Maintenance, salt-water exposure, complex interacting systems, and human error can all remove Charles de Gaulle from service when it is wanted. The central criticism concerns the government's decision to buy only one carrier. If a force of three still lacked a ready hull, that would raise a different question about how its programmes were managed. When Charles de Gaulle is available, France can assemble a capable group around it and demonstrate its reach. One counterfactual pairs a Queen Elizabeth-derived conventional carrier with the later nuclear successor to cover each other's absences, while acknowledging that two ships of the same type would probably be more sensible. The open question is whether nuclear propulsion adds enough capability or status to justify its cost against a conventional gas-powered alternative.
Notable Point · 56:47-1:00:05
Carrier availability and the choice of a successor force
A capable carrier can still leave France without a deployable equivalent, so the successor debate concerns both propulsion and the number of ships funded.