Since the project was launched in 2020, the French Navy's new-generation nuclear aircraft carrier, successor to the PAN Charles de Gaulle, from 2038, has been the subject of fierce debate.
For its detractors, the aircraft carrier would be, today, far too vulnerable to modern anti-ship weapons, such as anti-ship ballistic missiles or hypersonic missiles, while modern fighters, supported by a sufficient number of tanker aircraft, are capable of carrying out very long-range raids, as demonstrated by Operation Hamilton against Syrian chemical installations in 2018.
Its defenders, on the contrary, emphasize that the threat today is no greater than it was in the 80s, as defensive systems have evolved at the same pace as the threats. Furthermore, the reach provided by tanker aircraft cannot effectively replace the mobility of the sovereign naval air base, which the aircraft carrier represents.
In any case, in this case, the French government has chosen to retain the extraordinary operational tool that a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, its escort and its embarked air group represent for the decades to come, and to prepare the development of the successor to the Charles de Gaulle, which should be withdrawn from service in 2038.
In this section:
The next-generation nuclear aircraft carrier will be bigger than imagined
If you PANG will be the successor of the Charles de Gaulle, it will be, on the other hand, a completely new ship, much more modern, and above all, considerably more imposing. Thus, while the French aircraft carrier, today, measures 261 m long, for a displacement of 42500 tonnes when loaded, its successor will be almost 50 metres longer, or 310 metres, and almost twice as heavy, with a displacement which would now be around 80.000 tonnes.
In doing so, the PANG would not only be the most imposing military ship ever built in Europe, but it would also be in the same category as the new Chinese aircraft carriers of the Fujian class (316 m for 80 tonnes), and the American nuclear aircraft carriers of the Nimitz class (000 meters for 333 tonnes).
These dimensions are the consequence of the replacement of the Rafale M, which today arms the Charles de Gaulle, by the NGF of the SCAF program, an aircraft which will be both more imposing and heavier than the Rafale, although its exact dimensions are not known to date.
In addition, the NGFs will operate alongside combat drones, some airborne, others autonomous, the latter therefore having to be transported and operated from the catapults of the new aircraft carrier. Therefore, to implement a flotilla of 25 to 30 NGFs, it is necessary to provide sufficient space in the hangars to transport and operate at least as many Loyal Wingmen type combat drones.
It cannot be ruled out, moreover, that other aircraft, piloted or drones, will take their place on the deck of the new aircraft carrier. Thus, the resurgence of the submarine threat, which was very much reduced at the end of the Cold War, could once again bring out the need for an on-board air security and anti-submarine warfare aircraft, as the Bréguet Alizé did on board the Clemenceau and Foch aircraft carriers during the Cold War.
In fact, while the Charles de Gaulle had dimensions perfectly adapted to the Rafale M and the reality of threats and engagement scenarios from 2000 to today, the PANG will have to be much more imposing, to carry more combat aircraft, themselves more imposing, and a significant number of specialized drones.
Sébastien Lecornu confirms the PANG order at the end of 2025
Obviously, these dimensions, like the three electromagnetic catapults, the nuclear propulsion designed around two K22 reactors of 220 MW each, and all the on-board systems, have significantly increased the expected bill.
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. Subscriptions Premium also allow access to archives (articles over two years old)
Your assumption for this lighter building is that Rafales F5 Marine are ordered for the next 30 years. Otherwise the NGF will be incompatible with it?
Not necessarily. It is likely that ngf will be able to use a skijump. In addition, there are one or two EM catapults left. On the other hand, we will only put 12 or 16 on board, against 24 to 30 Rafale M.
Could we not envisage an assault aircraft carrier of around 48000t with transport and rader capacity, a carapult and a sky-jump, which could be flexibly armed with a flotilla of 12 to 16 Rafales (or F35B) and drones, or any other mix of helicopters and drones. The propulsion would have to be optimized to be able to punctually reach the speed sufficient for aviation maneuvers, but the concept would be more versatile/flexible and the addressable market also larger both in Europe and for other countries.
It doesn't really have any interest. A BPH must hold a fixed position below the horizon, to ensure the logistic flow to the landed forces. A catobar/stobar PA must advance at 25 knots minimum, to carry out its aviation maneuvers. With an Adac/v, like the harrier or the F35B, it is possible. But not with a Rafale, nor with an ngf. We can imagine it for an alternative + to the BPH, especially for launching drones, but not as an alternative to the PA.
Building an aircraft carrier sized to the SCAF if it never sees the light of day is bullshit. Two for the price of one, calibrated for the F5 would be a coherent decision.
Silly question but I ask it anyway:
Why not offer this PANG to India? The fact that it is nuclear does not pose any insurmountable problems (see the sale of SNA to Australia). Afterwards, the size of the building is perhaps too imposing for this country but the choice of the low-enriched uranium reactor would not contravene the non-proliferation treaties….
That said, the Indians already have their own aircraft carrier program….
In short, I answer my question now.
They know how to build them without us. They designed the INS Vikrant entirely on their own. The INS Vikrant will have cost €2,8 billion (23.000 crores) for a 65.000-ton ship, without a catapult but with arresting lines. India is not the right prospect here.
And they know how to build SSBNs, so again, no real need for us.