France select nuke propulsion option [F-35B] future aircraft

IF ONE READS THIS POST AT END AN OPTION TO MAKE F-35B [others] LANDING SPOTS for the NEW CARRIER IS NOTED.

France selects nuclear propulsion option for future aircraft carrier
10 Dec 2020 Emmanuel Huberdeau

"French president Emmanuel Macron has confirmed that the country’s next-generation aircraft carrier will be nuclear powered. The projected new carrier, known as Porte-Avions de Nouvelle Génération (PANG), is planned to replace the French Navy’s current carrier FS Charles de Gaulle in about 2038....

...With a full load displacement of about 75,000 tonnes, an overall length of 300 m, and an 80 m beam, the new carrier will be significantly larger than Charles de Gaulle , which displaces 43,182 tonnes and has a length of 260 m. The new carrier will have a crew complement of 2,000, including personnel from the air wing.

PANG will be designed to accommodate about 30 fighters in addition to an undisclosed number of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), airborne early warning and control aircraft, and helicopters. It will be able to operate the Next Generation Fighter (NGF) being developed under the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) programme by France, Germany, and Spain. The maximum take-off weight of the future aircraft is expected to be about 30 tonnes.

Minister for the Armed Forces Florence Parly said that an option to operate a multinational air group is being studied. A French parliamentary report published in October revealed that vertical landing spots adapted to the F-35B are also under consideration."

Graphic: "Computer-generated imagery of the French Navy’s next-generation aircraft carrier. (Naval Group)" https://www.janes.com/images/default-so ... i-9451.jpg
&
http://www.navyrecognition.com/images/s ... 25_001.jpg

Source: https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... ft-carrier

In the Dec 21 issue of AV Week they are claiming that the:

"FCAS NGF WILL BE SIMILAR IN SIZE TO THE A-5 VIGILANTE"

The claim 30 metric tons which is F-14/15/22 weight as well. AVW said this is why the new carrier will be the size that it is. I read an article claiming the the F-18E/F cannot launch at max weight, on the Charles De Gaul, do to the cat limits. The are a derivative of the US Cats but are shorter. They could explain the larger size.

Anyone have any more information on this? I did not realize that the FCAS was going to be the size and weight that it is claimed to be.

In the Dec 21 issue of AV Week they are claiming that the:

"FCAS NGF WILL BE SIMILAR IN SIZE TO THE A-5 VIGILANTE"

The claim 30 metric tons which is F-14/15/22 weight as well. AVW said this is why the new carrier will be the size that it is. I read an article claiming the the F-18E/F cannot launch at max weight, on the Charles De Gaul, do to the cat limits. The are a derivative of the US Cats but are shorter. They could explain the larger size.

Anyone have any more information on this? I did not realize that the FCAS was going to be the size and weight that it is claimed to be.

QUOTE: With a 18m (59ft) fuselage and a 14m (46ft) wingspan, the NGF will be far larger than both Rafale and Typhoon, allowing longer range operations and internal weapon carriage. Despite the aircraft large dimensions, efforts were made to keep it as thin as possible in order to reduce drag at high speed.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -carriers/

PCA, NGAD, the French bird... fighters continue to get bigger and bigger. It's being driven by the need to carry more fuel, bigger radars and weapons longer and longer distances.

So unless there's some type of breakthrough in fuel efficiency of these next gen engines, this is the way its going to be. The F-35 was an anomoly, meaning it has a smaller airframe but somehow they figured out how to pack around 18,000lbs of fuel into something the size of an F-16/F-18C,

PCA, NGAD, the French bird... fighters continue to get bigger and bigger. It's being driven by the need to carry more fuel, bigger radars and weapons longer and longer distances.

So unless there's some type of breakthrough in fuel efficiency of these next gen engines, this is the way its going to be. The F-35 was an anomoly, meaning it has a smaller airframe but somehow they figured out how to pack around 18,000lbs of fuel into something the size of an F-16/F-18C,

Indeed. Some of the last rafale missions were made at very long range. Remember the mission over Syria in 2018 made from France. Remember how rafale were delivered in India with zero or only one stop. And even the nuclear mission have to be done at a very long range without using asset like AWACS or Tanker.

With rafale the balance was done to have a medium range and the result was sufficient until now. But Russian are not anymore the opponent. It is China and we have very important places in Indian Ocean and in the pacific ocean witch can be threaten by China. We have to be able to threaten China from France.

In the Dec 21 issue of AV Week they are claiming that the:
"FCAS NGF WILL BE SIMILAR IN SIZE TO THE A-5 VIGILANTE"
The claim 30 metric tons which is F-14/15/22 weight as well. AVW said this is why the new carrier will be the size that it is. I read an article claiming the the F-18E/F cannot launch at max weight, on the Charles De Gaul, do to the cat limits. The are a derivative of the US Cats but are shorter. They [THAT?] could explain the larger size.
Anyone have any more information on this? I did not realize that the FCAS was going to be the size and weight that it is claimed to be.

I would have to look up again why the Super Hornet cannot operate/catapult at Maximum Weight from Charles De Gaulle.

There are several factors to consider about operating Naval Aircraft from Aircraft Carriers. These illustrations from the dim past may help explain that it is NOT just the catapult length or perhaps the power of the catapult but ALSO the A/C.

HMAS Melbourne had a short 90-95 foot catapult (depends upon how length measured) with sufficient power to launch the Sea Venom at maximum weight but with sufficient WoD Wind over the Deck. However in the South China Sea in NIL wind at high temperatures there the aircraft could not be catapulted at all because of the transverse G limits of the airframe.

The A4G Skyhawk with a slightly lengthened catapult by five to ten feet (otherwise the same) could launch at Maximum Allowed Weight of some 24+ thousand pounds IIRC in the same conditions (Venom much lighter weight). The key to note is that the A-4 Skyhawk was built to withstand a 9G transverse steam catapulting; whereas the Venom was not. Usually the A4G was launched at around 6G for a less than two second punch down the cat track.

Another consideration not only about the effect on the aircraft at launch but on arrest; and then the effect on the arrest equipment; and then on the carrier deck itself. All these equations will be figured out for any aircraft to operate - OR NOT - from any existing aircraft carrier. With a NEW carrier design along with any NEW naval aircraft design there is a chance to get the maximum benefit from all the new equipment/airframe - EMALS & AAG spring to mind but whatever.

Aircraft approach speed/Angle of attack at Max Arrest Weight will be a consideration not only for arrest equipment also.

There would be other limits about size of hangars; lifts; landing area width/length (for bolters - avoiding the IFLOLS). For the HOOmanBEing in the all alloominum death tube on carrier approach I would suggest that they would like a view of said approach that made sense to them, perhaps like monkeys they could be trained to allow the organ grinder to do it like the former X-47B did so well & the new MQ-25 Stingray will emulate. Later the F-35C will do it with JPALS perchance.

Please note this thread is really about the Vertical Landing Spots for VL aircraft (namely the F-35B probably from other nations such as the UK) in an effort for joint operations. IIRC the French/UK have an agreement for such carrier ops. Of course the USMC F-35B will figure in these joint operations most likely - AND perhaps the F-35C of both USN & USMC.

It would be nice IF 'h-bomb' could indicate location of article claiming Super Hornet cannot be catapulted by CdeG etc.....

Meanwhile two links about CdeG details: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=27034&p=287223&hilit=angled#p287223 THEN: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=27034&p=286511&hilit=angled#p286511

CdeG bow catapult pic from this artickle: https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 94.article JPG: https://d1a2ot8agkqe8w.cloudfront.net/w ... _77658.jpg

CdG C13 cats have a launch limit of ~27 tons. Super Hornets MTOW is ~30 tons.

https://www.technology.org/2019/06/03/h ... well-very/

The key words are "at max weight"

Nice find thanks da 'weasel1962'.

F/A-18E/F CATAPULT MINIMUM END AIRSPEED TESTING
Dec 2002 Michael M. Wallace

"Abstract
The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is the result of major upgrades to previous series of F/A-18 Hornet aircraft (F/A-18A/B/C/D). These upgrades resulted in an airplane requiring a complete Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase. Catapult minimum end airspeed tests took place near the end of the three and a half year EMD program to provide data for the Aircraft Launch Bulletin for Operational Evaluation and fleet operations. The tests had occurred on average only every six years for any type of aircraft and 10-15 years for the same model of aircraft in the last 30 years.

The objective of this thesis was to document, for future testers and other interested parties, the issues, preparation, method, and results of the F/A-18E/F catapult minimum end airspeed flight tests. The tests occurred during Follow-On Sea Trials aboard the USS HARRY S. TRUMAN (CVN 75) between March 3 and 12, 1999. Seventeen launches were conducted with aircraft F1 and F2 in FULL flaps configuration at four gross weights, two in full non-afterburner thrust and two in full afterburner thrust.

Results showed that the F/A-18E/F met the Specification for launch from the decks of existing U.S. Navy aircraft carriers. The non-afterburner launches above 58,000 pounds were limited by longitudinal acceleration. The afterburner launches up to the maximum gross weight of 66,000 pounds were limited by 10 feet sink-off-of-the-bow. The opinions, analysis and conclusions expressed in this thesis are solely those of the author and have not been officially approved by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command, or The Boeing Company."

"Table 1. General F/A-18E/F Specifications
Specification --------------------------Data
Maximum Allowable
Carrier or Field
Takeoff Weight ---------------------66,000 lb"

Source: http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcont ... k_gradthes (PDF 3.5Mb)

OLD Sep 2008 Super Hornet F/A-18EF NATOPS: https://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-EF-000.pdf (19Mb)

"...8.2.7.2 Catapult Endspeed Requirements.
Catapult endspeeds are established to provide safe flyaway during normal launch conditions and to allow the pilot to maintain aircraft control in the event of a single engine failure. The catapult endspeeds are not based on single engine rate of climb (SEROC) capability, nor do they guarantee single engine flyaway performance. The minimum endspeed requirement is calculated to provide sufficient airspeed and altitude to maintain aircraft control while executing emergency catapult flyaway procedures.

F/A-18E/F minimum catapult launch endspeeds are governed by three limiting factors: Flaps FULL minimum single engine control speed (Vmc), maximum longitudinal acceleration capability, and sink-off-bow. Vmc is the airspeed below which the aircraft is not controllable with a single engine failure. The Vmc airspeed governs the endspeed for most of the gross weight range in both MIL and MAX power (up to 60K MIL and 65K MAX, see figure 8-1, Table B). Vmc is also a function of lateral weight asymmetry; therefore, endspeed must be increased for asymmetric loadings (see figure 8-1, Table C). The catapult endspeed above 60K in MIL is governed by aircraft longitudinal acceleration capability which limits maximum gross weight for MIL power launches (see figure 8-1, Table A). Endspeeds above 65K in MAX are governed by the aircraft CG 10 foot sink-off-bow limit. Actual catapult endspeeds in the Aircraft Launching Bulletins are computed to launch at the minimum endspeed plus 15 knots (Vmin +15) (figure 8-1, Table B and C). FULL flap launches are required to meet wind-over-deck requirements at heavy gross weights. HALF flap launches have not been tested, and would increase launch wind-over-deck by approximately 10 knots...."

I'm skeptical that there's actually a weight limit on the C-13-3s since the much older and shorter
US catapults could toss > 70,000 lbs.

It may be the case that CdG can't generate sufficient WoD to make up the difference.

CdeG is a NUKE POWered Aircraft Carrier is a realistic top speed known? In usual operating area there is likely some wind and cool to warm temperatures. Tropical NIL wind conditions test any aircraft carrier. It still would be nice to see the UNQUOTED ARTICLE unREFERENCED in 2nd post. I hope youse all can see making a blanket statement about a Super Hornet catapulting takes qualifying sentences, else one can discount the claim. There are many variables - n'est-ce pas?

Charles De Gaulle: “...The main deck consists of a main runway angled at 8.5° to the ship's axis & an aircraft launch area forward of the island. These are each equipped with a USN Type C13[-3] catapult, capable of launching one aircraft a minute. The runway is 195m long & the whole deck measures 260m x 64m.

Propulsion & power plant:
The Charles De Gaulle is equipped with two nuclear pressure water reactors, PWR Type K15, which provide a speed of 27kt....” [likely higher but] http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/gaulle/

OLDER & SHORTER USN Catapults likely had different technology under the hood for a rough ride at beginning but that is only a guess from me. There is a graphic in this forum showing the USN steam catapult capacities down through the ages.

C-13 Catapult USN History FROM: https://www.navysite.de/cvn/flightdeck.htm & 'All 3 Dead' anchor cat graphic is from:
http://nanarchive.omnitecinc.com/19601969.aspx

From an USN LSO Steam Catapult Brief four relevant PDF pages are attached below. Graphic is one of these PDF pages.

I'm assuming that's the C-13 catapult.

For the older C-7 catapult, the F/A-18E needed WOD of 29.9 knots at MAXTOGW.

F/A-18E/F Catapult Minimum End Airspeed Testing [entire PDF attached below]
Dec 2002 Michael M. Wallace University of Tennessee - Knoxville

Figure 1. Typical Airplane Launch Conditions
Source: Carrier Suitability Testing Manual. SA FTM-01. Patuxent River, Maryland: Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Naval Strike Aircraft Test Squadron, November 1993, pp. 5-24.

"...Conclusions Specification Compliance
During post flight analysis, the flight test data was reviewed and corrected from test day conditions to tropic day conditions for specification compliance purposes. The WOD requirement was computed using known C7 catapult performance.

The F/A-18E/F met the specification requirement of less than 30 knots of of WOD at maximum gross weight of 66,000 lb. for C7 catapult (no longer in use on any operational carrier) with a 2 knot margin. The WOD for C13-1 catapult launch at maximum gross weight was 19 knots. The MAX power launch bulletin was derived based on demonstrated catapult minimum end airspeeds due to sink-off-the-bow. The MIL thrust launch bulletin was developed based on test day launch data based on the acceleration limited 0.065 static a/g condition (Niewald, et al, 1999)...."

Source: https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcon ... k_gradthes (3.6Mb PDF)