Here we look at the French Navy’s ambitious project to construct a 75,000-tonne nuclear-powered, conventional aircraft carrier for delivery in the late 2030s
Background
In 2018 the Marine Nationale launched four studies into replacing its existing aircraft carrier, the FS Charles de Gaulle (CDG). The French government subsequently confirmed they would build another nuclear-powered vessel, the Porte Avions de Nouvelle Génération (PA-Ng) in 2020. For English-speaking audiences, the project is sometimes referred to as the Future French Carrier (FFC).
While French public finances are in an even more dire state than those of Britain, the MN benefits from well-managed defence procurement and a long-term defence industrial strategy far superior to chaotic UK practice. The MN has navigated the usual tired arguments that aircraft carriers are obsolete, too expensive etc. and succeeded in getting political support and approval for this mammoth project. The budget for FFC design and construction is officially €6 billion although most accept that €8 billion or more is realistic.
The project is now in the second of two de-risking and feasibility phases running from 2021 up to the end of 2025. The preliminary design phase concluded in early 2023 and was followed by the programme definition phase, which will run until late 2025 ahead of the System Functional Review. The first iteration of the design was unveiled in 2020 but this was significantly altered by 2022. The single unified ‘witches hat’ mast above the island (A feature of the FTI frigates) has been replaced with a more conventional arrangement. The hull form and flight deck layout has also evolved substantially and it should be emphasised that the design continues to develop and the final ship may look considerably different to the imagery published so far.
The detailed design phase will begin in 2025 through to 2032 although some manufacturing will start well in advance of 2032. The commitment to the programme was demonstrated by the placing of contracts for long lead items in April 2024. This included elements of the nuclear propulsion system and preparatory infrastructure work at the Chantiers de l’Atlantique shipyard.
The main construction and assembly will take place between 2032-35 with initial sea trials on nuclear power in early 2036. If this timetable can be met, then the ship is scheduled to commission in 2038.
PANG-flight-deck-plan-3Design
The MN says the FFC will need to be able to deliver the full spectrum effects from tactical to strategic, have adaptability for new technologies and aircraft types over an expected service life of 40 years. The ship will be able to launch heavily armed aircraft capable of relatively long-range sorties as well as supporting uncrewed air vehicles from the outset.
The outline design is for a 75,000-tonne ship, 305m long and 79m maximum beam (some sources suggest up to 78,000-tonne displacement). The flight deck and sponsons will have a considerable overhang from the main hull which has a beam of 39m at the waterline. The displacement also trumps the British Queen Elizabeth class, although this is of course, purely coincidental.
The 17,000m2 flight deck and hangars will accommodate an air group of about 30 Rafale and NGF together with two Hawkeye and up to 6 medium helicopters. (The rotary wing ASW element of the French carriers is noticeably lighter than UK practice). FFC is also intended to be compatible with USN aircraft, including the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, F-35C Lightning, and CMV-22 Osprey. Two deck-edge lifts forward of the island can each carry two Rafale jets at a time from the hangar that extends two decks high and about two-thirds of the length of the ship.
At a cost of $1.321 billion, General Atomics is supplying two 90-metre Electromagnetic Launch Systems (EMALS) and the Advanced Arrestor Gear (AAG) set developed for the Ford-class. GA has already done the heavy lifting in developing this system that is now mature and proven in service on the Ford. Compared to the steam catapults of the CDG, EMALS enables an increased sortie launch rate, has a lower maintenance requirement and the power delivery can be accurately calibrated to suit the weight of the aircraft from small drones to NGF and Hawkeye. The flight deck has positions for three catapults, two over the bow and one on the port waist. It is unclear at present if two or three EMALS will be fitted, although this will not be clarified until the end of 2025.
-
Models on display at Euronaval, October 2022. Note the two Thales RapidFire 40 mm gun mounts on the quarterdeck, another two are mounted are on port and starboard sponsons forward. (Photos: Navy Lookout). -
CGI showing the FFC and escorts, note the rust streaks on the hull for added realism. -
This view emphasises how the design has much more in common with the USS Gerald R. Ford than the preceding CDG (Image: MO Porte-Avions). -
(Image: MO Porte-Avions). -
The stern view shows the twin rudder, triple shaft arrangement with large propellers. A casual assessment would suggest placing the propellors this close together could risk vibration issues (Photo: Navy Lookout). -
The four fixed arrays of the Thales Sea Fire AESA 3D multifunction radar are mounted on each side of the island structure above the bridge which is co-located with the flyco to port.
The ship will be powered by two K22 nuclear reactors based on the K15 of the CDG. She will be an all-electric ship with generators producing around 80MW for the propulsion motors and 30MW for EMALS, combat systems and hotel load. Maximum speed is officially 27 knots but likely to be slightly faster in reality. Unlike the US/UK naval reactors that use highly enriched uranium (HEU), the K22 has a low-enriched uranium (LEU) core and requires refuelling about once every decade.
FFC will be armed with an unspecified number of Sylver VLS cells for Aster missiles or its successor, similar to the CDG with silos in sponsons amidships, port starboard. Close-in defence is provided by 4 Thales RapidFire 40 mm gun mounts as well as 3 SIMBAD-RC launchers for short-range Mistral missiles. There is also the expectation and associated power generation capacity available to fit directed energy weapons in future.
It is hoped the ship can be run with a total crew of around 2,000 including the air wing and command staff. Keeping the sailor numbers to this size would represent quite an achievement, the 25% larger Ford-class still requires more than double this complement.
One of the more complex but less obvious challenges in aircraft carrier design is the arrangement of weapon magazines and elevators. To maximise sorties rates, the safe movement of weapons from storage to the aircraft has to be carefully planned. The electromagnetic induction weapon lifts of the Ford-class offer major advantages but proved difficult to commission. The Highly Mechanised Weapon Handling System (HMWHS) developed for the QEC carriers may also be of interest to the French as they seek to minimise crew size.
PANG-compared-2Air group
The FFC will initially operate at least 3 types of fixed-wing crewed aircraft. Assuming the ship enters service around 2038, the Rafale-M will still be in service. However, its successor derived from the Système de Combat Aérien du Futur (SCAF) program, the Next Generation Fighter (NGF) intended to be the mainstay of French combat aviation in the 2040s.
NGF is a development effort between France, Germany, and Spain and will be a stealthy 6th-generation strike fighter aircraft. The NGF will be much larger than the Rafale-M, with an 18m long fuselage and a 14m wingspan, twin engines, two large weapon bays, and a V-tail. Just as the move from the Harrier to F-35 helped increase the displacement of the QEC carriers, the jump from Rafale to NGF is a major factor driving up the size of the FFC.
NGF programme is an approximate parallel of the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), the joint UK, Japanese and Italian effort to develop a new strike-fighter. NGF and GCAP are also part of a wider ‘system of systems’ confusingly both named the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) which includes uncrewed loyal wingmen and data backbones. NGF and GCAP alone are colossally ambitious and expensive multi-national projects with huge political and technical hurdles to overcome. Not least is the fact that Europe has not produced a ‘5th generation’ aircraft and does not have US industry’s wealth of experience in developing stealth aircraft technologies. If GCAP will be challenging, then NGF looks even more ambitious as it will also have to be carrier-capable.
The Marine Nationale will continue to operate the E-2 Hawkeye Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft. Three new E-2Ds have been ordered from Northrop Grumman which will be delivered in 2028 and will eventually operate from the FFC. A key requirement is the ability to launch aircraft armed with tactical nuclear weapons – the Force Aéronavale Nucléaire (FANu). For the CDG this comprises a strike package of up to 22 Rafale jets and an E-2C Hawkeye.
Construction
The FFC will be designed and constructed by MO Porte-Avions, a joint venture comprising Naval Group (65%) and Chantiers de l’Atlantique (35%). This consortium is responsible for overall program management under the government’s Direction Générale de l’Armement (DGA), with the Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) overseeing TechnicAtome producing the nuclear reactors.
The ship will be constructed at the Chantiers de l’Atlantique shipyard in Saint Nazaire. This yard is used to constructing very large vessels including cruise ships over 200,000 tonnes but an aircraft carrier will present a far greater level of complexity. On completion, the ship will be fitted with temporary diesel generators to provide power to the motors for the passage to Toulon, where the fuelling of the nuclear cores and commissioning of the reactor will take place.
Since the arrival of CDG, the MN has always recognised the limitations of a single ship and has aspired to procure a second vessel. The Porte-Avions 2 (PA2) project was initiated in 2003 using the QEC design as the basis for a CATOBAR carrier but the project was suspended in 2009 and cancelled in 2013. Essentially by selecting a ‘gold standard’ conventional-launch, nuclear-powered vessel, in the CDG France possesses a first-rank carrier but cannot afford another ship and is therefore hampered by part-time availability. Given that the FFC will be even more expensive, a second ship of this class is also unlikely.
Aircraft carrier construction is a complex business. The De Gaulle, the QEC carriers and the USS Gerald R Ford all suffered significant technical problems at the outset of their careers that delayed their entry into service. The ambition of the MN to acquire such a powerful ship is admirable but whether this can be delivered by 2038 as planned is questionable. The world could look very different by the 2040s but the FFC should give France (and NATO) a very powerful naval power projection platform intended to last into the 2080s.
They’re broke…even more so than us.
The only reason they’re going for a single large carrier like this is because their national pride won’t allow for the UK & the RN to have a bigger carrier than they do, despite the fact that 2 QE carriers with 24-36 F35s will be a far more versatile and potent force in war time.
If the RN had gone for a 300m, 75,000t Nuclear carrier, you can guarantee the French would have gone for a 310m, 80,000t one. That’s how petty they are.
…and that’s assuming your enemy will be kind enough to start that war when your one and only Carrier isn’t in the middle of its 3yr refit cycle.
Most expensive item is the emals.
These days the cost of a project does not hurt a country as long as you are keeping skills within your country.
Nuclear tick
Aviation tick except the Hawkeye
Ship building tick
The nuclear power generation is far more expensive. 2x EMALS and 1x AAG are 1.3bn, or roughly 440million each.
Neither the EMALS nor the nuclear powerplants are the most expensive item. The air-wing is always the most expensive part of a carrier, and this is usually for an existing aircraft.
Developing a marinised version of the still conceptual NGF is likely to result in eye-watering costs – assuming it ever goes into production.
It will be ruinously expensive to design a new reactor model and only ever build two of them. At least the K15 reactors used on the CDG are also used to power French submarines, so the development cost was spread over more units.
There is way to cut the cost,that is to offer the K22 to power large cruise ships. Cruise passengers want to cut their carbon footprint, and the cruise industry has invested heavily in LNG powered ships despite the performance hit compared with diesel. This reduces carbon footprint somewhat, but it is still more than flying. Nuclear would offer true carbon free travel.
France has nuclear subs, I’m not upto date on French construction, but I’m guessing they must be replacing their older subs too.. are those reactors not compatible to use existing current production lines?
The K15 type is used in all the previous LEU reactors from Rubis to Suffren subs ( inc SLBM) and CdG.
The K22 is under development for future use and it seems it will be used for the future carrier and future SLBM ( currently in development). The time between refuels will be extended
Right, thanks.
Yes, the programme to replace Le Triomphant class has begun
Having nuclear reactors would almost certainly limit where a cruise ship would be allowed to dock.
When the Charles de Gaulle was being built, it was
The plan was to build new nuclear reactors, but to keep construction costs down it was decided to use the reactors designed for nuclear submarines. This choice limited power to 84,000 hp, compared with 124,000 hp for the old Clemenceau aircraft carrier. So the decision to build a new reactor is a question of power for the ship’s displacement and the fact of having electromagnetic catapults.
You are harsh but there’s truth there. We might remember that the French derivative of the QEC design was bigger than the UK version, north of 70,000 tonnes. The MN claimed that they “refuelled less often” and therefore needed to carry more fuel. Most suspected otherwise!
I was wondering why our carrier is rated at a 50 year life, and theirs 40? With refueling each decade I’m wondering what the difference is?
The advantage of having a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is that it has unlimited autonomy, more space and only has to be refuelled with aviation fuel, supplies and spare parts.
Aha! That’s one hell of a main character syndrome on display here. Out of all the reasons one could think of that could have led broke France to be planning to spend 10 freaking billion euros on a single warship, the most credible one to you is that of a dick-measuring contest with the UK?
I don’t know…. taking a glance at the French industrial base and the sectors it deems of utmost importance to keep alive as well as the expected size and mass of upcoming 6th gen fighters or, hell, even maintaining carrier interoperability with the US… all appear to be more plausible reasons for such requirements to me.
Hello Jules Flo, I was going to write the same thing… you beat me too it. There are some very good and well balanced articles on this site. There are also some knowledgeable contributors in the comments section, but then there are others who tend to let their biases get the best of them.
That said, thanks Navy Lookout for another enjoyable read.
When its named either FS Redoutable or Jean d’Arc or otherwise, we will know the true state of affairs. Till then its over to you Inspector.
I read your reply three times and still have no idea what you are on about…inspector?
Napoleon has to be the name for the future carrier !
on Neptune spear
No, that is just a fantasy you have. Says more about you than anything else.
If the French and the British were less stupid, we could have had joint ship programmes. France may be broke, but I have no doubt that it will solve the problem in the medium term.
It’s just that the fighter planes that will be embarked will be much heavier and a bigger ship will be needed. The Charles de Gaulle has already shown its limitations because of its size, making it a real tetris inside. Not very intelligent reasoning
They say NGF but all I am seeing is a YF-23 with Thrust Vectoring and a bit chopped out of the wing.
Is that necessarily a bad thing?
YF-23 looks great
Not bad from my perspective. I have a model above my desk so I see it every day.
Plus I know where you can see an YF-23 today! The actual real prototype.
In America?
Aircraft carriers are obsolete and the sooner that politicians and defence professionals embrace this new reality, the less expensive financially, reputationally and militarily it will be.
Aircraft carriers are obsolete… is that why everyone is building them?
Yes as they are defenceless against now proven hypersonic technology. It is no coincidence that the countries with the technology aren’t the same ones constructing them.
Hypersonics are not end all be all weapons.
Hypersonics are proven technology now, but so are the interceptors. Patriot has already shot multiple Khinzals in Ukraine. Hypersonics are also incredibly expensive, costing several million each.
Explain how the kill chain works for such weapons?
Every time I or Gun Buster or DaveyB explain the issues we appear to be met with Kremlin taking points.
Why is that?
Could it be that hypersonics are merely the 1940’s wonder weapons warmed up a bit? I mean V1 and V2 were not very accurate either!
OK if you could actually make an accurate and steerable hypersonic it would be an incredible weapon. As it stands Russia can’t hit a static target [unless you include schools and hospitals as military targets] never mind a ship that is in motion and possibly not in a straight line…
Unfortunately most people don’t quite get that ships hide behind the sea and the Ogin is huge…also if you us radar your emissions are detectable before you can find the thing your looking for so any sensible carrier battle group will be killing the ISTAR asset and then running or at 30miles an hour…
Not if they are long range drone….
The ISTAR goes up dark and travels a couple of hours away and then goes active using LPI radar.
On return it goes dark back to mother.
That is the slow flying drone advantage.
Ok the transmit power isn’t there but the clear blue water between the active ISTAR zone and mother is invaluable.
Yes but that is not going to get you the kill chain for the magic hypersonic weapons. It helps locate the target, but misses the track for the kill chain.
He can’t . It still has to detect a target at sea and that’s not easy
in what way are they “defenseless” ? An issue many seem to neglect in the hypersonic debate is softkill. Regardless of how fast it is the, missile requires guidance to hit a moving target, and if you defeat the seeker you defeat the missile. It’s not all about Hardkill
China is king of Hypersonics and rushing to build as many carrier as possible with two completed in the last decade, two under construction and an eventual fleet of probably 6. Russia is refurbishing the Kuznetsov rather than scrapping it. India has a new carrier under construction and another planned with one recently completed, South Korea has repeatedly considered building one but cant afford it. Japan is adding carrier capability to its helicopter carriers. Turkey built one but it was downgraded to a drone carrier after it was refused permission for F-35’s and has no access to other carrier capable aircraft. Brazil is planning to acquire a new carrier for 2040 to replace the one that retired in 2017.
“Brazil is planning to acquire a new carrier for 2040 to replace the one that retired in 2017.”
They probably won’t have the budgets for that unless a second hand one comes on the market! Their economy isn’t great.
That’s probably the plan. Atlantico (formerly HMS Ocean) is being reworked to operate drones to provide some kind of very basic carrier strike capability.
Well the thing is, how would a destroyer defend against hypersonics? What you need is airborne early warning, AEW, so you can detect and then shoot them down over the horizon. For AEW you might be able to get away with a satellite or land based aircraft, but its a good argument for carrier borne aviation, and CAP’s a long way out from the fleet.
RobAB, True hypersonic CAN’T fly at low altitudes due to the thermodynamics and aerodynamics. They need thin, linear atmospheres so they are virtually ballistic weapons. You don’t need AEW but you do need good long range surveillance to detect the launch and a very high-angle capability on your multi-role surveillance/fire control radar as the hypersonic is coming down from such a high angle.
Aircraft carriers have been open to attack since aircraft carriers were first built. The strength of carriers is that they hide in the ocean and you have to find then track them before you can launch the effector..then you have to keep tracking it until the effector hits it…that’s a very very hard thing to do..because the oceans are huge and they are not flat so you can hide behind them. Just because you have a hypersonic missile it means diddly squat if you cannot find the carrier then track it ( which is hard because to find the carrier is difficult and to do so you need to radiate..if you radiate the CBG will find you first..kill you quick and bugger off at high speed).
To target a hypersonic you need a kill chain that can be disrupted…. also many countries are bringing in anti-hypersonic technology. The carrier is like the tank periodically folk say the tank is dead but yet it lives on with adapted defences….
And fixed airfields are better defenced of course? Fixed installations are easier to kill off with less sophisticated weapons so a moving airfield is the better option and will always be better defended as the recent deployments clearly show against all current weapons. And allows the diplomats to hammer the desk when they know they have something powerful over the horizon.
Every country that can afford to is building them.
In fact practically every country that has put funding into developing hypersonic weapons has or wants carriers. Most major powers have them – some like Russia are failing – others are developing them (Japan, SK) or some imitation using drones (Brazil, Iran).
Which countries are you referring to which have proven hypersonic technology that aren’t significantly investing in carrier capability?
AUKUS have opted for the smart solution regarding hypersonic development.
Show me one hypersonic missile that’s proven to hit a moving target at sea . You can’t and are taking three your ants
Not obsolete, but the expense of one does start to count when you add it all up.
It’s just a moveable runway on water. Which has upsides as well as downsides.
You say that, but do you have the faintest idea how much it costs to build an airfield. I’ll give you a clue. The aircraft carrier is insanely cheap in comparison.
Runway in USA, 300million dollars to 1.1billion dollars.
Asphalt is half the price of concrete.
The upgrades at Marham alone just for F-35 are north of £500 MIL thats upgrades only
Air bases require far more than ‘a runway’,plus the accommodation and support buildings . those are all on a carrier.
Where will the Asphalt come from when the fossil fuels are turned off?
It’s a moveable airbase rather than just a runway, and probably costs significantly more than a fixed airbase to build.
Tell that to the Chinese, who are desperately trying to develop a blue water navy and carrier force able to fight the USN. Or even the USN that is recapitalising it’s carrier force and moving from the Nimitz class era to the Ford class. 2 constructed, 2 more building, 1 more under contract, 4 more planned. Total cost $100-125 billion USD. I’m guessing the Chinese and USN know something you don’t.
Gosh, I hadn’t realised it was THAT much down the pan. See the comment above re: hypersonics and come back in due course with an apology.
China has hypersonics and carriers so what’s your argument? And Russia seems pretty desperate to at least look like they have a carrier.
Russia has an amazing collection of model carriers?
Maybe they are hoping for a really big 3D printer for Christmas?
Have you ever been to IWM to look at all the crap collections of the UK?
Yet the Chinese who have a very advanced hypersonic weapon program are also pushing very hard to build a carrier force.
What is the physics to show a hypersonic missile can hit a moving target?
A very interesting point
Great link did a first read and head is overheating like a hypersonic missile. Physics is the equations not defence ministry hype.
That is the interest in quantum navigation.
Unjamable and at least can be used for static targets.
Moving targets are a whole other problem both in terms of steering and guidance.
Supportive Bloke
All your comments about the accuracy – or otherwise – of hypersonic missiles are ccorrect (i.e. The CEP – Circular Error of Probability)
However you have fundametntally assumed that an incoming enemy hypersonic missile will only ever be fitted with a conventional warhead.
However – big but – if the enemy fits it with a “small” nuke (note1) = the incoming missile does not have to actually hit the ship to totally disable it……
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1. For a “small nuke”, please read as “still a very big bang”
Indeed, and how it will most probably be used in practice.
That’s certainly the most rational case for hypersonics, but at that point everyone is already fielding nuclear ballistic missiles that go hypersonic. Its a line everyone is cautious about blurring; even the Russians have stated their new hypersonics are for conventional deterrence.
Usually I wouldn’t put much stock in anything from the Kremlin, but it makes sense. Keeping a distinction between nuclear ballistic missiles and things like Zircon allows them to actually USE the new weapons without escalating to nuclear war. Granted, reports are that all the new hypersonics can be fitted with nuclear weapons, but its unlikely they’ll be used in such a capacity.
That was the theory with Sea Slug’s proposed nuclear derivative too…CEP didn’t matter…so much…
It is still inverse cube from the centre of the explosion. The water and water vapour also forms a lense effect so the blast doesn’t truly travel across the surface of the water but is deflected upwards.
The localised lense heating effect is speed of light from the centra of the explosion so travels ahead of the shockwave. You can see it in the declassified footage of the early tests.
That said if things are going nuclear there is a whole other level of problems going on.
So I’ve read somewhere no reference that if Pakistan and India had a nuclear exchange then the whole world goes into nuclear winter. These are lesser nuke players.
But then, what is the physics that any missiles could hit any targets?
Hypersonic is defined above Mach 5, why should speed make any different? only it arrives quicker.
Meteor Air to Air is Mach 4
https://www.militaryaerospace.com/sensors/article/14300395/hypersonic-carrier-based-anti-ship
can we agree the physics has to work rather than a press statement by a defense company or minister. what is questioned is physics / practicality of altering course at hypersonic speed enough to be able to hit a moving target and or sensors to be able to survive the heat and extreme environment at hypersonic speed to seek out a target.
Physics has always worked, you are the one who lacks physics.
ICBM maneuvering RV re-entry at Mach 10
X-15 flow at Mach 5.58 in 22 August 1963 piloted by Joseph Walker
If you have doubt then inform your physics to defense companies or minister promptly so budget could be relocated to the NHS
ICBM manoeuvre above the atmosphere and they are ‘pre programmed’ for fixed targets …duh
The warhead uses an ablative material to erode away on re-entry through the denser air atmosphere thereby blinding any targeting sensors in the nose ( not that they have any)
If RV can maneuver at Mach 10 why not hypersonic at Mach 5 preprogrammed or not… dude? Is a feature not a bug
Try not to copy and paste and pay attention
FC/ASW (Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon) MBDA – a two-missile solution for the programme, subsonic and hypersonic
It’s not good. See my response to the illiterate and incompetent Lord Curzon above. The thermodynamics of hypersonic weaponry make them inherently non flexible. Against a static ground target they might….might have a chance of successfully prosecuting a target. Against a moving target they are much less effective probably needing to air brake, shed speed to allow terminal guidance sensors to actually function making them easily interceptable
Maybe you should tell MBDA to stop development of hypersonic FC/ASW (Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon) for the Royal Navy
Hypersonic missiles are just like any other effector…no more no less..first you have to find a carrier, which is a profundity difficult job, then you need to track it and keep a kill chain without being destroyed and only then can you launch the effector.
There won’t be an apology, unless it’s coming from you. Have hypersonics ever actually hit anything that is moving, has a carrier battle group defending it and it’s own defensive weaponry. Answer is no. The much lauded Russian hypersonics deployed so far are interceptable by patriot which is a generation behind aster 30s and probably even sea Ceptor.
I don’t see hypersonic technology advancing enough until the 2040s to really change naval warfare.
How do you as an expert Lord Curzon propose the hypersonics overcome the heated plasma cone that is generated at the head of the missile and blocks sensors like radar and GPS guidance at anything above Mach 4?
It’s propaganda that a Patriot has ever shot down a Khinzal, i.e. not true I’m afraid. And let us remember this weekend the people who have died because of them. The West is a generation and a half behind now in missile technology and this is across all warfare and not just naval. I am sorry that this is difficult to hear; the era of gunboat diplomacy aircraft carriers has ended.
And currently in the process of upgrading their airwing with the new J-35.
They are upgrading their Photoshop skills lol. I’m not sure if that was slopaganda, or not from the CCP.
One for Naval News and the artist’s impression of what we can expect in picture 1. They have also been working on the J-15T to improve its performance.
Fair enough
It needed improving. The J15 like the SU27 through to SU35 series aircraft have been nothing but disappointing in their combat performance over Ukraine, leading to very high losses. 35 of the available SU34s lost and even 9 of the much lauded SU35s.
The foreground of that is so obviously CGI like some of the Kremlin boating video on wonder weapons.
It hasn’t stopped the CCP from putting obvious fake videos or images and claiming it was real.
Looks about as stealthy as a typhoon. Engine exhausts non stealthy, air intakes don’t look particularly stealthy.
The F35 works very well because it’s a fusion of very diligent attention to RCS, use of radar absorbable materials and shielding from air turbulence and infra red exhaust. Then add a powerful engine and excellent radar and situational awareness and collaborative engagement and you have a superior platform. Not sure the Chinese J35 will be as effective.
The problem is, getting the carriers/F-35B close enough to be effective in battle. Let’s hope we never have to find out.
Long Endurance Drone
ASBM
INIgel
This one may well be of interest you:
THE 1980’s top secret USN’s stealth plane: the A-12 Avenger
The Avenger That Couldn’t Avenge | Naval History Magazine – February 2018 Volume 32, Number 1
U. S. Naval Aircraft and Weapon Developments in 1987 | Proceedings – May 1988 Vol. 114/5/1,023
This ultimately abortive USN R&D project had some truely massive development costs – so much so it caused a huge congressional / fiscal scandal
Furthermore it never worked properly……
So, history records that the Soviet Union went bankrupt first…
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Hello Peter, it appears that China intends to double their nuclear arsenal to 1000 warheads by 2030. I’ll enjoy the read thank you!
China’s DF-41 is a nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) with a range of 12,000–15,000 kilometres (7,500–9,300 miles):
Capabilities
The DF-41 can carry up to 10 multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs). It has a top speed of Mach 25 and can be launched from a rail or road.
Development
The DF-41 project began in 1986 and may be linked to the JL-3 program.
Deployment
China’s PLA Rocket Force is responsible for modernizing the country’s nuclear forces, including the DF-41
.
Recent tests
In September 2024, China test-launched a DF-41 ICBM into the Pacific Ocean, marking the first time the country had done so in over four decades. China said the launch was part of annual military training and was not directed at any country.
Some analysts say that China’s ICBM test was a message to the US and its allies that direct intervention in a conflict across the Taiwan Strait would make the American homeland vulnerable to attack.
They seem to be making improvements across the board without exception and in numbers, so worth keeping an eye on!
Chinese trimaran USV
Sage has spoken.
France has a well developed nuclear infrastructure.
That maybe helps with lower price of the carrier.
1.3billion dollars for the emals is what ups the price.
To be fair so does the UK, although not to the same degree as France.
I have never quite understood why the UK didn’t opt for nuclear power generation for the QEs. A couple of modified PWR2s wouldn’t have been beyond our budget or skills.
I don’t buy the ‘advantages’ touted by others for going with a non-nuclear carrier.
PWR2 has a limited lifespan & is not designed for easy refuelling. QE2 class is designed for something like a 50 year lifespan. That’s twice the life of a PWR2. French reactor needs refuelling every 10 years, but is designed to be easily refuelled.
Nuclear propulsion would have been nice to have but would rather have two conventional carriers the one nuclear.
Plus the engines developed specifically for the carriers are a major export success now for RR.
Have to say the French really know how to design good looking naval ships, even the UK carriers where effectively designed by the French.
I read the French paid to have the QE designs.
The design work was done by BMT for Thales UK division; you’d struggle to find a Frenchman involved in the process.
You know where the French WERE involved in a ship’s design? Those pig-ugly FTI frigates.
CDG refuelling for its 2 reactors is done every 7-8 years and takes about 18 months . The most recent was a mid life refit and upgrade so was about 3 years and 1.3 bill eu
interesting that NG, the overhaul prime contractor, says they fully utilize 1000 or so of the ships crew in the overhaul period
Exactly this.
Sealed for life reactors are not any use for 50 year lifespan.
Also they would never have got built at the sort of costs that are likely.
Then you add the decommissioning issue which RN hadn’t solved by the time QEC had gone to Main Gate.
So it would have been another design for the never-get-built carrier.
French nuclear reactor use low enriched uranium, so they have to be refueled every 10 years, but has the advantage too. And these reactor are also same tech of their nuke civilian energy sector.
Let’s see what it ends up costing to decommission a nuclear carrier and deal with/store the nuclear waste produced.
OOD, If you can’t understand why the UK didn’t opt for nuclear power then you’re on the correct website. The owner/author has written extensively on why the UK carriers are the size they are, why they don’t have cats & traps and why they aren’t nukes. Enjoy the read….
There are some interesting numbers there. I was hoping to be blown away by the ambition, but I’m not. Consideration of the vast ship size is tempered by the relatively small number of planes it seems designed to support: no more than CdG and possibly fewer than QNLZ. A 2000 complement including aircrew may sound ambitious at first relative to the ship’s displacement, but if its only to service a similar number of planes as CdG, maybe it can use a similar number of crew. That’s a big if.
The discussion of “30 Rafale and NGF together with two Hawkeye and up to 6 medium helicopters” already sounds years out of date. I wonder how the mix of large manned NGF/Rafale core planes and smaller uncrewed UAVs is supposed to work. Even if the UAVs don’t require remote piloting, those that are non-disposable will still need servicing. A highly heterogenous mix would also increase necessary complement. As it will be starting out with a core airwing of Rafales and will probably shift slowly to NGF, maybe the MN feel the system of systems approach can be experimented with over time.
Sticking with LEU may be a lower risk track, but refuelling every decade will further decrease availability of the single French carrier and significantly increase the maintenance costs as it has with CdG.
The highlight for me is that it will use three EMALS catapults instead of the CdGs two, allowing this next generation carrier to be a significant improvement on the last for carrier strike. Nevertheless, for a once in a generation project, I wonder if ambition has been a bit too tempered by mundane financial reality.
I wish the French all the best.
Yes let’s wish the French well. F35b v emals sortie rates will be interesting although we won’t have the a big number of jets to play with. Emals are lovely to have but expensive. Plus the pilot training cats n traps. F35 b landing and takeoff looks like a much more gentle affair with fewer deck crew.
Exactly wish them well.
Help them.
Stand back and learn.
At the end of the day it is another big NATO carrier.
It means that there are effectively four reasonable carriers based in European waters.
– 2 QEC
– 1 PANG
– 1 Italian
Plus maybe Spanish and maybe the large Italian assault ships. But they are not really dedicated carriers but can launch and recover F35B if the right investments are made.
“ the MN benefits from well-managed defence procurement and a long-term defence industrial strategy far superior to chaotic UK practice”
Do you have any evidence to back up this statement, or is this more, everything is better elsewhere. My understanding of the birth of the CDG, suggests that it was no more “competent” than the QE’s, if not substantially worse. Neither does their long tail of vintage frigates suggest otherwise.
Well they have had continuous build of ships for decades. I’m not great admirer of French industrial strategy but there are some things they have got right.
They are prepared to sell ships out of that line to foreign buyers to make the numbers work.
QEC’s introduction into service was better than CdG in terms of hull. The main issue is that France generated tempo much faster than joint F35 force have. But that is the price that is inevitable when carrier F35B isn’t the only focus.
I agree they have vintage frigates but they have hot production capability to produce more. UK had to start from close to zero as nobody wanted to ‘understand’ that pushing warship building to the right costs loads of money. Instead playing the usual nonsense game of blaming unspecified ‘Admirals’ for wanting super Gucci ships. IRL T26 is quite cheap for what it is and T31 is a bargain and we should have bought 8-10 of them!
Quite right but I think overall we are indeed super chaotic see the FSS and Army ordering just for starters. By 2040 UK will no longer be any sort of industrial power but 3rd world. What are we doing about nuclear power or are we going solar on our best agricultural land? I do hope so because there wont be any farmers left. Goat herders lots; unless someone gets a grip.
The UK is investing in nuclear power for electricity generation, it’s also going for solar energy but not on the best agricultural land. It’s usually third grade land, however some people try and make out that it’s the best land and will stop us growing our own food. Which isn’t true. We are also targeting more than three times as many kWh from wind as from solar. Across the whole UK solar complements wind but couldn’t work by its self. Solar in mid winter produces only a sixth of the power it produces in mid summer.
Ask Broken Hill NSW about renewables. They have a grid scale battery farm, a Wind Farm plus solar very suitable in the Aussie outback.
Yet when the historic long distance from state grid HVAC towers went down during storm the city suffered a week of no power and continued blackouts until …the power lines to the states fossil fuel grid was restored !
The funny parts were – the batterys werent contracted for a blackout so they were running as generators during peaks times to make money. Also without a stable grid they couldnt recharge from the solar and wind in the region
Moderators, remove post, nothing to do with naval issues
Where solar is good on industrial and office buildings is for balancing off air conditioning use.
That is how we use our solar when nobody is in the car park in the long summer mornings it is pre cooling the building.
The solar is on the top of the parking bays and it is a big car park.
So you can have clean energy with zero agricultural impact.
The bigger problem is that we are incredibly limited in the amount we can sell back to the grid due to connection issues. On the long summer evenings when the office is empty most of the a/c can go off and there is little demand. We could be selling a lot of energy to the grid and there are plenty of buyers for peak evening juice. The his stops that.
There have been several articles about the big warehouse builders/lease Cos not putting solar on the roof because of grid issues. You can get a lot more non agricultural solar on big rooftops at zero cost to the taxpayer if you can get grid connections.
ATM the driver for solar farms are in this order – grid capacity and cheap enough land. There is loads of useless land that could have solar on it where there is no grid capacity.
Equally while it would be good to mandate solar on new warehouse roofing it needs to connect to something.
Seems like France waited for the 90m emals system to be up and running before they decided on the carrier.
Then they built around the system eg power required. Size of the ship etc etc.
Very likely.
You have to design things around unalterables.
Hmm only one carrier with emals so far in use. Is it fully reliable, hopefully.
8 month deployment completed in Jan 24…North Sea then eastern Med
That was 6 years after being commsiioned at 2017
Google the DoD GAO report. They report that EMALS won’t be fully functioning, to the USNs design specification, until the 2030s.
Still ‘concurrency’ then as it seems for the F-35 TR3 and the FFG frigate as well
Just one question,
Why the large quarterdeck? Most other carriers have a flat stern like the QEs with maybe a stern gallery for boats.
These have a large overhanging area of flight deck with guns beneath, almost like a 1930s carrier design. Is that a conscious thing to do with airflows or just a gimmick to make it longer?
Also the SIMBAD-RC placement on the quarterdeck makes no sense. Well, SIMBAD-RC itself makes no sense, but that’s by the by.
It is probably to do with the shape of the dry dock she will be assembled in.
There is no good reason why the flight deck cannot overhang the hull particularly to the stern. It probably keeps the volume/weight etc down.
As you say a lot of weapons systems are not all that amazing and SINBAD is in that group.
As I used to endlessly say on here there is zero point in having fig leaf weapons systems.
I do think the use of the 4 x 40mm is the right decision. I don’t buy the RN line on this. QEC’s end up sailing alone and sometimes without F35B onboard. They are prestige targets with a lot of bodies on board. So the defence if them has to be through that lense..
I don’t think it does extend beyond the stern, that’s the problem.
They’ve ended up with a large deck area below the flight deck at the stern, part of which is covered by an overhang.
If you look at the “Stern” image above, there’s a lot of volume there that could be used for useful stuff rather than a small crane and SIMBAD. Mistral isn’t a bad missile, it can hit AShMs, but to have only two on the mounting is criminal.
Yes, I agree with 4x 40mm and push it a lot myself.
If we could develop a PDMS based on ASRAAM or CAMM of some sort that could be fired horizontally from the sponsons that would be great but until then guns will have to do and Bofors mk4 is the best one for the job.
It will be a very big ship and hardly stuffed to the gunnels with planes or people. Does it need to fill every square metre of every deck with “useful stuff”? Perhaps it’s somewhere to light up a Gauloise and watch the seagulls.
Steel is cheap and air is free, especially when in this case it appears to be a matter of moving the hangar wall aft slightly.
Then you get extra capacity for aircraft.
Alternatively, put crew facilities there and you get better quality of life on board
But an empty space that large makes no sense.
My other thought was that it might be for boat storage but the crane in the model doesn’t appear to reach far enough.
Outdoor gym? Officers’ barbecue space? Outdoor cinema, like on a cruise ship? Would be a cool place to hang out next to the wake.
It could be a playground area for young sailors ?
Stop trolling, it’s getting annoying.
You are not being trolled, you are being reminded of your lies. What you write, can not be unread. Should you not be concentrating in class rather than posting here during school hours ?
What lies?
Go on, don’t beat about the bush.
Might be similar to the old CVA01 carrier design and have that large overhang to support full thrust jet engine trials? That is considered a very useful function to aircraft engineers.
Maybe, it looks like there is a door in the front end which might lead to the hangar.
But in that case, why put the SIMBAD there?
It doesn’t contribute much to defence and would complicate the running trials.
Also, I don’t think anyone has actually built a carrier with that feature so you’d think they would mention it in passing.
The Nimitz/Ford classes have that, admittedly not as an overhang.
Oh yes, that’s interesting. Never paid much attention to their sterns before.
Still a flat stern, it just has a hole in it. The PANG puts me in mind of those Japanese carriers with the flight deck just slapped on top.
Landing planes directly into the hangar, anyone? Maybe helicopters?
Never seen a test like that, mind you. Just read it could be done.
There’s no doubt about it, the QE carries do seem to represent good value for money, assuming you have sufficient aircraft for them…
Having two is undoubtedly the right thing to do if you are spending large, so that there is always one available.
It almost doesn’t make sense to NOT have two QE class carriers…there must be considerable cost savings not only at purchase, but through-life compared to one larger nuke with a massive crew.
1.3 billion appears to be a massive sum of money for cats and traps?
If only they would fit 4x40mm bofors to the QE’s (and keep the Phalanx) as a much longer reaching ciws.
AA
They are having missiles too. I think however they have a massive affordability issue ahead; whereas we probably wont have or be allowed any fuel for the carriers by then.
Royal navy started a refresh. Power, Aircraft, Ship requirement etc etc.
French navy, Power they got Nuclear where they want to keep jobs.
Aircraft they already have carrier capable, No nuclear for the launch system means f35b’s, which then means France would have to buy a new fleet of aircraft.
Ship is the power then aircraft with launch system requirements.
The claim that conventional power requires F-35B is nonsense; India runs Rafales on conventional STOBAR. France was right to go CATOBAR, but conventional power would have been a reasonable choice if not for the lobbying of the French nuclear industry.
The cost of the second QEC was nothing like the first IRL.
Even if you give design off into a different budget line.
The contract to build of both batches of T26 (£8 bill+) is roughly the same as both carriers
‘Cost’ to build and entry into service of them maybe extra money again
2nd carrier cost increased largely because the half wit Tory government wasted money on the cat trap/emals conversion study nonsense and this also slowed the Prince of Wales construction which costs more but over a longer time – Thatcherite economics for you
Aside from the issue of affordability it would be really “challenging” to have this ship complete in 15 years. The French are good engineers and their nuclear power abilities are way ahead of ours (our terminally inept politicians effectively ditched our civil nuclear industry nearly 40 years ago) but even so…..
Lacks a ski-jump which will be needed.
Interesting that double islands like QE and Trieste are not adopted at the moment.
It doesn’t need a ski jump?
Also doesn’t need a double island as there’s no large exhausts required for a nuclear carrier.
I’ve talked through the PANG design with some naval architects before. They all said the same thing. There is no way this single vessel is going to be built and come into service costing less than €10 billion Euros. Significantly more than both the UKs QEC combined.
Is the PANG design more capable than a QEC? Undoubtedly, PANG is a true Cats and Traps super carrier, not significantly inferior to a Ford Class really. If built PANG will be the best warship in Europe. The cost however will be eye watering and still result in just one ship with all the same difficulties France has experienced with the CDG. A lack of carrier availability during refit, repairs or training periods.
If France could somehow find the €20 billion Euros to build two of class than that would provide a very robust carrier force second only to the USN.
A carrier’s lethality is defined by the capability of its air group. And if this is operating Rafale. Then it won’t be the most capable carrier in Europe.
Like their last carrier they’ll transition to their next aircraft rather than like us, starting from scratch
Except their next aircraft doesn’t exist yet, and if the NGF project fails…
F-35C?
The French could buy f35c may hurt their pride. There maybe a wrangle in French aviation about this as the French German 6th gen project may not have much export potential. Always a market for relatively cheaper just slightly lower tier aircraft.
Only stealthy option available, which currently is only used by USN.
Agree and also describing a carrier as powerful or lethal is incorrect.
That’s a sound enough point. If however they can get the navalised Franco-Germanic 6th gen aircraft into service then it will be impressive. That’s a big if I know. I think Tempest will come into service then France and Germany will very begrudgingly adopt it or copy it through reverse engineering and make their own. Either or is highly likely.
EMALS and what this includes in the package.
I recall the coalition Gov heard the RN preferred Cats & Traps to STOVL and offered a feasibility study into completing PoW more slowly but purchasing EMALS from GA. After two years, the MoD shelved the idea and one of the major issues was the extortionate cost of EMALS. It’s a disproportionate and ridiculous amount of money for something the GAO reports won’t be fully functional until the 2030s. Can you imagine the noise online if PoW had been redesigned to incorporate this?
Now under consideration once again it appears.
Project Ark Royal
Purley as an example: “The F-35B Lightning has a maximum take-off weight of around 60,000 lb (27,216 kg). The lightest variant of the F-35 has an empty weight of 29,300 lb (13,300 kg). The F-35’s weight is due in large part to its internal weapons bays and avionics.”
EMCAT-EMKITs
Until we’re actually developing any combat drones rather than just excessively talking about it, waste of time putting Cats on
A winged drone with a long runup doesnt need a catapult to launch. The ski ramp does fine
GA proposals dont need one as they are STOL
What drones are these? Anything like a reaper sure, but landing will be sketchy, anything actually comparable to a combat aircraft will need Cats and at the very least arresting gear.
That may the obvious way to go, but it isn’t the only way, not even for heavyweight drones. The QE carriers are designed to last 50 years. I think we can expect a lot of drone progress over the next decade. For example, the F-35B is a working combat jet, so how about creating an unmanned F-35B?
Then as well as proposed tiltrotor drones such as V-247, there’s Bell’s HSVTOL, a three-mode concept that Bell have been testing out the engines for this year. It works like a tiltrotor until you reach high speed flight, then turbofan engines kick in adding yet more thrust. Once in jet mode, the rotors fold back to prevent excess drag. A version the size of the V-280 would cruise at at maybe 450 kt instead of the 280 kt.
There are midweight STOL designs like MQ-9B STOL and the Bayraktar TB3 that don’t need arrestors and can be used for combat. There’s no need to be dismissive of these as “like Reaper”. That doesn’t mean they can’t function as combat drones.
Then there’s a whole bunch of hybrid V/STOL lightweight combat designs, like Strix and Jackal that are evolving to get bigger and faster.
I don’t think it’s as simple as ripping the cockpit out and putting autonomous gubbins in, otherwise you’d think someone would’ve tried it.
Unless the US adopts it were not getting any tilt rotors, too expensive and experimental.
And MQ-9 is literally upgraded reaper. Ignoring the safety concerns about unarrested landing it’s never going to cover the roles of say an F35.
Combat drones aren’t supposed to cover all the roles of the F-35 or we wouldn’t need an F-35 (or a Tempest for that matter). They cover a bunch of subordinate roles, adding mass.
I’m not saying we will (or should) go down all the routes I mentioned, just that everything is changing quickly and catapults are far from the only carrier-launched possibility.
The US Army has already adopted second gen tiltrotors as a program of record, following the V-22’s current in-service history in the USN, the USAF and the Marine Corps. In fact, FLRAA is the largest program in US Army history. How much more buy in do you want from the US?
Tiltrotors are far beyond experimental. NATO’s next-gen rotorcraft programme, led by the UK, already has one in the concept study phase. I think it’s very likely the UK will have optionally manned tiltrotors in service before 2040.
Even then MQ9 STOL wouldn’t be operating on the same missions as F35.
It is essentially a sea control and anti submarine asset with very long duration patrols and good ISTAR but very little means of attacking a warship besides (maybe) SPEAR or Brimstone.
The main attraction is as a standing long range ASW patrol, essentially carrier MPA, to launch sonobuoys and torpedoes at things already detected by the TA of a frigate at extreme range.
We take a hit with f35b, lower take off weight, less range and without cats n traps no e2 Hawkeyes giving massive awareness. We can’t afford it, but it’s hopefully enough.
We could if we wanted to, the question is, will we opt to go down that route at some point in the future?
Worth taking note of. LINK See my post on this subject re EMCATS- EMKITS.
21 Oct 2024
“We are proud to be a leading partner in providing vital support to Ukraine. In total, the UK has committed £12.8 billion for Ukraine: £7.8 billion in military support and £5 billion in non-military support.”
22 October 2024
“The UK’s £2.26 billion loan is earmarked as budgetary support for Ukraine’s military spending, enabling the Ukrainians to invest in key equipment to support their efforts against Russia, such as air defence, artillery and wider equipment support. It comes on top of the UK’s existing £3 billion a year military aid for Ukraine, which the Prime Minister re-committed to within his first week in office.”
We could also use ICCALS.
This proven by the US in the 50/60s.
F35B is same takeoff weight , but maybe you mean less payload.
We dont know the ski jump compromises, maybe its related to the run up distance . Then again carrier planes for catapults cant launch at maximum weight either, fuel top after launch is a ‘thing’
“I recall the coalition Gov heard the RN preferred Cats & Traps to STOVL”
That was never the case. It was a coalition project to cancel the 2nd carrier and use the capital cost to convert Queen Elizabeth.
It was a hare brained idea to begin with and the RN wouldnt have suggested it at that late stage . if they wanted cats and traps 10 years earlier was the time to do so.- they didnt.
I may not be completely correct but, neither are you. The owner/author of NL has a previous article titled ‘Cats, Traps and Claptrap’. Within that, you’ll find quotes like “Most in the navy and many commentators (including this writer) initially backed the decision as it offered a significant uplift in capability and was an apparent bright spot amongst the carnage of the 2010 defence review”.
“Alterations and new equipment required were estimated at £886 Million per ship in November 2010 but by February 2012 the figure was £2 Billion and rising”.
There’s lots of good content in the article. I urge you to read it and lose the political bias. ‘Spreadsheet’ Phil Hammond never attempted to cancel the second carrier.
“Research by the National Audit Office reveals an exceptionally lax assessment had been done of the true cost of CATOBAR conversion in 2010″
Thats in the NL article. Thats what I meant by it being ‘hare brained”- like a long list of Tory naval decisions until Boris came along.
‘ deceived by a conspiracy of optimism as they over-reached for a capability that in reality was beyond the means of the inadequate defence budget’
It was a Tory idea pure and simple, as a smokescreen for the big cuts and the downgrading of PoW ( sold ?)
as the article mentions
‘For F-35C pilots, making safe arrested landings is far more demanding than the highly automated, push-button vertical landing of the F-35B. “
The conversion was the claptrap part and couldnt have come from 1SL and FAA staff.
Ive looked more deeply and Lord West who was 1SL and other top jobs around the time intial decisions about size of carriers and such were made- but not by him- did want catapults. I was in error
https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/4475/pdf/
The smoking gun…it was the RAF
Lord West again
‘” I remember talking to the Chief of the Air Staff, and he said, “Well, this is the decision that we have made: we should go down this route. This[STOL] is the appropriate aircraft.”
I loved West’s comment on the steel is cheap and air is free mentality.
It seemed to him like a good idea to pay more to get all sorts of capability! That’s a real hangover from the days when 1SL’s word was law and they could do things on a whim. These days only the politicians reserve the right to ignore all logic and evidence and waste vast amounts of money on a whim.
Jon
During his very amateurish input into the very earliest design phases of the then-proposed new UK/RN aircraft carrier(s) and also (concurrently) the specification of their new airgroups, the 1SL’s biggest mistake was – quite simply – to photocopy the “then current” USN airgroup formation.
His key decision was then justified – repeatedly – on the “somewhat spurious” grounds of the RN would then have much-better intergraqtion with the USN…..
Thus our two QE carrier were fundamentally designed (i.e. sizewise) around having on-board them the same size / numbers of strike package that the USN once used in 2003 (i.e. approx 36 warplanes).
HOWEVER
Then (2003), as now, USN always needed/needs a big strike package. That is simply because it uses 4th generation Super Hornet’s.
They need that support package for the very simple reason that the F18 can be, quite-easily, seen on enemy radar.
Thus, to support the bombers, one also needs fighters and radar planes and electronic warfare planes = to accompany the bombers and thus make sure they can get through to the target
BUT
with fifth generation warplanes, like the F35 (all models), the whole point of buiding into those very expensive planes their low observability charactheristic (i.e. stealth) is that one should then not need that big support package – i.e. so nothing needs to fly alongside the bombers..
So one simply plans on “one invisible jet = one key target”
So, yet again in the long and very gilded history of British defence procurement, the former first sea lord’s intervention was yet another prize example of what happens when very highly sophisticated pieces of very complex new kit are specified – often on a personal whim – by very senior officers who are, by any definition, technically-illiterate. .
So, the moral of this short story is …. it isn’t only our politicians’s who can waste large sums of taxpayer’s hard-earned money….
Regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS
And let us not forget that this was this was the very same Mr A West who “accidentially on purpose” forget to order any new frigates for the RN during that quite long period when he was wearing lots of gold braid across his “sunday best” uniform.
That one was another very serious mistake by the 1SL and one for which – as every reader of Navy Lookout now knows very well – is one which we are still paying out for today……and tomorrow, …and the day after that…
PSS
A very stunning silence over the past seven days…..
Whilst writing here on NL on this very same topic of very expensive bills for us taxpayers to “quite soon” pick up …… does anybody yet know the final bill for the big fire at BAe Barrow last week.?
That one is rapidly heading towards being classified by MOD under the “Top Secret: Very Embarrasing if Anybody Finds Out” catagory
so please expect an anoucement on “A good day to bury bad news“
West said the decision was made for STOL, without his input , when the RN was in the changeover between 1SL’s.
That was probably deliberate chosen time by the ‘air Staff’ or RAF
As Fleet commander before 1SL he wasnt asked then either
The 1SL doesnt ‘just order frigates’, where do you get that nonsense. The government/MoD does all that
The T45s were on order during the 2000s and the next frigate program was just starting development to begin ordering after the last T45s were in the water. The 2010 Tory cuts stopped that in its tracks for 5 years
Speculative and no proof at all
fire at BAe Barrow —-> total FUBAR
The LEU reactor seems like a bad idea, having to refuel every decade is unacceptable and ships require maintenance periods relatively regularly as well, its readiness rate will be poor.
For France its perfect as they use LEU in submarines, carrier and their civil nuclear power industry. To leverage the civil nuclear standards and certification was the real reason for doing LEU
The refuel time is only 18 months and thats a maintenance period as well. USA refuels are now 4-5 years.
RN submarines with HEU refuels in reality seem to be a complete replacement core (?) rather than just replacing fuel rods
Check on how many time QEC have to have dry dock or dock yard periods. All carriers require this anyway
In my opinion it is the contrary, it seems like a quite good idea. Each 10 years your should make, lets call it a QLU quarter life update too :)))
The cost of fitting EMALS does confirm the figures given for QE conversion that forced the change of heart on the Cameron government. Presumably even the slightly less powerful system specified in the 2021RFI looks to be unaffordable too?
Yes and once again another Western country builds a carrier with organic missile and CIWS guns. Leaving the UK as the only country with a major carrier with no SAMs. This is just negligence… leaving a major UK investment with less then the minimum defence the rest of the world beam necessary. We could easily add some Sea Ceptor boxes to the carriers. They already have compatible radars.
I not this design has 4 point defence guns. The original QE design was ment to have 4 CIWS but once again we penny pinched and only fitted 3!
Where could we add these sea ceptors and for what cost? Need to buy missiles and actually arm the T31 first
The USN uses trainable box launchers for ESSM, why cant the RN use the same for the smaller Ceptor missile or my preference the naval RAM launcher
Trainable launcher would be rather niche. In reality US is only hanging in ESSM launchers cause they don’t have room for mk41 VLS on their carriers.
Small RAM purchase would make sense but that involves money, don’t have enough Phalanx as is.
Its important to buy British where we can; so for me it has to be Sea ceptor.
Yes. its said 4 sea ceptors could have the space of 1 sea wolf, so a trainable launcher like this with some mods could have say 12 +.
Even with a single T45 that still leaves 180 deg with lesser protection
The Martlet missile launcher was tried out on the 30mm mounting so more lateral thinking
‘ US is only hanging in ESSM launchers cause they don’t have room for mk41 VLS on their carriers.”
Theres the Mk56 especially for ESSM as shown in this pic of Danish frigate – red tops are mk56 with exhaust tubes between pic seaforces x org
Pretty sure the US never used those, they certainly don’t now.
Plus the rotating launchers can be reloaded at sea.
Its impossible to find actual photos of USS Kennedy CVN 79 the latest Ford class at sea showing its missile arrangements. There are changes from the Ford itself
Add a box at the stern or enlarge that on the starboard quarter. It would need a naval architect to fix. I like the idea of a longer ship to cement Anglo-French relations!
What you mean by where? just put some VLS boxes at QE sides. Look at Cavour Aster. they are lust boxes outside the hull.
Yes. For Carvour is the box structure outside hull behind the two corner harriers
Theres similar on the other side just forward of the superstructure
Is Cavour (Italian: portaerei Cavour), you cannot even write the name correctly
Go back to IT support and upgrade your English from TikTok
Moderators please .
We have this serial sockpuppet with constant name changes and personal attacks
2 faces talking
They have SAMs… aboard the T45s in the CSG.
Presumably you’d like the carriers to be fitted with a towed sonar array and Stingray torpedo launchers too?
Arguably yes we should have some kind of SAM, or at least a more modern gun armament, but priorities are elsewhere.
We do have SAM… Aster and soon SeaCeptor on the T45. The T45 is the air-defence destroyer for the CSG to handle anything that gets past the carrier’s air-wing.
Neither carrier should leave port without at least one T45 accompanying it. Hopefully we’re only seeing this occur currently due to the rush to get all the T45s through PIP asap.
6 is still barely enough even with enough crew and functional maintenance.
We’ve already had multiple occasions where no T45 us available for them.
Agreed given the current climate. LINK
due to the rush to get all the T45s through PIP asap — a BIG joke
many power outages on board HMS Dauntless, off the coast of Senegal, in 2012
In 2014 Dauntless had to abandon a training exercise and, in 2009, HMS Daring lost power in the Atlantic on her first voyage to the US. She suffered more propulsion problems off Kuwait in 2012
— BBC
what a rush speed for RN!
fight tonight, no, fight next week, no, fight next month, no, fight next year, no…. lol
The big rush is happening now. In 2009 etc they were still identifying the issues let alone designing what the solution was. Since the RN started the PIP it’s accelerated things, resulting in lack of T45s, in order to get them done as quickly as possible. That could be because the world has become a more dangerous place in the last couple of years, or because of the collapse in number of T23 availability due to age issues, or a combination of the two.
Probably too nuanced an answer for you to comprehend.
You mean these T45 ?
‘HMS Diamond broke down during a deployment and required a complete engine change. The ship was later reported to have suffered a failure of one of its gas turbines’
I think it was during a carrier- escort deployment too…down the Red Sea !
Like you beloved country paying for your posts, the newest nuclear submarine just sunk at the dock side
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/26/politics/chinese-nuclear-powered-submarine-sank/index.html
‘The lights went out’
PIP is really rushing at warp speed,
In 2014 Dauntless had to abandon a training exercise and, in 2009,
HMS Daring lost power in the Atlantic on her first voyage to the US.
She suffered more propulsion problems off Kuwait in 2012.
— BBC
If they weren’t rushing they wouldn’t have half of the T45s all being upgraded at the same time. They be doing it one at a time.
Another idiot that doesn’t understand the difference between an issue first occurring and an engineering solution being implemented.
And minesweeping gear.
Joking apart there are times in the ‘Drone’ era when self defence takes on a new meaning. I have studied HMS Illustrious in WW2 and she was being bombed in Malta Harbour. The Stukas came close but never hit her as she was using her 16×4.5″ and pompoms to defend herself. Plus Malta’s own guns.
We can see the Stukas were the equivalent of today’s drones. I’m not saying we should do this everywhere but the carriers And Their Crews deserve the Best.
Rule Britannia!
So they don’t have.
Scenario . T45 is damaged unable to fire Aster.
Suddenly the carrier is seriously unprotected… only with Phalanx
Yes the carrier will be the top target for attack and you cannot rely on any one ship… you need layered defence in depth and you need to have resilience in your defence. Giving the carrier her own SAMs makes sense. You may recall that the original QE design had ASTER SAMs it was only cost cutting not operational reasons that removed the SAMs.
But don’t put any 30mm guns on the UK carriers, RN sailors are crap at shooting their own escort ships but no problem for the rest of the world navies lol
Yeah, cover the flight deck with FOD so the F35s can’t take-off to defend the CSG…
Who cares? According to the US Navy, the RN would not last half a day in an all-out war anyway.
A small sea Ceptor silo fit is needed as are some BAE 40mm Bofors guns
Very sensible suggestions indeed I would think
The French and Italian carriers have them, Aster, 76mm, 20mm guns
But then the law of physics works different for them than for RN since UK carriers guns tends to shoot their own escorts first and VLS missiles exhausts damage the delicate RN flight deck…. hahaha
Then the other T45 fires its Asters instead.
The standard deployment is two T45s, two T23s, and an Astute.
yep, 16in guns, depth charges, grappling hooks too, and don’t forget Fairey Stringbags for attacking Taranto
and 16 pounder cannons for air-defence when the SAMs have run-out and their FOS has rendered the flight-deck unusable…
Some things are reaching to the point of being to expensive for individual European nation states to afford. An aircraft carrier done right is a very expensive capability both to purchase and to operate. Then you need an airwing, support ships and escorts.
Budget limitations will force nations to work together to deliver a CBG of genuine strength.
In Europe you have other nations who operate the F-35, if they were each operate a hand full of F-35B’s, they could rotate through RN QE class carriers doubling the deployed airwing.
I am sure we will never see a QE sail with a CBG that does not include elements of other European navies. Which shows to some extent this is already happening.
I suspect the only way you would see two European CVN’s would be if the RN and MN each operated one each to provide for one to be available most of the time. Would never happen for a variety of reasons.
Unlikely countries without Stovl carriers would bother getting F35Bs for us.
Maybe the Italians and later Spanish could cross deck their F-35B
My argument is there is a choice:
Western Europe either sees a need for European Naval Air Power, or it does not.
If they do, they have the option of working together, with each nation contributing something to the cause. There is no doubt that together they have the means if the political will exists.
If they don’t, these expensive capabilities will slowly disappear from the inventories of European navies.
Don’t underestimate the desire to stay in the game. A good example is Spain, they will be unable to replace what they currently have going forward with a LHD and an airwing comprising harriers. They could buy a small number of Rafale M’s and fly of either French or US Carriers. I could see a Spain politician selling that as a stronger capability.
Why do you say L61 SPS Juan Carlos cant operate F-35B ?
There are ‘indications’ that a split buy of F35 versions has been/is being considered
Didn’t say the Juan Carlos can’t operate the F-35B, even though I do have my doubts. In Australia, even an upgrade to enable USMC F-365B to cross deck our LHD’s which are based on the same design, was so expensive it was dead on arrival. The Spanish have denied they have any plans to buy F-35B’s on multiple occasions. That option died when Spain joined the French Six Gen fighter project, the French will have seen to that.
It may have been too expensive for Australia to purchase mods to cross deck some foreign planes, but if they had actually wanted to use F-35Bs of their own, the conversion would have been worth it. The Anadolu, also based on the Juan Carlos, was designed to use F-35B so it’s not like the process is an unknown quantity. Juan Carlos is in much the same position as the Cavour was, and it can be converted if Spain decides to buy F-35B.
Given that Spain’s Harriers will be phased out by 2030 and that there’s a next to zero chances of getting NGF operational before 2045, why wouldn’t Spain go for F-35B?
The purpose of the photo was to show JCI is set up for and actually operates the harrier. Thats the stuff RAN doesnt have nor wanted when they ordered their two.
My information about F35 for Spain indicates a buy is needed sooner than later as the F-18 they have are end of their life ( they dont have a 4th gen like the Rafale). They could also just buy F35B. Germany is also in the Airbus/Dassault NG fighter and they ordered F35
Apparently, the Germans will never buy the F35 for the same reason.
Germany is buying the F35. The replacement like Spain is needed in a few years
oh yeah the troll from Shenzhen is back
A cats and traps carrier aircraft is more wedded to the carrier to maintain operational skills. Would another nato country commit to a French carrier on fuller time basis. The f35b pilot / aircraft is more interchangeable between carrier and other duties.
I agree, far easier to imagine a few nations operating F-35b’s that rotated through RN and Italian STOVL carriers.
That said look at how the USMC operates. Their jets and people rotate through on a regular enough basis that skills are maintained. It can be done, it comes down to funding and political will. When the UK suspended carrier operations, RN personnel found themselves serving on USN carriers for example.
Given personnel shortages in the USN, I expect we will see more European personnel serving on USN warships including Carriers.
The Spanish have made a deal with the French to get themselves into the French led sixth gen fighter program. That is a long term deal that will forge close long term and close links with the Spanish military.
As budgets get tighter, and costs continue to grow, European nation states will need to work together to maintain relevant. Of course they will always have the option of just not being relevant. It Europe, you can never rule that option out.
All of the branches of the US military exceeded their recruiting goals for FY 24.
‘The Army has failed to meet its manpower goals for the last two years and missed its 2023 target by 10,000 soldiers, a 20 percent shortfall.”
F35 b from other western countries could fly from a QE carrier. Would show great resolve.
We will have to see if it gets built. The French have several planed carriers that they have canceled. Though I think the French will not stand having no carrier when we have one. Their current carrier is getting old and will have to be retired at some point.
Brilliant article and a very interesting subject.
Hats of to the French for their ambition. Their carrier aviation trajectory has been strong from the Foch in the 80s and 90s, the CDG into the 2000s and then this.
Overall Britain has probably gone the right way with our two, more cost effective carriers – people often say they have an impact on the rest of the fleet, but the CDG has an even larger one, with France having just 2 AAW destroyers. Equally the French have maintained their LPHs in service and undoubtedly all of their armed services benefit from not having had a defence review since 2013, and not having spent two decades fighting pointless wars in the sandbox.
A couple of disparaging comments on the Rafale, but it is the most capable carrier borne aircraft at Full Operating Capability, superior to the F18s in performance with better EW and radar. I wonder if the SCAF requirements to be carrier capable will play into the hands of Tempest programme: the Germans are already complaining about workshare, Britain has better capabilities in stealth and jet engines than the French and we did work with them on the Germans last two mainstay combat aircraft.
I’m intrigued as to France’s decision to build only one carrier to replace the Charles de Gaulle. A lot of focus is given at the moment to reducing crew numbers on these huge ships which I totally understand, but are the maintenance periods shorter with the new carriers? The new Ford class are not hugely bigger than the Nimitz class, do new construction methods mean shorter lengths of time along side for maintenance? Apparently the EMALS system will reduce steam corrosion maintenance etc. Hard to compare with the QEC as obviously the Invincible class were soo much smaller. The FCC will be also a big size jump for the French navy, but its hard to ignore just how much time is lost whilst she’s in dock being pampered. Add to that the issues we’ve seen recently with both the Ford class and the QEC class which without alternative vessels would have had a heavy impact on naval capabilities. Conflicts only scheduled during non maintenance periods then?
Does look nice though, just a little bit jealous. Wish we had V22’s so we could have the same capabilities. Still, ours will be well bedded in by the time the lone froggy one starts out with all its gremlins aboard 🙂
Cost of operating V22 is eye watering.
I’d rather we just focused on buying more F35B.
Supportive Bloke
I must admit that I am with you on these two.
Whirlybirds
The V22 Osprey has always been a very complex bit of kit: both to buy and, especially, to maintain.
Also US V22’s keep crashing….
Furthermore, the very latest version of the veteran Chinook – the extended range (ER) version – has approximately the same effective combat range / radius as the V22.
So, instead iof buying a new fleet of V22’s why not a few more chinooks? (especially if they were fitted with a very-useful folding-rotor-head for carrier operations….)
Fast Jets for Biggles
Also totally agree with you on this one — that we need more F-35B’s for our own carriers.
However, those new F35 jets must all be the CSY version (note 1) and thus be able to launch weapons
In summary.
Why not just go out and buy a few more of what we already got in service in the UK: or is that just a far too cheap, simple and naive defence aviaition procurement policy????
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1. TLA translator: CSY = “Computer Says Yes”
I mean, Chinooks can’t do aerial refuelling or AEW like what is suggested for Ospreys, not that it’s a good idea.
So there’s no reason to operate them off the carriers really, apart from support amphibious operations presumably
Hugo.
With regards to AEW, the UK definitely now needs more capability in all environments / battlespaces – not only at sea, but especially over the land and / or litterol battlespaces (Note 1) .
However, that quite-urgent need for more / better UK AEW capability is no reason whatsoever why the UK now needs to go out and buy a fleet of all-new – and very expensive – V22 Ospreys.
The Merlin Crowsnest has always been a very useful bit of kit! (see below).
———————————–
Then, with regards to air-to-air refuelling, there is no reason whatsoever why either the RAF Chinnok’s and/or RN Merlin’s cannot be fitted with refuelling probes.
Indeed, older viewers of NL may well remember that the older Mk 3 Merlin’s were orginally, when operated by the RAF before 2015, fitted with probes.
The 2006 RAF Merlin HC Mk3 – Military Airshows
Also, theoretically speaking, there was no reason whatsever why the RAF’s newest fleet of big transport planes – those very-big-ones with the very-old-fashioned propellers spinning on their wings (i.e. rather than being fitted with Mr Whittle’s go-faster invention) should not have been fitted with sufficent refuelling lines to be able to refuel our own helicoptors in flight:
………..after all, air-to-air refuelling was a key miitary capability …
……one orginally invented in the UK by Mr Alan Cobham just after WW2 ….
See photo attached
A400M | Defence | Military Aircraft | Airbus
It is just a great shame that the UK / RAF forgot to order the “right” version of the A400M – i.e. the ones factory-fitted with necessasry refueling lines built in …..to be able to refuel our large helicoptors whilst in flight.
————
However, as taxpayers, we still pay out a large fortune because all three services all want to do it “their own way”
Ministry of Defence – Battlefield Helicopters – NAO report
These sort of, frankly, very petty interservice rivalries should have been left behind one hundred years ago – i.e. in the era when the horse was being surpassed by the rapid development of the internal combustion engine.
Overall, as of toady, the three UK armed services simply do not have anything like enough helicoptors to be able to implement their current operational doctorine, a stratagy which can be summarised as:
As a nation, we need all of the whirrybirds of all three of our armed sevices to be fully interchangeable: and then to be used effectively wherever they are best used.
——————–
So, as you mentioned it, back onto the subject of AEW……
A prize example of the very extreme usefulness of swapping very-useful pieces of high-tech kit between our three armed services – what is know in the top-secret NATO jargon as swappsies – was when the army was playing silly buggers fighing those very-nasty insurgents in the two sandpits called Afgan and Iraq.
This being the British Army….., in the lead up to those two small wars…..it had been paying more attention to the correct colour of tie to be worn in the mess – rather that learning key lessons from the conflicts with insurgents in Ireland and Yugoslavia = where roadside bombs had been a very big hazard
(Note: I shall call them roadside bombs = simply because the term IED had not been invented back then…..)
So, after a lot of British squaddies had died in Iraq and Afgan… and after Wootten Basset had started a brand-new tradition of holding up the traffic in the town centre………..,
…..The Navy’s Merlin AEW was deployed – and used very effectively to detect recently-dug holes in roads (i.e. where roadside bombs might have been laid: hence the term “roadside”)
That interoperability of UK helicoptors in a battlespace about seven hundred nautical miles away from the sea – indeed many Afan insurgents would never have bbeen to the seaside (note1) undoubtedly saved many more squaddies mother’s the extreme heartache of getting a very-smartly-dressed Army ooficer turning up – unexpectdly – at their front door….
Overall, it is just a great shame that far too many senior officer’s, and indeed many other commentators on defence matters, seem to think that a light-grey-coloured naval helicoptor can only fly over water
Those of us who understand aerodynamics know otherwise…….
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS Also lets not forget that the RN’s Phalanax gun system was deployed in the same theatre = used to shootdown incoming enemy ordnance over land:
That was a key role = and one which that was definitely never anticipated by the orginal USN design team way back in the mid 1970’s
Note 1. In modern MOD jargon “The Seaside” is often called “The Litteroll”
The RN has a very capable mid sized 3 engine helicopter the merlin already. Much bigger weight wise the CH47 Sea Knight which the V-22 replaced
CH-46E gross weight 24,000lb
Merlin HC-4 32,000 lb
It’s capacity first: naval group is clear it can’t build 2 carriers at the same time and the decision to buy a second one has to be taken in 2027 earliest (before this, naval group can’t do much anyway). French parliament has requested a study about the capacities needed for ordering a second carrier (cdg and Pang will be at sea together at some point anyway). Admirals are careful as they fear it could mean less frigates or else. One solution told is to have foreign assets to diminish the costs of a second carriers (eg: Dutch or Belgian frigate for instance for protection). The next French military budget (2027) will be about expanding volumes of équipement. Let’s see the results.
Isn’t the problem of nuclear carriers the inability to use foreign ports – limiting the French on a global deployment and forcing more support vessels to be available? So when it is available (if not in refit or maintenance or repair) it has a short leash, which then seems overkill to be nuclear powered?
the MN Support ships work well, the problem is not the support but the number of aircraft carrier units
France will have 4 BRF buildings in 2031, I remind you that the FRG is not in a very good position!
Off-topic, but some positive news for the Type 26 in support of the carriers.
Interesting – good spot.
Things are clearly moving at some pace now.
Indeed! FC/ASW
Who cares?
Educated comment, thank you for contributing.
An update from this years Euronaval, the carrier will have 3 Catapults, not the original 2:
https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/navy-news/2024/euronaval-2024-frances-new-aircraft-carrier-design-with-three-catapults-unveiled-by-naval-group
I cannot believe the French have talked the Germans into buying them an expensive carrier aircraft. The Germans do not need a carrier aircraft. They would do better getting a less expensive land passed plane. Perhaps they should buyTempest and leave the French to do their own carrier jet.
When the French use the NGF from their carrier it will benefit all NATO members, including Germany, just as when we use our carriers it will benefit NATO as a whole.
Germany buying Tempest? Then the British must buy Leopard tanks and lots of Mercedes
European stay with Europe unlike Brexit
Well, Germany is quite dependent on sea transport, isn’t ? If they want to export their bmw freely into china, they might need some protection…
Charles Martel
The Royal Navy, having not found a buyer to get rid of one of its mismanaged aircraft carriers, is seriously considering decommissioning the HMS Prince of Wales, no longer having the budget or the human and material resources (aircraft and escort ships) to keep the two ships at sea. As for France, once the construction site of the PANG is advanced, it will tackle the complete transformation of the Charles de Gaulle to keep it at sea and have two operational nuclear ships with the latest protection, defense and catapult technologies and the latest generation of aircraft.
CdG will be EoL by her OoSD.
There isn’t any viable way of extending her.
It would be cheaper to build PANG #2.
yes there is . Refuelling the reactor many times is a feature not a bug
And yet this is what they are going to do to extend the life of the CdG by transforming it
Keep smoke the good stuff 🤣
Delusional rant.
Conventional Nuclear powered aircraft carrier?
It appears that China is currently building a prototype nuclear reactor for a large warship.
China is currently looking for a new hypersonic delivery vehicle (GDF-600 hypersonic vehicle) which will have the ability to launch its own weapons. Novel in its approach if nothing else!
A most impressive ship, but unless you have at least two and ideally three flattops, you’re not really serious about building and fielding a legitimate fixed wing naval aviation force. You’re just not.
I suppose the French could do some mental gymnastics to the effect that their lone aircraft carrier is actually a strategic nuclear asset rather than part of the conventional navy as such, but this is sophistry. Either build two of these ships, or do what Turkey is doing and refit your amphibious assault ships to handle drones.
I thought the French plan was to have a Euro-fleet with two carriers. The Germans were to have one. This may not happen now as presumably Germany will be more interested to stop Putin on the Eastern Front. Plus everyone is short of cash now Putin is no longer supposed to be in the Market for handbags or Cars.
Starmer may be attracted to this as he likes being drawn in closer to the EU and could offload one of our cheapo QNLZ Class to pay for some Net Zero project.
He could also flog off various other territories. Call me a cynic but I’m sure there is a deal with China on the Chagos as surely nobody in their right mind would just give away such a key strategic asset just to virtue signal, would they?
It always amuses me that countries like Germany and Spain are willing to plough billions into a future combat aircraft programme designed purely for French needs. What use is a carrier capable fighter for them? Haven’t they learned anything from historical collaborations with France?