The French use their carriers in much the same was as Britain and the U.S. Carrier battle-group composition varies with mission and the availability of assets.

Reco Antiship Supporting an amphibious attack Area airdefense for convoy Airstrike conventional or nuclear Like other aircraft carrier users. A 36 Rafale air group supported by 3 E2C is enough to crush most of air force is the world of country of Chile, Burma or Venezuela size for example.It would be better to get a second one soon (or not having delayed it for 10 years now). For bigger strike we have to get airforce. So CdG would be the mean to take an island close enough to get airforce.Or for suprise attack to destroy opponent airforce with Scalp if possible..

to answer gixxxerking's question. i'm not a specialist, but i don't see france provoking a war in the near future, unless we are attacked first. so the charles de gaulle would only be used in offensive action to help allies or under UN authority. that's the main difference today between USA and france attitude, france would never declare a war against a barely identified threat (that's not a judgment, just fact). first, because public opinion would be very pissed of and there would be A LOT of people in the street... then, because colonialism is over in france. and last, because france economy cannot sustain a non vital large scale war. SO unless mexico tries to take clipperton... charles de gaulle will remain a defensive and diplomatic tool. actually in france the army is seen as defensive, since the cold war (it was unthinkable to attack USSR, all our force was aimed at dissuasion and protection). i must insist, there is a huge difference of mind between USA and france today on "being the first to attack". That's why americans can be seen by some french as "bad people" (not ALL french). because attacking without being in "legitime defense" (don't know how to say it in english) is not seen as an honorable behaviour. afganistan was seen in france as "legitime defense". irak was not, so france did not support.

I agree . Cheers .

Another arguement why the CDG's purpose is to support allied operations is that France does not have an adequate carrier screening force. Granted, no one else has the Aegis shield, but the UK at least has a force structure for CV defense. The French have some AA optimized ships, but not enough to support independant CBG operations in modern missle shooting award.

"Granted, no one else has the Aegis shield, but the UK at least has a force structure for CV defense" CdG have medium range self defense equivalent to Aegis (32 aster 15) and this will be completed by 3 new airdefense frigate similar to Aegis and better in antimissile role (Horizon with ASTER 30) plus 17 frigates with ASTER15. (Today we have 3 airdefense frigate of older models) ASTER 30 is similar in Range to SM2. ASTER 15 is horizon sea level limit range (20 miles) and more effective than a SM2 to counter low level supersonic sea skimmer. So a pretty good shield in 2009.

"A 36 Rafale air group supported by 3 E2C is enough to crush most of air force is the world of country of Chile" You really think France could eliminate the Chilean air force with 36 Rafales alone?

Chili has only 56 fighters: old mirage/KFIR/F5E partially updated replaced for a part by some F16 in next years and no AWAC or cruise missiles. Yes a single CVN with 36 Rafale and 3E2C supplemented by 400 stealthy cruise missiles would crush it. But to have a second carrier would be better for me.

I should have written ""A 36 Rafale air group supported by 3 E2C is enough to crush most of air forceS IN the world (countries like Chile size)" Considering the technological gap between a force of 36 Rafales F2/F3(and 60/66 when we will have second carrier) supported by E2C and modern C4ISR, and a force of maybe 80 Mig29 (which countries have that) without awac and top C4ISR, (and less trained pilots), the issue is for France without a doubt.

This is of coursed based on the assumption that (1) The "Ship of the Damned" will actually be able to make it out of port without breaking down or glowing in the dark. (2) That France would, by itself, actually deploy a military force and not in conjunction with some type of coalition. Based on those two assunptions we can expect it be used in support of operations against major powers such as Sierra Leon. True it may carry about 40 modern fighters but restricitons on ship speed by its under powered nuclear plantalso restricts the aircraft operations in terms of payload/range. On the whole France waste between $2 billion and $3 billion (not including aircraft)to build a substandard nuclear carrier. (notice how the are not rushing out to build a second one). The money would have been better spent on a couple of high quality V/STOL carriers which would be more than able to deal with most enemies France might face.