France Shocked The World With Its New Gigantic Nuclear Supercarrier
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 10. 2022
- France already has one aircraft carrier in service, and a nuclear propulsion system. Recall that only the United States has aircraft carriers of this type. Neither Britain, Italy, India, nor South Korea has such aircraft carriers. Even China does not have them. And Russia, with its antediluvian aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov," launched back in 1985, having as the engine 12 steam boilers, is stuck firmly in the past century.
- Věda a technologie
the French have very good engineers, their creations are always of good quality thanks to very advanced technology. I can't wait to see this aircraft carrier!
F:Fearless
R:Resistance
A:Against
N:Nazis
C:Communists
E:Englishmen
France has been a smaller style superpower for centuries. If you factor in how big their country is and their population I’d say they do pretty well for themselves in terms of projecting their military power and strength. They’ve always been good allies of ours so here’s to you France.
Yeah and they helped keep the brits at bay.
France has been a major superpower until WW1.
It had the second biggest world empire just behind UK.
France merly wishes to keep friendly competition on all fronts with America for the good of both nations a little healthy competition and cooperation never hurt anyone, also France wants America to see it a a solid back bone ally in all theaters, someone they can count on when it matters, while it wants to remain strategically independent from the US so we can have afford to have different political opinions with honesty, a nation that’s scared the US will pull their protection from them will never be able to tell it to the US like it is, it tends to get French view as arrogant, but mostly it’s for the benefit of both nations, as France will always ally with America no matter as it sees American as its ideological descendants. The French want to be perceived as self sufficient for thier sieze and capable reliable Allies. 😊
@Joe Ropaio
Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, The Netherlands, Switzerland never were at war with the United States neither.
@Joe Ropaio
And technically, no Warsaw-pact-country was at war with the US either.
*VIVE LA FRANCE !!!*
More like this one soon, please.
Very interesting. I know what it is to do a YT channel, so thanks for all your hard work.
Its a wise move to build a few but I would keep the older ones ready to role when needed and still would use them
Yes besides, France has the widest ocean territory in the world, so it is a shame (I am French) that we don't have more boats to patrol on it ! For some maths, the number of surveillance boats on the ocean are we have is the same as having 2 police cars for the entire France continental territory
@@rickross5421 suggested: numerous offshore patrol vessels stationed in noumea, papeete, wallis/futuna, reunion divvied between police, customs, coast guard and navy, backed up by a force of corvettes.
Viva La France. Nice to see our allies have great new toys.
He's expecting a 100 year anniversary world war?! Wow.
France is the only country in the world with the US that is able to build a nuclear aircraft carrier.
I like how they keep showing it with the island on the port side.
🤗
The Russian Carrier is still in dry dock from catching fire the last time it attempted to deploy....LOL
I think the carrier is called the Admiral Clunkerdunk.
Im waiting for a drone carrier, just think way smaller way less crew, faster, and able to bring air power to field quicker - would make a great support roll/force multiplier.
Just one big aircraft with mini aircraft inside? That would be really cool.
Yes but then it would be more vulnerable to the cyber warfare,
So to state the obvious you’re talking about a CREWED carrier for only drone aircraft or at least mostly drone aircraft . And the assumption that it could be smaller and have fewer crew simply based upon what variables? That drones are smaller than planes?
Drones have a purpose in Naval operations, but not to the point that it would be more efficient for them to have their own specialized platform by which to operate off from in support of a conventional carrier and fleet .
I would point back to 60s when the navy was considering a specialized Bomber carrier
That sounds like the Wasp Carriers that the US Navy uses for Helicopters just loaded with Drones instead.
I think China has one. I check it out😳😳
That IS A BIG Aircraft Carrier.
like a Kitty Hawk class
Interesting information.
Well done to France - a major shield of Western defence and a shining beacon of Western values & democracy.
You mean Islamic values.
You managed to butcher the French pronunciation of every word in the beginning description of what amounts to “new generation aircraft carrier”.
It looks like a beautiful ship.
Correct me if i'm wrong but RN Carriers can be retro fitted for a new catapult system and a deck extension.
And hasn't the French carrier been plagued with problems since it's launch?
Pretty sure the Royal Navy cannot retrofit their carriers for CATOBAR at this point. They played around with the idea of having that ability in the design phase, but never pursued it.
French carrier had problem with his propeller the first years but it's ok for a long time ago now
They could fit Cat'n Trap
BUT , the QE Carriers are TOO SLOW,(Slowest since the 1920's Hms Hermes) underpowered , and wont generate a great deal of "wind over the deck" for max take-off weights , and for landing a slower carrier is "shorter" carrier
I'm correcting you indeed, It's the 2 RN carriers that ARE plagued since THEIR launch! 😂 ahaha the brits will make us laugh forever!
5:54
only 2 elevators is a significant operational handicap - but with the SMALL air wing talked about, not that bad of one compared to the 80 (ballpark) a Ford or Nimitz carries routinely.
That ship is going to be underpowered... 2 reactors with 440MW total thermal power for a 75,000 ton ship. The US Navy's Nimitz class (according to Jane's Fighting Ships has 1100MW for 100,000 tons. If the 'top' speed is 27 knots, then the economical cruising speed (for the reactor fuel) will probably be somewhere in the neighborhood of 18kts, but aircraft carrier speed is dictated by 'wind across the deck' for flight ops, unless you want to unnecessarily stress airframes, catapults, etc. So if France's navy goes whipping around at top speed frequently, they are going to have to refuel those reactors every few years.
What they need to do is develop a ~400MW reactor design and put 2 of those inside to give it extended strategic operational flexibility, but that would take years, money, and a national decision.
Energy consumption per unit speed is really really logarithmic. Dropping from 27 to 24 knots is gonna cut your power consumption by something like half so I think your 18 knot cruising is way off.
@@kennethferland5579 Try to get an "O" Level, sorry, GCSE in any subject
*France has 6 BARRACUDA, and 4 TRIOMPHANT, and for this reason France is The Master of The World !!*
Nuclear fuel is insanely compact. The refueling requirement is not a function of max MW but other design features.
The French can actually build proper ships. The us can not and has never been able to build proper ships. They are excellent weapons and get the job more then done, but have to resort to excessive power numbers to get the desired results.
C, est tres joli.
The UK has two super carriers its over 65 tones or 70 tones depending on your pick.
without catapult or nuclear propulsion?
I hope you were listening when they said they expect a war by 2030 - 2040.
how can the world be shocked if it is in the drwing board...it may or may not even be constructed....
*France has 6 BARRACUDA, and 4 TRIOMPHANT, and for this reason France is The Master of The World !!*
India is now ahead of France in aircraft carrier industry.
We are 60 millions french. How big is your population ? 1.3 billions or somewhere close to.
Still not in front in aircraft industry 🫡
Nuclear aircraft carrier?🤣
bro there 1 billon
no we still have bigger baguette and more good smelling balls . India is still dominated by Pak and China, you can only pretend to have the best tandoori chicken but thats all🤣
Funny indian... ur indian technology is a joke 😂😂😂😂
Future super carriers should be able to submerge like a sub and fly like a plane......otherwise, its just a ordinary carrier.
Don't forget the eye lasers.
@@kennethferland5579 Mascara and false eye lashes are essential
Ur a genius sir, you should consider working in the military-industrial compley!
please let me recruit you into the ministery of defence, technology and advancements
Korea
: are you dom bro
Every free world nation should be investing in their self defense. It is the foremost duty of an elected leader to provide defense, and security against threats foreign and domestic.
As part of the Nato Alliance, in order for the Alliance to be truly effective, and logically balanced it is also important for participating members to dutifully meet their required capital contributions in a consistent, and disciplined fashion.
When each nation invests in the long range security of it's people, this will have an increased measure of security amongst all it's partners, and Alliance members.
France's investment and commitment to their security should be respected as I'm sure it is..
🇺🇲🇺🇦
Glory to God,
Victory for Ukraine,
Rise Free Nations!
Correct! Si vis pacem, para bellum!
For perspective, the De Gaulle is about the same size (VERY few thousand ton difference) as the US Midway class - that was first comissioned in 1945 and was RETIRED before De Gaulle was built.
A bit more modern, nuke powered boilers instead of conventional, but NOT a "supercarrier" in the size range of US carriers starting with Forestall IN THE LATE 1950s, and can be argued to be 2 full generations behind WHEN IT WAS BUILT.
stupid comment, you know nothing
Size does not rule generation for CV...
@@hermes6910 That comment made ZERO sense.
Would you care to rephrase it in English instead of "random words gobbledygoop"?
@@bricefleckenstein9666 0 sense only if you have a dysfunctional brain.
Probably the "why" of your first comment btw.
An offering as both a catalyst/flagship of the emerging European army?
hope for this
I hope war isn’t coming and being prepared is a good way to keep peace, but it warms my heart to see our French and English Allys’ are showing our deep ties are still strong.
Ohh I'm so shocked 😲 😂
They have to build it, dude.
Thankfully, Former Airbus Chief Enders and MEP Verhofstadt are not involved in this undertaking, although the FCAS was the basis for the Bundeswehr and German and EU Gov't(s) pulling a last minute 180° with the General Staff (one General forced into early retirement if memory serves) surprising everyone and announcing their decision to replace the ageing (but awesome) PA-200 Tornado IDS Variants and GA1-GA4 Gens, with a new, modern Fighter. The contest was all but wrapped, included LMT's F-35A Lightning II, Boeing's F/A-18F Super Hornets & EA-18G Growlers, and the Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH's Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 4. Originally, the "Brass" concluded a dedicated fifth generation platform as meeting the Luftwaffe's current and future needs. But, right before the Regional and European Parliamentary elections, aforementioned wankers decided it was not in the best interest to purchase the American (and internationally) built F-35. Instead, a vision of an "EU Defence Force" a last-minute idea supported by out-going ECP Juncker, was amongst one of the first notions explicitly derailed by the new European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen. Part of this was the development and contract to design and build the FCAS Aircraft, but a Franco-German Partnership vs the UK-West German-Italian Panavia PA-200 Tornado. Spain jumped aboard the FCAS at the last-minute, and what was an all, but assured deal defaulted to a newly requested and "in-depth study" from Boeing and Airbus. They ended-up splitting their acquisition between both suppliers, phasing-out the PA-200 IDS and Tranche 1 airframes with F/A-18F and EA-18G and Typhoon Tranche 4 aircraft. Nice compromise!
Fast Forward to Present Day, and the Bundeswehr decided to add F-35As to the party, causing confusion and delays, all thanks to a now-retired jackarse and a currently serving, pompous MEP Jackarse. However, there was an unspoken caveat because neither of the very capable Gen 4/++ aircraft chosen, before adding the F-35, have the rating nor fused to carry the B61-Mod Family of Forward Deployed Tactical/Strategic Thermonuclear Gravity Bombs, esp. the B61-Mod12. The F-35, all Variants, can. Two Airbases in Germany house USAF B61-Mod Variants, much smaller in number vs peak Cold War 1.0 deployments, but still a significant deterrence and quickly launched weapon. Political ambitions derailed National Security. Thankfully, although supranational and national political interests play a factor, France harbours the ability to retain top spot as the EU's Military Nation, and as stated, the only Nuclear Capable Nation. The transition away from ICBMs/IRBMs silos and launch platforms, to and the new Sub-Class's SLBMs and Air Force's ALCMs capable of maintaining General de Gaull's goals and implementation (1958) Force de frappe, and post-1961, Force de dissuasion as Cold War 1.0's Triade and Clod War 2.0's Dyade Nuclear Posture Assumptions. Applaud the French for undertaking this role and their maintaining their history as one of the oldest and strongest US Allies, and amongst our Best Allies (along with NORAD/NATO Members, Oceania, and Japan, ROK, and the ROC. Hopefully, Pres Biden can repair the damage he inflicted on our strongest Middle Eastern Regionally Ally, Saudi Arabia, but they have every right to be pissed off.
Ah, IR/FP and Diplomacy, such a delicate and dangerous dance it is! Respect to France and Love from the States. Beautiful nation, people, (French Women are as stunning and complex as the natural topography and features) and glad to know you lot are dependable and have our Six, no matter what, without worry over selling our tech or bleeding US Tax-payer funds/DOD Resources. No, not talking about Ukraine (although, that is kinda the same situ. Another time, perhaps?)
wouldn't it make more sense if UK and French just use the same design for their carriers, just build more of them. Would save a lot of money and time. share/combine the maintenance and all that.. it seems very inefficient to independently design and build two separate carrier designs when realistically these two military powers will always be on the same team for the foreseeable future. Just a thought.
No it doesn't, different needs, different goals, that's why all the military project between france and other country are always failing
like with teh germans, France and the brits have been rivals until quite recently (relatively speaking) so having seperate military programs is a given
Problem is uk aircraft carrier haven’t got electromagnetic catapult, this would mean French fighters jet cannot land or take off ! It s been made for overrated F35 only
Catapults AND FLAMETHROWERS!!! I had to do a double take when I heard that. Does that mean they have Dragons on board?
Dragons are being thrown from catapults in the general direction of english castles :p
@@karlez7664 Good one :) And they fart alot too.
France 🇫🇷 is probably building multiple carriers, as the video points out why build just one super carrier when you could have built two smaller ones. Furthermore they have the resources to build and staff multiple carriers.
The truth is most likely just like what happened with France previous 2 aircraft carrier the Foch and Clemenceau, one was built to replace the other, but in truth the older was upgraded and kept running thus giving France 2 aircraft carriers one modern and one older, the same will most likely happen with the Charles de Gaule who will most likely see it’s life extended until the pang retires too, in the late 2050’s and if history repeats they will like thier forbearers continue on renamed and sold to the Indian navy where they still operate to this day. I don’t know the Indian name they got tho. So yeah France will finaly get it’s 2 aircraft carrier, it simply won’t decomission it he de gaule for many more years than what it should.
I cringed so hard at this comment. France has been a single-carrier navy for decades now. You can't really secretly build multiple carriers either.
Building 2 carriers cost more money, France isn't at war, and there are no direct threat.
Brazil doesn't threaten to invade French Guiana, Australia doesn't threaten to invade New Caledonia, etc...
So there's no real need for 2 carriers.
In reality the benefit for France to build only 1 is to keep it's know-how, knowledge, on how to build and maintain such ship, and most of all to maintain the know-how and tradition of the army to operate an air force and a nuclear power plant at sea.
If you stop having an aircraft carrier, your army forget how to do this, your companies abandon their ability to produce it, and the day you want to build 5 carriers because war is coming, you can't.
@@BruneSixtine This makes total sense. But I think this is way above OP's level.
France needs it's Aircraft carrier for over seas power projection, particularly in it's formal colonial spaces. France dose not have any equivilent to the US 'two major regional conflict' doctrine and it's likely that France would have enough lead time in such an intervention that maintence cycles are not going to be an issue. Also they are likely going to overlap the lifespans of the existing carrier a bit with the new one and the new class is likely to become a double by the 2040's. Overall European nations really should move to Super-Carriers as they are a lot more efficient, if they work together and invest in a supply chain and continuous build and refurbishment cycle as in American carriers they could get a lot more for their money and field a combined fleet of atleast 6 such vessels. Japan and South Korea should probably do likewise.
Remember what are the europeans current needs. Yeah, France does require a military projection capacity. But most of our closest european allies on the continent don't. We do have the strongest defensive and coastal navy combined. But our political, economic and therefor also military center is shifting to the east, with a lesser importance given to the navy. That said, in case of war, on the european scale of things, we can certainly manage, to an extent, to fight against two major regional powers, France, Italy and the UK oversea, and the eastern bloc to the East. But let's be honest. Currently, the place that is seeing the most military development is the East, and especially Poland. 1500 fleet tank by the end of the decade is no joke, and Romania and Ukraine are following, or will.
@@marcbuisson2463 *Oui, c'est trop bien ! Un Grand Salut !*
@@danvision5086 wtf
@@marcbuisson2463 *Tu es un Bébé ?!
Japan and SK? SK literally has an LHD named "Dokdo". Not going to happen bro.
Will be amazed if we anything like it this side of 2050.
Well, I hope to see it with my eyes floating in the ocean...but at 98 (then) will I be able?
Do they even know how to fight lol
(1) France can easily maintain a fleet of not one but 3+ elite aircraft carriers. It has the money and technology to do that. (2) France, Germany, Britain, any one of them, if they committed to, within, say, 5 years, could be a leading military power - more powerful than Russia. (As each of them has been in recent history.) This video is an example of that. Thank you for sharing
Europe is too reliant on the US for security
@@chisomifeanyichukwu4775 then make the commitment, put in the effort, and spend the money to upgrade your militaries -- which you are fully capable of doing -- and then you wont be.
France doesn't really have money, they just take over the money of their old colonies and add it to their own
@@remydesire1102 (1) actually France really does have the money to afford a more powerful military. (2) France has done an awful lot that is positive in this world. (3) Please don't be racist and a professional victim. For your sake maintain a positive forward looking attitude.
The money they steal in taxes from African nations!
Gee the picture shown doesn't come close to the actual aircraft carrier.
It should already be in construction.
Well if you build one carrier you learn to do it and can produce more if needed.
The construction of the new nuclear aircraft carrier was confirmed today (April 2nd 2023) by the Minister of the Armed Forces. Work will start late 2025/early 2026 at the "Chantiers de L' Atlantique" in Saint-Nazaire, my native city :). Gonna be so exciting to follow its construction on the spot. As a reminder, most of the world's most famous/largest liners (The 'France', The 'Queen Mary 2', the 'Wonder of the Seas' etc), were built in Saint-Nazaire (60 km from Nantes). The sea trials will be undertaken in 2036-2037. Cost: 10 billion€.
6:20
BLAST ARRESTERS.
Not "FLAME THROWERS", which are a GROUND WEAPON.
I'd say they need a super carrier to project power considering all of their maritime holdings across the globe.
Clot?
*France has 6 BARRACUDA, and 4 TRIOMPHANT, and for this reason France is The Master of The World !!*
we have the nuclear weapon against all those who would invade our "possessions" across the world
Shocked?? Gigantic?? Good joke.
They spend 200 million € in a design Pa2.
baguette supremem :)
With the US's economic troubles and China's rise to power it seems like global powers might devolve back into regional powers that control their own waters. Considering how the Uk bungled Brexit and how Germany hamstrung their energy grid for the whims of a 16 year old highschool dropout France seems poised to become the next European superpower in the next decade or so. If this is the case it's important for them to expand their military potential while they still have the option of depending on the US
How is it "gigantic" when its displacement is smaller than what the Americans are already using?
You need at least 2 (like the Brits)
to ensure 1 is available when needed
The 2 British carriers were supposed to be EU carriers, after Brexit the EU still needs a carrier I suppose.
One thing not taken into account is how 'rich' France is. Private savings as compared with GDP is extremely high, for example 60% of US national is held by the Chinese, France could pay their national debt x3 just from internal savings.
Something tells me the age of the super carrier is over. As the German’s discovered in WW2 about the battleship. The Bismark was crippled by a torpedo dropped from Swordfish.
Large carriers are extremely vulnerable and could go the same way as the battleship.
And yet US Navy battleships carried on serving for half a century all right. Carriers are essential in that they carry a large airwing across the ocean. Of course smaller carriers can be more useful since they can operate smaller drones and having 2-3 small carrier-like assault ships instead of 1 big supercarrier may be safer against enemy attacks. It's true that a torpedo from a submarine or even a drone below the surface can cost your behemoth of a ship but then again 2-3 of them may also cripple your 2-3 smaller carriers anyway. Postwar US avoids going against countries with considerable naval power (see Vietnam, Afganistan, Serbia...Iraq had only obsolete patrolships essentially). If you do go in a war, ships are vulnerable even against countries without a prper navy now with long range antiship missiles as the case of Moskva cruiser showed. It boils down to the cost of sending a large airforce across the sea. If it's cheaper to do so with a supercruiser than 2-3 smaller ones, it's fine. If 1 small one is enough, then you don't need 2-3. It depends on the missions each navy intends to undertake.
Yet they have some advantages. The carrier is covered by a multi-layer protection of AWACS, satellites, radars, air cover, Aegis systems and speed. It might sound strange, but even Russia and China cannot track a carrier movement live and the minutes it would take a hypersonic missiles to reach the initial GPS location is more than enough for the carrier to be miles away at top speed. The big if is how much time you have from detection to impact.
@@mathieusimoneau3358 It’s a massive gamble for countries like France and the UK, I suspect their battle groups are under strength compared to the US. It only takes one missile to get through.
@@jackdonith The US battleships didn’t really have any serious threat after Pearl Harbour. It was their carriers that destroyed the Japanese. The German and Italian’s were neutralised by the Brits.
@@CZcamschannel-po8cz France is surprisingly strong compared to other Nato members because they remained fully autonomous. They have much the same coverage than a US carrier but i doubt they have an advanced warning system on par with US extensive satellites coverage.
Time for EU to build 20 super carriers
Please ask for help with the pronunciation of the French words :)
dont tell them the new strat is lots of smaller cheaper aircraft carriers.
40 yrs ambitioun > 3 seconds of Neptune
I have mocked up Amazon cardboard boxes that have the Chinese Communist Party angry.
So they unveiled a… model
Queen Elizabeth class Aircraft carriers can be fitted with catapult system and in the future HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales will get catapults and there is a 6th generation fighter that is catapult capable and most likely we will see a new multirole fighter jet that use a lot of parts from Tempest that is catapult capable
Better build a new nuclear one and mothball the others. Whithout a nuclear one you need 2 diesel ones for availability reasons.
@@nicolasviard2252 That is stupid nuclear Aircraft carriers take five times longer for maintenance and are actually no more capable. Queen Elizabeth Class is more capable than Charles de Gaulle Class and Queen Elizabeth Class is even more Advance in terms of technology than Gerald R Ford Class nuclear aircraft carrier are just a waste of time and money.
Interesting and informative! On a side note, Thales is pronounced "tal-iss", rhyming with malice.
What about his pronunciation “Por-tay”
Nope.
As a frenchman, I can tell you that Thales is pronounced « tal-ess », rhyming with fortress.
Do not fool us, WATOP!
4:30
The new French carrier would be using METRIC Tons - or about 85,000 US tons vs the 100,000ish of the Ford.
About the same as the Enterprise (CV-65, not the "in the works" Ford-class ship) - NOT 25% smaller displacement but more like 15%.
So guess what - they plan to catch up by a generation and only be about *1* generation behind at most (skipping the Nimitz class on gear but not size).
"Gigantic"? Not by American standards and it has not even been built yet! So how is the world "shocked" by a mockup?
*American standards, everything in America is for Museum !!! France has 6 BARRACUDA, and 4 TRIOMPHANT, and for this reason, France is The Master of The World !!*
@@danvision5086 correction: France has 1 operational Barracuda with 5 building and 4 operational Triomphants. US has at least 10 Ohios and 21 Virginias operational. 🤷♂️
@@MotoroidARFC *France has already 6 Barracuda ( I am living in France, and...), and the US submarines, as everything of US, are toys for children , sorry, but everybody is free to believe what he thinks. Salut !*
@@danvision5086 you don't count units being built as operational. You cannot use them if they are not finished being built. You are confusing the Rubis class submarines (which are operational) with Barracuda class submarines of which only 1 is operational (Suffren). I don't care about your opinion but you must be accurate when stating operational units that can be used in combat to defend your country. It's very easy to check by going to defense dot gouv dot fr forward slash marine. Then scroll down to submarines. 🤷♂️
@@MotoroidARFC *To be sincerely, I am not very interested in this kind of Masturbation,. On the earth, there are very sick humans since 6.000 years, and it will be the same for the next 6.000. I am happy that I am old, and the future it is not very important for me ! Anyway,, I wish you all the best !*
Glad to finally see someone truly helping to carry the weight in the defense of NATO.
This large ship is a sitting duck......
One hypersonic missile with 2000 pound TNT will cripple this. No room for long rage navy in modern war
The French have had several goes at getting a new carrier so I will believe it when it is at sea...
I think we're see design in China's Navy change dramatically now...
7:35 Why 2 small when we can make 2 or 3 of those easy. We already have the infrastructure to build and maintain them. Question is how things will go in the next decade. If there is an escalation or US leave NATO at some point, we will push further the development of our military projection capabilities for sure.
It's rather bizarre to claim WW3 will happen at 30th, as it should be in a circle of roughly a century (from WW2). French theory?
Where's all the funds to build this new gen carriers and its operational funds are coming from. ?
Sure it did
When France really build this Aircraft Carrier Germany will build one too. And that one will also be able to function as a submarine. The Aircraft will be assorted drones.
Germany never had an aircraft carrier. And if you want a submarine aircraft carrier, the japanese made one
@@Uryendel oha, I never knew but now I Do.....Vinaka, Thank you.
Germany does not need any aircraft carrier. They have no territory oversea and their seas EEZ is very small, only in the Baltic. They need to focus on their land army.
Very funny this german guy 😂😂😂
French new aircraft carrier= A 80% US Ford class carrie + 50 rafale multi role fighter jets….. just wow 😮
Until it's built and fully deployed, it's only a mockup
They might as well just hand it over to Germany as soon as it’s built. Lol
The French took a beating in WW2 so their just making sure it doesn't happen again, nothing at sea is as powerful as a carrier with 40 arse-kicking fighter jets that can take out just about any city, not up to the USA with 11 as they have been sailing the seas with carriers since air power at sea from day 1 they invented it, the French have been sailing with carriers who very experienced how to run 1 successfully now for 100 years and its helping NATO keep the peace in Europe.
I was only thinking about this subject with Ukraine being attract by Russia as there is NATO, USA, Canada, ASIA with Japan, the Philippines, Australia & New Zealand together that a heck of a force for trouble makers to take on its a good thing
I'm a reservist, how about the world's hunger for eatable food, Thanks
Aircraft carriers arnt for "defense", they are for projecting power aways from the shores of the home nation
But I thought carriers can't survive in the age of modern anti-ship missiles?
it's more political than military (the use of
aircraft carrier)
@@corbaque5907 I assume you mean that THIS vessel will NOT be built BUT its announcement is symbolic because MOST of France, and the World, HATES Emmanuelle Macron?
Carriers have a small fleet supporting them.
It's never as simple as that.
The modern anti-ship missles just limit what the carrier can do and where they could operate.
You can't just move the carrier group 50 miles away from the chinese coast during conflict and expect them to survive.
But the planes have a rather large operational radius and threads in the air and the water could be dealt with.
The biggest thread among near peers in a major conflict will always be nukes. That's what makes another world war very unlikely.
@@Chiungalla79 Actually, they sink them to the bottom of the ocean.
France. LOL
Barring a significant breakthrough in laser technology. These ships are sitting ducks in a real war. Between drone swarms and super cavitation torpedos and or a combination of both , these ships are not survivable.
75 000 tonnes METRIQUES, soit 82 000 tonnes US pour comparer aux 100 000 tonnes US des PA américains
8:22
Germany easily has the technological ability AND the manufacturing ability to become a nuclear power - but WW II echoes would cause almost anyone else in the area great fear (AND A LOT THEMSELVES) if they actually tried in the forseeable future.
Go France get some EU
Oh, what's up? A European country decides to launch a nuclear powered aircraft carrier? Y'all gettin upset? How very dare they!
Le jour "ou", l'Europe se mettra d'accord, pour construire une défense digne de ce nom, ce sera une super puissance, mais vous aurez remarqué que j'ai utilisé le mot défense pas armée !
Le but étant de se défendre pas d'attaquer! L'Europe a les moyens technologiques et inventifs, pour faire de son arsenal, quelque chose d'irréel.
America will always be a military power by land, sea and sky. It also has as many bases across the world. Britain and America always close relationships including allies.
That's why they keep arguing on how many Genders there are
9:00
Do you promise to CHECK YOUR REPORTS before you post them for ACCURATE FACTS in the future?
If your gonna retreat. Might as well do it in style 😉😂👍
That's something the US military knows a lot about; not the style part, just the "let's get atta here" part.
Like America in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan?
Tu viens de quelle pays ? Renseigne toi avant de parler. La France utilise du matériel de pointe, pas besoin de battre en retraite
@@thibaultpetit1815 aucune connaissance géopolitique ces anglophones 🤣
Like in Dunkerque ?
3'd to have a Supercarrier.
British are already the second.
No nuclear propulsion and no catapults wich reduce significantly the rythm of air operations and planes payload...
@@BzhToine Partly right, partly wrong.
VTOL/STOL carriers have the Brits, no reason the rate of air operations would be lower, but the payloads certainly would be.
But the QE class is about as large as was CV59 Forrestal, the original (built) Supercarrier - which designation has NEVER needed nuclear propulsion as a qualifier.
@@bricefleckenstein9666
I don't care about being supercarrier or not but about efficiency.
And I have always seen analysis saying that catapults allow a better rythm of air operations.
@@BzhToine For CATO aircraft, they do - and they're required.
But VTOL can use the ENTIRE DECK for take off and landing, are not limited to the "pace" they can be launched from a catapult.
STOL is in between, but don't benefit in PACE from catapults - just in how much load they can carry (which DOES make them more efficient and also applies to a degree to VTOL like the Harrier).
30m wide only
More to the point … how will it compare to the Chinese Navy ?🤔
Hey Mr Hamlin how have you been? You know what they say, made in China 😀
2036 i doubted
Wow France has it going on nice
NICE is a resort in South East France, I assume that is where they will park the ship?
*France has 6 BARRACUDA, and 4 TRIOMPHANT, and for this reason France is The Master of The World !!*
The French are notoriously slow