IMFO
Obviously, this comparison between the Queen Elizabeth and Charles de Gaulle has to happen in an alternate universe; given how history played out in the last couple of decades. No I am not talking about the history of Anglo-French wars, I am talking about how well funded UK’s armed forces are. Major cuts and funding issues have relegated the UK’s 2 carriers to not having enough escorts and not having enough jets. But let us assume, the HMS Queen Elizabeth and F-35B programs were well funded, and she as in the QE would have been a force to reckon with.
Why am I comparing these two carriers? Well, I was involved in a debate on Twitter and realized that these two ships have very similar base costs. The Charles de Gaulle costed about $6 billion when adjusted for inflation and a single Queen Elizabeth costed around $5.5 billion. The QE being 50% larger, is cheaper overall than the CDG, and you wonder why. Its because of a few critical but costly systems that the CDG uses that causes higher costs.
First of all, the CDG is nuclear powered, housing two 150 MWt nuclear reactors which provide her with unlimited nautical miles until the cores have lost enougn reactivity, for the CDG it is between 7 and 10 years, going by Wikipedia’s nuclear refuelling dates. The cost of catapults and all the associated gear also gets added on. Usage of shorter variant of US Navy’s Mk 13 catapults has both pros and cons. The advantage being that the French navy can either buy US navy certified aircraft for its fleet, like the E-2 Hawkeye, or easily cross deck with US Navy carriers. In the past Rafale and French E-2s have spent time on US Navy’s carriers, while Super Hornets and C-2s have operated from the CDG. The con being that since the catapult itself is shorter, the payload off the flight deck will be lower if all other conditions are equal.
On the QE side, she is powered more traditionally, by 2 MT-30 Rolls Royce turbines and 4 diesels powering an integrated propulsion grid. This allows the ship to minimize the number of engines needed for a particular load. She is also a far simpler STOVL carrier, featuring a ski-jump instead of intricate catapults to help aircraft launch from her. Aircraft land vertically, as she also doesnt have arresting gear cables. These two things allows her to be cheaper than the CDG while being 50% larger. But then, there are disadvantages to the STOVL design. Maximum payload off the deck is lower, and bring back payload is even lower. The aircraft are more complex and costly to fly by themselves thanks to the need to land vertically. Last but not the least, dedicated fixed wing AEWACs like the E-2 and tankers like the upcoming MQ-25 or the current tanker Hornets cannot fly off the carrier.
This brings us to a perfect segue to what aircraft do these carriers fly. On one hand, we have one of the best 4th generation fighter, the Rafale, flying off the CDG. She also carries 2 E-2 Hawkeyes alongside ASW and SAR helicopters. On the British side, we have the 5th gen F-35B, and if the program was well funded, it would already have the Meteor air to air missile used by the Rafale. In the future, the F-35B will also get the longer ranged AIM-120 variants being tested and the even longer ranged AIM-260. The F-35B is hands down a better fighter than the Rafale. Since both of these aircraft also have land base, by looking at Rafale vs F-35 sales in the last few years, it becomes pretty clear. Only countries that cannot buy F-35s are buying Rafale. Obviously, France can buy them but will not, to fund its own 5th gen program and Greece is buying F-35s as well.
Then there is the sortie rate, basically how many aircraft that can be launched or recovered in a 24 hour period. The Queen Elizabeth is 50% larger and can do about 110 for 36 jets. Based on US Navy’s carrier displacement vs sortie rate studies, the Charles de Gaulle can only do between 50 and 55. This gives an edge to the QE, as it can launch more aircraft to keep an eye on whats happening around it. If it has to put together a quick strike package, it can do it faster due to the higher sortie rate. Similarly it can send more fighters in the air quickly to defend against an incoming enemy strike package.
Now to the crux of the matter. She is 1.5x the size of the CDG and has a much larger embarked airwing. In war time, she can carry upto 50 F-35Bs (war time full load is 72 aircraft, with sources claiming between 36 and 60 F-35B off which 24 in the hangar and rest on deck, we will go with 50) alongside Crowsnest equipped Merlin helicopters that act as AEWACs. Yes, the CDG can carry the much more capable E-2 fixed wing AEWACs, but she can only carry only 30 Rafale at the most. So the Queen Elizabeth carries 1.6x better fighters overall, which could have the same air to air missile as the Rafale (the Meteor) or even better AIM-120 and AIM-260 variants in the future. Twenty extra fighters on the QE more than make up for the long range detection capabilities of the E-2 using their numbers, capabilities and most importantly stealth. The F-35Bs will be taking BVR shots at the Rafale, long before Rafales can detect the Lightning 2s. Or the Lightning 2s will drop their anti-ship missiles long before they are detected by Rafales or E-2 on combat patrol. If the QE’s air wing sees a strike incoming, it will be able to react faster and get more fighters up in the air in the same amount of time as the CDG. Hence, in this comparison, I think the Queen Elizabeth class was a great purchase, especially compared to the French Charles de Gaulle.
Though the F-35B cannot carry JASSM internally, the Brits plan on integrating the Spear 3, but as with all things British, it is delayed due to a lack of funds. JASSM and LRASM can only be carried externally and the British dont have it. Obviously, I had to assume it was available for the Brits.
COMMENTS
What "comparison"? CdeG does at least have advantages of the French having remained determined to retain CATOBAR capability and to provide their single small carrier with a full airwing. Yet on EVERY other current count and ALL potential future ones, including planned reconfiguration for hybrid STOVL/CATOBAR operation, each Queen Elizabeth Class ship is just immeasurably more capable. & in fact, at 80,000 tonnes f.l.d. will also still be as capable as France's PA/NG replacement for CdeG too.
well, it has to be the French, just down to the number of planes, the UK carrier has at most 17 fighters available, and that is the F35B which is the poorest in performance and most costly of the f35 versions, with the standard load of the UK carrier is 36 but the maximum of around 80 possible. both carriers are operational from 2019 and we still only have 17 fighters available. to top that these fighters are not receiving any updates other than minor upgrades, both A+C versions are on block 4 release and have better stealth, range, speed, weapon loadout, weapon weight limits, and a huge improvement in avionics and cost less. ho and the f35c is the carrier version
"As with all things British, it was delayed due to a lack of funds!" .. Yes, embarrassing, eh? Nor does it matter which of our armed services is the victim or which political party's in office. Our whole Metro-establishment of politicians and bureaucrats are incompetent, virtue signalling mediocrities, anyway. It'd be less absurd if our economy was smaller than France's, but nominal measure GDP shows the UK economy is quite a bit bigger! Forecast at $3.73tn this yr vs France's $3.28tn.
The Queen Elizabeth class is ultra modern, and over 80,000 tonnes full load. It also operates 5th.Gen. Stealth fighters.
At 40,000 tonnes and 216 metres long they will be second only to Royal navy's Super carriers in length and displacement, more than 34 metres wide, with a capacity for 9,000 square metres of stores that’s almost the size of a football pitch. In November 2022 it was announced that Team Resolute BMT, Harland and Wolff & Navantia had been selected to build the ships with the start of construction anticipated in 2025.
Construction
The FFC will be designed and constructed by MO Porte-Avions, a joint venture comprising Naval Group (65%) and Chantiers de l’Atlantique (35%). This consortium is responsible for overall program management under the government’s Direction Générale de l’Armement (DGA), with the Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) overseeing TechnicAtome producing the nuclear reactors.
The ship will be constructed at the Chantiers de l’Atlantique shipyard in Saint Nazaire. This yard is used to constructing very large vessels including cruise ships over 200,000 tonnes but an aircraft carrier will present a far greater level of complexity. On completion, the ship will be fitted with temporary diesel generators to provide power to the motors for the passage to Toulon, where the fuelling of the nuclear cores and commissioning of the reactor will take place.
Since the arrival of CDG, the MN has always recognised the limitations of a single ship and has aspired to procure a second vessel. The Porte-Avions 2 (PA2) project was initiated in 2003 using the QEC design as the basis for a CATOBAR carrier but the project was suspended in 2009 and cancelled in 2013. Essentially by selecting a ‘gold standard’ conventional-launch, nuclear-powered vessel, in the CDG France possesses a first-rank carrier but cannot afford another ship and is therefore hampered by part-time availability. Given that the FFC will be even more expensive, a second ship of this class is also unlikely.
Aircraft carrier construction is a complex business. The De Gaulle, the QEC carriers and the USS Gerald R Ford all suffered significant technical problems at the outset of their careers that delayed their entry into service. The ambition of the MN to acquire such a powerful ship is admirable but whether this can be delivered by 2038 as planned is questionable. The world could look very different by the 2040s but the FFC should give France (and NATO) a very powerful naval power projection platform intended to last into the 2080s.
I inform you that all posts are from a reliable source from Wikipedia or from the official website,
Download mobile app
Bringing car buyers and enthusiasts automotive news coverage with high-res images and video from car shows and reveals around the world.
ShortsCars
Posts
