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)....... |
Strange how they want to move the island right next to the touchdown zone.
|
Originally Posted by Less Hair
(Post 10943412)
Strange how they want to move the island right next to the touchdown zone.
|
|
Interesting. Nuclear. No bulbous bow. Slightly longer and heavier than the QE class. I wonder how much design carry-across is included.
|
Is that Tempest on the deck? :}
|
"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 |
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.
|
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.............
|
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
(Post 10943507)
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.
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. |
Originally Posted by SLXOwft
(Post 10943653)
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).
|
Originally Posted by SLXOwft
(Post 10943653)
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by SLXOwft
(Post 10943653)
Clearly the French are not sold on the 'benefits' of the two island design.
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). |
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by SLXOwft
(Post 10943731)
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'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.
|
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.
|
2038.............................
Arc |
Originally Posted by Less Hair
(Post 10944201)
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.
|
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.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:47. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.