Marine Nationale (French Navy)

[Ananda]

French Navy to start testing new aircraft carrier by 2036

The French Defense Ministry has announced that a new generation aircraft carrier, to be built in Saint-Nazaire, will begin sea trials in 2036.

www.navyrecognition.com

Seems the basic parameters for new carrier already being set. Base on this report, few points that can be taken so far:

1. CdG will be expected to soldier on for next two decades, as the soonest new carrier expect to run trial in 2036.
2. New carrier will be substantial larger than CdG. However it's not clear whether the propulsion will still be Nuclear or other new conventional propulsion (perhaps hybrid electric ones ?)
3. There's still no clear indication whether in future French Navy still operate single carrier like now or back to two carriers operation as in Foch-Clemanceu era.

I put the size will be substantial larger than CdG since the French defence Minister saying that don't limit the horizon of the new carrier design, and the new carrier will be more imposing than current ones.

The need for new carrier as true forward base for French shown in my opinion the need to do more than current CdG. I don't know whether this means build something that close to US carrier standard or more in par on the size of QE2 range. However if the need to simultaneously launch and recover fighters is in the design specs, than I believe the size of QE2 will be in the minimum range.

 

[Redlands18]

French Navy to start testing new aircraft carrier by 2036

The French Defense Ministry has announced that a new generation aircraft carrier, to be built in Saint-Nazaire, will begin sea trials in 2036.

www.navyrecognition.com

Seems the basic parameters for new carrier already being set. Base on this report, few points that can be taken so far:

1. CdG will be expected to soldier on for next two decades, as the soonest new carrier expect to run trial in 2036.
2. New carrier will be substantial larger than CdG. However it's not clear whether the propulsion will still be Nuclear or other new conventional propulsion (perhaps hybrid electric ones ?)
3. There's still no clear indication whether in future French Navy still operate single carrier like now or back to two carriers operation as in Foch-Clemanceu era.

I put the size will be substantial larger than CdG since the French defence Minister saying that don't limit the horizon of the new carrier design, and the new carrier will be more imposing than current ones.

The need for new carrier as true forward base for French shown in my opinion the need to do more than current CdG. I don't know whether this means build something that close to US carrier standard or more in par on the size of QE2 range. However if the need to simultaneously launch and recover fighters is in the design specs, than I believe the size of QE2 will be in the minimum range.

Go back to the early 2000s and the French had plans to build a CATOBAR version of the QE, as its 2nd Carrier. The French has a long standing requirement for a 2nd Carrier, but 2x 65-70,000t CATOBAR Carriers, there Crews and 2 Air Groups may just not be affordable, time will tell.

 

[Ananda]

I believe this article related to was what Kato mentioned in his post on last February that the French MinDef will have basic parameters for next CV soon. Turn out French MinDef still announced limited info asside that the target trials for new CV in 2036.

Thus whether they will return to PA2 design (which based on QE2 catobar) or something else still open to speculation. So far asside the target date, the French MinDef only put rough description that the next CV will be larger and provide more capabilities than CdG.

No info on propulsion and the actual number of CV. Well I thought they will publish more info, then what turn out on what they actually have given.

 

[ngatimozart]

A lot can happen in the next 10 years, so plenty of time for the design to be changed and finalized before the first steal is cut. They will be hoping that the COVID-19 caused economic depression will have well and truly passed by then.

 

[ASSAIL]

The “Spirit of Trafalgar” is not dead with the French.
It’s a safe bet that they’ll aim to shame the RN by building bigger, CATOBAR and faster carriers when it happens.

I once attended a pre exercise briefing (I was the Ops O in an RN Leander during my exchange posting) in Toulon as part of STANAVFORLANT.
The RN were providing a towed target for an AA firing and made the point that only non explosive rounds could be used (BLP). The French immediately protested that their ships don’t use such rounds and they would use HE.
An unbecoming argument ensued. I was seated between a German and a Dutchman and we were in stitches when our German friend stood and brought the house down with that very comment, “it’s good to see that the Spirit of Trafalgar is not dead”
I think the French spat the dummy and ducked that particular serial.

 

[StobieWan]

French Navy to start testing new aircraft carrier by 2036

The French Defense Ministry has announced that a new generation aircraft carrier, to be built in Saint-Nazaire, will begin sea trials in 2036.

www.navyrecognition.com

Seems the basic parameters for new carrier already being set. Base on this report, few points that can be taken so far:

1. CdG will be expected to soldier on for next two decades, as the soonest new carrier expect to run trial in 2036.
2. New carrier will be substantial larger than CdG. However it's not clear whether the propulsion will still be Nuclear or other new conventional propulsion (perhaps hybrid electric ones ?)
3. There's still no clear indication whether in future French Navy still operate single carrier like now or back to two carriers operation as in Foch-Clemanceu era.

I put the size will be substantial larger than CdG since the French defence Minister saying that don't limit the horizon of the new carrier design, and the new carrier will be more imposing than current ones.

The need for new carrier as true forward base for French shown in my opinion the need to do more than current CdG. I don't know whether this means build something that close to US carrier standard or more in par on the size of QE2 range. However if the need to simultaneously launch and recover fighters is in the design specs, than I believe the size of QE2 will be in the minimum range.

Well, they've licensed the CVF design - I'd be leaning towards the idea that whatever they build will be roughly 70KT and IFEP/conventionally powered.


Going nuclear just doesn't seem feasible as they haven't got a reactor that's close to the power required for a surface combatant in the class of a carrier - and the low enrichment style reactor the CdG uses seems to produce a lot of down time.


My 2c worth.

 

[kato]

I believe this article related to was what Kato mentioned in his post on last February that the French MinDef will have basic parameters for next CV soon. Turn out French MinDef still announced limited info asside that the target trials for new CV in 2036.

The study was completed in March and handed over to the Ministry of the Armed Forces. There will not be any "public" report or details released on that. The announcement "now" - the basis from which the article stems - was a speech by Minister Parly at Chantier de'l Atlantique in Saint-Nazaire held during a ceremony for first steel cut on new French Navy AORs being built there.

For obvious political reasons she included prospects for the shipyard, which is that it will be the only one capable of building the new aircraft carrier "due to its size and tonnage". For a more detailed prospect she included that "the carrier" (singular) is planned with an IOC of 2036 and that budgeting for "items relating to it" will be included in the next procurement proposal term (which is 2026-2032).

Going nuclear just doesn't seem feasible as they haven't got a reactor that's close to the power required for a surface combatant in the class of a carrier - and the low enrichment style reactor the CdG uses seems to produce a lot of down time.

In French defence media, harking back to a parliamentary discussion in last October, the above-mentioned use of singular for carrier is seen as the Ministry of the Armed Forces having chosen nuclear propulsion (the discussion basically set out financial possibilities for either a single nuclear or two conventional carriers).

I have no idea which source the 70,000-75,000 tons that are being proposed occasionally in French media come from originally. However, by genesis this seems to be based on a back-of-an-envelope calculation that someone made on required landing deck length for aircraft of the desired size, scaling up in two dimensions and taking CdG as the base weight. That it matches the CVF/PA2 design seems to be more or less coincidental. The number has been floating around as stated "fact" since October or November.

 

[Ananda]

In French defence media, harking back to a parliamentary discussion in last October, the above-mentioned use of singular for carrier is seen as the Ministry of the Armed Forces having chosen nuclear propulsion (the discussion basically set out financial possibilities for either a single nuclear or two conventional carriers).

If the French MinDef decided to choose another CVN (as speculate by French media), is there program in French for more powerful reactor ?
Just like StobieWan post, I also look at current available Naval nuclear reactor, and not finding anything that are more powerful than current K15 reactor in both CdG and Triomphant SSBN.

With current performance of K15 in CdG, I believe also they need something bigger for next CVN that also being speculate substantial bigger and more powerful in power generation than CdG.

CEA, EDF, Naval Group and TechnicAtome unveil NUWARD: jointly developed Small Modular Reactor (SMR) project

CEA, EDF, Naval Group and TechnicAtome unveil NUWARD : jointly developed Small Modular Reactor (SMR) project

www.cea.fr

So far only found this, but it doesn't seems say that it will be substantial more powerful on power generating than K15. Just wondering if their next gen reactor program going to give substantial more power generating for bigger CVN.

Logically (on historical practice) the K15 replacement should be use for both Triomphant replacement (got the image from Naval News) and CdG replacement. Based on the image, Triomphant replacement will be larger and perhaps being in similar dimensions with UK next SSBN. Still wondering if the next SSBN powerplant will be enough for 70000+ ton CVN as being speculate for CdG replacement.

 

[Blackshoe]

Logically (on historical practice) the K15 replacement should be use for both Triomphant replacement (got the image from Naval News) and CdG replacement. Based on the image, Triomphant replacement will be larger and perhaps being in similar dimensions with UK next SSBN. Still wondering if the next SSBN powerplant will be enough for 70000+ ton CVN as being speculate for CdG replacement.

They can always just cheat and go the Enterprise route and throw 8 of them onboard

 

[Redlands18]

They can always just cheat and go the Enterprise route and throw 8 of them onboard

Why not just ask the Americans for some technical help in building bigger Reactors?
Oh silly me, forgot its the French we are talking about here.

 

[Blackshoe]

Why not just ask the Americans for some technical help in building bigger Reactors?
Oh silly me, forgot its the French we are talking about here.

In fairness, I'm pretty sure the Frogs are smart enough to figure out how to do it.
ETA: they have a very advanced and well-developed nuclear power industry (best in Europe, I recall being told).
Also, I am deeply skeptical we would actually tell them. I'm not sure we would even tell a FEYES partner, much less the French.

 

[John Fedup]

Developing a new reactor for one or two vessels at most, an awfully expensive proposition, especially post- COVID. If the reactor used for SSBNs could be tweaked for greater output or perhaps trying to accommodate two of them in a future carrier may be be the best path for the nuclear option.

From a cost perspective, perhaps a design similar to QE(CATOBAR modified) with an additional MT30 is the best option assuming this setup has the power for EMALS and IEP. Anybody know if steam catapults are still available? Is the waste heat from the GTs sufficient for generating the required steam or would a separate steam production system be needed?

 

[Ananda]

They can always just cheat and go the Enterprise route and throw 8 of them onboard

If they go toward that, then I believe the cost will be too much to procure and maintain, that the cost of 1 CVN will be substantial higher than 2 conventional CV. This will move French to conventional CV choices. I believe like Kato post, the debate within French defense circle now whether goes to 1 CVN or 2 conventional CV.

Question will be if the reactor for SSBN 3G as Triomphant replacement will be sufficient enough for their plan next CVN. K15 only provide 150 MW, thus 2 of them only provide 300MW which seems only barely enough for CdG.

Nimitz reactor base on online sources put 550MW each, thus each Nimitz has 1100MW power generating. Ford reactor being calculated around 700MW each, thus provide 1400 MW. If next gen French CVN build to have around (plus-minus) half of Nimitz power generation, then their next gen reactor need to provide at least 250-300MW. Perhaps they will call it K25 or K30.

Anyway I suspect that's what the factor which determine what limit of French next CVN size will be. I don't think French will developed CVN with more than two reactors. That will cost too much, that even USN only put two reactors for each CVN.
French will also developed their CVN reactor based on their SSBN reactor as what they have done so far, as this is the most economical ways.

Thus if Triomphant replacement (SSBN NG) reactors will only slightly higher than present K15, say only 25%-30% or around 200MW, then French CVN NG will can only around 50000-55000 ton thus not around 70000-75000 ton as being speculate.
Unless they ditch CVN and goes conventional as Brits do.

Anybody know if steam catapults are still available?

I just suspect that with USN already goes EMALS, then no supplier will still build steam catapults. No market anymore, just maintenance for steam catapults population that are still operation. That's why French also talk EMALS for their next gen CV/CVN, as they will follow whatever catapults system that available from US.

Even the Chinese are going EMALS, and from Chinese media and forums, already ditch steam catapults.

 

[ngatimozart]

In fairness, I'm pretty sure the Frogs are smart enough to figure out how to do it.
ETA: they have a very advanced and well-developed nuclear power industry (best in Europe, I recall being told).
Also, I am deeply skeptical we would actually tell them. I'm not sure we would even tell a FEYES partner, much less the French.

Pretty sure you wouldn't except for the British. Most definitely not the French, especially as there's other less sensitive tech you don't trust them with.

 

[StobieWan]

The study was completed in March and handed over to the Ministry of the Armed Forces. There will not be any "public" report or details released on that. The announcement "now" - the basis from which the article stems - was a speech by Minister Parly at Chantier de'l Atlantique in Saint-Nazaire held during a ceremony for first steel cut on new French Navy AORs being built there.

For obvious political reasons she included prospects for the shipyard, which is that it will be the only one capable of building the new aircraft carrier "due to its size and tonnage". For a more detailed prospect she included that "the carrier" (singular) is planned with an IOC of 2036 and that budgeting for "items relating to it" will be included in the next procurement proposal term (which is 2026-2032).


In French defence media, harking back to a parliamentary discussion in last October, the above-mentioned use of singular for carrier is seen as the Ministry of the Armed Forces having chosen nuclear propulsion (the discussion basically set out financial possibilities for either a single nuclear or two conventional carriers).

I have no idea which source the 70,000-75,000 tons that are being proposed occasionally in French media come from originally. However, by genesis this seems to be based on a back-of-an-envelope calculation that someone made on required landing deck length for aircraft of the desired size, scaling up in two dimensions and taking CdG as the base weight. That it matches the CVF/PA2 design seems to be more or less coincidental. The number has been floating around as stated "fact" since October or November.

That's interesting as I'd take two conventionals over one nuclear every day of the week personally.

70-75Kt is probably "about right" for a decent air wing on a hull - unless you want to get into super carrier territory with all the extra support burden plus the down time for the equivalent of RICO - the overhaul and refuel cycle can take years.

 

[John Fedup]

WRT refuelling, the current Virginia SSN has a 35 year run time then is finished. The power output is about 200 MW. The Ford reactors are 300 MW each but can’t find any info on refuelling. For carriers, economics would require a service life of 50 years. Agree, refuelling is a major cost and time issue. With lower oil costs and eventual nuclear disposal cost, conventional power via GT/diesels with IEP seems likely.

 

[kato]

So far only found this, but it doesn't seems say that it will be substantial more powerful on power generating than K15.

NUWARD is planned to provide around 170 MWe output in civilian applications, which suggests an overall usable power output in the 350-500 MWt range, or around three times the output of K15.

The involvement of both Technicatome and Naval Group in NUWARD firmly suggests a future use of it or a derivative project in naval propulsion.

That's interesting as I'd take two conventionals over one nuclear every day of the week personally.

Manning concerns have been mentioned here and there, including as to the size of a single carrier already.

 

[Ananda]

The Ford reactors are 300 MW each but can’t find any info on refuelling. For carriers, economics would require a service life of 50 years

From world.nuclear.org site

A figure of 550 MWt each is quoted for two A4W units in Nimitz-class carriers, and these supply 104 shaft MW each (USS Enterprise had eight A2W units of 26 shaft MW and was refuelled three times). The Gerald Ford-class carriers have more powerful and simpler A1B reactors* reported to be at least 25% more powerful than A4W, hence about 700 MWt, but running a ship which apart from the steam turbnine propulsion is entirely electrical, including an electromagnetic aircraft launch system or catapult. Accordingly, the ship has about three times the electrical capacity of Nimitz-class. Ford-class are designed to be refuelled in mid-operational life of 50 years.

So, seems the refueling time for Ford reactor is 50 years

Nuclear-Powered Ships - World Nuclear Association

Over 160 ships are powered by more than 200 small nuclear reactors. Most are submarines, but they range from icebreakers to aircraft carriers. In future, constraints on fossil fuel use in transport may bring marine nuclear propulsion into more widespread use.

www.world-nuclear.org

NUWARD is planned to provide around 170 MWe output in civilian applications, which suggests an overall usable power output in the 350-500 MWt range, or around three times the output of K15.

If that the range, then 70,000-75,000 ton CVN with two EMALS catapults seems can be maintain by couple of Reactors.
So perhaps the question now back to 1 CVN or 2 CV with the size range of 70,000-75,000 ton as speculate, with at least two EMALS. If that happen, then it's substantial improvement in capabilities compared to current CdG.

 

[John Fedup]

@Ananda ....the service life for CVN Ford is 50 years which indicates a refuelling at 25 years (mid-life) assuming the A1B reactors have a refuelling requirement at mid-life as the A4Ws do. As per previous comments about the French nuclear industry, I would imagine there will be considerable pressure to go the nuclear route despite the cost. Throwing a bone to the French nuclear industry to keep it viable sort of makes sense considering almost 80% of France’s electric power is from nuclear.

 

[Ananda]

the service life for CVN Ford is 50 years which indicates a refuelling at 25 years (mid-life) assuming the A1B reactors have a refuelling requirement at mid-life as the A4Ws do.

Oops My bad .. guess I'm reading too fast and miss that.
As whether 1 CVN vs 2 CV, guess it will also depend on how much Manning requirements needed (just like Kato post). Also this means related to if French want to invest on more escorts for CBG and more fighters and planes for Carrier Aircraft Group, if they choose 2 CV.
Perhaps the cost for additional escorts and fighters for 2 CV has to be weight against additional cost of 1 CVN but with saving on escorts and fighters.

It'll all come back to what French willing to invest. I know there's talk on Euro Escorts for French CV or CVN, but still the costs of additional fighters need to beared by French alone, I think.