Yes, the CDG had problems when it was launched, but they were resolved quickly and for 20 years it has provided a competitive service. Its speed of 27 knots allows it to launch its Rafales even with zero wind, so no need for more.
Please check what you say before saying it... The CdG had major problems in the beginning, and is limited by design choices, it had no more problems than the first ford, nimitz or.... QE which are even less complex than any CATOBAR CVN. 1:30 Reactors are not the limit of propulsion, they're enough to propel it faster. The problem with propulsion is in the design of the kinematic chain. 2:10 No, you need 3 ships to be sure of having one at sea, another failure. 2:25 Construction was going very well, it was political choices that delayed its commissioning, nothing to do with the ship or its design. 2:49 France invested 200 million euros in the design phase of the PA2 a CATOBAR QE class based design, but the UK abandonned the CATOBAR design and so the politicians didn't support the project further. I don't understand why the Nimitz is mentioned here? France doesn't do anything to compare itself with the US, please stop this US centrism... 4:02 And again, NO, they are still SSBN reactors ! Just a brand new and more powerful design for the heavier new class of France SSBN. 4:15 The PANG is going to have around the same speed of the CdG, 27kts is not a random number, it's the minimum speed for plane to take off. 5:00 Absolutely not, it's still possible to have steam catapults... they're just less efficient and add constraints to aircraft. 8:15 Because you think steam catapults can't ? Of course they can! It's just more complicated to setup. 8:22 Yes and No. The limited number of aircraft (an aircraft being dronized or not!) is just due to the larger size of the NGF compared to the current Rafale.
It’s also that no one really communicated on it, the hangar of the PA-NG will do the same size as the Nimitz class one, atm it’s top secret or smth, but even if the NGF is bigger, he will probably be able to carry something around 70 aircraft, including 55 fighters
The real difference is that the QE Class carriers problems have only been approx 10% 'technical', with the other 90% politically driven by our loathsome Whitehall/Westminster composite establishment elite's preference for wasting vast sums of money on ANYTHING else but Britain's essential defence needs.
The design concept certainly looks very impressive. Supposedly one of the key issues with the CDG is that she has needed nuclear refueling more frequently than US' carriers where for the Nimitz and Ford classes that is only undertaken once in their fifty year lifespans. It will be interesting to know if that will be the case for the new ship?
Yep, France's markedly inferior military nuclear reactor tech compared to the US and UK has led Paris to use quasi-Civilian (in which French tech is world class) LEU systems... so French subs and the new PA-NG will need re-fuelling every decade. Compared to American and British SSNs and SSBNs needing zero or at most one (if their service life has to be extended) refuellings. Or US carriers with just one refuelling during a 50 year service life.
PS; it will, of course, also be fascinating to see exactly what France is able to do to persuade the Germans to permit the development within the o/a FCAS programme of a carrier variant in view of Germany (and now, Spain too) having zero need for, or interest in one. Nor, so long as Britain, Japan and Italy remain even remotely sane, will Paris ever gain access to the more promising GCAP.
There is a Finnish idiom about "burning ice", generally referring to something unpleasant and incredibly slow. Probably "burning water" is somewhat more pleasant, but not much...
@@nosaltadded2530the nuclear reactors boil water to produce steam. This steam is then used to power the catapults and other stuff. That’s why you see “smoke” on the flight deck. That’s steam; hot water.
@@TheBooban Having been an ABH and served on an aircraft carrier or two I know that your response is complete nonsense! My fellow ABE's were in charge of the cats and arresting gear. I spent many a cold day and night using the steam heat on the cat tracks to keep my feet warm. My comment was about the nonsensical and grammatically erroneous remark of "burning water". Not about burning fuel oil in a boiler or using a nuclear reactor to heat water to produce steam. Water does not burn. Today there's a new technology where steam is replaced by electromagnetic energy. Idiots do make videos about things they know nothing about, and other idiots make stupid comments about things they know nothing about. So, why don't you spend a few years on one of these ships as I did before you make more ridiculous remarks. Clown!
It's a fine looking ship that almost certainly will be quite capable 'in itself' yet still be only an exorbitantly costly vanity project that'll spend a disproportionate time in dock. Worse still, with zero backup as only one ship will ever be built. It is, i.o.w. NOT a serious platform for purely national French defence and thus merely illustrates Paris habitual hypocrisy. Above all re the US and UK. The Anglosphere "allies" against which French establishment elites consistently try to leverage their "Strategic Autonomy" lie. Yet which are precisely the same powers that Paris will also bleat to for support during the c40% of the PANG's service life when it's uselessly non-operational anyway!
@exonys3838 They should work out a carrier share program with another Eurozone country, perhaps Germany/ Italy. If you can't have 2 carriers you might as well have no carriers.
@@Waywind420 with the current states of the NGF/FCAS and MGCS, it's NOT a good idea to make smth with germany, our needs are completly differents and they don't need an aircraft carrier (especially because they don't have any plane that can go on it)
@exonys3838 Fair points. What solution would you suggest, if any? PANG won't be in service for another 12-15 years, plenty of time to acquire a suitable airwing. I understand that the PANG is going to have high operational compatibility with US aircraft too. Bit embarrassing when the worlds second most powerful union only has the Juan Carlos, Cavour and Charles De Gaulle for force projection.
@@Waywind420 yeah, especially since france has the second biggesy EEZ, personnaly i would make a military budget law on a few years focused on the navy to pay for two PANG and a proper escort (because for now France don't have enought assets to protect two aircraft carriers) and even upgrade the protection ships by adding VLS, even if i have to focus on navy for 10 years, i think it's the first thing to strenghten
C'est une question de répartition des crédits de la défense, ca n'est pas une dépense si extrême en soi. Cela coûterait bien plus cher de perdre la capacité.
Unlike the Brits, the French have made it a priority to be fully compatible with the US Navy. F/A-18's land and take off from the CDG all the time, but they don't like the ski jumps the RN carriers have. Since the USN is going to charge $1.3B for the French to use the American Magnetic Catapult System, it's less likely that Trump will accuse Paris of stealing American technology and canceling the deal...
China builds 1 aircraft carrier in about 5 years. We, the Turks, have finished the design of our own aircraft carrier and proceeded to the stage of producing parts. We will finish it in about 6 years. France can't build this ship in 10 years because World War 3 will have already broken out.
You haven’t build any Carriers while being a Turk. Your design would take another year or two for testing. Then 8-10years atleast to make it if you are funding it enough. Don’t say anadolu is turkish. Its spanish juan carlos. Own design takes time to make. So in reality your carrier might be available around 2038.
You're ridiculous. They could have this carrier ready for 2030 if they wanted but that's not the point. They currently DON'T want to operate two carriers at once because they lack the people to man 2 (nuclear technicians are very rare). Same problem with most navies. The construction of this one is planned to finish when the current carrier will reach the end of its life and for the 6th gen Rafale replacement. That why it's planned for 2038, not because they can't go faster. Also please do not compare the turkish carrier, that carrier doesn't even exist, it's just an idea for the moment and it's not even funded while the budget for the PANG has been approved already. Also the PANG is far more complex to build than any conventional carrier as its nuclear-powered and catobar equipped and built for the future (6th gen planes, directed energy weapons, drones).
![[ENG SUB] ⚓ #FDI Ep 02: Cyberfrigate](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P_nQ6iEsjvs/mqdefault.jpg)
![[ENG SUB] ⚓ #FDI Ep 02: Cyberfrigate](/img/tr.png)
Yes, the CDG had problems when it was launched, but they were resolved quickly and for 20 years it has provided a competitive service. Its speed of 27 knots allows it to launch its Rafales even with zero wind, so no need for more.
When you are the owner of the second EEZ in the world (so second biggest maritime territory) you need more
Please check what you say before saying it...
The CdG had major problems in the beginning, and is limited by design choices, it had no more problems than the first ford, nimitz or.... QE which are even less complex than any CATOBAR CVN.
1:30 Reactors are not the limit of propulsion, they're enough to propel it faster.
The problem with propulsion is in the design of the kinematic chain.
2:10 No, you need 3 ships to be sure of having one at sea, another failure.
2:25 Construction was going very well, it was political choices that delayed its commissioning, nothing to do with the ship or its design.
2:49 France invested 200 million euros in the design phase of the PA2 a CATOBAR QE class based design, but the UK abandonned the CATOBAR design and so the politicians didn't support the project further. I don't understand why the Nimitz is mentioned here? France doesn't do anything to compare itself with the US, please stop this US centrism...
4:02 And again, NO, they are still SSBN reactors ! Just a brand new and more powerful design for the heavier new class of France SSBN.
4:15 The PANG is going to have around the same speed of the CdG, 27kts is not a random number, it's the minimum speed for plane to take off.
5:00 Absolutely not, it's still possible to have steam catapults... they're just less efficient and add constraints to aircraft.
8:15 Because you think steam catapults can't ? Of course they can! It's just more complicated to setup.
8:22 Yes and No. The limited number of aircraft (an aircraft being dronized or not!) is just due to the larger size of the NGF compared to the current Rafale.
It’s also that no one really communicated on it, the hangar of the PA-NG will do the same size as the Nimitz class one, atm it’s top secret or smth, but even if the NGF is bigger, he will probably be able to carry something around 70 aircraft, including 55 fighters
The real difference is that the QE Class carriers problems have only been approx 10% 'technical', with the other 90% politically driven by our loathsome Whitehall/Westminster composite establishment elite's preference for wasting vast sums of money on ANYTHING else but Britain's essential defence needs.
Looks like a far better and more capable will carrier than this horribly compromised British ones.
I was surprised when the UK said their two new carriers were not nuclear powered.
Wrong, but don't worry about it.
The design concept certainly looks very impressive. Supposedly one of the key issues with the CDG is that she has needed nuclear refueling more frequently than US' carriers where for the Nimitz and Ford classes that is only undertaken once in their fifty year lifespans. It will be interesting to know if that will be the case for the new ship?
Yep, France's markedly inferior military nuclear reactor tech compared to the US and UK has led Paris to use quasi-Civilian (in which French tech is world class) LEU systems... so French subs and the new PA-NG will need re-fuelling every decade. Compared to American and British SSNs and SSBNs needing zero or at most one (if their service life has to be extended) refuellings. Or US carriers with just one refuelling during a 50 year service life.
PS; it will, of course, also be fascinating to see exactly what France is able to do to persuade the Germans to permit the development within the o/a FCAS programme of a carrier variant in view of Germany (and now, Spain too) having zero need for, or interest in one.
Nor, so long as Britain, Japan and Italy remain even remotely sane, will Paris ever gain access to the more promising GCAP.
Does anyone know if this PA-NG is going to be named Richelieu?
Nobody knows for the moment, there are some names in studying but it will be official in several years I think...
"Burning water in a boiler"? What?
I mean... yes somehow, what was the "steam" for in "steam catapults" for you ?
@@hermes6910 English?
There is a Finnish idiom about "burning ice", generally referring to something unpleasant and incredibly slow.
Probably "burning water" is somewhat more pleasant, but not much...
@@nosaltadded2530the nuclear reactors boil water to produce steam. This steam is then used to power the catapults and other stuff. That’s why you see “smoke” on the flight deck. That’s steam; hot water.
@@TheBooban Having been an ABH and served on an aircraft carrier or two I know that your response is complete nonsense! My fellow ABE's were in charge of the cats and arresting gear. I spent many a cold day and night using the steam heat on the cat tracks to keep my feet warm. My comment was about the nonsensical and grammatically erroneous remark of "burning water". Not about burning fuel oil in a boiler or using a nuclear reactor to heat water to produce steam. Water does not burn. Today there's a new technology where steam is replaced by electromagnetic energy. Idiots do make videos about things they know nothing about, and other idiots make stupid comments about things they know nothing about. So, why don't you spend a few years on one of these ships as I did before you make more ridiculous remarks. Clown!
❤good
By the way, it will be easier to build a 310 meters/1000 Ft nuclear ship than a small one like the CdG....
It's a fine looking ship that almost certainly will be quite capable 'in itself' yet still be only an exorbitantly costly vanity project that'll spend a disproportionate time in dock. Worse still, with zero backup as only one ship will ever be built. It is, i.o.w. NOT a serious platform for purely national French defence and thus merely illustrates Paris habitual hypocrisy.
Above all re the US and UK. The Anglosphere "allies" against which French establishment elites consistently try to leverage their "Strategic Autonomy" lie. Yet which are precisely the same powers that Paris will also bleat to for support during the c40% of the PANG's service life when it's uselessly non-operational anyway!
Pretty sure that France will order a 2nd PAng
They’re thinking about it, but not really planning it
@exonys3838 They should work out a carrier share program with another Eurozone country, perhaps Germany/ Italy.
If you can't have 2 carriers you might as well have no carriers.
@@Waywind420 with the current states of the NGF/FCAS and MGCS, it's NOT a good idea to make smth with germany, our needs are completly differents and they don't need an aircraft carrier (especially because they don't have any plane that can go on it)
@exonys3838 Fair points.
What solution would you suggest, if any?
PANG won't be in service for another 12-15 years, plenty of time to acquire a suitable airwing.
I understand that the PANG is going to have high operational compatibility with US aircraft too.
Bit embarrassing when the worlds second most powerful union only has the Juan Carlos, Cavour and Charles De Gaulle for force projection.
@@Waywind420 yeah, especially since france has the second biggesy EEZ, personnaly i would make a military budget law on a few years focused on the navy to pay for two PANG and a proper escort (because for now France don't have enought assets to protect two aircraft carriers) and even upgrade the protection ships by adding VLS, even if i have to focus on navy for 10 years, i think it's the first thing to strenghten
Il sera prêt pour 2038
Vu l'état de l'économie française actuelle et future, c'est pas demain la veille.^^
C'est une question de répartition des crédits de la défense, ca n'est pas une dépense si extrême en soi.
Cela coûterait bien plus cher de perdre la capacité.
Burning water? Yeah my ex could do that…
Now that’s funny that they lost their props. Like the rifles for sell, “never fired, dropped once!”
Paying a quarter of your budget for the catapults is mindlessly stupid. F that I’ll take “complicated” or cheap 😂 steam catapults
Unlike the Brits, the French have made it a priority to be fully compatible with the US Navy. F/A-18's land and take off from the CDG all the time, but they don't like the ski jumps the RN carriers have. Since the USN is going to charge $1.3B for the French to use the American Magnetic Catapult System, it's less likely that Trump will accuse Paris of stealing American technology and canceling the deal...
Rivals US Ford class? One country has a century of experience building them, the other country has built one.
Chinese Tofu Dreg.
Before the CDG, the French Navy built and operated the Foch and Clemenceau, both oil fired and fully compatible with USN aircraft.
@@nosaltadded2530, stupid!
China builds 1 aircraft carrier in about 5 years. We, the Turks, have finished the design of our own aircraft carrier and proceeded to the stage of producing parts. We will finish it in about 6 years. France can't build this ship in 10 years because World War 3 will have already broken out.
Nuclear aircraft carrier? I doubt it.
You haven’t build any Carriers while being a Turk. Your design would take another year or two for testing. Then 8-10years atleast to make it if you are funding it enough. Don’t say anadolu is turkish. Its spanish juan carlos. Own design takes time to make. So in reality your carrier might be available around 2038.
You're ridiculous. They could have this carrier ready for 2030 if they wanted but that's not the point. They currently DON'T want to operate two carriers at once because they lack the people to man 2 (nuclear technicians are very rare). Same problem with most navies. The construction of this one is planned to finish when the current carrier will reach the end of its life and for the 6th gen Rafale replacement. That why it's planned for 2038, not because they can't go faster.
Also please do not compare the turkish carrier, that carrier doesn't even exist, it's just an idea for the moment and it's not even funded while the budget for the PANG has been approved already. Also the PANG is far more complex to build than any conventional carrier as its nuclear-powered and catobar equipped and built for the future (6th gen planes, directed energy weapons, drones).
@ turkey hasn’t even created its own carrier till date. Their LHD is Spanish Juan carlos. Their own carrier will not finish before 2038
Please don't compare the french navy with the turkish navy... that's ridiculous 😂
PANG = PA NG = Porte Avion , Nouvelle Génération and no PN AG to 0'14 !!