recent months but, whether it is the current steam system or a fortiori of EMALS, such an assumption proves to be too costly and technologically risky for an activity limited to the production of only a few pieces of equipment. Compared to steam, electromagnetics also has the enormous advantage of offering a more progressive thrust, and therefore less restrictive on the structure of catapulted devices. This would significantly limit the differences between the conventional version and the on-board variant of the future SCAF.

In the end, the size envisaged for the PANG or PANG is close to what had been imagined in the previous PA2 aircraft carrier project which focused on adapting to the French needs of the design of the British Queen Elizabeth (284 meters, 65,000 tpc) . The only constraint today in terms of size is the size of the Vauban basins, in Toulon, where the future aircraft carrier (s) will go into dry dock during their technical stops. Work to rehabilitate these forms of Toulon refit is also being considered and is one of the aspects linked to the environment of PANG.

In terms of self-defense, several options are logically on the table: like the British, a weakly armed platform whose protection is above all ensured by escort frigates, a variant with, like the Charles de Gaulle, solid self-defense capacities and a third, more muscular solution, making PANG a real air defense unit. These choices may however wait a little longer.

For now, the most urgent decision will be that of propulsion, which is the most "dimensioning" element of the project. The classic option would be less expensive but it is operationally less attractive according to the military and raises the question of the availability of fossil fuels in 40 years. But, above all, this project must also be part of a global approach concerning the French nuclear industry and the maintenance of its skills. Proponents of nuclear propulsion argue that the PANG program can help revive an industry that has suffered in recent years, as evidenced by EDF's difficulties, while giving CEA new perspectives. There is also a major challenge for the sustainability and maintenance of skills within the nuclear naval sector. This is based on a very small fleet, currently of 12 on-board reactors: the two CDG boiler rooms and one for each of the four nuclear-powered missile submarines and six nuclear attack submarines, all of the family K15. However, the evolutions of this boiler room on the new SNA of the Barracuda type and the future third generation SNLE include a significant extension of the operating time between two reloads. This de facto limits the number of technical stops and therefore the workload for companies specializing in this field. If in addition it is necessary to remove the boiler rooms from aircraft carriers in the long term, the risk then increases for the sustainability of the sector, with the key likely loss of skills and therefore a potential weakness for the availability and credibility of French nuclear deterrence, which is mainly based on submarines. Arguments that will probably weigh heavily in the decision that the President of the Republic will have to take.

In the light of studies carried out in recent months, nuclear specialists seem confident in any case of the possibility of developing a new evolution of the K15 whose power would be compatible with an aircraft carrier of 70,000 tonnes equipped with two reactors.

The other inherent uncertainty in this project currently resides in the future air combat system (SCAF), and in particular its main component, the NGF (new generation fighter) which will be called upon to succeed the Rafale from 2040. SCAF is making the subject of cooperation between France and Germany, to which Spain joined last year. But at this stage, discussions remain difficult between the partners to arrive at a joint project, both operationally and industrially. However, the final size and mass of the NGF will be essential elements for the future French aircraft carrier (s).


First model of the NGF presented at the Paris Air Show ( © DASSAULT AVIATION - C. COSMAO)

Hence also the size currently envisaged and the proposal to equip the platform with two electromagnetic catapults of 90 meters, which leave enough room to implement very heavy aircraft. Knowing that the objective is, as for Charles de Gaulle, to design a new aircraft carrier capable of carrying around forty aircraft, including around thirty NGFs, two to three Hawkeye type radar planes, helicopters and UAVs. As such, there is no longer any progress in the development of an aerial combat drone (UCAV) that can be implemented from the ground or from aircraft carriers. It was foreseen in the beginnings of SCAF, on which France had first undertaken to work with the United Kingdom. But on the sidelines of Brexit, this project was stopped,

Financially, depending on the option chosen for propulsion, conventional or nuclear, the cost would be between 4 and 6 billion euros for the first building, development costs included but only for the industrial part. State costs (DGA, CEA, etc.) should be added to this. An amount that the Ministry of the Armed Forces may not be ready to accept as is, with a possible extension of the discussions. The construction of a second unit would obviously be less expensive since the design cost would have to be deducted while being able to benefit from a certain series effect.

Finally, with regard to the calendar, the objective is still for PANG to succeed Charles de Gaulle when the latter reaches its end of life, set in 2038, an imperative date which corresponds to the limit of potential of its nuclear cores after their last reload. To have a new aircraft carrier operational on this date, the Ministry of the Armed Forces wishes that sea trials begin at the latest in 2036. And table for the hour on a period of 10 years after the start of construction, which is therefore imagined around 2026, one or two years after the order. By this time, new studies should be notified to manufacturers in order to deepen the basic option that the President of the Republic must choose this year.

Note that the construction schedule will also depend on the ability of the Chantiers de l'Atlantique to complete the building faster than what the department and Naval Group are considering today, who are clearly being cautious in setting themselves at a fairly close tempo. that of Charles de Gaulle. However, Saint-Nazaire benefits from an industrial tool far more efficient than what Brest had. In addition, the Loire constructor, unlike the old Breton arsenal, will not be able to spread out according to budgetary vicissitudes the construction of the building which will have to fit into an order book already well filled with civil ships, in particular giant liners , and this for many years. In the Loire estuary, it was estimated a few months ago that the assembly of PANG, that is to say the mounting of the hull, would at most be the business of a single year. It will then take time to arm and test, obviously a longer period, but it is clear that the hull will not last forever in Saint-Nazaire. If necessary, it could therefore be completed in Brest.

© Mer et Marine https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/futur-porte-avions-les-industriels-finalisent-leur-copie
 

BON PLAN

-*-
Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
4,473
Likes
2,189
Country flag
Future aircraft carrier: manufacturers finalize their copy

© NATIONAL NAVY Article reserved for subscribers
Posted on 01/14/2020 by Vincent Groizeleau

Lasting 18 months, the series of studies launched in 2018 by the Ministry of the Armed Forces on the succession of Charles de Gaulle is coming to an end. Industrialists are in the process of finalizing their copy around the two main options that will be proposed: a conventional propulsion vessel or, as is the case for the current Navy aircraft carrier, nuclear propulsion. The copies must normally be returned very soon and, if certain aspects (particularly financial) are acceptable, they will be analyzed in February during a Ministerial Investment Committee. From there, when the Minister of the Armed Forces Florence Parly validates the proposals, they will then be transmitted to the Elysée Palace so that Emmanuel Macron can take a decision during the year, in particular as to the type of propulsion retained and possibly the number of aircraft carriers to be built. Two new units would indeed make it possible to recover permanent operational availability of this leading diplomatic and military tool, which France has lost since the withdrawal from service of the Clémenceau / Foch tandem, the abandonment of the construction of the Charles de Gaulle sistership and the failure of an alternative solution (PA2).

As a reminder, two major studies were initiated at the end of 2018 as part of the PANG project (new generation aircraft carriers): a technical-operational study, based on military needs, involving Naval Group, Thales, MBDA and Dassault on the industrial side. Aviation. And a design study, entrusted to Naval Group, Chantiers de l'Atlantique and TechnicAtome.

During these studies, different concepts were imagined, some very original. But it is logically more conventional solutions that emerge, however integrating the various technological developments and innovations in progress or planned in the coming years. As you might expect, the models on offer are considerably larger than the Charles de Gaulle, a 261-meter-long building for 42,500 tonnes of laden travel. The PANG will be a platform of around 280 meters and 70,000 tpc. A difference which is mechanically justified by the fact that the future on-board combat aircraft (called to be developed within the framework of the SCAF program) will be of the 30-ton class, against a little more than 20 tons for the current Rafale Marine. It will also be necessary to provide much more space for new armaments and drone packs than the aircraft will implement, which will entail a new approach in terms of logistics flows and freight elevators between the flight deck and the holds in ammunition. A problem that may seem quite anecdotal but which seems to be giving the Americans a hard time on the new USS Gerald R. Ford, a juggernaut of 333 meters and 100,000 tpc.


One of the designs studied by manufacturers for the conventional propulsion version of the PANG

The larger size of the PANG compared to the CDG also results from the fact that, unlike its predecessor, the future French aircraft carrier will not be limited by the reduced size of the Brest construction basins. It will indeed be carried out in the enormous holds of Saint-Nazaire, blowing up this strong constraint of size which obliged at the time of Charles de Gaulle to opt for a very compact building and to make compromises. The first of them, having regard to the too short length of the building, was the choice not to be able to simultaneously carry out decking and catapulting operations, the catapult before overflowing on the oblique track. This resulted in the decision to place the island very forward in order to favor a large parking space on the back to be able to put in the air massive decks.

A compromise which it is now possible to dispense with thanks to the upper gauge of the PANG, although the latter is equipped with two longer catapults (90 meters instead of 75). From there, it also becomes possible, as on the new American aircraft carriers of the Ford class, to deport the island to the rear so as not only to be able to catapult a large number of aircraft in a short time but also to recover more easily a massive decking with larger parking areas at the front.

In terms of catapults, the trend is to adopt the new American electromagnetic technology (EMALS) integrated in the Ford. The exercise of studying the creation of a French catapult industry has been carried out in recent months but, whether it is the current steam system or a fortiori of EMALS, such an assumption proves to be too costly and technologically risky for an activity limited to the production of only a few pieces of equipment. Compared to steam, electromagnetics also has the enormous advantage of offering a more progressive thrust, and therefore less restrictive on the structure of catapulted devices. This would significantly limit the differences between the conventional version and the on-board variant of the future SCAF.

In the end, the size envisaged for the PANG or PANG is close to what had been imagined in the previous PA2 aircraft carrier project which focused on adapting to the French needs of the design of the British Queen Elizabeth (284 meters, 65,000 tpc) . The only constraint today in terms of size is the size of the Vauban basins, in Toulon, where the future aircraft carrier (s) will go into dry dock during their technical stops. Work to rehabilitate these forms of Toulon refit is also being considered and is one of the aspects linked to the environment of PANG.

In terms of self-defense, several options are logically on the table: like the British, a weakly armed platform whose protection is above all ensured by escort frigates, a variant with, like the Charles de Gaulle, solid self-defense capacities and a third, more muscular solution, making PANG a real air defense unit. These choices may however wait a little longer.

For now, the most urgent decision will be that of propulsion, which is the most "dimensioning" element of the project. The classic option would be less expensive but it is operationally less attractive according to the military and raises the question of the availability of fossil fuels in 40 years. But, above all, this project must also be part of a global approach concerning the French nuclear industry and the maintenance of its skills. Proponents of nuclear propulsion argue that the PANG program can help revive an industry that has suffered in recent years, as evidenced by EDF's difficulties, while giving CEA new perspectives. There is also a major challenge for the sustainability and maintenance of skills within the nuclear naval sector. This is based on a very small fleet, currently of 12 on-board reactors: the two CDG boiler rooms and one for each of the four nuclear-powered missile submarines and six nuclear attack submarines, all of the family K15. However, the evolutions of this boiler room on the new SNA of the Barracuda type and the future third generation SNLE include a significant extension of the operating time between two reloads. This de facto limits the number of technical stops and therefore the workload for companies specializing in this field. If in addition it is necessary to remove the boiler rooms from aircraft carriers in the long term, the risk then increases for the sustainability of the sector, with the key likely loss of skills and therefore a potential weakness for the availability and credibility of French nuclear deterrence, which is mainly based on submarines. Arguments that will probably weigh heavily in the decision that the President of the Republic will have to take.

In the light of studies carried out in recent months, nuclear specialists seem confident in any case of the possibility of developing a new evolution of the K15 whose power would be compatible with an aircraft carrier of 70,000 tonnes equipped with two reactors.

The other inherent uncertainty in this project currently resides in the future air combat system (SCAF), and in particular its main component, the NGF (new generation fighter) which will be called upon to succeed the Rafale from 2040. SCAF is making the subject of cooperation between France and Germany, to which Spain joined last year. But at this stage, discussions remain difficult between the partners to arrive at a joint project, both operationally and industrially. However, the final size and mass of the NGF will be essential elements for the future French aircraft carrier (s).


First model of the NGF presented at the Paris Air Show ( © DASSAULT AVIATION - C. COSMAO)

Hence also the size currently envisaged and the proposal to equip the platform with two electromagnetic catapults of 90 meters, which leave enough room to implement very heavy aircraft. Knowing that the objective is, as for Charles de Gaulle, to design a new aircraft carrier capable of carrying around forty aircraft, including around thirty NGFs, two to three Hawkeye type radar planes, helicopters and UAVs. As such, there is no longer any progress in the development of an aerial combat drone (UCAV) that can be implemented from the ground or from aircraft carriers. It was foreseen in the beginnings of SCAF, on which France had first undertaken to work with the United Kingdom. But on the sidelines of Brexit, this project was stopped,

Financially, depending on the option chosen for propulsion, conventional or nuclear, the cost would be between 4 and 6 billion euros for the first building, development costs included but only for the industrial part. State costs (DGA, CEA, etc.) should be added to this. An amount that the Ministry of the Armed Forces may not be ready to accept as is, with a possible extension of the discussions. The construction of a second unit would obviously be less expensive since the design cost would have to be deducted while being able to benefit from a certain series effect.

Finally, with regard to the calendar, the objective is still for PANG to succeed Charles de Gaulle when the latter reaches its end of life, set in 2038, an imperative date which corresponds to the limit of potential of its nuclear cores after their last reload. To have a new aircraft carrier operational on this date, the Ministry of the Armed Forces wishes that sea trials begin at the latest in 2036. And table for the hour on a period of 10 years after the start of construction, which is therefore imagined around 2026, one or two years after the order. By this time, new studies should be notified to manufacturers in order to deepen the basic option that the President of the Republic must choose this year.

Note that the construction schedule will also depend on the ability of the Chantiers de l'Atlantique to complete the building faster than what the department and Naval Group are considering today, who are clearly being cautious in setting themselves at a fairly close tempo. that of Charles de Gaulle. However, Saint-Nazaire benefits from an industrial tool far more efficient than what Brest had. In addition, the Loire constructor, unlike the old Breton arsenal, will not be able to spread out according to budgetary vicissitudes the construction of the building which will have to fit into an order book already well filled with civil ships, in particular giant liners , and this for many years. In the Loire estuary, it was estimated a few months ago that the assembly of PANG, that is to say the mounting of the hull, would at most be the business of a single year. It will then take time to arm and test, obviously a longer period, but it is clear that the hull will not last forever in Saint-Nazaire. If necessary, it could therefore be completed in Brest.

© Mer et Marine https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/futur-porte-avions-les-industriels-finalisent-leur-copie
Sympa. Je n'avais pas accès à l'article de M&M car pas abonné.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top