Military Review

Against the background of others: the promising French aircraft carrier PANG and its capabilities

51

Photo: Naval Group


Evolution of the concept


In April, the French Ministry of Defense presented new information about a promising aircraft carrier for the French Navy, designated Porte Avion Nouvelle Generation or PANG. It must be said that this ship has been successfully "forgotten" in recent months. However, first things first.

The start of the practical implementation of the program aimed at creating a replacement for the only French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle became known in December. This was announced by Emmanuel Macron. Even then, images of the new ship were presented, which gave a general idea of ​​what it would be like. It was clear that we are talking about what is now, with an eye to the US Navy, called the "supercarrier". That is, an incomparably more powerful ship than the aforementioned Charles de Gaulle. As it was reported then, the total displacement of the PANG will be about 75 thousand tons (against 42 thousand tons for the old aircraft carrier).


Photo: Joshua L. Leonard, wikipedia.org

It will be up to 300 meters long and about 80 meters wide. Porte Avion Nouvelle Generation will receive two new type K22 nuclear reactors with a thermal capacity of 220 MW each and three shaft lines with a total capacity of 80 MW, with propellers. The total generated capacity, including power generation, will be 110 MW. The ship will be able to reach speeds of 26-27 knots. He will receive American aviation equipment: three EMALS electromagnetic catapults and AAG aerofinishers of General Atomics corporation.

According to the new data, the displacement of the PANG will be 70 tons. As noted recently in the French Ministry of Defense, it will provide up to 000 sorties per day and have a stock of ammunition for a week for high-intensity operations. The crew will include 60 crew members, as well as 1100 people from the air wing.

As noted in December, the aircraft carrier will receive a hangar of approximately 5000 square meters, which will be serviced by two onboard aircraft lifts (it is not known whether this information is current or not).

The most interesting thing concerns the air group. The ship will be able to carry three dozen fighters, E-2D early warning and control aircraft, helicopters and UAVs. At the initial stage, the basis of the air group may be the Rafale M fighter: tests of the fighter and the EMALS electromagnetic catapult will be carried out in Lakehurst (New Jersey) until 2030.


In the future, the ship should receive the latest sixth-generation fighter NGF (Next Generation Fighter), which is being created under the Future Combat Air System (FCAS, Système de combat aérien du future) program. Rather, its naval version: the fighter will exist in at least two versions. It is difficult to say yet what this car will look like. Most likely, the models and images are far from reality. If we sum up all the known data, then the aircraft will be large, unobtrusive, twin-engine and will be able to control the slave UAVs (provided, of course, that they appear).

The production fighter should see the light of day by about 2040. True, it is difficult to speak with confidence about anything. Recently, France and Germany, jointly developing the fighter, had a deep quarrel over the vision of the situation. This concerned, first of all, the rights to technology. Later, this spring, the parties nevertheless found a consensus: at least formally. But the sediment still remained.


Photo: JohnNewton8, wikipedia.org

As for the aircraft carrier, it should be completed by 2036. The construction of the ship will be carried out at the shipyard in Saint-Nazaire in the west of France.

What do the British have?


For obvious reasons, it doesn't make much sense to compare the capabilities of the PANG and the new American aircraft carrier. And it's not just that the Gerald R. Ford is much larger and can carry up to 90 aircraft and helicopters. By the time the PANG goes into operation, the Americans may already have a good half dozen Fords at their disposal. And by that time they will have a lot of experience in operating them.

If we talk about the countries of the European Union, then Italy has two aircraft carriers and the Spaniards have one. However, in all cases we are talking about "mini-aircraft carriers", whose capabilities are incomparably less than those of Charles de Gaulle, not to mention the Porte Avion Nouvelle Generation.

The most logical comparison of Porte Avion Nouvelle Generation with the new British aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth, especially since it has a similar displacement - 70 thousand tons. Each of the two Queen Elizabeth-class ships will be able to carry about fifty aircraft: up to 36 unobtrusive F-35B Lightning II short takeoff and vertical landing multipurpose fighters and a certain number of helicopters. Like the PANG, the ship will receive two lifts, but there is an important difference. Compared to the French aircraft carrier, Queen Elizabeth does not have launch catapults, relying on a springboard like the Admiral Kuznetsov. Simply put, it will not be able to use either heavy AWACS aircraft or conventional carrier-based fighters. This is a significant limitation.


Photo: Brian Burnell, wikipedia.org

The British decided to save money. Is this economy bad?

It depends on which side to assess the situation. The presence of two aircraft carriers at once allows the British the fleet always be in a state of high combat readiness: one ship will be undergoing repairs and upgrades, while the other will be able to take over the execution of combat missions. In this sense, there is no clear winner, because France traditionally relies on one ship of this class. It is unlikely that PANG will be built in a series of several units: this is an overly expensive undertaking for the Fifth Republic.

There is another country in Europe that may have a new aircraft carrier. This is Russia. Obviously, so far there is no clear understanding of what will replace the aforementioned "Admiral Kuznetsov". At different times, different options were proposed. In 2013, within the framework of the international naval show in St. Petersburg, specialists were shown a model of an aircraft carrier of the project 23000 "Storm". The ship's displacement is up to 100 thousand tons. Aviation group - up to 90 aircraft, including the carrier-based version of the fifth generation Su-57 fighter.


Photo: LeAZ-1977, wikipedia.org

We can say that it was the "pre-crisis" version of the aircraft carrier. In 2019, the Nevskoye Design Bureau presented the appearance of the Project 11430E ship "Manatee", which has more modest capabilities. Its aviation group should be up to 60 aircraft and helicopters. The fifth generation fighter models were no longer on the deck.


Source: wikipedia.org

And in January, the Nevsky Design Bureau showed the concept of the Varan aircraft carrier with a displacement of 45 thousand tons. It can accommodate 24 "multipurpose aircraft" (obviously, this means fighters of the MiG-29K / KUB type), six helicopters and up to 20 UAVs.

Against the background of others: the promising French aircraft carrier PANG and its capabilities
Image: Nevskoe PKB npkb.ru

Since this is the last of the concepts of Russian aircraft carriers presented to date, it can be assumed that they want to see such a ship now in the Navy. In this case, PANG (and the British Queen Elizabeth) will have an advantage over the promising Russian aircraft carrier. At least in terms of the number of combat aircraft.
Author:
51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Gardener91
    Gardener91 April 22 2021 18: 27
    -1
    One target and many targets. In the fight against AUG, a lot of loudly declared weapons were created, but in practice no one has ever used them. Conclusion: today, aircraft carriers are one of the most effective types of tactical armed influence. The larger the aircraft carrier, the larger and more expensive the escort, the higher the support costs. Probably, there is no concept of combating AUG as a fight in disrupting security, which is a pity.
    1. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 22 2021 21: 17
      -1
      here the question is with whom to fight ..
      1. Gardener91
        Gardener91 April 22 2021 23: 10
        0
        Quote: Barberry25
        here the question is with whom to fight ..

        Not a question at all. Few of the most likely partners willing to unleash?
        1. Barberry25
          Barberry25 April 23 2021 09: 11
          0
          that's the funny thing .. the Americans are not eager to want to fight with a country that has a lamprey RCC ... even with the Iranians ..
          1. Gardener91
            Gardener91 April 23 2021 09: 22
            0
            Quote: Barberry25
            that's the catch

            The trick is that not with your own hands, but having at your disposal an advanced arsenal and proven tactics of bp and the rest, there is no desire to fight. Hybrid containment impact only. Dependence on greenery is like that.
            1. Barberry25
              Barberry25 April 23 2021 09: 33
              +1
              laughing not without this, but still it's dumb to lose an aircraft carrier ... the probability is too high
              1. Gardener91
                Gardener91 April 23 2021 16: 48
                0
                In order to lose an aircraft carrier, you first need to have one. And as for the high probability of loss, this is all in theory.
          2. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa April 23 2021 13: 19
            0
            Iranians


            Did Operation Praying Mantis pass you by?
            1. Barberry25
              Barberry25 April 23 2021 16: 51
              -1
              didn’t work .. but then the Iranians showed a video of an UAV flying directly over the aircraft carrier .. so the probability that in the event of mixing the Iranians will drown or spoil the skin of the US aircraft carrier is and it is not as low as it seems ..
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa April 23 2021 17: 27
                +1
                Zero.
                During the war, he will not enter the Persian Gulf, they have already planted and shot down Iranian drones.
                1. Barberry25
                  Barberry25 April 23 2021 17: 30
                  -1
                  laughing there is always a possibility of being destroyed .. and yes .. if they were "imprisoned" all the time .. there would be no video ... it turns out that they screwed up
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa April 23 2021 18: 14
                    0
                    Yes, they didn’t miss it, they just didn’t shoot at him. The landing video was a couple of years ago.
                    Sbitiya too.

                    To destroy an aircraft carrier, Iran must have something that can detect the aircraft carrier outside their coastal zone, and something that rushes into it and explodes.
                    1. Barberry25
                      Barberry25 April 23 2021 19: 14
                      0
                      Well, what will fly in and explode, they have, as well as a way to do the control system ... So there is only one option for the Americans ... to go away from the bay with a smart face ... and it's not a fact that it will work ... I do not guarantee that they can, but and to assert in the style of "they have nothing and they can not do anything" - I will not .. because they have and can ..
                      1. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa April 23 2021 21: 41
                        0
                        Well, what will come and explode, they have, as well as a way to do the control system ..


                        They have nothing that AUG could get northeast of the Arabian Peninsula. And they will be there.
                      2. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 April 23 2021 21: 58
                        0
                        laughing Well, it turns out that "protection from Iran" is to stay away from Iran. But I would not rule out the option of an attack, even if the distance from the coast is long ..
                      3. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa April 23 2021 22: 00
                        0
                        Farther away, but it will be possible to attack without problems from this distance, which means that the smiley is inappropriate.

                        Well, everyone knows the level of the Iranians. They have nothing to reach the mobile target.
                      4. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 April 23 2021 22: 08
                        0
                        The level is known, but a couple of years ago it was believed that they would not be able to strike at the Saudis ... but it turned out that they could ... So I would not rule out the option with missile launchers on some peaceful dry cargo ship
                      5. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa April 23 2021 22: 10
                        0
                        When was this considered? Not a single serious specialist thought so, the level of the Iranians was more or less known for a long time, the only thing that surprised me a little was the accuracy of the Iranian ballistic missile coverage of the American base, but just a little bit. Iranian missiles were slightly more accurate than expected.
                      6. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 April 23 2021 22: 13
                        0
                        laughing And what were the Saudis surprised? In fact, the Iranians have anti-ship missiles with a range of 150 km ... therefore, with the right tactics, you can also strike with them ... although I'm more interested in something else ... they have long-range cruise missiles ... why are they using the GOS with anti-ship missiles not screwed?
                      7. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa April 23 2021 22: 16
                        0
                        RCC with a range of 150 km ... therefore, with the right tactics, you can also strike with them


                        For this it is necessary to build a fleet and create a naval aviation. Neither one nor the other Iran can afford now.

                        .. although I'm more interested in something else .. they have long-range cruise missiles .. why do they not attach a seeker with anti-ship missiles to them?


                        What long-range CDs do they have? Ground clone X-55 with non-nuclear warhead? So it doesn't fly very far. Just from Yemen to Sudovka, but no further. And if you also cram a heavy seeker into it, and even a source of electric current for it, then the range will drop just up to 100-150 km, given the rather large size of its launcher.

                        The real world is complex.
                      8. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 April 23 2021 22: 48
                        0
                        so they don't need to go further than 500 km .. just if you know where the aircraft carrier will be, and where it will be in which case they will know .. or else they can snitch purely out of the harmfulness of the coordinates, and then launch missiles into that square with the aim of attacking everything discovered ships ... in general, I must think)
  • tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 April 22 2021 18: 30
    +2
    Let's start with the fact that we have nowhere to build 100000 Storm. Construction of the slipway under it will begin, and we can talk!
    1. max702
      max702 April 22 2021 20: 44
      +3
      Well, then the icebreaker Leader is already being built in the same proportions .. And there is no doubt about the construction of this .. So the question is not in can we can not, but for what? The icebreaker is clear for what and the whole construction has gone, but here is the question ..
      1. tralflot1832
        tralflot1832 April 22 2021 21: 12
        -1
        Experts here explained to me that Zvezda is not suitable for our XNUMX-meter aircraft carrier, the foundation pit for the dry dock had to be dug deeper.
        1. max702
          max702 April 22 2021 21: 38
          0
          Quote: tralflot1832
          Experts here explained to me that Zvezda is not suitable for our XNUMX-meter aircraft carrier, the foundation pit for the dry dock had to be dug deeper.

          First let the specialists explain the need for aircraft carriers, and after that we will dig the dock and much more .. Thank God, they began to look at the need for something, and not at show-offs and beautiful gestures .. The same picture with space launches, we launch a certain number of rockets means so much is needed, and not in order to catch up and overtake America.
      2. tralflot1832
        tralflot1832 April 22 2021 21: 23
        -1
        As I understand it, the matter is in the draft.
    2. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 22 2021 21: 19
      +2
      taking into account the wishes in the form of Superpots, UDCs and destroyers .. + an aging shipyard fleet will have to be built in any case .. a la Zvezda-2 type .. otherwise we will not be able to build modern ships in marketable quantities, nor lay new projects, nor do something for export ..
      1. max702
        max702 April 22 2021 21: 46
        +1
        Any ruble invested on the territory of Russia is useful a priori, and even more new industrial infrastructure ... All shipyards are now packed for years to come and a cluster like Zvezda-2 would not hurt at all ..
        1. Barberry25
          Barberry25 April 23 2021 09: 10
          +1
          that's funny .. the shipyards are clogged, there are not enough engines .. therefore it is necessary to build a shipyard + engine building .. about 300 billion rubles pleasure
          1. max702
            max702 April 23 2021 13: 23
            0
            It's okay our own burden does not pull for once, we think about our country, and not about someone else's ..
  • Luminman
    Luminman April 22 2021 19: 10
    0
    Curious why the French need an aircraft carrier? During a war with "serious" countries, it will be immediately sunk. And to pacify blacks in their former colonies, a company of paratroopers is enough!
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik April 22 2021 19: 20
      +4
      Both Britain and France have a large number of overseas territories. They need to be protected. There are also large trade interests in Africa, Central and South America, and Asia. In the same Africa, they are constantly at war.


      Quote: Luminman
      During a war with "serious" countries, it will be immediately sunk.

      Who is it with?
      1. Luminman
        Luminman April 22 2021 19: 29
        +2
        Without specifying specifically which countries, I will only say that these are countries that have the same serious as the countries themselves, surface and submarine fleets, aviation and cruise missiles. And, of course, an advanced air defense system
        1. max702
          max702 April 22 2021 21: 47
          0
          Quote: Luminman
          Without specifying specifically which countries, I will only say that these are countries that have the same serious as the countries themselves, surface and submarine fleets, aviation and cruise missiles. And, of course, an advanced air defense system

          More specifically? We have planet Earth and there are not many defendants .. Who exactly? even presumably?
    2. max702
      max702 April 22 2021 20: 47
      -1
      Quote: Luminman
      Curious, why do the French need an aircraft carrier?

      They have the roof of the United States and if something happens they will help, but also on the part of the frog-eaters the obligation to have at least something like that is obligatory ... at least for the presence of the competence of joint DBs at sea and ocean ..
    3. Mooh
      Mooh April 22 2021 22: 30
      +1
      The negroes are progressing, the company is no longer enough. And you can accidentally clash with not very serious countries. With Iran there or with Turkey.
  • Tsoy
    Tsoy April 22 2021 19: 24
    +1
    It is significant that in the Russian Federation all these models of aircraft carriers are carried to exhibitions by the same office. Directly not veiled, they want to spin the MO on this gold vein for cutting. The French, on the other hand, realized that such a number of complex mechanisms could not be accommodated in 45 thousand displacement. Maybe this will not be so much in repairs when it is completed.
    1. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 22 2021 21: 22
      -1
      1) you need to decide on the Wishlist, and then decide on the displacement for them .. Let's say 20 fighters + 6 UAVs of AWACS + 16 helicopters will fit without any problems .. But in this case it is more optimal to build several aircraft carriers .. under a large "batch", and there in any case, you will have to drive aircraft carriers together
      1. Passing
        Passing April 23 2021 15: 14
        -1
        Quote: Barberry25
        20 fighters + 6 UAVs of AWACS + 16 helicopters will fit in without any problems.

        If we start from the Varan project, then the money is at the bottom. From the very first serious anti-ship missile that arrived.
        For, firstly, a small one means dramatically less resistant to anti-ship missiles, and secondly, an aircraft carrier in a combat situation is obliged to ensure itself a round-the-clock line of interception of anti-ship missiles. This is conventionally 500 km or more. If you continuously patrol around the aircraft carrier, then there is no stupid flight for the combat operations of aircraft sorties, if you rise into the air at the request of AWACS-drones, then one catapult is obviously not enough, and there is no place for many of them on a small ship.
        And small aircraft carriers will never operate together, because our fleets are separated by ten thousand kilometers. And to drive one AUG (not one aircraft carrier, but dozens of the best ships of the fleet) to the other end of the country means completely destroying the combat capability of the other end.
        1. Barberry25
          Barberry25 April 23 2021 16: 12
          0
          1) if there is a missile attack, then they will attack with an order of several dozen missiles and even a "big" aircraft carrier will not be happy if 5 missiles arrive at it ... and a "small" Varan is about 45 tons. This is the same as on Kuznetsov ..So if you remove the missiles from Kuzi, then not 000 planes will fit there, but 30 or more .. About "aircraft carriers will not operate" .. who told you that? Here we are not talking about aircraft carriers, but about the balanced composition of the fleets, that it is necessary to abandon the MPK / RK / MRK in favor of a universal anti-submarine with missile weapons based on Karakurt ... this is how it will turn out that even if the AUG is taken away, then the fleet should remain about 40-15 ships, which in the West qualify as light frigates ..
          1. Passing
            Passing April 24 2021 00: 18
            +1
            Quote: Barberry25
            they will attack with a warrant of several dozen missiles, and even a "big" aircraft carrier will be in trouble

            So that's what I'm talking about. Mass launch of anti-ship missiles must not be allowed, it is necessary to guarantee to intercept the carriers before the launch line. For example, only one B-1 carries 24 pieces of anti-ship missiles .. Such a blow, IMHO, is irresistible.
            RCC LRASM has an estimated range of 560 km, and maybe more. Do we have an air defense system with such a range? Not even close. It is not known what the chilled S-500 can do, but the number hints that it will be less than 500.
            Fighter interception remains. They need much more than 20 to be enough for both self-defense and the main combat mission.
            Quote: Barberry25
            So if you remove the missiles from Kuzi, then not 30 planes will fit there, but 40 and more.

            Without AWACS, he will go to the bottom in the first serious batch, and neither 30 nor 40 fighters will help him.
            Theoretically, 45 fighters will fit on 40 thousand tonnes, but this will be due to helicopters PLO, AWACS and so on, which is unacceptable. And how to maintain and equip this jumble of equipment in a confined space in a tough time pressure mode, when each plane makes several sorties a day?
            Practice shows that 40 thousand ton Charles de Gaulle carries only 26 fighters and strikers, and uses only 23 to strike Syria. Three planes are evidently for self-defense against stray enemy strikers. This is all with the fundamental absence of the threat of anti-ship missiles for them .. And for us, the threat of anti-ship missiles is an indisputable factor that will leave a dozen fighters out of 26 fighters free for solving the main task. Swing for a ruble, a blow for a kopeck. Nafig such a 45 thousander, money down the drain. Or do we not expect to seriously claim a place next to the United States and China? Then, of course, it will come down against the Papuans, the French will confirm.
            1. Barberry25
              Barberry25 April 24 2021 00: 19
              0
              well, helicopters are included on Kuzi in addition to aircraft)
  • Abram Ivanovich
    Abram Ivanovich April 22 2021 20: 24
    0
    A new kind of hybrid warfare is the render battle.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 22 2021 21: 16
    -1
    Although the French control the colonies, Russia does not need an aircraft carrier
    1. Petr Vladimirovich
      Petr Vladimirovich April 22 2021 22: 26
      -3
      Can't comment from above.
      Dear colleagues, who of you and for how long has been in the corridor in the department of purulent surgery at the City Clinical Hospital 64 in Moscow after amputation? Normal Wi-Fi, though there are no outlets. You can comment on the need for aircraft carriers in the country at your pleasure ...
  • Basarev
    Basarev April 22 2021 23: 02
    0
    The French can handle it. The country is rich, there is personnel and technology, there is also the proper infrastructure. There are developed friends, so there will be no problems with components, there is even free access to the ocean. So there is no doubt: the aircraft carrier will be released on time.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 April 23 2021 01: 31
    -2
    Two VARAN cover PANG (and British Queen Elizabeth)))
  • Angry Alt-Right
    Angry Alt-Right April 23 2021 04: 01
    0
    Such, in fact, a renaissance of interest in aircraft carriers will lead to the fact that the ocean will no longer belong to the United States (its surface part, at least), and therefore the question of parity will no longer stand as "The President is urging the aircraft carrier for a non-nuclear demonstration of force", but will be "And do even the countries of the 2nd echelon, in this region, have an aircraft carrier or not!" laughing
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 April 26 2021 12: 31
      -1
      Quote: Angry Alt-Right
      the renaissance of interest in aircraft carriers will lead to the fact that the ocean will no longer belong to the us

      There is no particular renaissance there: the conversations of those who do not have an aircraft carrier remain just conversations.
      It's just that those who originally had it (them) are replacing obsolete ones with new ones. As the Europeans had 1-2 pieces, so it will be. As the Americans had 10 AUG, so it will be.
      And "Lizards" with "Manatees" are just models, not supported by anything in reality.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 23 2021 07: 35
    +1
    Since this is the last of the concepts of Russian aircraft carriers presented to date, it can be assumed that they want to see such a ship now in the Navy.

    You can't. Monitor lizards / manatees are just dummies from KB. According to available data, the Ministry of Defense and the Navy want an atomic AB for 70 thousand tons. Approximately
  • Alexander E
    Alexander E April 23 2021 17: 28
    0
    "There is another country in Europe that may have a new aircraft carrier. This is Russia."

    Already shuddered .... Excuse me, but Geyropa is not RUSSIA