France’s New Aircraft Carrier PANG will be nuclear-powered

French President Emmanuel Macron officially green lighted the construction of a new nuclear-powered aircraft carrier as part of the PANG program. The future flag ship of the Marine Nationale is intended to replace the existing "Charles de Gaulle" around 2038.
=====================
French President Emmanuel Macron this week officially green lighted the construction of a new nuclear-powered aircraft carrier as part of the PANG program. The future flag ship of the Marine Nationale is intended to replace the existing "Charles de Gaulle" around 2038.
The announcement was made during the president's visit to French company Framatome, an international leader in nuclear energy which designs and supplies nuclear steam systems and services.
The PANG (for Porte Avion Nouvelle Generation or new generation aircraft carrier) will be much longer and much heavier than the existing Charles de Gaulle:
It will have a length of 300 meters, a width of 80 meters with a displacement of 75,000 tons. This also means that it will be slighlty larger than the UK's Queen Elizabeth class carriers.
Its airwing will consist in the Rafale Marine, the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and a navalized version of the FCAS next generation fighter.
First steel cut is set for 2025, while sea trials are set to begin in 2036 and commissioning with the French Navy in 2038, which matches with the expected decommissioning of the Charles de Gaulle.
Read more: www.navalnews.com/naval-news/...
=====================
For new videos every week, subscribe here! kzbin.info?su...
Follow us on Twitter: / navalnewscom
Follow us on LinkedIn: / navalnews
Like us on Facebook: navalnewscom
Check out our daily naval defense news coverage at: www.navalnews.com/
NAVAL NEWS is fully focused on naval topics. We cover the latest naval defense shows & events. We also report on naval technology from all over the world. Navalnews.com is updated daily with in-depth features, industry, and naval forces news round-ups, event coverage, video reports and more. Our top of the line site is responsive across all mobile and desktop devices.

[@nikolaikirkanovic]

🇫🇷🇬🇷 historic allies . Vive la France

[@volt9903]

GO FRANCE GO UP AND UP!!!!🇬🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷🇬🇷

[@DrawnInk1]

Nice looking. Best regards from the UK

[@xvg_5408]

Respect from Poland🇵🇱🇨🇵

[@AbhiKohli]

Cheers, France. Love from India.

[@marsattack3622]

Cheers beloved India! Love from France!

[@roddychristodoulou9111]

VIVRE la France , amour chypre .

[@roddychristodoulou9111]

FUCK SHIT merci Monsieur Fuck Shit .

[@MMoreau]

Il lui faudra un "sister-ship", alors autant en faire deux en même temps. La chaufferie nucléaire apporte un avantage certain aux navires, félicitations aux ingénieurs et techniciens.

[@Sam74213]

Moi je dis minimum 4 porte avion.

[@rtr15rlop]

Non faux faire au moins 30 porte avion

[@Sam74213]

@@rtr15rlop , abuse pas , on a pas les moyens financiers pour 30 porte avion .

[@oOLuNaTiC93Oo]

@@Sam74213 3 serait un nombre parfait, surtout vu que nous avons le 2ème plus grand espace maritime au monde. Et quelques SNA en plus ça serait parfait aussi.

[@Fabio-om4kb]

Pas en même temps l'un après lautre pour qu'il y en est toujours un d'opérationnel.

[@sunilraj7558]

Congratulations from lndia🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳

[@daikucoffee5316]

Thank you. We hate the UK too.

[@Joeblogs263]

I hope the French decide to build 2 carriers instead of 1. Then Europe would have 2 large French carriers, 2 large British ones and several light carriers.

[@cheveuxjaunes2782]

Well the answer comes long after the commentary but the new Minister of Armaments says that the question of a second aircraft carrier will be debated in the new military programming laws (there was already one in 2017 but the war in Ukraine ended that still needs to be intensified)

[@derekchristophernordbye7710]

I agree. It would alleviate the strain on the French Navy. Because, while one's undergoing refit, there would be another one maintaining the power of the French Navy and, help Europe/NATO maintaining defense of European waters.

[@BS-vm5bt]

I hope we get a europa class nuclear carrier with a EU single army so we can use all EU naval manufacturing to mass produce ships so we can rival any naval superpower. Why build 2 when we can build 10 aircraft carriers and split the cost. With french expertise and EU full industrial and economic might that would be a true superpower.

[@cheveuxjaunes2782]

@@BS-vm5bt where are toi from ?

[@Joeblogs263]

@@BS-vm5bt So you apparently created a new account,name and picture. Just to express your contempt. For European political cooperation and working together etc. You seem like a strange dude.

[@kenllacer]

Beautiful design. Hope France builds more than one.

[@badgerattoadhall]

If you are not going to build two, why build any? One operational and one in refit.

[@its2amandstillonyoutube542]

@@badgerattoadhall because it Costs twice as much

[@badgerattoadhall]

@@its2amandstillonyoutube542 but one is utterly useless half the time.

[@rodneymiddleton1044]

Congrats to France....

[@anthonywarwick6090]

Great to see France staying potent on the world stage to contribute to a strong NATO and free world

[@Klliansimabras]

If Trump is back, i don't think NATO will be in service.

[@piepiep2368]

France want autonomy and not to depend of us, France continue to being in nato but if nato is not in the interest of France and his vision of the freedom france will be create a bigest cooperation with the ue but for that France nead an other or 2 sisters ship to the Pang and for me france nead a bigest navy to protect his interests and is lands in outre-mer 😊

[@Klliansimabras]

@@piepiep2368 D'abord nous devrions industrialiser le pays. Nous avons encore une décennie avant que la deuxième guerre froide commence entre les États-Unis et la Chine.

[@XavierLeFrancais]

@@Klliansimabras pas faux. réindustrialiser, augmenter le format d'armée, se préparer à un conflit de Haute intensité...Dix ans c'est court, mais oui c'est ça. Il faut surtout de toute urgence remettre notre armée de terre sur pied: sous-équipé, renforcer la vision stratégique des officiers, renforcer l'approvisionnement et renforcer la préparation de l'armée de terre pas suffisamment entraîné pour un conflit symétrique. Sinon on risque de ne pas tenir le premier choc comme en 40...pour faire tout ça 3 à 3.5% du PIB pour les armées est un minimum!

[@Klliansimabras]

@@XavierLeFrancais En 40, ce sont nos généraux arrogants et vieux qui ont provoqué notre chute.

[@francescopapi3871]

Vive la France from Italy

[@ThePoshPrince]

WE NEED DEEPER COOPERATION BETWEEN US LIKE WITH THE FREMM

[@francescopapi3871]

@@ThePoshPrince i think that Merkel's plan to build an european aircraft carrier fleet based on the PANG could solve some escalations in the Mediterranean, the only thing is that italian government wants to invest in tempest and not in fcas

[@TomsonPRD]

@@ThePoshPrince Well said!! Both FREMM versions are exceptional, as with the Horizon-class destroyers

[@lorenzo4408]

@@francescopapi3871 meglio se stiamo fuori da questo progetto di Grandeur che va oltre le loro possibilità economiche e logistiche...

[@zied6456]

@@lorenzo4408 A force de voir les choses toujours en petit, vous êtes restés des nains...

[@Joker-yw9hl]

Very welcome news. It's great to European navies that can all intertwine within NATO. A Spanish light carrier, 3 light Italian carriers, 2 British 65,000 tonne carriers and 1 nuclear powered French beauty of 75,000 tonnes. Magnifique! 🇫🇷🇪🇸🇮🇹🇬🇧

[@piepiep2368]

Europe can defand is interests I guess

[@nikkip3385]

Macron "building" a new carrier to protect his precious fishing boats!! 😂 😂 😂 The idea will be scrapped if he loses the election. France have bigger problems to deal with before pledging billions of euros to a new carrier.

[@turkeyisnotineurope8123]

France still building strongest ships in Europe. Not like flooded crappy UK HMS 😂 😂. Build the 2nd in Row , just to show that Great Britain is not an empire anymore.

[@Beyllion]

No because the construction was already decided and budgeted way before his election. It's not something any president can simply decide to cancel.

[@dominationsrebellion6433]

France needs 2 Nuke Aircraft carriers 4 Amphibious Ships , 24 Destroyers/Frigates and 12 nuclear attack subs.

[@jayspik6498]

The Carriers the British 🇬🇧 should have built.. Beautiful 🇫🇷

[@JuvoII]

The British bet on the F35 carrier version being a most excellent plane. So no catapult needed.

[@sonikUk]

They already use nuclear propulsion and the CATOBAR system, like the United States. Their EMALS system is designed to work with the Rafale, the NGF (French 6th generation aircraft), and a French stealth drone (the Neuron). So I have no doubt that the French manufacturers will do an excellent job as usual.

[@TheBooban]

They’ll be using US emals just like they use US catapults since France do no build either.

[@julianmichoud9569]

L'accent français très présent. Mais allez la France ont y croit

[@alainseck8937]

De

[@lawrencehunter2269]

I hope the French can still help Australia build our subs !

[@redherring9497]

we should be getting the Japanese offering

[@loyalist5736]

@@redherring9497 Better get ASTUTE

[@loyalist5736]

@Robbie The great I can't believe the timeline by the time u get them it will be unmaned subs .

[@flyingpharoah4867]

@Robbie The great You won't be able to produce them at home nor get any tech transfer if you choose a nuclear sub like Astute, especially since the American would get ta ay then.

[@Dog.soldier1950]

Buy German

[@aymeric1192]

Il faut en construire 2 pour avoir la permanence à la mer! Ne pas refaire la même erreur qu'avec le Charles de Gaulle!

[@DK-ig8zi]

2 ça n'est pas la permanence à la mer. 2 c'est la permanence au départ. Ça veut dire qu'il y en a toujours 1 qui est soit déjà en mer soit prêt à appareiller rapidement. Pour avoir la permanence à la mer c'est entre 3 et 4 porte avion qu'il faut. Après oui effectivement c'est 2 porte avion qu'il faudrait mais quand on voit à quel point les Britanniques en sont réduits il vaut peut-être mieux en avoir qu'un pleinement opérationnel plutôt que 2 avec même pas assez d'avions pour en remplir 1 seul. Les Britanniques vont acheter 48 F35 B alors que la capacité max d'un seul de leur porte avion c'est 56.

[@tonyhawk94]

Beaucoup trop cher ce serait un désastre économique. Un porte avion doit toujours être accompagné d'une escorte donc ça demultiplie les coûts. Sachant qu'on est déjà revenu sur 8 FREMM au lieu de 15... Je préférais 2/3 FREMM en plus qu'un porte avion.

[@tonyhawk94]

@French& Scottish Explique toi. ;) Tu fais des économies d'échelles si tu en construit 2 dans la foulée, mais il va pas naviguer seul, bon courage pour lui construire un groupe aéro-naval.

[@viarroinn8544]

C’est ce qui est prévu je crois. C’est pas encore officiel, la décision n’a pas encore été prise, mais j’ai lu que c’était sérieusement envisagé

[@charptho]

Pas besoin, il nous faut juste des bases avancées non ?

[@kingrobert3260]

The fact the FCAS NGF would be able land and take off from the new aircraft carrier, is a really nice news and choice !

[@NATObait]

Not a problem building a Navalized version of FCAS it will be larger than Rafale M so obviously needs a bigger runway. A bigger aircraft carrier around 70000 tonnes probably. The sales of FCAS M will be France 30 possibly as no other country will pay for a bespoke aircraft . Or France can buy US navy jets that will be 1. Cheaper. 2. Cutting edge as USN are well funded and knowledgeable. 3. Come with constant upgrades Remember it took 15 years to build Cdgaul. Seriously Spain and Germany will veto the cost to France .

[@sanapadsense1999]

Il nous faut deux porte-avions pour qu'il y'en ai toujours au moin un en service lorsque l'autre est en entretien.

[@narwalsman8471]

Mais ca coute hyper cher

[@Klliansimabras]

@@narwalsman8471 D'abord que l'on redémarre notre économie pour ensuite construire un autre porte-avion.

[@francisfouquet332]

Tout à fait d'accord avec toi.autrefois la France en possédait 2 .Cet une question de volonté politique. Si ses politicards ne gaspillais pas notre pognon et qu'il serait bien géré nous en serions doté de 2et peut-être meme3.et bien sur il faudrait penser à un meilleure train de vie pour le peuple. Mais comme ses pourris ne pensent qu'a leurs gueule. Et leurs propres intérêts. Charles de Gaulle avait dépenser beaucoup d'argents pour que nous soyons une puissance militaire tout en essayant d'économiser chaque deniers..parce que lui aimait la FRANCE et son peuple.

[@Klliansimabras]

@@francisfouquet332 Nous n'avons pas l'économie comme les Allemands car nous avons dé-insdustrialisé en masse le pays. Nous avons presque entamer une transition économique, nous produisons de l'électricité sur le nucléaire mais malheureusement, nous avons fermer trop d'usine et en conséquence, nous n'avons pas assez d'argent pour l'armée. De plus, les citoyens seront inquiets de voir le pays se re-militarisé.

[@francisfouquet332]

Je crois qu'il vaut mieux être prévoyant.Ont n'a vue en 40 ce que sa a donner. Sur le plan industriel la faute a qui.a tout ses politicards qui n'ont fait que baisser leurs froc.et détruire notre pays.depuis la succession du général de Gaulle. Des vendus à la finance.

[@Antonov15]

Look forward to seeing her operate alongside the QEC in future

[@tonyjedioftheforest1364]

I’m glad France is taking its defence seriously, I hope more European countries do the same. The UK should build a third carrier capable of operating the Hawkeye aircraft.

[@didierlemoine6771]

yes it is a pity britsh defense depends so much on foreign tech :)

[@tonyjedioftheforest1364]

@@didierlemoine6771 not so.

[@tonyjedioftheforest1364]

@Arthur Humphreys we should as well, the Merlin crows nest seems to be second best to me.

[@XavierLeFrancais]

The French army and British army are the only ones in Europe to be capable of confront a symetrical conflict in Europe, in a limited time. In prevision of hard times to come it is urgent for France and Britain to rise the army budget to 3/3.5% of PIB/GPD. And if the Germans wake up and forget to think only about themsleves they could play a helpfull major rôle too. If those three don't work together Europe will be in great danger. Taking defence seriously means preparation to heavy conflict. That means 3/3.5% of GPD. That's not the case today. I'm glad we do the PANG carrier. But do two of them and renforce all other aspect of the armies. Hard times are to come.

[@tonyjedioftheforest1364]

@@XavierLeFrancais good points. Germany has a massive economy so should be spending more. The UK has the worlds forth largest defence budget but we don’t seem to be spending in the right places and getting value for money. We could buy a couple of Mistral carriers from France which would improve our navy immensely and also go some way to build bridges with France since our Brexit squabble. Also a third carrier with cats and traps for more versatile fixed wing aircraft.

[@spacemooseireland]

To quote Darth Vader "Impressive!"

[@udontneedtoknow6816]

The Hawkeye is a great American air craft. Glad to see the French using it and buying it.

[@stevencarrier2466]

Merci Xavier !

[@jonathan083]

Are they only planning to build just one? France deserves atleast 2.

[@zorbeclegras5708]

The Charles De Gaulle is still active for some years, and think that france don't own the budget of USA or China.

[@shioriitsuka3546]

Nice new aircraft carrier 👍

[@leonardwaga]

Vive la France from the Philippines🇵🇭

[@KazenoniKakuremi]

PANG - Porte Avion Nouvelle Generation Roughly translates next/new generation aircraft carrier

[@ces4399]

At least it’s part of the “PANG” program rather than the “PAWG” program.

[@unemusiqueunjour]

I do prefer the PAWG program

[@riche4you1975]

Very nice, seems we all need to pick up the pace if cn and ru ect decide to group up and with the current rate of build by CN.

[@6120mcghee]

French Carrier+British Carrier+U.S. Carrier=WATCH OUT RUSSIA!

[@tonyparker3527]

China not russia

[@thetrist333]

@@tonyparker3527 Both

[@didierlemoine6771]

France wont follow if it is like Irak war lies :)

[@Klliansimabras]

@@didierlemoine6771 I agree. It's USA's War, not us.

[@Abisshaq]

China is producing aircraft carriers like hot cakes. Don't be too optimistic about it.

[@timmurphy5541]

I'm so delighted that I could understand President Macron without any subtitles! :-)

[@singaporepatriots3077]

Beautiful...

[@Waywind420]

Need at least 2 of them, ideally 3. Assuming they could carry 50-60 fighters at their absolute maximum, there would be about 40 or so countries that could field similar amounts of aircraft to counter the PANG. 1 carrier sucks for availability, training and force projection.

[@lordtemplar9274]

Nice. Unfortunately we will have to wait for 2025 LPM to see if a second will be built. Many politicians are pushing for that, in contrast to post cold war laissez faire attitude that meant only 1 CDG.

[@Klliansimabras]

La LPM est là pour accueillir le programme Scorpion, le nouvel porte-avion et de nouveaux effectifs. La Guerre Froide revient peu à peu, les États-Unis qui reconstruit un bloc occident et un bloc Russe-Chine, certains de nos alliés dans l'OTAN devienne distant et un autre va même menacer nos Frégates. Plus de 6000 effectifs pour l'armée (je ne sais pas si ce sont des officiers, soldats, pilotes...). Un nouveau drone, Dassault Neuron, un nouveau chasseur (si l'Allemagne reste sage) qui est le NGF avec sons système cloud pour diriger des drones avec lui, des véhicules Griffon, Jaguar, Serval... Un nouveau fusil (qui est Allemand malheureusement)... Bref une modernisation complète et dans les prochains mois, un exercice d'une grande ampleur avec 10 000 soldats Français et en coopération des forces de l'UE en cas de conflit majeur.

[@rajnathsingh9131]

Love France from India. We r soon going to induct our Home build 2nd carrier and 2-3 year going to build a nuclear powered catapult carrier

[@marsattack3622]

Love from France to your lovely country. Be proud of it!

[@XavierLeFrancais]

Don't forget to put the right fighter on it: the Rafale M ;). Hard times to come, we will have to work more together. Cheers from France.

[@maelc8168]

Great news.

[@ericgariba3420]

*Excellent job by French Government to build 75000 Tons Nuclear power Aircraft Carrier*

[@marc9080]

Vive la France et notre marine nationale, armée de terre de l'air et de l'espace! je suis fier d'être Français en ces temps difficiles nous gardons toujours un temps d'avance, l'anticipation est vitale pour nos intérêts et notre sécurité. Et la propulsion nucléaire est sans conteste le meilleur choix pour garder notre indépendance et agir partout dans le monde très vite et très longtemps sans avoir besoin de passer par des ports pour ravitailler, seul les ravitailleurs en ont la charge et c'est tant mieux car extrêmement plus rapide et efficace en opération dans la durée, les Usa l'ont bien compris eux aussi pour leur future classe de porte avions, un détail qui fera aussi la différence et que je peux affirmer sans trahir un secret, les catapultes seront électromagnétiques pour pouvoir catapulter le SCAF qui pèsera environ 10 tonnes de plus que le rafale! un BIJOUX de technologie notre future Pang.

[@Robin_Hood911]

frace has electromagnetiques？

[@ohpatriote5622]

@@Robin_Hood911 halas no. But its from US our allied

[@Robin_Hood911]

@@ohpatriote5622 US uses alternating current, lot of problems, can't work.

[@Gridlocked]

@@Robin_Hood911 EMALS does in fact work. CVN 78 will begin its first deployment in 2023.

[@ligmasack9038]

Fun Fact: it will be able to run away faster than any previous French Ship!

[@sigma_frenchie4075]

faster than the brits at dunkirk? doubt

[@remistiegler5302]

Nobody can beat the yankees and the Brits fleeing Aghanistan in 2021

[@adsheff]

impressive looking but having only one makes it pointless

[@imranzazai7404]

Amazing.

[@nesay678]

Come on France waiting us.. Recpect Turkiye🇹🇷

[@Klliansimabras]

Waiting ?

[@piepiep2368]

@@Klliansimabras 😂

[@bo2web]

Dommage qu'il n'y en ait qu'un ! Une paire aurait apporté la permanence d’alerte, concept à distinguer de la permanence à la mer [qui nécessite trois à quatre porte-avions]. Ce deuxième PA permettrait d’être plus réactif, plus résilient, d’agir davantage dans la durée ». En plus de l'économie d'échelle réduisant [30 à 40%] du coût total. La décision de construire un deuxième porte-avions de nouvelle génération n’a pas à être prise dans le cadre de la LPM [Loi de programmation militaire, ndlr] en cours mais elle devrait l’être pour la LPM suivante [post-2025].

[@thetrist333]

Une fois qu'ils ont les plans rien n'empêche d'en construire 2. Qui sais peux être que 2ans après que le premier ai lancer sa construction ils en lancerons un deuxième

[@Klliansimabras]

@@thetrist333 La LPM a augmenté le budget des armées mais il y a déjà de nombreux programmes pour modernisé l'armée. Il faudrait couper l'aide financière aux anciennes colonies de la France comme l'Algérie ou les Comores pour avoir les moyens financier de construire un deuxième porte-avion et la flotte de défense qui va avec.

[@thetrist333]

@@Klliansimabras Et si on faisait ça qu'est ce qui se passerais après ? Toute la planète viendrais nous cracher dessus et la chine aurais alors un contrôle quasi total de l'Afrique. Non je pense qu'il y à d'autres endroits où on peux faire des économies avant de commencer par la.

[@Klliansimabras]

@@thetrist333 Comme quoi ? Les lits dans nos hôpitaux ? Oh, l'aide financière pour les familles de Délinquants, ou alors l'évasion fiscale.

[@thetrist333]

@@Klliansimabras Évidemment que non pour la première option mais les deux suivantes sont une solution. Le gouvernement pourrais aussi arrêter les dépenses inutiles déjà

[@gandigooglegandigoogle7202]

on va refaire l'erreur de n'avoir qu'un seul porte avion....on a vraiment des boulets a la tete de l'état !

[@gringologie9302]

Avec une programmation décalée on peut les construire un par un, avoir un seul retrait tous les 25ans, plutôt que deux tous les 50.

[@blueboltstrike6705]

Finally a nation state building a real aircraft carrier! This is exciting and I’m going to keep my eye on this. Full size with nuclear power you just can’t beat that equation. Relying on archaic fossil fuel technology for main propulsion just isn’t viable for a ship this big.

[@Wanderer628]

Then how has every country with a non nuclear carrier doing it then? Nuclear powered submarines are logical due to the need to stay submerged. Nuclear powered ice breakers are logical due to the possibility it could be stranded inice and away from fuel in ports. Nuclear powered Aircraft Carriers are purely for prestige and serve no use whatsoever. The rise of hypersonic missiles means that no carrier on the planet is going anywhere without a massive fleet to escort it which means that the nuclear powered aircraft carrier that can go anywhere...can't actually go anywhere and is limited to the speed and range of its conventional escorts. Not to mention all the countries that ban nuclear powered ships from their ports which limits your ability to resupply which means you have to rely on your own supply ships which are...you guessed it, not nuclear powered. Or the possibility that a strike on a nuclear powered aircraft carrier that destroys the reactor could literally wipe out the entire fleet around it and flood the survivors and ocean with radiation. Again, its purely for prestige and nothing else.

[@blueboltstrike6705]

@@Wanderer628 Those other countries are not doing it -because their carriers are not real aircraft carriers. They are much smaller than a Nimitz class or a Ford class carrier. Those smaller amphibious coastal aircraft platforms can reliably operate on fossil fuel powered engines. However something extremely complex and large and power consuming as a Nimitz class or a Ford class benefits from nuclear power. It would take a tremendous amount of fossil fuel to move a ship the size of Nimitz at carrier flight operation speeds. It has nothing to do with national prestige-It’s all about functionality and practicality all combined with efficiency and advantage. You’re just jealous because you don’t have them. That is the source of your negativity. The nuclear powered aircraft carrier can go anywhere because the US Navy has ships all over all of the oceans and also there are many naval bases with US ships. If Carrier out runs it’s escorts it meets fresh escorts. The Navy logistically staggers protection in times of emergency. The United States has supply ships all over the entire earth. There would always be a supply ship within reach if the carrier needed it. There would always be fresh re-supplied escorts to meet up with the carrier escorts and relieve them. Don’t forget that the US has over 1000 known military bases overseas. There is logistics and infrastructure all over the world that can be utilized by United States military. Basically it’s a logistical Military web that can take over the entire world by force at any moment. In fact the United States already did it without even firing a shot by establishing massive bases in other countries with the most deadly weapons on earth. Don’t forget that the nuclear powered aircraft carrier can run cables and supply power to most of the ships in it’s escort group. Nuclear reactors do not explode like atomic bombs. The reaction is not that fast and radioactive contamination is not an issue. Naval reactors shut down when damaged and they are housed in titanium and stainless steel chambers. In times of emergency the United States can use any port in the world that it wants to. If there is a serious war and you are the most powerful nation in the world, no country can stand in the way. Radiation is not a problem -you can sleep next to a reactor in a carrier and get less radiation than walking out in the sun. The US Navy has never had a radiation disaster. We tell your nation what to do.

[@johnmorris8194]

@@blueboltstrike6705 lol what a dreamer

[@blueboltstrike6705]

@@johnmorris8194 As for me I am wide awake and no the facts and the truth. It appears that you are the dreamer. We are laughing at you. Are you laughing out loud now?

[@johnmorris8194]

@@blueboltstrike6705 pmsl not real aircraft carriers ,what are those things flying off them then balloons, wind your neck in keep off wilki, and stop thinking just because you have the biggest this and that, it means you can just walk into somebodys ejse,s back garden and take the world.

[@action963]

Developing a new carrier with all the costs involved, then just building 1 is a bit ridiculous, it would make more sense to build 2 or 3 hulls. France and UK would be better building 1 single design together then mass produce it.

[@gringologie9302]

UK wanted to save her industry, France too. That's non reconciliable. They are not in a devlopment mindset, but a saving one.

[@lacombe2930]

Par contre le SCAF est mal parti...

[@bollas76]

Pointless mentioning it 18 years to be in service even without delays. CGI means nothing

[@chizz32]

Looks like a cool carrier but pretty pointless only having one. They should build 2 slightly smaller carriers

[@greycatturtle7132]

Nice

[@KazenoniKakuremi]

Those Rafale's on deck look different, its wings are more curved (trailing edge flaps)... More curved than even f-15 Anyone know the variant?

[@potatojuice5124]

No. All I know is that the version used by Marine Nationale is the Rafale-M

[@dmb27gm]

These are models of the new European aircraft "Scaf" which is still in development.

[@kal_bewe1837]

@@dmb27gm French aircraft*

[@Klliansimabras]

@@dmb27gm SCAF's fighter is lead by Dassault in corporation with Spain and Germany. We lead the project because we don't want an Eurofighter.

[@gendarrion911]

Considering the economic recession made by covid, I'm surprised this program wasn't delayed.

[@eEridani]

Programs like this create many jobs and boost the economy. But the programm didn't really start today. Most investments have already been negotiated and budgeted.

[@gendarrion911]

@@eEridani - I know they create jobs, I just figured nations will focus more to maximize the economic recovery, aircraft carriers isn't really one of them since they're ridiculously expensive to make and maintain, France is super rich anyway so I guess it doesn't really matter for them.

[@eEridani]

@@gendarrion911 Indeed. The thing with those difficult times we live in right know though, is that we can't really focus on one thing and neglect the others. I'm sure you are aware that France is facing a constant and growing threat with international terrorist groups and political islamism. We really have no choice but to move on all fronts (sanitary, social, economical, internal security and military). And yes it is very costy and it will endebt us heavily in the long term. Fortunately, we are not alone in this and being part of the EU gives possibilities.

[@corey8420]

@@gendarrion911 nor is getting invaded when you're not prepared. A country goes to war with what they have not what they wish they had.

[@Klliansimabras]

@French& Scottish Je te vois dans toutes les vidéos sur notre armée. Oui, la période de diminution du budget des armées est terminée.

[@celsochiang]

Wow... amazing! 🙏🌈🇵🇭💝❣️💖♥️🇫🇷🌈🙏😊😄🤓🌈🙏👏👌👍🌈🙏

[@vecteurtech1019]

LOL c'est moi ou y a déjà un minaret au dessus de la sale de commandement ? ^^

[@noodles169]

2038? Lot of things can happen between now and then, including advancements in technology. Economic recessions, different governments ect. I wouldn't hold your breath France

[@samsar785]

PANG is good but surprisingly has only two aircraft lift on one side🤔🤔🤔🤔.

[@davidhouseman4328]

Its only planning on running around 30 fighters, 2 seems plenty.

[@jetaddicted]

The ucavs not mentionned in the video won’t reach the deck by themselves, though.

[@XavierLeFrancais]

32 of SCAF fighter, witch are a lot bigger and heavier than the Rafale + attack drones....so yes that needs a bigger ship. the elevators will be bigger also in consequence. With two lauch pads= two elevators. You only will complicate manoeuvers on deck with more. the CDG has the same type of config and is highly effective in operations.

[@johnhemphill1938]

It is always go but to have 2 carriers, France is only building 1? Will Charles DeGaulle be the 2nd or will there be a 2nd carrier?

[@johnedwood5213]

Charles de Gaulle is already operating and is nuclear powered too. That one will be second nuclear powered aircraft carrier to be built.

[@davidhouseman4328]

Given this annoucement being large and nuclear its likely only one will be built, a direct replacement for CDG

[@paultanton4307]

TBC

[@christopherdickinson9265]

It's pretty unlikely because a. The number of additional airframes that would be required but also France just barely maintains enough trained pilots to operate CDG.

[@stephen10.]

they speak about a second carrier to lower the cost , it would be not expensive to have a second with the same design. the answer in 2025 may be if france has a good economy again.

[@mintberrycrunch6657]

We should build a complete series with the Indian Navy (which seem intent on expanding its naval aviation) to share the costs... How much of a waste was it to not develop this with the Brits, seriously... what a shame.

[@jamescpalmer]

It's true, but I think France and Britain want to support their native arms industry's equally. It makes sense from a British perspective for France also to have a strong and versatile arms industry. It always benefits Britain to have a strong French armed forces, and industry's. Ultimately it creates local jobs in both country's, and keeps expertise in both nations which going into the future is also critical.

[@nathanielmoran1819]

Delicious

[@johnbates6998]

What’s betting there are massive delays just like the Charles de Gaulle.😂

[@L30n4rdo6]

So, it seems that the age of aircraft carriers is not going to end in the foreseable future. The US is finishing the JFK, and planning the Doly Miller, Japan will retrofit the Izumo's deck to accomodate the F 35B's and the Ospreys, South Korea will built their own with some foreign assistance, China is planning to build it's 3rd carrier which will be the 1st CATOBAR nuclear powered, Russia is in the same path after the disastrous fate of the Kuznetsov, and India is having plans for a CATOBAR Carrier as Wells. Now, regarding to the new aircraft carrier for the French Navy, I have a question. How many are they going to build? In Aircraft Carrier terms, 2 means One, and one means nothing.

[@alpha5449]

UNA PARA ITALIA TAMBIEN. Cada pais europeo deberia tener 1 o 2 y dejar de depender de la defensa de EE.UU.

[@jetaddicted]

Claro

[@makky6239]

Sim

[@horacetobiasfordbodden30]

Will be ? Or is

[@davec5153]

The queen Elizabeth carriers have room to grow up to 1000 feet if they convert to cat and trap.which I think they will do with at least one of them before they buy more than the 48 f35 b's. The C varianr is basically one third better in endurance and carrying capacity.

[@ianmcsherry5254]

The design will not "grow by 1000ft", nor will either of the carriers be fitted with EMALS any time before the F-35B starts to approach the end of its service life, which is a long way away.

[@badgerattoadhall]

What is the point of building ONE aircraft carrier? You need two one operational and one in refit.

[@chandrachurniyogi8394]

Marine Nationale should opt for a fleet of two brand new PANG class 96,340 ton (105,300 ton loaded) stealth (CATOBAR) aircraft carrier powered by cutting edge bioFuelCell3® e-SMARTΔ i-HYBRId® IEP marine propulsion system . . .

[@ross8474]

Its not been made yet

[@cliffordweigand2349]

I'm hoping they carry the name over, and if the French actually think about it they could offer the Charles de Gaulle class carrier as a non nuclear powered carrier and sell them to countries like Brazil, Australia and any other's that may be interested in a medium class aircraft carrier and keep the Current Charles de Gaulle carrier as a reserve ship for home water defense and patrol while the new carrier is on operations over seas Assignment, just my 2 cents on that

[@stephen10.]

good idea. They can keep 10 more years the old CDG and to build a new one in 2035

[@makky6239]

Brazil isn't in good terms with France, but who knows about the future

[@flyingpharoah4867]

@@makky6239 Is that why they are having the French modernize their submarines?

[@jean-louisjoubert5086]

Super décision enfin ... les autres présidents précédents s’étaient tous dégonflés pour prendre cette décision... oui il en faudrait un deuxième pourquoi ne pas le construire en même temps comme on fait les britanniques récemment...

[@Fabio-om4kb]

Oui pour un 2ème mais construits l'un après lautre pour qu'il y en est toujours un pret au combat. Ca serait con qu'ils soit tout les deux en maintenances...

[@wrennn8926]

Et en construire un deuxième dans la foulée permettrait de réduire sérieusement les coûts d'études. Mais il ne faut pas oublier tout ce qui va avec : le personnel, les avions et bien entendu un PA ne se déplace pas seul, ce qui veut dire qu'il faudrait un deuxième groupe aeronaval. Enfin bon, pour espérer entendre une telle annonce on va devoir attendre la prochaine LPM en 2025.

[@onemanslight4590]

Australia should buy at least 8 of these

[@davec5153]

How big do you really need them. At most you'll have 12 aircraft in the air with enough planes for another two shifts in a day. That's 36 aircraft. 50 thousand tonnes is adequate.

[@davidhouseman4328]

Air is free and steel is cheap but space is useful. The majority of the cost isn't from the size but from the capability.

[@jetaddicted]

In addition to the 30 or so manned aircraft you must add a number of « loyal wingman » , remote carrier type drones, and the deal for the French navy is to be able to launch one 24 units strike and eight 2 units combat air patrols per day, in one of the scenarios I saw, another being fifteen 4 units strikes and no CAP, which seems hazardous to me...

[@siadwarsame2045]

Bendjamin ButtPlug this ship is actually capable to carry more than 50 RAFALE jets, but it will carry only 32 of the much larger future 5th generation French and German fighter jets.

[@Fabio-om4kb]

@@siadwarsame2045 NGF fighter 6eme gen.

[@siadwarsame2045]

Fabio 86 Yes, Thanks for correcting me about this futuristic and most capable fighter jet. I thought it was 5th generation fighter.

[@wintersoldier8215]

They better name it the Napoleon Bonaparte lol only name worthy for a ship of that caliber!

[@davidhouseman4328]

Charlemagne?

[@wintersoldier8215]

@@davidhouseman4328 .........*begins slow clap*... forgive my short sightedness 😅

[@stephen10.]

Winter Soldier Napoleon is only famous abroad but we avoid to speak about him in french history. France will never give his name for a french vessel or monument or building. Foreign poeple think perhaps that french poeple glorify Napoleon but absolutly not.

[@stephen10.]

Winter Soldier Napoleon doesn't represent France. We think that he was a few crazy. He wanted to defend france vs the europeans aristocraty but there was too much war with him. It ´s a pity that he has not been a french politician during peace time , he could do great things.

[@wintersoldier8215]

@@stephen10. that’s a shame. Or maybe just your opinion? Half the people in the states think George Washington was a savior, founding father, hero, etc. the other half now only recognizes him as a slave owner and representative of white supremacy.. so there’s two sides to every coin and forgive me if I can’t see one person speaking for a whole nation :) but I appreciate the discourse, Cheers!

[@maxelsoro6292]

Ohh my its look like Gerald r ford in next level of air power On paris france

[@mintberrycrunch6657]

it has (expensive) US tech inside seen only in Gerald R Ford class carriers, like the electromagnetic catapults. I don't know however if like the Fords, this one will do away with steam and rely on electricity only to distribute power across the ship.

[@teriyakibo2396]

@@mintberrycrunch6657 according to the info we got, it should rely on electricity only for the distribution and not anymore on the steam such as on the CDG actually

[@francinesicard464]

Enfin!

[@deanhankio6304]

dans 18 ans.. ben dis faut être patient..

[@marc9080]

notre R91 fait le boulot! pas besoin de se presser, de plus tu fabriques pas une maquette là!! il faut du temps, la France est par tradition un pays de temps long!! c'est notre histoire et elle nous donne souvent raison.

[@lamateurdaeroplanes2269]

@@marc9080 Et 2038 est la date limite, on verra certainement ce navire en essais bien avant le retrait du CdG.

[@thetrist333]

@@lamateurdaeroplanes2269 Date d'entré en service donc oui il sera fini et mis à flot bien avant ça

[@clio2rsminicup]

New? The current already is nuclear-powered !!!

[@paladin0654]

"This also means that it will be slightly heavier than the UK's Queen Elizabeth class carriers." But of course. Commissioning in 2038? Plenty of time for a new government to change/cancel/delay.

[@FirstDagger]

Case in point: Canada's F-35 acquisition.

[@Don_frl]

@ClickNSpam the queen elizabeth most likey during say a midlife refit would be modiefied to handle tempest rember the carrier is designed to serve up to 50 yrs

[@paultanton4307]

@ClickNSpam Im pretty sure there is no Requirement for the Tempest to be Carrier Compatible.

[@Don_frl]

@ClickNSpam yes but in 25 yrs 2 to 3b to allow tempest to fly of carriers would be worth it

[@ianmcsherry5254]

@ClickNSpam Tempest is being developed for the RAF. I have yet to hear of any thought being given to a naval version.

[@clansman89]

It will be named François Hollande

[@BS-vm5bt]

Hope we get a single EU millitary so that we can mass produce these carriers instead of one carrier we can build 6 of them. We could benefit a lot from standardize mass production rather then importing american weapons. Much more cost effective and makes each carrier cheaper.

[@akatheboy1071]

Going to be expensive to decommission the old one that’s the only problem with nuclear ☢️

[@Yataka]

Wow ton accent, t'es français ?

[@WojciechWachniewski-st1zm]

Hi, France. 🇨🇵!!! As a nation you plan to put your second n.p. aircraft carrier to service. Let me propose a name for her. My proposal is 'ADRIENNE BOLLAND'. If accepted, she will become namesake to first French carrier ever named after a woman, precisely: female pilot, flying over mountain ranges and not disappearing without trace. The carrier named after her would become third one in carriers' history, named after a woman (after Chakri Naruebet and the Queen Elizabeth). My alternative proposal is to name the ship just 'Alouette' - after Adrienne her nickname. With that name she would become the 'heaviest swallow' ever. 😁 ♍🇵🇱🇨🇵❤️

[@seannordeen5019]

The top part of the Carrier's island gives off a very eastern vibe. I know its just a concept diagram that is subject to change, but it looks weird when compared to the ones on all other Carrier designs, including the USS Ford. Though if you squint enough, you might see a bit of dome at the top of the island in the early USS Enterprise (CV-65) before it was replaced in a later refit, just taken to the extreme.

[@ohpatriote5622]

The top of the island is just made for french radar AESA. The SEA FIRE 500. That s all.

[@dprkcccpprc-._-._]

congratulations from Indonesia 🎉🎉

[@akomocombine3357]

A wise move France.

[@jetaddicted]

I have a few questions: Why is the bridge so far back? I understand it has to do with air operations but wouldn’t it be safer if it was the furthest away from the landing strip, on the drawing: between the elevators? This may also protect an elevator in cas of a strike at certain angles. Talking about them, why not putting one on each side of the ship, likewise for protective reasons? Finally, we have here a ship that will be roughly 50%heavier than its predecessor, carrying machines that will be much more energy consuming, the CdG has energy generation issues with the K-15, they do the job but barely (or so I have read), will a pair of K-22 be enough?

[@lordtemplar9274]

The bridge location is to facilitate air operations. Nonesense, there are no energy issues with the K15 reactor on the CDG. Each K15 produces 150MW, so 300 MW total. To give you a perspective, that is significantly more than what the new QE carrier class produce. In fact one K15 reactor produces more energy than the QE total.

[@chrisrowland1514]

Will France learn to build more than 1 ? 1 carrier is a waste of time, when it needs servicing no carrier the Charles de Gaulle spent YEARS in dock, if attacked 1 missile no carrier.

[@ruchonnen06_tv36]

All french people agree with you, we hope our government will laugh a second one in 2025...

[@shambhu10001]

VIVE LA FRANCE ..... MERCI MONSIEUR LE PRESIDENT EMMANUEL MACRON

[@xxwrattxx4450]

Even india needs 3rd aircraft carrier nuclear powered maybe india and France can jointly build it

[@BigBoomOfDoom2]

That's because they're right next door to China and their crazy ccp government.

[@ohpatriote5622]

Hope so

[@flyingpharoah4867]

Won't happen. France takes its military independence seriously

[@jean-marccousin9367]

La bonne nouvelle c'est que le futur porte avion sera comme l'actuel un beau bébé... La mauvaise c'est que la vraie Europe de la défense c'est pas pour demain...et c'est très révélateur: Pour les choses militaires ultra sérieuses , on reste dans le cercle des bons et vieux amis...

[@marsattack3622]

La vraie Europe de la Défense il faut l'oublier. La France est la seule puissance intéressée par son indépendance militaire, les autres baissent leurs pantalons aux amerlocs.

[@Klliansimabras]

@@marsattack3622 L'Europe de la Défense n'existe pas quand l'Allemagne construit avec la Russie, un tuyau de gaz qui traverse la mer, des navires de guerres polonais sont venus attaqués le navire russe qui construit ce tuyau... La division au sein de l'UE.

[@marsattack3622]

@@Klliansimabras Vous en faites que corroborer mes écrits...

[@lionelroussel7371]

La France d'abord

[@TONSBERG100]

Commissioning in 2038 ? Why so long.

[@lordtemplar9274]

That is when current Charles de Gaulle carrier will retire. The PANG is the successor

[@stephen10.]

when france will have the new stealth aircraft franco-german-spanish. The technology will improve a lot until 2035. We don't need to go faster.

[@TONSBERG100]

@@stephen10. Good point.

[@tonyparker3527]

@@stephen10. fake

[@christianjamesjalalon8828]

Is that french carrier better than us navy aircraft carrier?

[@chibani-]

We will see The new US CATOBAR cost 13 Billion of dollars to fix

[@XavierLeFrancais]

Similar in size and power I would say. US and French carrier always have been close in tech options: US and France are the only ones on the planet with nuclear carrier with CATOBAR....

[@thehillbillygamer2183]

Why don't the Friends cruise your Navy through the Taiwan strait that seems to be the thing to do these days for a NATO Ally

[@paulshafer3415]

Looks great. But sure taking a long time. Retiring CdG will give French Marine only one jet attack carrier. France historically always had at least 2 or 3 carriers in service at one time.

[@mintberrycrunch6657]

Since 2015 the French Navy is a Rafale M only operation.

[@stephen10.]

France has 5 big LHD ( landing helicopter dock) . It means we have almost 6 carriers ? kzbin.info/www/bejne/pX7dlp6spbKZm8U

[@stephen10.]

Our french LHD does amphibious missions + head quarter + hospital + troops transport + helicopter transport or tanks / trucks transport + landing forces + air defense etc ... they are multi missions . it can take 2000 civils for evacuation or to have 1000 troops for landing.

[@ryanbrewis6990]

@@stephen10. The Mistrals are not carriers. Try to land a Rafale on one and you'd be lucky to stop before going over the bow.

[@stephen10.]

@@ryanbrewis6990 right , with some transformations they could put f-35 on them may be.?

[@clavier2560]

Noël est le temps des cadeaux.... pas fou l'artiste: il sait se faire aimer des enfants...! .

[@bigarmydave]

Two, non nuclear powered carriers could be had for a similar budget. 🤔

[@chbl1881]

futur weapons on board and the emals system needs a lot of power and with the futur of anti carrier missiles, the more you can avoid to stay in a predictable straight line for refueling the better.

[@Pasdidentifiant00]

no, obviously you don't know anything about it

[@ohpatriote5622]

We dont need conventional aircraft carrer but nuclear. Less petrol more autonomy Need à lot of énergie for catapult and SCAF air plane, etc.. ..

[@lionelroussel7371]

Il en faut deux