On the occasion of the Paris Naval Conference, which was held a few days ago, the French Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, General Thierry Burkhard, defended the relevance and effectiveness of the aircraft carrier in modern naval warfare.
Supporting the decision to replace the Charles de Gaulle with the new generation nuclear aircraft carrier, or PANG, in 2038, the CEMA has thus made a non-exhaustive list of the different capabilities exclusive to this ship, its onboard air group, and its escort , ranging from breaking a denial of access to geopolitical communication, through the transformation of the geometry of a space of crisis or conflict.
The fact is, if the aircraft carrier is still the subject of numerous criticisms, it is also endowed with operational, technological and political capabilities, which make it an unparalleled tool available to staffs and political authorities, which can easily justify its existence, but which, at the same time, raise questions about the need for a second ship to ensure the permanence of these same capabilities deemed unique and essential...
In this section:
Too vulnerable, too expensive… The relevance of the aircraft carrier called into question (again)
In recent years, the relevance of the aircraft carrier has been frequently questioned, in France as in the United States, including within the armies. For its detractors, the aircraft carrier is now an obsolete tool, too vulnerable to represent an operational asset. This perception has been increased with the appearance of anti-ship ballistic missiles, or AShBMs, such as the Chinese DF-21D and DF-16, and especially the Russian 3M22 Tzirkon anti-ship hypersonic missile.
Presented as unstoppable by some, these new missiles would, in fact, be capable of hitting a major target, such as an aircraft carrier or a large amphibious ship, several hundred, even several thousand kilometers away, without it being possible to protect yourself from it.
In addition, the investments required to design, build and implement a modern aircraft carrier, its embarked air group, and its escort of frigates, destroyers, logistics ships and submarines, could, according to its detractors, be much better. employed in other areas, also under tension.
The questions concerning budgetary arbitration have an obvious legitimacy, the aircraft carrier is above all a tool with an important political dimension, and it is at the political level that it must be arbitrated, to decide whether it is preferable to have an operational GAN, or five or six fighter squadrons, and the support squadrons that accompany them. France and Great Britain accept this sacrifice. Others don't.
On the other hand, the question of the alleged vulnerability of the aircraft carrier in the face of new threats is not an issue. Certainly, new anti-ship missiles have appeared. However, their performances constitute, in fact, only an evolution of the performances that certain older missiles had, in particular the Soviet supersonic anti-ship missiles, which evolved beyond Mach 1 in transit, and Mach 3 or 4 in attack. final.
There are 75% of this article left to read, Subscribe to access it!
The Classic subscriptions provide access to
articles in their full version, and without advertising,
from 1,99 €.
Hello M. Wolf,
I couldn't agree more with you because it would be a shame if your site and the exchanges it allows were polluted by trolls of all kinds coming to pour out bitterness, conspiratorial remarks or remote-controlled messages from Moscow or elsewhere to sow seeds discord or even hatred.
Thank you for your moderation and good luck to you,
Sébastien Manciaux
However, I had to explain why some comments do not pass moderation 😉
I am not responding to your article, judicious as usual, but to the comments. Mine is as good as theirs. I'm from the Collin Powell generation.
I agree. But we had to keep the initial post to explain how moderation works. I want to avoid, more than anything, that the comments become a place of confrontation between subscribers, against a backdrop of differences of opinion. For many sites, this type of exchange is an integral part of the economic model, because it generates numerous recurring visits to the support pages, and therefore more advertising revenue. By making the decision to only open comments to subscribers, I wanted, on the contrary, for the exchanges to remain “technical”, without trying to increase the stats of the site itself.
Still. There is no point in burying your head in the sand and burying your head in the sand.
Please limit your comments to technical, technological, capabilities or budgetary topics.
Why is China acquiring these ships at high speed if they are so obsolete? But a single PAN for France and its immense maritime domain is insufficient. Covering and intervening in the Mediterranean, the Pacific and the Indian Ocean is a difficult challenge to meet, but rather than giving to Ukraine, let's strengthen the Royal Navy, it will be much better for our economy and our territories, among others.