Time again

CVF dosn’t need PAAMS thats why we have type 45, intrestingly know one ever suggests CVF should have self defence against subs, it would be silly to fit sonar and torpedo tubes to deter submarines but a good idea to spend a fortune on outfitting CVF with sea viper! Wonder how much that would push up costs? Subs are dealt with by merlin and type 23, air attack by type 45.
Fixwing AEW is the only way to go, that way means it can only fly of the carrier where as rotorwing can land on anything with a flight deck and is not limited to the carrier, something the RN did whey were getting 20+ harriers on an invincible, basing AEW of another platform.

Really, the beauty of Large Carriers. Is there flexibility and versatility.:diablo:

Jonesy

Hindsight is 20-20. For sure, if you were to base your decision purely on the past 20 years, then there would be no need for a fleet carrier like CdG, and only slightly more need for a strike carrier like CVF. Nor would there be any need for F-35 for that matter.

But that’s not how the world works. The whole point of a military is to prepare for contingencies. CdG was designed and ordered during the Cold War, when there was a very real risk of war with the Soviets. Moreover, like any carrier, she must serve for 30+ years, and even today there is no telling whether or not she may one day have to conduct high-intensity operations against China, Russia, or maybe even India.

The same goes for CVF. She will have to deal with future contingencies, but it seems that the RN has decided that high-intensity warfare is not going to happen. Which IMHO is a rather illogical starting point for designing an expensive carrier, and not consistent with the rest of the RN’s acquisition strategy (T-45, Astute). To be internally consistent, CVF should have:

a) A real self-defense system
b) A fighter capable of range extension (buddy refueling), and of carrying cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles (none of these capabilities seem to be in the RN’s roadmap for F-35B)
c) Fixed wing AEW

Yes, except that your STOVL strike carrier idea doesn’t have a viable airgroup until 2017 at the very least, at which point CdG will be past her mid-life point! So the austere strike carrier option was rather academic for the French…

What do you mean by viable though?. We did ALLIED FORCE with FRS1, we did PALLISER with GR7/FA2 embarked?. What requirement has there been for us to deploy anything more than those types since 1991?. This is what I was saying – up until now what operation have we undertaken that demanded a CVN embarking Fleet capable AEW?. As there have been none why be jealous of that capability in another service?. Especially when that capability has come at such a price for modest performance.

In addition, the whole point of investing vast sums of money in a carrier capability is to cover yourself for the worst case scenario: high-end warfare.

Why?. If that high end warfare is not about to happen where is the return on the investment?. A Fleet Carrier is great for sea control, but, who has a powerful blue-water fleet to oppose us?. China might be able to put something competetive out one day….probably twenty years from now. Who else has the ships and can deploy them?. Go forward 10-15 years who is starting a build up in their seapower now that will be completely in service and worked up by 2025?. You want to cover the ‘worst-case’ you go down the American route and build a dozen Nimitzes!. Not a middlin halfway-house like CdeG!.

IMHO, the idea that you should optimize your carriers for high-probability but low-importance conflicts is an example of rather muddied strategic thinking. From that perspective, a well-protected fleet carrier with fixed wing AEW and longer ranged strike aircraft is a much better insurance policy than the tactically more efficient (in terms of sortie rates) but strategically less relevant CVF.

We dont need nebulous capabilities that are ‘nice to have at any price’ the money just doesnt stretch that far. We have soldiers in combat without proper ballistic protection and vehicles scarcely fit for purpose. We need a relevant platform capable of supporting forces ashore with high-intensity, high duration, tactical airpower and to provide forward-based support infrastructure for UK Joint Helicopter Command elements. That is what we define as Carrier Strike. There is perfect clarity in purpose and design there.

IMHO, the MN’s 75 sortie target includes Hawkeyes and helos, which would leave 60-65 sorties for Rafale. With 30-32 Rafales, which I’ve shown is a reasonable upper limit in wartime, that’s 2x sorties per aircraft.

Are you certain of that?. The RN figure is quoted as tactical sorties i.e strike operations. We dont classify support operations in with the total. I didnt think the USN did either?.

The 24 Rafale figure mentioned for CdeG’s group came from an MN Captain. Nominal airgroup of 40 aircraft – 32 Rafale, 3 E-2 and choppers is as I understood it. I also understood it that the MN had had to acknowledge that the carrier would never be able to embark its maximum ‘theoretical’ airgroup as it lacked the size to safely undertake the deck reconfigurations for a group that size.

I agree with what Swerve pointed out the CVF design is a British design so if anyone wanted it they would have to talk to the UK and not the French and keeping the French out of any deal would be wise.

Scooter it would be nice to see the UK, France and India in partnership to produce a few CVF class vessels for respective navies. I however think the chances are very slim with India atm as they seem quite content to build-up the expertise to design and build their own carriers however if things don’t go well we may have a good chance of offering an almost off the shelf design. For India to join their own project would need to go off the rails and even then it would take some convincing to buy a foreign design. I would hope the UK Government would lobby hard for this to happen as it would bring some benefit to the UK industry but mainly in equipment orders such as propulsion etc although I suspect work in these areas as well as ToT would be needed.

I think that it all sounds rather too sensible and longterm and so will not happen. I also think that this is a shame.

Oh, I don’t see it taking to long. As first the UK would constructed both of its Carriers as currently planned. The French would love the work and are not currently building as Carriers for itself. Plus, the Indians are constructing the first Project 71.

In short it shouldn’t mess up any current plans.

Realistically, I don’t see it happening…………TO BAD! As it would be a good solution for all the parties involved.

Here’s an idea…………

1.) UK builds first CVF for Royal Navy.

2.) France builds the second CVF for India. To be followed by further CVFs constructed in Indian Yards.

3.) UK builds the third CVF for Royal Navy.

4.) France builds the forth CVF for the French Navy.

Note: UK and French components could be sourced for CVF #2 onward to lower costs even further.

What do you think of such a plan???

I think that it all sounds rather too sensible and longterm and so will not happen. I also think that this is a shame.

So would companies in Finland. That does not mean that Finland, the country, would be helping. The design belongs to the UK, not France. France has bought the right to use it for its own carrier, if built, but not the right to sell it to others. The ships are being built by British firms, in British yards. The work done by Thales is being done in the UK, not France, by the British arm of Thales, made up of formerly British firms taken over by Thales.

Ergo, if you want CVF, you ask the British government, which owns the design, & you’ll get a team of British people working on it, with some assistance from suppliers in other countries.

I don’t disagree with any of your remarks. Yet, France has been deeply involved with the CVF Program on various level. So, if the CVF was sold to India. (i.e. design itself or second CVF) France “could” be a partner to some degree.

Really, in my opinion the UK should consider approaching (or re-approaching) both India and France on joining the CVF Program. As the construction of at least four such ships. Could drastically lower the price. Remember, France wants a second Carrier and India wants something bigger than the Project 71’s.

Here’s an idea…………

1.) UK builds first CVF for Royal Navy.

2.) France builds the second CVF for India. To be followed by further CVFs constructed in Indian Yards.

3.) UK builds the third CVF for Royal Navy.

4.) France builds the forth CVF for the French Navy.

Note: UK and French components could be sourced for CVF #2 onward to lower costs even further.

What do you think of such a plan???

So would companies in Finland. That does not mean that Finland, the country, would be helping. The design belongs to the UK, not France. France has bought the right to use it for its own carrier, if built, but not the right to sell it to others. The ships are being built by British firms, in British yards. The work done by Thales is being done in the UK, not France, by the British arm of Thales, made up of formerly British firms taken over by Thales. This town has quite a few Thales & ex-Thales staff, BTW, & I had dinner with one on Friday. He’s never knowingly been anywhere near a Thales site in France.

Ergo, if you want CVF, you ask the British government, which owns the design, & you’ll get a team of British people working on it, with some assistance from suppliers in other countries.

Why France? The French aren’t building one.

The French Company Thales is one of several Major Companies involved in the CVF Program. As most know here France had planned on building its own version of the CVF domestically. Yet, the deal was put off for economic reasons. ($$$) That said, it may rejoin the program at some point. Further, if the CVF was marketed to India. Clearly, France would take part or should I say Companies with in France would take part.

CdG objective airgroup always has been 32 Rafale, 3 E-2C, 2 Panther, 2 NH90.

It has 4000 m3 aviation fuel (~3200 tonnes). Standard operations use 100 t/day. By doctrine they don’t want to drop below 70% aviation fuel before replenishment.
(3200 x 0.3)/100 = 9.6 days. They replenish every 7-10 days, Foch was every 3 days.
The carrier has 45 days stores endurance.
Source: AFM, July 2002

It carries 600 t ammunition (another source has a more realistic 2100 t), maximum catapult was 19500 kg (also said to be 21000 kg), the arrestor wires are rated at 15000 kg. They can recover 20 aircraft in under 12 minutes.

The requirement was 20-24 5 times/day (100-120) or 48 every 1.5 hours.

ISTR they can launch two 20 aircraft strikes/day – 4 sweep, 2 close escort, buddy tankers and strikers. The actual real world time is limited by mission preparation and planning – its one thing to launch a CAP, another to plan a mission through defended airspace with co-ordinated time on targets, etc.

90 m cats allow use of 21700 kg (although see above, CdG might have alreayd operated at 22000 kg). The new design has 5000 m3 fuel (~4000 t), launch rate is one aircraft every 30 seconds (with 2 cats)

I believe the CVF’s would also be a ideally suited to the needs of India! I wonder if the design could be sold to India and constructed locally with the aid of the UK and France?

Why France? The French aren’t building one.

I absolutely believe that CVF has been the perfect choice for the RN the only possible room for contention is if it should be STOVL or CTOL. But remember the design can easily be converted into CTOL in the future. The ship is the right size, the right man power, the right amount of flexibility and correct numbers the whole project would of been ok until the MOD started playing around with the delivery dates. Even if the F35b or the whole F35 project ends up in the bin the ship could be converted to EMALS or steam cats.

I believe the CVF’s would also be a ideally suited to the needs of India! I wonder if the design could be sold to India and constructed locally with the aid of the UK and France?

The presumption is faulty! :). A small STOVL carrier isnt sufficient as, even in modest intensity operations, sortie generation rate is the key metric…especially where the carrier deck may be the only source of available tactical airpower. Bottom line airgroup size matters!. You could make the case for multiple small STOVL carriers, but, we get into efficiency issues there!. Rather a larger, more austere, cheaper Strike Carrier would have been a more cost effective solution than a 3bn Euro CATOBAR Fleet Carrier with modest fleet-level performance.

(…) Fair comment, but, what capability has that higher spec delivered. This is my point. For the same money as we are likely to get a pair of CVF’s for – what would a pair of CdeG’s deliver?. No real speed advantage, lesser sortie rate, lower unsupported air ops sustainability offsetting the nuclear propulsion advantage. The only meaningful advantage is conferred by Hawkeye and my personal opinion there is that high endurance UAV’s will soon turn E-2 into little more than an airborne comms relay/offboard control node anyway.

Yes, except that your STOVL strike carrier idea doesn’t have a viable airgroup until 2017 at the very least, at which point CdG will be past her mid-life point! So the austere strike carrier option was rather academic for the French… 😉

In addition, the whole point of investing vast sums of money in a carrier capability is to cover yourself for the worst case scenario: high-end warfare. IMHO, the idea that you should optimize your carriers for high-probability but low-importance conflicts is an example of rather muddied strategic thinking. From that perspective, a well-protected fleet carrier with fixed wing AEW and longer ranged strike aircraft is a much better insurance policy than the tactically more efficient (in terms of sortie rates) but strategically less relevant CVF.

Again, the key metric is sortie generation rate and sustainability. I remain to be convinced that CdeG with a, say, 26 Rafale airgroup is going to get to 75 sorties per day in any sustainable sense. Even with that aircrafts impressive turn-around figures there is a serious amount of work there to generate 3 sorties per airframe, assuming all airframes serviceable, per day.

IMHO, the MN’s 75 sortie target includes Hawkeyes and helos, which would leave 60-65 sorties for Rafale. With 30-32 Rafales, which I’ve shown is a reasonable upper limit in wartime, that’s 2x sorties per aircraft.

For a narrow hull with commensurate internal volume I similarly find it difficult to believe that AVCAT bunkerage, aviation spares and air-ordnance stowage can be as extensive as that we determined we’d need a 65k ton hull to accomodate in order to sustain 75 sorties per day with a larger airgroup. Even with the availability of space otherwise taken up by ships bunkerage.

No, of course CVF has more storage space than CdG. However, not all of that extra storage space is put to use (some of it is just margin for growth, which CdG doesn’t have). And some of it (at least 5,000t) has to be used for bunkerage. The aviation facilities themselves (hangar, aviation fuel, munitions storage) appear to be within 10% of each other.

HK

Romeo/Juliette was a conventional design proposed by DCN in 2004, AFTER Chirac’s political decision in favor of conventional propulsion…..notional 55,000t conventional carrier was initially costed at 2.3B euros in 2003. Romeo/Juliette was the direct descendant of this design. However, by 2005 the cost had apparently been revised higher than CVF’s and it was ditched (i.e. >2.7B euros).

I stand corrected thankyou. I understood that the split between the two projet was propulsion – Romeo the nuclear and Juliette conventional. I see that is not the case. From what you are suggesting though little was done to progress the case of a 55k ton CVN?.

The only online source I can point you towards right now for the 29knts issue is from Richard Beedall’s site (quoted below):

Additionally, the Marine Nationale was very unhappy about the reduction in speed and subsequently sought an increase to close to the 29 knots it had originally specified for PA2. The suggested mechanism was a change from two conventional shafts to a single centre shaft plus two high output propulsion pods – a fairly significantly design change

…where he cites MOPA2 and MN sources. I do remember this being a debate from about 2006 as well though as many were disdainful of the 26knt speed for CVF until it was pointed out that a STOVL carrier has little need for real WoD!.

I smell a contradiction in your argument. CdG isn’t relevant because no one needs fleet carriers or Hawkeyes anymore, so presumably a smaller STOVL carrier is quite sufficient. But then you turn around and say that CdG is too small and modest a design, so presumably you’re arguing for a larger fleet carrier?

The presumption is faulty! :). A small STOVL carrier isnt sufficient as, even in modest intensity operations, sortie generation rate is the key metric…especially where the carrier deck may be the only source of available tactical airpower. Bottom line airgroup size matters!. You could make the case for multiple small STOVL carriers, but, we get into efficiency issues there!. Rather a larger, more austere, cheaper Strike Carrier would have been a more cost effective solution than a 3bn Euro CATOBAR Fleet Carrier with modest fleet-level performance.

On that basis, what makes CdG less relevant than CVF, and is she really too small for the low-to-medium intensity warfare you seem to expect?

Again the key metric is sortie generation rate and sustainability. I remain to be convinced that CdeG with a, say, 26 Rafale airgroup is going to get to 75 sorties per day in any sustainable sense. Even with that aircrafts impressive turn-around figures there is a serious amount of work there to generate 3 sorties per airframe, assuming all airframes serviceable, per day.

For a narrow hull with commensurate internal volume I similarly find it difficult to believe that AVCAT bunkerage, aviation spares and air-ordnance stowage can be as extensive as that we determined we’d need a 65k ton hull to accomodate in order to sustain 75 sorties per day with a larger airgroup. Even with the availability of space otherwise taken up by ships bunkerage.

As for CdG’s cost is wasn’t out of line given her being a first of class. Had 2 carriers been built, the total cost of 5b euros would be comparable to CVF UK today, despite the artificially low pound and higher specs of nuclear CTOL carriers with a high-end weapons system.

Fair comment, but, what capability has that higher spec delivered. This is my point. For the same money as we are likely to get a pair of CVF’s for – what would a pair of CdeG’s deliver?. No real speed advantage, lesser sortie rate, lower unsupported air ops sustainability offsetting the nuclear propulsion advantage. The only meaningful advantage is conferred by Hawkeye and my personal opinion there is that high endurance UAV’s will soon turn E-2 into little more than an airborne comms relay/offboard control node anyway.

Projet Juliette was an in-house design based on the extant CdeG hull. It would be reasonable to anticipate that some design pull-through from the earlier hull could be achieved. Systems integration should have cost very little at least….then we have the real killer for carrier funding…life-cycle costs these could not be anything less than dramatically lower for the Juliette vessel over CVF-FR for the reasons we’ve agreed on. If CVF-FR was being listed as a Eu2.5bn vessel just how much was DCN expecting Juliette to come in at?.

Romeo/Juliette was a conventional design proposed by DCN in 2004, AFTER Chirac’s political decision in favor of conventional propulsion. All the way up to 2003, DCN was pushing for a nuclear design, so Romeo/Juliette was really just a way for DCN to play in the conventional carrier game in case cooperation on CVF proved too difficult.

A notional 55,000t conventional carrier was initially costed at 2.3B euros in 2003. Romeo/Juliette was the direct descendant of this design. However, by 2005 the cost had apparently been revised higher than CVF’s and it was ditched (i.e. >2.7B euros).

By comparison, a sistership to CdG was costed at 1.9B euros in 2003.

26knts wasn’t sufficient to meet the MN’s requirements for CVF-FR and they were demanding 29 for understandable reasons. The displacement uplift on CVF-FR from CVF from 65k tons to 74k tons, as acknowleged by the Ministère de la Défense, was going to drop the vessels maximum speed by about a knot and a half. I’m not sure that Springsharp is accurate enough to determine that a purposefully narrow-beamed hull like CdeG would lose only a knot with an extra 15k tons of dispalcement….that is even if the hull length to beam ratio was maintained.

I’ve never heard of this 29kt requirement – do you have a source? The 2003 parliament report says that the MN had a 27kt requirement (end-of-life), and the events of 2005-2007 clearly show that the MN was willing to compromise on that as long as it got 90m catapults.

I’m not saying that it is an awful carrier per se. It does work and its a more potent multirole platform than anything else afloat that doesnt fly the stars and stripes. In fact it will still be a better Fleet Carrier than anything non-USN after the CVF’s hit the water. Problem is that whats been needed so far and going forward isnt a Fleet Carrier. There have been no Backfire regiments for Aeronavale Hawkeyes to plot intercepts on and this state is, happily, unlikely to change for the forseeable future.

The point was made, by another poster, that he was ‘jealous’ of the CVN and its capabilities. My point was that, for the 3bn euro’s without the costs of the airgroup, the CdeG hadnt really delivered all that much of relevance and was technically a modest design at best.

So, phrased slightly differently, apart from the fact its slow and a bit too small its done fine!. 🙂

I smell a contradiction in your argument. 😉 CdG isn’t relevant because no one needs fleet carriers or Hawkeyes anymore, so presumably a smaller STOVL carrier is quite sufficient. But then you turn around and say that CdG is too small and modest a design, so presumably you’re arguing for a larger fleet carrier? :confused:

IMHO, we shouldn’t get stuck up on definitions. What is relevant is that CdG meets 422 out of 426 of the MN’s requirements for PA2, therefore including presumably the sortie generation rate (IIRC, 75 per day for 1 week, similar to the much larger CVF). The 4 requirements which aren’t met are:

– Simultaneous launch & recovery –> neither CVF FR nor Romeo/Juliette offer this either
– Alpha strikes of 20 aircraft
– Aircraft recovery in sea state 6
– Ships crew under 900 (CdG: 1,200, would be reduced to 1,050 in a sistership)
(Apparently, the 90m catapults are not a requirement?)

On that basis, what makes CdG less relevant than CVF, and is she really too small for the low-to-medium intensity warfare you seem to expect? 😉

As for CdG’s cost is wasn’t out of line given her being a first of class. Had 2 carriers been built, the total cost of 5b euros would be comparable to CVF UK today, despite the artificially low pound and higher specs of nuclear CTOL carriers with a high-end weapons system.

I guess the question is, regarding the last deployment, how much room there was to spare!. SEM has a significantly smaller deck footprint than Rafale, by virtue of the wingfold, plus if you wanted to keep up 24hr coverage you would be looking to embark the third Hawkeye. I wont dispute the ultimate, practical, airgroup size with you as I haven’t done the work and I’ve never seen how MN deck handlers perform. That said I think, off a quick scan, I’d be suprised to see a 30 fastjet airwing on the ship.

We may have to wait at least 10 years before we know who’s right. 🙁

low-intensity missions have almost entirely been covered by land-based aircraft, with the exception of Afghanistan in 2002 because of land-basing issues, which is IMHO the only case where S-3Bs could have taken a large share of the burden off the shoulders of more expensive fighters.

Yes of course, why bother with expense of CBG if there’s no land-basing issues ?

I agree with your point about the CVF FR option not being signficantly cheaper than another CVN, due to the support costs. However, the acquisition costs of CVF FR were certainly cheaper, and that carried the day. Today the choice is up in the air again, and as I said many people in the MN and the French always preferred the nuclear option to CVF FR, and were willing to pay extra for it.

You are forced to query that one as well though HK. Projet Juliette was an in-house design based on the extant CdeG hull. It would be reasonable to anticipate that some design pull-through from the earlier hull could be achieved. Systems integration should have cost very little at least….then we have the real killer for carrier funding…life-cycle costs these could not be anything less than dramatically lower for the Juliette vessel over CVF-FR for the reasons we’ve agreed on. If CVF-FR was being listed as a Eu2.5bn vessel just how much was DCN expecting Juliette to come in at?.

There is no technical issue with the reactors. CVF’s speed was going to be 25kts anyway, and IMHO it’s very likely that if the CVN option is chosen the propulsion configuration will remain almost identical to CdG’s, which would still give you a speed of 26kts for a ~55,000t CVN.

Hmmm slightly misleading facts there though. 26knts wasn’t sufficient to meet the MN’s requirements for CVF-FR and they were demanding 29 for understandable reasons. The displacement uplift on CVF-FR from CVF from 65k tons to 74k tons, as acknowleged by the Ministère de la Défense, was going to drop the vessels maximum speed by about a knot and a half. I’m not sure that Springsharp is accurate enough to determine that a purposefully narrow-beamed hull like CdeG would lose only a knot with an extra 15k tons of dispalcement….that is even if the hull length to beam ratio was maintained.

I’m not sure what your point is. Are you saying that CdG is an awful carrier? Or are you saying that it’s less effective than a 55,000t+ carrier?

I’m saying that its a compromised design no more no less. You liken it elsewhere on this thread to Tornado ADV…a flawed but generally workable design. I’d agree with that save for one major issue. ADV was built as a compromise design from the outset intended to save money for us by turning an existing design into something new. Charles de Gaulle cost 3bn Euro’s and was designed for purpose from scratch.

I’m not saying that it is an awful carrier per se. It does work and its a more potent multirole platform than anything else afloat that doesnt fly the stars and stripes. In fact it will still be a better Fleet Carrier than anything non-USN after the CVF’s hit the water. Problem is that whats been needed so far and going forward isnt a Fleet Carrier. There have been no Backfire regiments for Aeronavale Hawkeyes to plot intercepts on and this state is, happily, unlikely to change for the forseeable future.

The point was made, by another poster, that he was ‘jealous’ of the CVN and its capabilities. My point was that, for the 3bn euro’s without the costs of the airgroup, the CdeG hadnt really delivered all that much of relevance and was technically a modest design at best.

The fact is that aside from the propulsion problems CdG has performed quite well within the constraints of its size

So, phrased slightly differently, apart from the fact its slow and a bit too small its done fine!. 🙂

However, I have noticed that French parliamentary reports stated even quite recently (in 2003) that CdG can carry about 32 Rafales, so that would tend to confirm that the 24 number was more fiction than fact (possibly it’s a peacetime limit). CdG’s airgroup has been slowly building up over the years (the last deployment was 12 Rafale, 16 SEM, 2 Hawkeyes plus helos, with room to spare), and IMHO we won’t see maximum sortie rates until SEMs are retired around 2015, since a one type airgroup will enable significant efficiencies in terms of sortie planning and hangar operations.

I guess the question is, regarding the last deployment, how much room there was to spare!. SEM has a significantly smaller deck footprint than Rafale, by virtue of the wingfold, plus if you wanted to keep up 24hr coverage you would be looking to embark the third Hawkeye. I wont dispute the ultimate, practical, airgroup size with you as I haven’t done the work and I’ve never seen how MN deck handlers perform. That said I think, off a quick scan, I’d be suprised to see a 30 fastjet airwing on the ship.

Swerve,

Would it be practical to install more reactors in a larger carrier, & thereby achieve the required power level to propel it faster?

I’ve read that they looked at this for the Project Romeo design and rejected it – HK seems to suggest that may have been for political reasons though?. Regardless of those considerations adding extra reactors will take up a lot of space, even in an enlarged hull, as you are adding not only the reactor vessels/shielding but the heat exchangers, turbines, gearboxes and associated plumbing. Then you have to ensure there is access for refueling etc, etc. Not impossible by any means, but, damned awkward.

Sorry I got confused. I was talking about fitting nuclear propulsion to the CVF-Fr concept which has a much larger hull. I thought the French wanted a much larger ship compared to the heavily compromised CdG.

The propulsion is quite a fundamental part of the design concept. In the case of CVF even more so given that I understand the GT are located in the sponson under the islands to allow for exhaust flow. Not a place you could put nuclear reactors.

CVF’s propulsion is ~95,000shp (80MW electrical input) with a sub-optimal hull form (due to block construction), giving 26.3kts clean.

CdG’s propulsion is 83,000shp (61MW output), giving 26.7kts clean.

CdG’s propulsion on a 55,000t enlarged CdG would lead to a speed about 1kt lower (using Springsharp – www.springsharp.com), though new silicon anti-fouling would more than make up for this (2-3kts improvement on Ark Royal and Principe de Asturias).

Sorry I got confused. I was talking about fitting nuclear propulsion to the CVF-Fr concept which has a much larger hull. I thought the French wanted a much larger ship compared to the heavily compromised CdG.