Aircraft Carriers III

google translated "The successor of the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle is expected to cost at least 4 billion euros"
14-11-2016
Le successeur du porte-avions Charles de Gaulle devrait coûter au moins 4 milliards d’euros
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Last week, the Defense Minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, considered it "probably desirable" to equip the Navy with a second aircraft carrier, before adding that this question could be asked At the time of the drafting of the next Military Programming Act (MPA).

However, the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle should be removed from service by 2040-41. Its construction began in 1987, and it took 14 years to see it participate in its first mission in the Indian Ocean (Heracles), in support of operations then carried out in Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks. Clearly, it is not too early to think about what his successor will be. Thus, several technical choices are in balance, according to the report of the deputy Jean-Jacques Bridey, draftsman of opinion on the appropriations destined in 2017 to program 146 "Equipment of the forces"

In the first place, it is clear that this future aircraft carrier will be heavier than its predecessor, which already displays 42,500 tons at full load. And this, due to the evolution of the safety standards and the improvement of the armor. At least, this is what Laurent Collet-Billon, the General Delegate for Armaments (DGA) thinks.

This aspect can affect the choice of the propulsion of the successor of Charles-de-Gaulle: will it be classical or nuclear? The two British aircraft carriers, under construction, will have a conventional boiler room while they will each move 60,000 tons. But another variable must be taken into account: maintaining the skills of the nuclear industry. The issue is all the more fundamental as the Future of the Strategic Oceanic Force (FOST) depends.

This is what Hervé Guillou, the CEO of the shipbuilder DCNS, who is currently experiencing a "problem of quality of work" that will delay the delivery of the first nuclear submarine attack attack (SNA) Barracuda .

"DCNS has left nothing, because six years after Le Terrible [Nuclear submarine launch vehicle, SNLE], the nuclear team has at all relearn," he told the deputy Jean-Jacques Bridey. And he explained: "For short-term savings, a large part of the skills of the workshops of Cherbourg has not been maintained, especially since the labor force in question is rare, especially in The Cotentin, where Flamanville [where an EPR reactor is under construction, ed] competes. "In addition, Guillou insisted," in five years, standards have changed, and what was tolerated twenty years ago is not always in line with current standards. "

The maintenance of these industrial capacities also concerns Areva TA. "There is also a question of maintenance of skills after the major technical stop of Charles-de-Gaulle and the design of the Barracuda," said Admiral Christophe Prazuck, Chief of the Naval Staff (CEMM). In addition, for him, "the benefits of nuclear power in terms of endurance are obvious, even if the cost of investment is higher".

Another issue is how to launch the planes from the carrier's deck: will steam catapults remain or will electromagnetic catapulting, such as the US Navy, occur? Suppose you have more powerful generators?

The second track seems to be favored. Indeed, the Director of Military Applications of the Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), François Geleznikoff, suggested that electromagnetic catapulting would even be preferable since it would "improve things" because the "peaks" The energy it requires require energy accumulation devices whose loading can be smoothed over time. Thus, with this mode, "one loads energy in time, which therefore makes fewer peaks of need than with steam", he explained.

There remains the question of price. The DGA estimates that the investment needed to build such a ship would be in the order of € 4 billion, including development. Unless it is possible to look for possible "spill-over effects" in industrial cooperation with India, which intends to acquire a third aircraft carrier within 10 years to come up.

As for equipping the Navy with two aircraft carriers of the same type, that is another matter. The Defense Council of 23 September 1980 had decided to order two nuclear-powered vessels of this type. But budgetary constraints ultimately overshadowed this ambition.
(I read it in Russian:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
... (R-27ER in this case, i presume). ...
yes, below also R-73 are shown off:
6411_900.jpg

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


EDIT another view:
6757_900.jpg


(shows how huge the missiles actually area)​
 
Last edited:

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
yes, below also R-73 are shown off:
6411_900.jpg

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


EDIT another view:
6757_900.jpg


(shows how huge the missiles actually area)​

So if they are A2A, what are they doing with them, and my point is, this is not a "combat loadout" anywhere near the SU-33s gross wt. This aircraft is going into combat to make strikes, more likely to "cover" the Syrians??

If you look at "who" their potential Op-For would be, they are very "under-gunned"!

This, as BD Popeye and Jeff Head would remind us is the weakness of the ramp, as opposed to a Catobar system.
 
So if they are A2A, what are they doing with them, and my point is, this is not a "combat loadout" anywhere near the SU-33s gross wt. This aircraft is going into combat to make strikes, more likely to "cover" the Syrians??

If you look at "who" their potential Op-For would be, they are very "under-gunned"!

This, as BD Popeye and Jeff Head would remind us is the weakness of the ramp, as opposed to a Catobar system.
20469_900.jpg
 

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
If you look at "who" their potential Op-For would be, they are very "under-gunned"!
These are typical patrol loads. A2a missile is anything but cheap.
And after several flights on (external) points it goes to producer for full check, since take off-flight-landing shock cycle is very stressful to missile.

Wartime loads will be different, obviously.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
These are typical patrol loads. A2a missile is anything but cheap.
And after several flights on (external) points it goes to producer for full check, since take off-flight-landing shock cycle is very stressful to missile.

Wartime loads will be different, obviously.

My point is that no doubt they are having to carry more fuel, and reduce the weapons load, due to the fact that the SU-33 can not depart the ramp at gross weight, but must launch with a reduced gross weight??

We can reasonably assume the J-15 has similar operating limitations off the Liaoning, leading many of us to imagine that China was working on a CATOBAR carrier, in order to launch the J-15s with a full combat loadout, and full fuel. The Russians have gone to the Mig-29K as an aircraft that may indeed carry a little more off the ramp, but is still likely limited to a reduced gross weight for operations off the ramp???
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
For curious the Su-33/J-15 weapons payload 4.5 t from a STOBAR CV
With fuel 14 t he have 9.5 t of fuel so considering Su-33/J-15 have a max. payload of 6.5 t max this system allow a payload of 2/3 of its capacity.

I precise with new composite materials J-15 lighter of 1 t and in more better radar, more versatile with AShM but the comparison with the Su-33 for payload worck.

Would the J-15 have the same "problem" as the Su-33 ?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
For curious the Su-33/J-15 weapons payload 4.5 t from a STOBAR CV
With fuel 14 t he have 9.5 t of fuel so considering Su-33/J-15 have a max. payload of 6.5 t max this system allow a payload of 2/3 of its capacity.

I precise with new composite materials J-15 lighter of 1 t and in more better radar, more versatile with AShM but the comparison with the Su-33 for payload worck.

Would the J-15 have the same "problem" as the Su-33 ?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In answer to your question??? absolutely yes. Looks like the SU-33s are launching with 2 FAB-500-M54s on the centerline??? So definitely not a full load, these are "dumb bombs, original design dating to 1954, high explosive yes, highly effective tech, not so much.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
A fully mission capable aircraft carrier can conduct strike operations around the clock..that includes NIGHT OPS and never miss a beat. Thusly;

 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
This is the best flight deck video I've ever seen. A good glimpse of aircraft flying above the ship. This video is accompanied by a wide variety of music which reflects the diversity of the United States Navy..

 
Top