Although Russian military authorities have indicated that, for the moment, the aircraft carrier project envisaged by the Russian Navy is still the 60.000-ton Shtorm concept, the 40.000 ton aircraft carrier project presented by the Krylov design officecontinues to attract a lot of attention.
And for good reason ! The proposed concept would make it possible to deploy 24 fighter planes (12 Su-33 and 12 Mig29KUB), early air warning planes, and conventional ASW combat and rescue helicopters per ship, i.e. air power largely sufficient for the needs. of the Russian Navy. This is all the more true since its General Staff estimates that it needs 4 aircraft carriers, 2 for the North Sea Fleet, and 2 for the Pacific Fleet, and that the costs of an aircraft carrier lighter would certainly help to achieve such an objective, which is completely impossible with a 60.000 ton building.
But the Russian fleet is not the only one that could benefit from lowering its tonnage ambitions for its aircraft carriers.
For the French Navy, the next generation of these ships, the launch of which has been postponed until 2025 according to the Minister of the Armed Forces, must also weigh more than 60.000 tonnes, and be capable of carrying around forty combat aircraft, against 24 for the PAN Charles de Gaulle today. But is it the most relevant format?
Indeed, over the last 20 years we have seen the limits imposed by the ownership of a single building of this type, even if it were as efficient as the French PAN, which showed availability much higher than expected. Naval Group estimates today that the next French aircraft carrier will cost between €4 and €5 billion for its design and construction. To be able to deploy 40 fighter planes, the naval aviation fighter fleet will have to increase by 15 aircraft if there is only one vessel, and by 30 if there are two. In fact, one building will cost €6 billion, and 2 buildings will cost €11 billion, taking into account the additional equipment required.
By replacing the model with a PA of 45.000 tonnes like the Charles de Gaulle, it would not be necessary to increase the number of fighters (45 today) for a single vessel. For two buildings, the increase in the fleet would only be 10 devices. The price of such a building, design and construction, would then be reduced from €4,5 billion to €3,5 billion for one unit, and from €8 billion to €6 billion for 2 buildings. The envelope for 2 buildings, naval aviation included, would therefore be €7 billion, only €1 billion more than the single 60.000-ton aircraft carrier.
In addition, a 45.000 ton catapult and arresting aircraft carrier could interest several countries which are currently seeking to acquire one, such as Brazil, India, Japan or South Korea. It would not be excluded, in such a case, to find a partnership with one or two of these countries to co-develop the class together, therefore reducing design costs, while placing, in the process, added value of the class. French BITD such as combat systems, electric warfare systems, anti-aircraft and anti-missile protection, and, of course, the aircraft themselves.
From an operational point of view, it is indisputable that the military potential of an aircraft carrier using 40 combat aircraft is greater than that of a ship with only 24. But we must keep in mind that the majority of air forces in the world have only 24 or 36 operational modern fighters, and that a fleet of 24 Rafale represents an already very significant strike capacity. On the other hand, the difference in capacity between 1 single aircraft carrier and 2 smaller aircraft carriers is very much in favor of the second. Let's not even talk about the option of 3 aircraft carriers, the cost of which would be identical to that of two 'large' ships, and which would allow us to have an aircraft carrier at sea or on full-time 24-hour alert, and 2 ships three-quarters of the time.
In fact, for countries like France, but also Russia, the return to a smaller aircraft carrier format, of "only" 40/45.000 tons would be far from being a bad option, both financially and from a point of view. seen operational.
What remains is the fear of politicians, and their propensity to always postpone or reduce their Defense commitments. In France, this is probably the only argument in favor of a heavier building, according to the famous formula “one you have is better than two you have”…