Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

New French CVA

Old 9th Dec 2020, 08:58
  #1 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 12,348
New French CVA

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

https://apnews.com/article/energy-in...108ec8a8c94856

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).......
ORAC is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2020, 09:09
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 98
Strange how they want to move the island right next to the touchdown zone.
Less Hair is online now  
Old 9th Dec 2020, 11:34
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 187
Originally Posted by Less Hair View Post
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.
Not_a_boffin is online now  
Old 9th Dec 2020, 11:35
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 20,997







https://uk.news.yahoo.com/frances-ne...iKY9utYyVFJmxE


NutLoose is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2020, 12:17
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 56
Interesting. Nuclear. No bulbous bow. Slightly longer and heavier than the QE class. I wonder how much design carry-across is included.
petit plateau is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2020, 12:29
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Number 10 No longer
Age: 70
Posts: 18
Is that Tempest on the deck?
Gordon Brown is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2020, 13:15
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 3,715
"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
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2020, 13:16
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 54
Posts: 933
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.
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2020, 14:39
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 3,715
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.............
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2020, 14:45
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 389
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin View Post
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 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.
SLXOwft is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2020, 15:17
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 313
Originally Posted by SLXOwft View Post
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.
Bing is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2020, 16:53
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 187
Originally Posted by SLXOwft View Post
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 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.


Not_a_boffin is online now  
Old 9th Dec 2020, 17:01
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Penryn, Cornwall
Age: 77
Posts: 60
Originally Posted by SLXOwft View Post
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).
idle bystander is online now  
Old 9th Dec 2020, 17:14
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 389
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.

Last edited by SLXOwft; 11th Dec 2020 at 15:06. Reason: seplling
SLXOwft is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2020, 10:40
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 313
Originally Posted by SLXOwft View Post
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.
Bing is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2020, 10:51
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 187
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.
Not_a_boffin is online now  
Old 10th Dec 2020, 11:10
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 98
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.
Less Hair is online now  
Old 10th Dec 2020, 11:17
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
2038.............................

Arc
Arclite01 is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2020, 12:14
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 187
Originally Posted by Less Hair View Post
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.
Not_a_boffin is online now  
Old 10th Dec 2020, 13:40
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 98
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.
Less Hair is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.