The aircraft carrier has figured largely in the French presidential campaign. This is something that should be welcomed in principle, for numerous commentators have expressed regret over the lack of discussion of strategic issues in a debate that is going to affect the nation’s future. The second aircraft carrier is one of those strategic issues but it remains to be seen whether the terms of the debate are right or not.

In the first place, up to now the question has been discussed mainly from the budgetary point of view, with much denunciation of the exorbitant cost of such a vessel. Cost is an important argument but it should be seen in relation to the advantages that France and, by extension, Europe will gain from possessing such a capacity. The aircraft carrier remains the preferred instrument of power projection and is one of the essential elements needed for control of the seas and deep strike. In this it is both a symbol and an instrument of power.

A Symbol

Other than the United States, France is the sole country to possess a truly modern operational aircraft carrier. Russia has one, the Kuznetsov, but is spends very little time at sea and has no operational air group. Other countries (India, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom) have carriers with helicopters and STOL aircraft with a limited operational range embarked, yet have no capability for long-range strike. Throughout more than 20 years of use, the inadequacies of this type of vessel have been demonstrated enough for the United Kingdom to have decided to go back to ‘real’ aircraft carriers. Two CVFs are currently under development for a programme that is ready to be launched. At a time when France’s economic weight in Europe and in the world is decreasing, who would dare deny that the possession of a modern aircraft carrier with flawless conventional and nuclear strike capabilities is one of the advantages that justifies France having a permanent seat on the UN Security Council?