New French CVA

[ORAC]

Macron announces France to build CDG replacement - a 70K ton nuclear powered CVA with EMALS catapults.

https://apnews.com/article/energy-industry-paris-emmanuel-macron-france-35a0b0a597db97b899108ec8a8c94856

France to build new nuclear-powered aircraft carrier

PARIS (AP) — France will build a new, nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to replace its Charles de Gaulle carrier by 2038, French President Emmanuel Macron announced Tuesday. Macron framed the decision to use nuclear reactors to propel the future warship as part of France’s climate strategy, stressing its lower emissions compared to diesel fuel.

Speaking at a nuclear facility in the Burgundy town of Le Creusot, he called France’s nuclear weapons and atomic energy industry “the cornerstone of our strategic autonomy,” and said the nuclear sector plays a role in France’s “status as a great power.” One of his advisers noted that having an aircraft carrier also helps France project its global influence. Only a few countries in the world maintain the huge, costly vessels.

The new French aircraft carrier will be about 70,000 tons and 300 meters long, roughly 1.5 times the size of the Charles de Gaulle, which has been deployed for international military operations in Iraq and Syria in recent years, according to French presidential advisers. Its catapults will be electro-magnetic, and American-made, and the ship will be designed to accommodate next-generation warplanes and serve until around 2080, the advisers said.

They didn’t provide a price tag but French media estimate it will cost around 7 billion euros ($8.5 billion).......

[Less Hair]

Strange how they want to move the island right next to the touchdown zone.

[Not_a_boffin]

Strange how they want to move the island right next to the touchdown zone.

Deck management driven - trade off between maximising safe parking area with an arrested recovery angled deck, visibility of deck ops from Flyco and safety of navigation. CVN78 has similar, for similar reasons.

[NutLoose]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x400/1607513645_dc6dd280e493cfe5ae4b86a1faab49a01a5f345b.jpeg


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x400/1607513666_d41946d4478a28c5c6f9a36e231c9d5169a1aa1c.jpeg

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x400/1607513713_3785e0e0c810f5d36bdc62e06f21b75d461accd0.jpeg

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/frances-next-generation-aircraft-carrier-163956570.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAE7bNePEAK8mDc_oJJicIXaz9W1BiJL2NMGMqO oCNNfWeYg-6Dr5ylgGoE-PX6L81C3VCQ6aL2GI-X-6DPq_bRo4NPPN8axXmJoUf7cqLAC5XnPMUenVLzqpIohgV22PDJVB2s3zVl1 pkYwuOCh93ZHzlua6DniKY9utYyVFJmxE

[petit plateau]

Interesting. Nuclear. No bulbous bow. Slightly longer and heavier than the QE class. I wonder how much design carry-across is included.

[Gordon Brown]

Is that Tempest on the deck? :}

[Asturias56]

"French media estimate it will cost around 7 billion euros ($8.5 billion)....."

If that construction costs its twice the cost of a QE - but its the other costs (aircraft especially) that hurt

[sandiego89]

Interesting they upped the size quite a bit from CDG. If your going to go with a big nuke, might as well go with a proper size. I recall the CDG was initially too short for safe E-2C landings and the angled deck had to be lengthened.

[Asturias56]

I seem to remember the arguments about size in both the Fords and the Qe's - a bit bigger really helps with operations and flexibility.............

[SLXOwft]

Deck management driven - trade off between maximising safe parking area with an arrested recovery angled deck, visibility of deck ops from Flyco and safety of navigation. CVN78 has similar, for similar reasons.

N_a_B, I believe the USN use of this island position goes back as far as the Kittyhawks? In a way it may be odder that they didn't move from the 'traditional' position when designing the CdG.

Clearly the French are not sold on the 'benefits' of the two island design. They are however willing to accept the additional costs of sticking to nuclear power and CATOBAR; Also 25% higher crew numbers than QNLZ & POW (assuming the '2000 marins' includes the airgroup).

Slight Thread Drift
Have you read this paper? The Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers: Airwake Modelling and Validation for ASTOVL Flight Simulation (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/80777863.pdf) It stretches my understanding but I was interested that they considered that the operations lift between the island could affect the airflow. I trust that this was investgated later on.

[Bing]

Clearly the French are not sold on the 'benefits' of the two island design. They are however willing to accept the additional costs of sticking to nuclear power and CATOBAR; Also 25% higher crew numbers than QNLZ & POW (assuming the '2000 marins' includes the airgroup).


You don't need two islands for a nuke as there's no trunking for the gas turbines. On the QE Class there was a given amount of space taken up by that so the choice was one big island or two small ones. Without that requirement you can pretty much do what you want as long as it holds up the radars and has room for everyone who needs to see out.

[Not_a_boffin]

N_a_B, I believe the USN use of this island position goes back as far as the Kittyhawks? In a way it may be odder that they didn't move from the 'traditional' position when designing the CdG.

Clearly the French are not sold on the 'benefits' of the two island design. They are however willing to accept the additional costs of sticking to nuclear power and CATOBAR; Also 25% higher crew numbers than QNLZ & POW (assuming the '2000 marins' includes the airgroup).

Slight Thread Drift
Have you read this paper? The Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers: Airwake Modelling and Validation for ASTOVL Flight Simulation (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/80777863.pdf) It stretches my understanding but I was interested that they considered that the operations lift between the island could affect the airflow. I trust that this was investgated later on.

Not quite. The Kitty Hawk location is further forward - as was Enterprise and Nimitz - mainly to incorporate a lift aft of the island (boiler room position also impacted on CV). Trouble was you ended up with a bottleneck that restricts access to a larger chunk of the stbd quarter parking area, which is why Ford has moved the island further aft - as have our French friends. It's only really a factor where you have a CTOL or STOBAR angled deck.

As BIng points our, our two island design is heavily influenced by provision for uptakes - no point having separated machinery spaces if the uptakes are a single point failure or demand complex ducting routes. Emitter separation is also a driver. The use of the after island as Flyco is just a happy by-product.

[idle bystander]

Clearly the French are not sold on the 'benefits' of the two island design.
I never understood what those "benefits' might be. From my time in the (real) Ark Royal I recollect that the ability for the Navigator to step off the bridge and into Flyco (and vice versa) to discuss navigation and FLYPRO issues was vital. How the hell they manage in QE I can't imagine.
I suspect a re-emergence of the old idea of separating naval and flying issues which led to Eagle's two wardrooms and her diastrous first commission (see John Winton's flawed HMS Leviathan).

[SLXOwft]

N_a_B, as ever I bow to your superior knowledge/understanding but in my defence I was meaning the position in general - as far as I remember older generation carriers were much further forward.

CVN78 has similar, for similar reasons. I hadn't realised the Ford's 60' x 30' island was moved 140' back and 3' outboard, it doesn't look very different in photos I've seen. The flag bridge was also removed to a lower deck to help shrink the island. At 555 tonnes it weighs less that the 680 of the forward island of the UK carriers.

Bing, I agree the trunking and machinery separation were the main reason but other advantages have been argued for. More optimal postion for both navigation and FLYCO, separation of the radars reducing mutual interference and blindspots, command and control redundancy i.e. the ship could remain operational following the loss of one island without resorting to operating from below the flightdeck. I agree this has to be set against loss of deckspace on a CVN.

I never understood what those "benefits' might be. From my time in the (real) Ark Royal I recollect that the ability for the Navigator to step off the bridge and into Flyco (and vice versa) to discuss navigation and FLYPRO issues was vital. How the hell they manage in QE I can't imagine.
Reminds me of a conversation I had on Lusty standing in the relatively small space between the Captain's chair and FLYCO. I was told the then Captain appreciated being so close during intensive operations. My interlocutor (not the Captain) was of the opinion the separation (on the new carriers) might need revisiting come the first major refit.

[Bing]

Bing, I agree the trunking and machinery separation were the main reason but other advantages have been argued for. More optimal postion for both navigation and FLYCO, separation of the radars reducing mutual interference and blindspots, command and control redundancy i.e. the ship could remain operational following the loss of one island without resorting to operating from below the flightdeck. I agree this has to be set against loss of deckspace on a CVN.


To be honest I suspect all the other benefits are just post-hoc justifications once they'd decided they wanted two separate paths for the trunking. Certainly from my brief time on CVS it seems madness not to be able to step from the bridge to FLYCO and vice-versa.

[Not_a_boffin]

I'd tend to agree. I don't think I've met a single former carrier aviator or warfairy who hasn't expressed similar concerns. Time will tell I expect.

[Less Hair]

They possibly install some super precise auto land system? This could be why they can move the island that close to the landing area. CDG has had the island moved far ahead out of the most dangerous area.

[Arclite01]

2038.............................

Arc

[Not_a_boffin]

They possibly install some super precise auto land system? This could be why they can move the island that close to the landing area. CDG has had the island moved far ahead out of the most dangerous area.

It's all to do with lift positioning and deck management, not danger/safety issues.

[Less Hair]

To me it looks like they demonstrate how close they can go, because they can. As Arclite mentioned. In 2038 we are behind manual carrier landings.

[SLXOwft]

At the risk of talking more gash - the island looks to be part way between a Nimitz class and Ford class position, if smaller and further inboard than a Nimitz. The model has vehicles parked outboard, I believe the original plans for CVA-01 to 04 had a two island design but one of the reasons they were consolidated was to provide sheltered parking for deck vehicles. The model also has four FJs 'marooned' astern of the island. I wonder if la Royale has considered using that "solution in search of a problem" the Alaska Highway - I believe Winkle Brown was a fan arguing it allowed for better deck management and facilitated simultaneous launch and recovery.

I also recall reading/hearing somewhere Winkle saying he was a fan of the twin island design (probably dating from his work on CVA-01) - he may of course have been influenced by his relative lack of sea time.

Given their experience with CdG and the UK's with the QNLZ class I think 11 years from start of development to launch in '36, with the aim of allowing two years sea trials before replacing CdG, is very sensible.

[Not_a_boffin]

I suspect that the Alaskan Highway was one of those good ideas on a general arrangement drawing that might not have survived first contact with the chockheads who would have to maneuver a 30 te aircraft down the outboard side of the ship (where roll amplitude is magnified), in the dark, rain, spray etc and with little or no clearance between the island itself and the catwalk. At the risk of being burned as a heretic, Winkle was also a fan of the rubber deck / undercarriageless aircraft, which I have to say seems like a dead end. Or rather, an extreme palliative to a problem waiting for better airframe and engine technology.

The "marooned" aircraft would be where you'd leave your alert cabs. Easy unchain and taxi to cats from there, no need to get involved in the larger safe parking area which can deal with your cyclic deck ops.. It's not a fully representative deck spot either, as the portside cabs encroaching over the recovery line show.

[orca]

Big boat for only two cats. Space behind the island is hard to use mid cycle - but can be used for spotting jets before first launch or when a recovery is complete - because landing jets need to clear LA quickly and cannot go aft until the last is on - therefore need deck space forward to hold the entire wave - and don’t want to get in the way of Cat 1 either which will prob have the tanker on it.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Not_a_boffin

Winkle Brown was probably influenced by his wartime experience of teaching pilots to land on carriers and doing carrier trials. The flexible deck was was an attempt to deal with the difficulty of precise landing and to separate landing and take off areas. It helped influence the invention of the angled flight deck.

The CVA-01 flight deck design was intended to take this further, and to reduce the difficulty for the pilot lining up. There are parallels with the design of the QEC flight deck.

orca

I suspect the extra size is for greater sea keeping - CDG had to stop operations off Libya at sea state 4. Maybe they hope to carry a squadron of ASW helicopters like other NATO carriers.

The lack of a bulbous bow in the artist's impressions is also odd. It adds buoyancy and aids launching aircraft by lifting the bow.

[Not_a_boffin]

Not_a_boffin

Winkle Brown was probably influenced by his wartime experience of teaching pilots to land on carriers and doing carrier trials. The flexible deck was was an attempt to deal with the difficulty of precise landing and to separate landing and take off areas. It helped influence the invention of the angled flight deck.

The CVA-01 flight deck design was intended to take this further, and to reduce the difficulty for the pilot lining up. There are parallels with the design of the QEC flight deck.

orca

I suspect the extra size is for greater sea keeping - CDG had to stop operations off Libya at sea state 4. Maybe they hope to carry a squadron of ASW helicopters like other NATO carriers.

The lack of a bulbous bow in the artist's impressions is also odd. It adds buoyancy and aids launching aircraft by lifting the bow.

Nope. The flex deck was to reduce aircraft weight by removing the need for carrier capable undercarriage.

The lack of bulbous bow (although there is some novel form there) is probably down to Mr Froude.

A bulb doesn't lift the bow, if anything it damps pitch motion.

[Ripton]

Interesting... ...No bulbous bow.

I don't think the reflections from the display box helps but it looks to me as though there is a bulb there but it does not project from the bow.

[rattman]

The lack of a bulbous bow in the artist's impressions is also odd. It adds buoyancy and aids launching aircraft by lifting the bow.

Bulbous bows are found many ships. Basically they give better fuel efficiency and speed. Bouyancy by forcing the bow up would actually lead to more a inefficency and less speed. The bow wave generated by the bow and the bow wave from the bulb are 2 different waves, they make contact and counter act each other (destructive interference ) and the wave is destroyed

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Nope. The flex deck was to reduce aircraft weight by removing the need for carrier capable undercarriage.

The lack of bulbous bow (although there is some novel form there) is probably down to Mr Froude.

A bulb doesn't lift the bow, if anything it damps pitch motion.

The flexible deck experiment contributed to the invention of the angled flight deck by Captain Dennis Campbell. As for the bulb - surely reducing pitch motion aids flying operations?

[Not_a_boffin]

The flexible deck experiment contributed to the invention of the angled flight deck by Captain Dennis Campbell. As for the bulb - surely reducing pitch motion aids flying operations?

Driving factor behind flex deck was taking weight out of the aircraft to improve performance at the time (primarily due to contemporary airframe and engine technology). Driving factor behind angled deck was to overcome hazard associated with heavier faster aircraft exceeding capability of barrier to protect recovered aircraft on an axial deck.

Reducing pitch does help air ops, but not by "lifting the bow". You fit a bulb primarily to reduce wave-making resistance - influenced by a combination of ship length and speed - it comes with a resistance penalty at lower speeds, which you only pay if worth it. QEC is right in the sweet spot for one.

[Less Hair]

Wouldn't a catamaran layout be the optimum concept for some aircraft carrier? However they might be too wide for existing docks and shipyard infrastructure.

[Not_a_boffin]

Wouldn't a catamaran layout be the optimum concept for some aircraft carrier? However they might be too wide for existing docks and shipyard infrastructure.

You'd find the motions somewhat limiting, the ability to provide enough volume in the bowels of the ship for fuel, munitions, stores etc very limited (and very difficult to arrange) and the damaged stability performance distinctly exciting. So no.

[NutLoose]

Russia's looking at the very thing!

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/history-be-made-russia-wants-catamaran-aircraft-carrier-105477

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/september-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6509-russia-s-krylov-light-aircraft-carrier-project-features-semi-catamaran-hull-design.html


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/925x616/russias_krylov_light_aircraft_carrier_project_features_semi_ catamaran_hull_design_3_c9ec79c1831c7cae02b7083754f5d08f860a 2bbb.jpg

[NutLoose]

More,m missing letters form blo gs pot

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.blo**pot.com/2018/09/russias-krylov-light-aircraft-carrier.html

[sandiego89]

Wouldn't a catamaran layout be the optimum concept for some aircraft carrier? However they might be too wide for existing docks and shipyard infrastructure.

Several catamaran designs have been explored for aircraft carriers, and they do look very glorious on paper and renderings, with acres of parking space, multiple layout possibilities, including totally separate landing and take off areas, or even multiple "runways" but the building and maintenance docks, and as others point out the stresses and other factors quickly make them problematic. The size requirement for a graving dock or floating dry dock would be massive, and if that dock is full (or sinks/gets damaged as the Russians found out) you are out of luck.

[rattman]

Wouldn't a catamaran layout be the optimum concept for some aircraft carrier? However they might be too wide for existing docks and shipyard infrastructure.

Yes that would be one big reason, the other is catamarans dont carry weight as well as a monohulls. While my experience is from the sailing side of things, catamarans they are easier and more susceptable to and more effected by overloading compared to monohulls

[etudiant]

Several catamaran designs have been explored for aircraft carriers, and they do look very glorious on paper and renderings, with acres of parking space, multiple layout possibilities, including totally separate landing and take off areas, or even multiple "runways" but the building and maintenance docks, and as others point out the stresses and other factors quickly make them problematic. The size requirement for a graving dock or floating dry dock would be massive, and if that dock is full (or sinks/gets damaged as the Russians found out) you are out of luck.

This just seems lacking in imagination.
There is absolutely no reason why the hulls need to carry anything but the propulsion units plus lots of spare buoyancy. So they do not need to be included in the dry dock.
The nuclear power plant and the air detachment , along with the sensors would be in the mid body, lifted from below into the dry dock when necessary.
So no need for a super wide dry dock.
I do not know whether anyone has ever built a big cat, but it does seem a better way for aircraft to deploy than the enormously expensive and inefficient VSTOL designs we are currently saddled with.

[Less Hair]

The one reason to not use catamarans might be that they don't fit the Panama and Suez channels and locks.

[ORAC]

Announcement of the new carrier.

The QE class is 65,000 tons….. the new French carrier is 75,000 tons.

The QE class is 280m long… the new French carrier is 305m…

https://twitter.com/thedewline/status/1513920128982921218?s=21&t=pe53rxiKoJOPGozVJMnLtQ

[Davef68]

Announcement of the new carrier.

The QE class is 65,000 tons….. the new French carrier is 75,000 tons.

The QE class is 280m long… the new French carrier is 305m…

Copying the Ford class idea of having the island right at the back

[Navaleye]

I can't think of a reason not to have a bulbous bow. It helps considerably in achieving a desired speed by reducing friction at the bow. Not sure what affect it has on pitching, but the modern duck tail as seen on some cruise ship certainly helps to counter pitch and improves general stability. A good thing. Doesn't look big enough for a four cat installation. Possibly 3 as I believe the Chinese are doing