Marine Nationale (French Navy)
- Thread starter Spacearrow99
- Start date
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Steel-cutting ceremony to be hold for new frigate of Naval Group
Construction begins on the first of the FTI frigates.
Greece signals intent to buy French frigates
Also looks to have secured first export sale. Although it is highly dependent on government export financing- essentially the French government pays for the frigates up front, and the Greek government pays them back slowly over a period of years.
Given the growing presence of Naval Group in Australia, it is inevitable that they will offer the FTI as a replacement for NZ's ANZAC frigates around 2030. I assume one of them will eventually replace the aging Vendaimaire in New Caledonia, so they could boast of some regional commonality.
FAPF/FANC vessels: Two brothers in arms in the Kingdom of Tuvalu
Those of us in the Pacific still tend to overlook the significant French presence in the region - here we have Marine Nationale ships from Tahita and New Caledonia meeting up in Tuvalu. These have always looked to me like handy multi-purpose vessels good for a range of non-combat government tasks.
Construction begins on the first of the FTI frigates.
Greece signals intent to buy French frigates
Also looks to have secured first export sale. Although it is highly dependent on government export financing- essentially the French government pays for the frigates up front, and the Greek government pays them back slowly over a period of years.
Given the growing presence of Naval Group in Australia, it is inevitable that they will offer the FTI as a replacement for NZ's ANZAC frigates around 2030. I assume one of them will eventually replace the aging Vendaimaire in New Caledonia, so they could boast of some regional commonality.
FAPF/FANC vessels: Two brothers in arms in the Kingdom of Tuvalu
Those of us in the Pacific still tend to overlook the significant French presence in the region - here we have Marine Nationale ships from Tahita and New Caledonia meeting up in Tuvalu. These have always looked to me like handy multi-purpose vessels good for a range of non-combat government tasks.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Video on Naval Group achievement on 2019. However I put the video for the French Navy next Carrier concept from Naval Group that shown design of Catobar based QE2 look alike (from 2:20 - 2:50). Seems despite some speculation that Naval Group will go to other design, the design do carry on.
Last edited:
I thought the CdG replacement (PA2) had been dropped some time ago ?
They have licensed the QE design and there is a warmed up design team to provide support so if they decided to pull the trigger on something, it'd make sense for it to be a CVF design however.
They have licensed the QE design and there is a warmed up design team to provide support so if they decided to pull the trigger on something, it'd make sense for it to be a CVF design however.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Based on that interview, Naval Group still working on it, and seems the French Government still processing the design also.
The design seems showing conventional power and not nuclear ones. Potentially using EMALS catapults, thus it will based on more electrics generating power based.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The QE carrier has about 110 MW from its diesels and two MT30s. For this possible new French carrier, assuming convention power, would an additional MT30 be sufficient for EMALS?
I can't speak to specifics of power demand on EMALS but from the discussions on CVF going to EMALS, the plan was either to install a 3rd MT30 or a donkey boiler if EMALS wasn't ready for the prime time.
I'd be really pleased if the French went ahead after all this time and then built two, same as the RN, decommissioning the CdG in the process for which the timeline works, assuming work commenced in a few years time.
I can't imagine installing a 3rd MT30 would be cheap, intake and exhaust for a 3rd would likely be take up more space and painful retrofit. Its entirely possible to get 90%+ efficiency out of diesel boilers.
But the US has basically solved the core problems with EMALs and its ready for all aircraft on their carriers. While there is still work to be done on operating costs and durability, these are unlikely to be huge issues for the French. The technology is in more of a refinement stage, with most of the risk taken out. But it is also not cheap. But US parts and supply line for steam are possibly not going to be around in the future if they decide to fit EMALs in refits.
But the US has basically solved the core problems with EMALs and its ready for all aircraft on their carriers. While there is still work to be done on operating costs and durability, these are unlikely to be huge issues for the French. The technology is in more of a refinement stage, with most of the risk taken out. But it is also not cheap. But US parts and supply line for steam are possibly not going to be around in the future if they decide to fit EMALs in refits.
There'd be no painful retrofit for the French, since they'd not be modifying an existing ship, but adapting an existing design before they start cutting metal.
Yonks back, they were involved in CVF design, as they were planning to build a second carrier & opted to buy into CVF & get full rights to the design so they could modify it for their own needs in exchange for hard cash & contributing to the joint aspects of the design. IIRC some of their design input went into the final UK version. They dropped out due to money forcing the indefinite postponement of the second carrier, but I think they kept the right to use the design, & the work they did on modifying it for a CTOL carrier will have included fitting boilers, so that space will be available.
Yonks back, they were involved in CVF design, as they were planning to build a second carrier & opted to buy into CVF & get full rights to the design so they could modify it for their own needs in exchange for hard cash & contributing to the joint aspects of the design. IIRC some of their design input went into the final UK version. They dropped out due to money forcing the indefinite postponement of the second carrier, but I think they kept the right to use the design, & the work they did on modifying it for a CTOL carrier will have included fitting boilers, so that space will be available.
Certainly the original design was designed for CAToBAR and the UK MoD changed its mind a couple of times throughout the project so I imagine there was a fair bit of work (even if its just costing) on fitting a QE design with CATOBAR. Just going forward I would imagine the US would be phasing out its steam system and investing more in EMALS. I would imagine emals would be more efficient than boilers plus steam catapults. A MT30 might be overkill. They might be able to do it with diesels and capacitors/batteries.
A Rafale is a fair bit lighter in most configurations than a Superhornet or a F-35C (6-7ts) and the French operate a smaller fighter wing with fewer sorties generally, so EMALs probably would be even more attractive to the French than it is for the Americans.
A Rafale is a fair bit lighter in most configurations than a Superhornet or a F-35C (6-7ts) and the French operate a smaller fighter wing with fewer sorties generally, so EMALs probably would be even more attractive to the French than it is for the Americans.
Would an extra MT30 take up that much room? After all it would've been allowed for in the CATOBAR design that the poms lurched towards then lurched away from, would it not? Also the ship is 65,000 tonnes so does have room to play with and I doubt that the French will be going with the welldock that the RN have done, because the Marine Nationale does have it's Mistral amphibs. I think it's a bit of a mountain out of a molehill TBH, and more power is always welcome.
I am curious either way, I have no preference, and am interested in the development.
The Ford class has a new reactor that has 25% greater thermal capacity, but it isn't clear if EMAL requires anything like that or if its just an increase to help all aspects of the ships new design. One of the EMALs supposed advantages is that it is less reliant on reactor capacity. I would imagine its easier and more efficient to store energy as electricity than as steam. In terms of additional electrical capacity on the fords its 25MW for each reactor. So if that is required for EMAL's a MT30 would be ball park in that range. Which in terms of future proofing might make more sense to fit a MT30 in the design and use steam catapults until EMALS is cheap and ubiquitous, as refitting a MT30 afterwards might be more painful.
In the ford EMALS energy is stored in giant spinning discs. So if there is enough electrical capacity in the ship, additional generation may not be required. I guess it really comes around how fast they want to launch aircraft.
I am curious to see how this develops, and if the french commit to such a project.
Last edited:
Sorry, what well dock? I was under the impression that the nearest thing it has is an embarkation point on the stern, and that boats including the 30m'ish PTBs are all davit launched through ports under the sponsons
oldsig
(edit: I can't manage a direct link, but there is an excellent photo of QEs stern in this walkaround - last photo)
Up close with HMS Queen Elizabeth | Save the Royal Navy
Last edited:
Ok, thanks, stand corrected.
The original design was not for CATOBAR. It was always for STOVL.
It was supposed to be adaptable to CATOBAR, & there was much talk at the time of allowance having been made for fitting cats & traps, but when the Tories won the election in 2010 & Liam Fox (spit!) became Minister of Defence & promptly announced that the carriers would be changed in build to cat & trap, he had to back down, after delaying construction & spending a nine figure sum, when it turned out that "adaptable" didn't mean what everyone had thought it meant, i.e. that space had been identified for fitting stuff & kept clear of anything important, but just that the ships were big enough to rebuild for CTOL. The designers & builders had never been told to take acount of future modification for cat & trap in the design, so hadn't done so, & once the French dropped out it had been given no thought at all.
So the "work on fitting" was done mid-build, in 2011 & 2012, identifying & costing how much would need to be ripped out of already built sections, where to move all the necessary stuff to & how much rebuilding would be needed for that, & so on. They were talking major rebuilding.
The French wouldn't have that problem, of course, since they'd start with their old PA2-specific design work, which had taken into account the need for catapults from the start, & they've not started building.
Whenever this idea of the QEs having a dock comes up I wonder where it started & how it became widespread. It was never seriously considered, AFAIK, let alone incorporated in the design. It may have been in some early conceptual studies.
BTW, the RN/RFA has five ships with docks, since it sold one to the RAN. The MN has three. Two of the five UK ships have docks slightly larger than a Mistral's. The other three are smaller, but overall the UK has more well deck capacity, in more hulls, than the MN.
The space is reserved in the original UK design, but was later taken up during construction - apparently at the stage they'd reached when the pivot to EMALS was announced, they'd have had to tear out most of deck one to rebuild it. If you're starting with a design, and heading into construction with EMALS in mind, it's much simpler. The extra GT and trunking is easy to incorporate and of course, the entire design is IFEP so getting additional generating power into the mix is relatively easy.
I've heard various versions and none of them seem solid enough to place a bet on - but there seems to be a majority view that space was worked into construction, not just earlier design.
<helpless shrug>
either way, not a problem the French Navy need have to deal with - they'd be looking at a mature and very modern design for a GT powered carrier with plenty of space to be adapted into something you can plant a Rafale on with considerable confidence
France launched a new study in late 2018 for the future replacement of CdG in the late 2030s. This study is ongoing - supposed to finish in two months. It is mostly about evaluating basic parameters for a new carrier, such as method of propulsion (nuclear/conventional) and required aircraft sortie rates.