There is an ENORMOUS AIRCRAFT CARRIER COMING - It is NOT Chinese.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лип 2024
- French Aircraft Carriers special and very different from US Ford and Nimitz.
Charles de Gaulle and the new PANG are both different in their own way.
Also carriers 003 and 004 are not the only new wave.
They will feature 6th generation fighter and they won't feature the F-35, for a change.
Once again France is leading in indicating that a different way is possible.
Join this channel to support it:
/ @millennium7historytech
Support me on Patreon / millennium7
One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/Mille...
Join the Discord server / discord
Buy an Aircraft Model at Air Models! airmodels.net/?aff=173
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
forms.office.com/r/LNPQtf3Tc0
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
/ millennium7lounge
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the UA-cam Partner Program, Community guidelines & UA-cam terms of service.
![Lp. Последняя Реальность #97 ЧЁРНАЯ МАТЕРИЯ [Анти Скинт] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/k4MjXCzKsYw/mqdefault.jpg)
I admire the French for often trying to go their own way while maintaining interoperability with their allies.
One of their most proud and defining features if i must say
Damn losers, who needed British and American help to bomb out defenseless Libyans. 🤷
@Kitty Cat Not really.
@Kitty Cat do the chinese even have reliable allies, even their relationship with Russa can be a little shaky
Really what about the Russian's
It's important to add that almost 3 milion people live in these overseas territories, and that their security depends on France's capacity to deploy its troops anywhere on the planet.
So true. We forget, or are so English centric, that we ignore the French and their accomplishments. Foolish us(or US) that we treat those who helped us when we were down, so badly.
Yes!!! This is the obvious answer as well as their 'neo-empire' in West Africa. Of course France need at least on carrier!
@@Benjamin.Jamin. though they don't need carriers to deploy troops in Africa. They have enough bases already.
Yes, the french do need more then one carrier, CDG will need refit occasionally, for refuelling, and modernization.
Also a carrier will be needed to keep transatlantic navigation open. Finally Europe parasitically relies on the USA for modern weapons. However in the pacific Australia, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan will also need US help (What are the sanctimonious pacifists of Europe going to do) and it would be fair if Europe finally did the right thing and pay enough for its own defense and that or weaker neighbors such as Georgia and Moldavia instead of parasitically relying on the USA.
I very rarely leave comments but I just wanted you to know your channel is one of the best on UA-cam! Very well researched and very well presented. Thank you for all the hours of hard work you put in every week.
Well reseached, but also nuanced. Complimenti.
Thanks a lot once again ! Very interesting
Agree
Lol. Butter
but how do you verify what he says is true?
I think its good that France is building new carriers.
Europe needs to have its own defence industry it is not good to just rely on US companies.
Italy, Spain and Germany and Sweden all have good defence industries and they need to be supported.
Agree. Go France! Greetings from Lithuania!
Thats right. France was so innovated they created the F-35, the kevlar, the PC, the iMac, the iphone, the eBay, the WiFi, the Starlink, the Tesla, etc etc., that we American must rely in French companies.
@@inigomontoya3750 Apple is overpriced shit, eBay is useless, and F35 is trash
@@inigomontoya3750 very funny but perhaps you don’t know the French are the third largest weapons exporter in the world behind the US and Russia?
@@apvial But we ditched their subs, much to their displeasure!
France is one of the largest contributors to the aviation world. They are also one of the oldest Aviation based militaries and have been Forefront in an aircraft development. If there's a European country that I expect to have a carrier it would be France and I am excited to finally hear that they have a nuclear carrier being built. I don't know why I haven't heard of this yet! A lot of your commercial aircraft actually come from France and have for quite some time. I remember when I was studying to go to Embry-Riddle they had a mirage 2000 donated to the school at the time and we're in the middle of tear down. That was an impressive fighter jet!
They already have a nuclear carrier, the Charles de Gaulle is nuclear powered. They are just building a new one.
French engineering has almost always been overly complex and unreliable. Their aircraft have not been cutting edge since WW-I and their tanks and autos have also been second rate. French chauvinists may disagree, but that will not change the facts.
@@donaldcarey114 from my little knowledge of french aircraft I must say about unreliability and overly complex I may agree on some very specific models only, but you forgot/ignore at least half if not 3/4 of the pictures without talking the political backgrounds. The only facts that stuff like Mirages family (III, 5, F1, 2000s) are a success at export, not because of the cuting edge technologies, but because of their price and reliability. There were cutting edge aircraft before, during WW2, and during cold war, like M.B.157 that could go at breaking speed for a single seat fighter at the time, Mirage III V/Balzac, or Super Mystere being the first mass produced super sonic fighter made in europe. As for overly complex, before WW2 french air force had a special class of fighter, named "light", meaning cheap that were not using any of alumin, in the name of Caudron C.714 who were quite out dated in 1939 and Arsenal VG.33 that could have been a nice french wooden spitfire equivalent if it wasn't late for the fight.
Also french are far less chauvinist than much people think, so please search for your presumed facts XD and have a nice day
@@abaddon7558 Blah, blah, blah - I stand by my post. YOU need to remember, the 1st in Europe has to include the USSR, the 1st in the world needs to include the U.S.
As for French reliability, you obviously never owned a Renault (automobile).
John 3:16
King James Version
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Amen 🙏!!!!
As a metropolitan French (the thing that everyone thinks about when you say "France") I want to make clear that I want my country to be able to protect all of my fellow French from the "Outremers" ☺️
Awesome video ! It is even better because you're not French. We are used to the jokes and not being taken seriously on the internet usually. Thank you for this fresh air ! ☺️
Do people in France really say “outremer” for the modern territories too? As a non-French I’m really interested in the idea I saw on Wikipedia of “La France Profonde” though I’m not sure it exists. There’s so much more to France, but as an American you really have to dig to even get a glimpse of it.
@@donkeysaurusrex7881 first of all thank you for taking the time to learn some stuff about France and it's history. It's very kind of you !
"Les outre-mers" is a term you can hear a lot when talking about those territories. Even thought it is not "the correct term" nowadays. There is in fact "DOM-TOM" that was used a few years ago and today it is I believe "DROM" or "DROM-TOM" but I'm not 100% sure here since those are "official terms" chose politicaly more than the ones that the people would prefer to use.
So yeah you can 100% say that you live "dans les Outre-mers" it is understand by everyone. The thing is that it lacks precision because there is in fact a lot of different types territories like for example : islands, "département", non-habited islands etc...
There is a video called "geography now ! France" that talks about it a little I think.
"La France Profonde" which translates to "deep France" is not a term usually used to talk about the Outremers specificaly. It is used in economy to talk about the territories in France that are the farthest away from the cities, economicaly behind the rest of the country, usually less educated.
They're basicaly the poorest and it is the case for most if not all of the outre-mers.
If you have any question feel free to ask !
Your nation has helped us stand up to our neighbours for the last 70 years,
Vive la liberte!🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Lots of love and best wishes from your tightest friend in Asia!!
🇮🇳❤️🇨🇵
@@hogginarmocount9562 ❤️
Interoperability is important, but system diversity is also important and it helps avoid stagnation. That’s why I’m very happy as an American that France fields a CATOBAR carrier and doesn’t rely on US equipment. Many people don’t realize that the US and France have operated from each others carriers, and that exposure to different practices and operating in unfamiliar environments is a great thing for both countries. I’m also a big fan of France having something of an independent “do it our own way” streak, because I have to respect as something France has in common with the US.
All I know is French Pilots are highly ranked as some of the best in the world. So their aviators on a aircraft carrier must be quite exceptional.
They also wave white flags like real G's
@@EFFEZE they regularly crush red flag events, french are really good at flags related things...
Better than you are at jokes anyway
@@EFFEZE huhuhuhuhu you are so funny with your old jokes grandpa
@@EFFEZE Yea, but the French also have their Foreign Legion. They send those guys into all sorts of sh*t. The French Foreign Legion is Frances mercenary army of criminals and ex-military from around the world that they just send with no regard. Look them up it's crazy.
@Kitty Cat lol because india, japan, south korea etc... have demonstrated otherwise?
Russia was getting demolished in tchechenia even before ukraine
Go back to school and learn to differentiate indochina war and vietnam war 🤡
I can't forget how much of a fool you were in that other thread lmao, imagine roasting yourself because you suck academically 🤡🤡🤡🤡
Living in the indian ocean, La Réunion, for me it's important to see my country being able to project it's power over seas.
Even if there are redundant air bases on almsot every ocean and sea shore line.
As a Réunion's fellow citizen, I have to agree with you !
France, with 11,691,000 km², has the largest Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the world, ahead of the United States (11,351,000 km²) and Australia (8,148,250 km²). France must protect its territories against external influences, and protect itself from being the only one able to extract rare minerals from the bottom of the ocean.
Interesting thank you ! Also but maybe I am wrong, but one additional reason that makes an aircraft carrier relevant is that France is the sole country with territorities located in four different continents.
(Guyane, French Antilles, and St-Pierre et Miquelon located in South and North America, Reunion Island located in Africa, New Caledonia located in Oceania, and metropolitan France in Europe)
France's concern for national security is admirable.
@Sean Price ha ha, very funny. The French are one of the most successful warring nations on Earth
@@anonymoususer3561 Pretty sure that's why the joke works though.
They've been a terrifying military force for most of their history absolutely dominated Europe in several centuries and changed the course of history.
It's the same with the jokes about Vietnamese farmers.
@Sean Price that such a weak statement. The French have been very strong Allie’s in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. I’ve flown with and trained with their pilots they are very capable, their equipment is very good. Just a note that France plans to send the CDG CVBG to the pacific in 2025. How Far East it goes not sure. But they are taking a stance and helping Taiwan in it defense against China by sending defense contractors to help them Integrate a VLS system into their La Fayette class frigates. Alongside American contractors that are helping them install MK41 VLS into their Kidd class. For the most part Europe is afraid to sell the Taiwanese anything for fear of upsetting the Chinese. I’m pretty sure that the French would sell them F4 Rafales if they had the money. I would love to see them place a order 1 for 1 to replace their 2000-5F with Rafales. But the sooner that the rest of Europe washes away the yellow strip down their back and realizes that China is a huge threat to trade and security and their aggression can’t be left to go unchecked in the South China seas the better.
@Sean Price Sean Price you hear that? Your mom’s calling dinner is ready make sure your homework is done or she’s gonna take your phone..
@Sean Price You (and by you I mean americans and the internet) just also need to understand that we hear this kind of joke everytime. Not to mention the fact that this is a joke about our grand parents and their parents aswell. It's pretty much recent in our minds and if you know what really happenned, like the fact that Britain has a SIGNIFICANTLY huge responsability in the loss of the Battle of France, and that they NEVER and I mean NEVER get joked about. Nolan litteraly made a movie about Dunkerque without french soldiers in it, glorifying the birtish retreat while the french are dying for them on the beaches ?! I mean come on... Being called "cowards" all the time can sometimes be hurtful.
French and American carriers are the only ones that can interoperate with each other. It always makes me pause when I see a Rafale on a Nimitz class carrier or a Hornet on the CDG.
have to fix you, its just that hornet cant be launched from any other, that has no catapult
@@Swarmah The Charles deGaulle has both catapults and arresting gear.
Here's a video of a US Hornet landing and being catapulted from the French carrier: ua-cam.com/video/qOIhKtvWQYU/v-deo.htmlsi=VDqPm1zs5WjlRpiJ
@@Rob_F8F and what did i say, its just the only non us carrier, where muricuuunt planes can launch off. :D While french planes can launch from others carriers.
@@Swarmah I misread your comment. Apologies.
@@Swarmah You should probably have elaborated more and mentioned that the Rafale can take off from Ski Jump style carriers if you didn't want people getting confused.
Reasons for France to have a Carrier could be:
The five overseas regions of France are:
Guadeloupe (Caribbean)
Martinique (Caribbean)
French Guiana (South America)
Mayotte (Indian Ocean)
Réunion (Indian Ocean)
The five overseas collectivities of France include:
Saint-Barthélemy (Caribbean)
Saint-Martin (Caribbean)
Saint Pierre and Miquelon (North America)
Wallis and Futuna (Pacific)
French Polynesia (Pacific)
Yep he didn't open a map ...
And New Caledonia
also for NATO operations - the carrier can serve as a flagship of a NATO task force - and with Russian aggression, an aircraft carrier seems logical given that ground air bases can be easily attacked
Time for those colonies to be liberated as independent.
@@ludovicbon5903 Yeah like wtf? New Caledonia is one of the most significant and the dude leaves it out?
Anyway the real reason for France to have a carrier is the the same as the UK: They read their history books and realise that they used to be relevant to the global order, so they think that they are still relevant today. Their history books seem to not include that they couldn't even handle Egypt by themselves during the Suez crisis and that was half a century ago. These European powers should be focusing on nearer threats like Russia and terrorist groups in northern Africa, not trying to project power to the other side of the world.
A French perspective on this video: great work explaining the French need for a carrier, and pronouncing French words!
It should be noted however that not everyone in France agrees with this. I'm not just talking about anti-military activists here, but there are people who think that given the number of French air bases around the world, given the number of Rafales (or SCAF-NGFs) one can buy for the price of a carrier (let alone two), and given that France has tankers and therefore fighters of effectively unlimited range, developing and building aircraft carriers does not make sense. I guess it won't surprise you that a large portion of these people are to be found in the French Air Force, while the French Navy disagrees with this view. In the latter's opinion, carriers afford the ability to generate more sorties by sailing very close to the theater, provide independence from the countries where French air bases are located, allow Paris to put pressure on foreign countries by simply moving a carrier close to their shores, wherever these might be, etc. This is just to say that the debate is very much alive, although at the moment, the Navy is clearly winning it.
As for the SCAF, I'd be extremely surprised if it were cancelled altogether. It may well suffer the same fate as the Typhoon, in which case France would develop it alone, as it did the Rafale, while Germany might possibly do its own thing, or maybe join the British Tempest, or maybe find some other option. But the project is too important to the French Air Force and Navy for it to be abandoned. Remember that in French doctrine, it's very important for the Air Force and Navy to be able to penetrate an enemy's air space immediately in case of a conflict ("entrer en premier"). Operation Harmattan, in Libya, was a good example of this.
Now the Rafale's electronic warfare suite (Spectra) was certainly helpful there, but electronic warfare alone can't be expected to make up for the lack of stealth (and Libya wasn't exactly a top-tier military power). The Rafale does have some features meant to significantly reduce its radar signature, and it appears that the planned F5 standard will include upgrades aimed at further improving this (including changes to the physical structure of the aircraft, though their exact nature remains unknown for now), but none of this can come close to what can be achieved with a true low-observable aircraft. With its planned V-tail (and probably other technological improvements), the SCAF-NGF might be even better than the F-35 in this regard, and I really don't think the French air forces are ready to give up on this.
The perception in France is that Germany doesn't really bring anything other than money to the table. That's not to say that German engineers are incompetent, but the argument is that there is no relevant technology that Germany has mastered and that France has not. On the other hand, Dassault has precious experience in designing fighters from the ground up, which Germany hasn't done (alone) in a long time, while Safran has engine experience that Germany lacks. So in the French Ministry of Armies, in the General Directorate of Armament (Direction Générale de l'Armement, DGA), or of couse within Dassault, Thales, Safran, etc., there's a great deal of skepticism (or even resentment) regarding the partnership with Germany, with the perception that the latter just wants to "steal" French know-how for the benefit of its industry, or that it's not even that interested in the fighter itself because it has given up on having a real military, but merely wants to get access to French tech in order to repurpose it for civilian applications and export the resulting products. Anyway, you get the idea: lots of people in France aren't enthusiastic about the German partnership, and would like nothing more than to tell the Germans to $@#& off while French companies develop the plane alone. Of course, this would require a bigger financial commitment from the French government, but if the deal with Germany fell through, it wouldn't really have a choice.
However, I suppose that the need to increase the SCAF budget might have knock-on effects on the carrier program.
Thanks for the articulated comment. I am pessimistic about the destiny of the SCAF as a multinational program but it may continue as a French/Spanish initiative. The Rafale F5 w exactly what I had in mind when I was talking about a "Super Rafale".
Do you have any French military magazines to suggest to me (in French, of course)?
@@Millennium7HistoryTech You're most welcome. The "Super Rafale" will very likely happen, but mostly as a stop-gap measure, and perhaps as a cheaper complement to the SCAF, much as current 4th gen US fighters complement the F-22 and F-35. I guess it will depend on how expensive the SCAF turns out to be relative to the Rafale F5 (purchase cost and flight hours). Drones may also affect this equation. Some in the French Air Force have been advocating for cheap aircraft that could be deployed en masse, e.g. Super Tucanos, but although these people include generals, for now there are no known plans to develop or acquire anything like this.
My main recommendation when it comes to French magazines would be Défense et Sécurité Internationale, more commonly known as just DSI. It deals with military matters in general, not just aviation, but Joseph Henrotin, the editor-in-chief, does specialise in aviation. They occasionally publish more or less recent articles on their website for free, but the vast majority of their stuff is only available in the paper magazine:
www.areion24.news/
You can also read the Centre d'études stratégiques aérospatiales's journal for free, called Vortex. This is a publication for officers and academics alike to discuss various issues related to military aviation strategy. It's good stuff, and freely available online:
en.calameo.com/cesa/books/0069402882a40c6518aa2
Beyond magazines, you can have a look at Pierre-Henri "ATE" Chuet's UA-cam channel if you haven't already. He's a former Rafale-M pilot and obviously knows his stuff, though he sometimes doesn't go into as much detail as I'd like. His tactical analyses of videos from Ukraine are top-notch:
ua-cam.com/users/ATECHUETTOPGUN2SPEAKERvideos
You can also have a look at the YT channels of both branches of the Institut des hautes études de défense nationale (IHEDN):
ua-cam.com/channels/3pcnA73CNB0fprIYtO2CEw.htmlvideos
ua-cam.com/users/JeunesIHEDNvideos
But they don't put very much online, unfortunately. To be honest, if you find yourself in Paris some time, consider attending their conferences in person. They're free, you just have to register, and it's a great opportunity to ask questions to people who know what they're talking about. Sometimes it can be a way to get information that isn't public, not because it's confidential, but simply because no one has bothered to ask before. When I lived this Paris, I took advantage of this opportunity as much as I could.
Oh and Spain is a bit of an unknown quantity. The country seems very committed to the project, but only as a relatively minor partner. Madrid may regard this situation as acceptable given that most of the project is split between France and Germany, which kind of puts it in the position of a potential tie-breaker. In some sense, this gives Spain more weight in the project than its financial investment might suggest.
Still, what would happen if the partnership between France and Germany were to break down? Would Spain join the French project? Their needs align pretty well with German ones, given that both countries operate Typhoons, and both have to replace their ageing air-to-ground aircraft (Hornets in Spain, Tornadoes in Germany), and neither operates a proper aircraft carrier. But would Germany be interested in pursuing a 6th gen fighter without France? There might not be a German project for Spain to join, would there? Very open questions, in my opinion.
@@Lexoka Thank you so much! This is really useful!
I find your description of Germany's position interesting. To me it makes a lot of sense in a "pre-Ukraine" context. But now that Germany is increasing its military budget, do you feel they might take the SCAF program more seriously than before ? I mean : as a fighter project, not as a technology transfer funnel ?
I haven't had enough time to really think about it, but it's undeniable that the invasion of Ukraine (no matter how it ends and how long it takes to get there) will have a long-lasting impact on the military stance of every country on the continent. Smells like the start of a new weapons race.
French carriers are compatible with American aircraft (they hosted each others planes on their carriers in 2020).
So are Italian and British carriers.
I am pretty sure that's the case for all nato countries
@@PeachDragon_ No the Italian and British carriers cannot launch the US F/A-18 E/F/G, E-2D and F-35C at full capacity as they have no catapults
@@jmmorin2866 they can't launch the f-35? You do realize the italian navy literally uses the f-35C yes?
@@PeachDragon_ No the Italians bought the F-35B, not the C
@@jmmorin2866 oh my bad then
Another informative video, with an especially excellent primer on France's rationale for requiring Supercarriers.
Such weapon systems have geostrategic reasons for their existence after all. Something that is very much overlooked in the very technology fetishist nature of defense reporting.
They finally learn Napoleon mistake. Cant dominate europe with clumsy navy 😅
Just remember that France has the second EEZ in the world and has territories in all the seas of the globe, it is the country with the most time zones.
It is also a country with many interests around the world very committed to the fight against terrorism. It is also the first army in Europe and with the rise in tension that we observe in the world...
When we all know that we say to ourselves that 1 aircraft carrier is in fact not enough
I doubt it’s going to be a super carrier.
This was one of your best so far in terms of context, technical detail, and strategic considerations. Thank you.
In 1980 I had the midwatch (0000-0400) as we approached Toulon for a port visit. Suddenly the French Navy starts a major exodus from Toulon. The Foch was already launching aircraft before it was 3km from the mouth of the harbor. That was some fine ship handling.
We were docked across from the Suffren. I was the only officer who spoke French so I was called upon often. Their 1st Lieutenant (deck officer) invited our 1st Lt. and I home for dinner. His little girls (ages 4&6) were watching Bugs Bunny cartoons in French when we arrived. They are even funnier in French. He told me where I could get Asterix the Gaul comics.
Lovely tale !
Asterix is originally French so I bet it is funnier in French :) We had a pile of them on our living room coffee table. The best evening was when all my brothers sat down with me, and each one of us started reading a comic book. We randomly broke out into laughter at random intervals.
@@rajeshkanungo6627 Oh, yes. Most of the puns in the Asterix comics translated well into other languages. I still have a few of the ones in French.
France is the last "empire" where the Sun never sets !
From Oceania to Caribeans, from St-Pierre et Miquelon to Kerguelen !
True, there's been a big gap in the British Empire since Hong Kong was handed back.
@@krashd empire need to die. the french give citizenship to their territory, while UK is selfish and still act like a coloniser. UK should lose every overseas territory, they don't deserve them under the UN charter.
@@krashd New Zealand, Australia are still major participating countries of the Commonwealth & still have the British monarch as their monarch the same as Canada. These aren't dependencies of course but Britain still to this day has dependencies covering the full globe.
Yet the sun always set on Britain now@@DavyRo
This is the first time I've heard about the EEZ. That pretty much explains why everyone wants to fight over rocks in the ocean. Great video as always!
Japan has also signed on to the Tempest 6th gen program. Nice work on this video, it’s very interesting and good to see another nation, represented in your videos. I’d enjoy more like this as well.
France and US technically both have the largest EEZ, it really depends if you speak of surface area or seafloor area
How is there a difference? how do you get more seafloor with less surface?
@@SilverMe2004 It does like a pyramide so the depper you go the larger the EEZ is not the physical seafloor. That's cause we can't completly privetise the surface else ships coudn't sail anywhere without permission.
The French have one of the strongest expeditionary forces in the world. Somehow they never get credit as being a serious threat. Even though they compete with my home state making airplanes and good wine I still love the French. It must just be a really great latitude.
French usually run away from battlefield, so nobody see them as a threat so it's a good thing
@@aboutraore6754 oh, a stupid kid who talks without knowing anything, learn history
Well it's because of their history in the 20th century.
WWII, Dien Bien Phu, etc
@@complexblackness and ? 2 loses in a 1000 year old history and it's a country of losers ? stupid
@@complexblackness Welcome to the 21st century, where France could actually give some lessons to, say, Russia on how to fight... Look up operation Serval, or the role played in 1st Irak war (they were smart enough to avoid the 2nd) or Afghanistan...
I have seen the deGaulle when it was in for a mid-life refit in Toulon in 2017. Saw it from ground level and from Mt. Faron.
I agree 100% with your assessment. France is a maritime empire with massive influence. The carrier(s) are vital to maintain this empire.
I admire the French navy. Designs are meant to be straightforward. I love the design of of the Clemenceau class and the Charles de Gaulle is a very interesting design having the island forward for optimized flight deck area efficiency for a smaller carrier. And besides, they have beautiful lines!
President Macron made the point of retaining and further developing the technical skill & capabilities in critical areas (nuclear power, armaments, defense, AI, etc.) at the PANG announcement. This is a further proof of very strong belief among French people that they must be master of their own destiny, instead of relying on others! Being an engineer, I appreciate the thinking that skills (whether in trades and/or technical analysis/design, etc.) must be retained and developed. Such skills can be easily lost, I have seen, as many of the new young engineers coming into the workforce seem very capable of pushing buttons but totally incapable of logical/critical thinking, leading to fundamental screwups requiring complete rework or expensive fixes. Oh, these skills especially those involving national security & defense, cannot and should never be outsourced!
France has excellent reactor technology and production capabilities. Their aircraft are also very capable. All well recognized.
easy to be the best when only 2 country makes them
@@ommsterlitz1805 There's a reason why only two countries make them. It is difficult as well as expensive.
It's also because France is decades in advance in the nuclear field this is why the ITER nuclear fusion reactor is being built in France, same with the LHC of the CERN and the Future Circular Collider (FCC)@@jaysdood
The Current French Carrier operates E-2 Hawkeyes, which are an American plane. That being said, I have a lot of Respect for the French Navy. The reason, I heard, for there current carrier being Cat and Trap (remember until recently only the U.S. and France operate them) was three Reason, the ability to use the Hawkeye (for fleet defense there is nothing better then have a Hawkeye above you), To allow for Cargo on Employment, and more then likely if France needs to send it carrier to War, it will be operating with U.S. Carriers, so it design to integrate well. And it is very good to have allies that are willing to work with you.
Merci pour cette vidéo de grande qualité. Vu de l'étranger pour expliciter le format de la Marine, il n'y a rien à y redire. Je me permets juste de préciser quelques petits points techniques. Si les gros PA ricains emportent environ 80 appareils, à l'arrivée le CDG effectue à peu près les 2/3 de nombre de vols avec ses 32 Rafale et Hawkeye. Ceci est en partie dû au système de ballast à base de trains lestés sous le pont (et de nageoires) qui permettent d'effectuer des mouvements d'aviation en virage ou par mer très formée. il nous manque juste l'équivalent des Growler sinon. Pour les trois BPC de type Mistral, qui pourraient effectivement être assez semblables aux LHD ricains, leur programme a été volontairement décidé autre. Ils sont prévus pour des assauts "trans-horizon" ce qui est permis via leurs hélicos (Tigre, caracal, Caïman) et par les catamarans EDAR de débarquement, ce qui permet ainsi d'alléger leur système d'auto-défense qui est remplacé par des véhicules embarqués. Je m'abonne à vos vidéos. Encore bravo. 😉
Thank you for this high quality video. Seen from abroad to explain the format of the Navy, there is nothing wrong with it. I would just like to clarify a few small technical points. If the big US aircraft-carriers carry about 80 aircrafts, on arrival the CDG performs about 2/3 of the number of flights with its 32 Rafale and Hawkeye. This is partly due to the ballast system based on ballasted trains below deck (and fins) which allow aircraft movements to be carried out in turns or in very heavy seas. We just lack the equivalent of the Growlers otherwise. For the three BPC of the Mistral type, which could indeed be quite similar to the American LHD, their program was voluntarily decided differently. They are planned for "trans-horizon" assaults, which is allowed via their helicopters (Tigre, caracal, Caiman) and by EDAR landing catamarans, which thus makes it possible to lighten their self-defense system which is replaced by on-board vehicles. I subscribe to your videos. Well done again. 😉
*"Oh no, I have chateau'd myself!"*
Vive la France! Thanks for the interesting and in-depth analysis.
Greetings from Mordor!
I think that France has shown their commitment to the maintenance of peace, in any way possible. This very reassuring resolve is inspiring the world. Viva France!! ❤️❤️🇨🇦
I'm confused by your statement that the new French carrier at 75,000 tons will be 20-25% smaller than a Ford class carrier which is 100,000 tons, but it will be comparable to a Nimitz which displaces 97,000 tons. I think you my be underestimating the size of the Nimitz class which is very close in size to the Ford class.
Edited to add : I am glad to see France is going with nuclear power over diesel power. Europe as a whole seems to have an aversion to nuclear powered ships, which makes no sense considering Europe tends to push clean energy more than the rest of the world.
Also France is at the very forefront of nuclear technology, so if anyone can build a reliable and SAFE nuclear power plant for a naval ship , it would be France.
I'm french and I have to admit that this video is very interesting and accurate so congratulations you've done a very good job
Given the realities of modern warfare I am skeptical of utility of carrier strike groups to maintaining empire.
As a french, we had territories almost everywhere on earth (I for example was born in the Caribbean), so it kinda make sense in case we need to protect those territories.
Past tense. And the territories that now constitute present-day Overseas France are hardly contested or under threat. Unless they wish to get back into old interventionist habits.
@@fredmdbud past tense was a mistake on my part, again I'm french, cut me some fucking slack.
They are hardly contested now, but no serious army plans for "now".
Europe as a whole needs more.
As a Brit I would have to agree with the French having carriers.
No, it's not your territory
Fantastic information. Thank you! (and Vive la France!).
This and Monkey Werx are my two favorite channels on youtube for getting situational reports on what's happening militarily in the world. This one is nice because you go into detail about the technology, which I truly appreciate.
also interesting to note that there does seem to be some NATO standard with carriers. French Rafale can take off and land from US carriers and US Hornets can do the same on the Charles De Gaulle. Although Im not too sure whether a combat loaded super hornet can do it since the CDG is so small.
French Navy and US Navy are 100% interoperable. Catapults, Hawkeye AWACS, buddy-buddy refueling, same landing system and arresting cables. When you have catapults size of the ship is not much of a factor, the 75m catapults in the CdG can launch a 27 ton aircraft, MTOW of a F-18 super hornet is almost 30 tons, Rafale MTOW is 25 tons. Arresting cables max landing weight is about 15 tons I think. Super hornet empty weight is about 14,5 tons, so the CDG can operate Full armament payload F18 super hornets but they would need to be launched with 1/2 half fuel and be refuelled in flight by buddy buddy Rafales then on their way back dump most of their fuel and unused ammo to land. Nimitz catapults are 93m long and launch up to 36 tons.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_catapult
@@Frencho9
Ironically Britain, France and US all have the abilities to interact on a military level. As does like the likes of Japan.
@@bighands69 Although britain really should have gone for a catrap, pretty sure that was a labour decision. Oh well at least we get two out of it.
@@georgethompson1460 Cat Traps will not function on a ship that produces no steam.
Wow I had no idea that the French still had so many territories! Very informative video!
I would listen just for the accent and the humor but the very unique perspective different from US Anglo centric we usually get is refreshing
I think one missed point is that France is the third largest international weapons exporter in the world.Carriers could though unlikely be built for Brazil or Middle east countries etc. As the USA will not sell one or the British. Buying from Russia is out for most the world and China wants as many as she can build for herself. Who knows maybe France will try to market them to the world.
With a nuclear power plant, that's incredibly unlikely.
i dont think China has the problem of ship build capacity, its the largest in the world. Though i dont think any country can afford it outside NATO whom wont buy Chinese military for political reason.
@@92HazelMocha Well they are willing to do it with nuclear submarines and already do export the heli carrier Mistral class that Russia wanted to buy, so who knows. What's more unlikely is the US letting them do it, French arms export is absolutely on the kill list of the United States already, i struggle to see a world where the French could export nuke carriers without the US tanking it.
@John Smith China is currently in a huge housing crisis, which makes up 1/3 of its total GDP. And the downward spiral just began there. It will dwarf the economic crisis of the last 20+ years. China's legs aren't as massive as advertised. There are more similar to the tofu-dreg projects there.
@@vask3863 another clown spotted with the usual bullshit.
Richelieu was a bad guy in Dumas's story, but a great man in French history.
He was protrayed as a bad guy just because the Musketeers were the King's men while Cardinal de Richelieu's men were another rival faction ("Gardes du Cardinal"). It's quite silly :)
@@bonzaibush4391 Richelieu in Azur Lane is a protagonist for Idris (free france faction) compared to Jean Bart who is the polar opposite who leads the Vichya faction (vichy france). The french faction portray as musketeers and knights with their ship rigging. Have not seen Richelieu being sketchy as of yet in the story.
@@UnicornGamingRX03 what is Azur Lane ? A game ? A movie ?
Jean Bart IRL was a great corsair from Dunkerque, working for the king of France attacking british ships
@@bonzaibush4391 a mobile game
@@bonzaibush4391 it’s a mobile game.
Another great video! Keep them coming! All the best from the UK 👍🏻
I really appreciate your time working on your channel. You do a much better job of writing and presenting your thoughts. The depth of your experience show in how you deliver the material. We're I in a position to help support your efforts, I would.. If things change I will.
As a Frenchman, I congratulate you for such a good understanding and coverage of our national interest. However, as the EU becomes more integrated, the French interest will slowly become the European interest as well. We’ll see how this comes along but thanks for the content!
EU becomes more integrated?
What planet are you living on. Germany has now put Europe in a situation of Russian energy dependence. There is no integration among different European cultures. Southern Europeans are not the same as Northern Europeans.
Frexit.
@@compleXarsenic Never happening. As likely as Florida exit from the US!
@@VictorECaplon Florida exited from the US once already.
The EU won't become that integrated in any of our lives, if ever.
Its always good to keep your own defense industry running. good on france! much love from Germany.
Thank you for your insight on the French Program !
I have been considering the pros and cons of steam power CatoBar. Though I should've understood it from the first, I was taken aback when it was pointed out to me how much steam trunking a catapult system requires sent upward and forward from the boiler or engine room. As a Snipe with high pressure powerplant experience I wonder about all that piping and monkeyshit insulation-and the extra men needed to monitor it/stand watch between oil fired or nuc "boilers" and the catapult reservoir(s). Moving high temperature, high pressure, main steam that much distance has all kinds of enthalpic (heat loss) implications as well as the dangers implicit in the occasional pinhole fault or valve malf being multiplied by the distance run.
I thought it was just about French national prestige. I learned something! Thanks.
being cynical, it's carrier-less large navies which are mostly about prestige, not the other way around.
There is no other way around fixed-wing aviation in high-end maritime warfare.
There is just none.
Next Talk about Shtorm
It just a concept 99% it won't be built
For the SCAF the program is already heading the rafale way where Germany don’t really want it and Dassault feel like Germany s just stopping them from doing the plane. Dassault already stated multiple times they re not interested in collaborating with the Germans anymore and we ll probably see a program 100% french or with also Spain but that s all. There s also a big distrust in France toward Germany with how they handle current program, mainly the Tigre. In the end I don’t thing Germany will stay in the SCAF program and will either go with the tempest program or continue what they re currently doing and return to US only material.
I think it‘s very unlikely that Germany will go with the Tempest program or stay with US material. There is just too much political interest in keeping the ability to produce advanced military aircraft. I‘d say the purchase of the F-35 is a stop gap measure to bridge the EW and nuclear gap with the decommissioning of the Tornado. Given the recent shift in german military spending, the political will to persue a capable FCAS, more in line with France‘s interest is definitely a possibility.
Germany might have genuine interest and intentions but their bureaucracy and funding process is a nightmare for all of their domestic military projects. Oddly their industry finds it easier to sell equipment to foreign customers than to their own government.
@@stupidburp might be so but it's true that it really rubbed the french the wrong way over the years public approbation of german/french military cooperation, once high really took a nose dive.
@1 CQC what?
Google Translate does s terrible job of translating Chinese
I am French and I thank you because most of the time the videos are incorrect but you are very informed and I thank you for that. Good continuation and the video was very interesting even for a French.
France may use its aircraft carrier to protect its many over seas territories.... As they own quite a few small islands 😉
And few big one like French Guyana
@@thefrenchbaguette919 French Guyana is not an island
@@marjanperveinis8355 yeah I know should have precised
Don't make 1, make 2.
Fais-le!
Faites-le
This was a great video. Can't believe i missed it.
One thing ... When Gus mentions the F4 he's showing the A4 SkyHawk ....
Hey great job, your getting really good as these videos. I like this style you did here. You put a lot of research and theory into it. 👍
Interesting was unaware of the new carrier, I’m English but fell in love with the Rafale, beautiful aircraft, it’s good to see France being smart and not investing in the rip off platform that is the F-35, a super rafale that’s 20%larger like the super hornet would be a wise choice and maybe make the wings fold, I look forward to seeing the progress with the carrier
Sorry bud, but there is a reason why F-35s are selling like hot cakes
The F-35 is not a rip off and at some point France will be using it as well. Britain has a much better Aerospace industry than France and not even Britain decide to try and counter the F-35.
@@bighands69 not a rip off?! that’s why the UK closed air bases, have sold the fleet of Jaguars, Harriers(mid upgrade) and even the Nimrod and now the Tornado all for a technology that give in 10-15 years will be defunct, I Highly doubt France will purchase the F-35 do your research France has specific needs hence why the Rafale came about France didn’t partake in the Tornado project
French need a carrier because they still have a lot of territory far from home
Like in south America, and pacific
Thus they really need global range of nuclear power carrier
@@92HazelMocha Then it's clear you know nothing about France, its people and its overseas territories. They're an integral part of the country, politically, economically and culturally. The idea that there'd be a majority in support of "giving up those territories" is really laughable. I mean, just look up New Caledonia. It's by far the one territory with the strongest independence movement. Yet, they chose to remain a part of France three times in referendums.
for mistral calss, i would add that they are helicopter carrier and they can do amphibious operations ( can hold 750 soldiers plus their armored vehicules , MBTs in addition of the helicopters )
France needs a carrier for the same reason Thailand needs one: to be able to say they have one.
One thing i would disagree with is that "NATO very recently opened the gates for countries that are definiterly not North Atlantic". ( 17:05 )
Simply because NATO since the beginning had member states not "in" the North Atlantic.
Greece, Italy, Turkey, Albania, Kroatia, Slowakia, Slowenia, Czechia, Hungary, Luxemburg, Romania.
Sweden and Finland, in my eyes, would fit better into the "North Atlantic" part of the name then, for example, Hungary or Romania.
That's not to say that those countries shouldn't be in NATO, quite the contrary. But implying that the name would have anything to do with member states being in proximity to the North Atlantic is simply false. (At least that's how i understood your comment)
La France possède le second domaine maritime mondial, donc la raison c'est tout simplement protéger notre domaine maritime, nos intérêts et nos concitoyens d'outres mers!
Very well-research, and entertaining. Nicely done!
Most people don't realize just how large France and it's Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian ocean territories is. This alone as others have pointed out is reason enough for this effort. I will venture to say that the development of directed energy weapons will probably increase the need for larger power plants on these ships. Many people see the rivalry between China and the USA as the major competitors. However, Wolf warrior China is not facing the USA alone. France has a serious and powerful position in this situation.
16:48 even though this is expected, i am still surprised to learn that the EEZ of the UK is still smaller than the EEZ of France
Sun never sets on France.
St-Pierre et Miquelon to Kerguelen and Papeete to St-Barth !
France's is not only larger, but 78% larger
Good comprehensive coverage as usual.
In my opinion France needs at least three aircraft carriers.
Now regarding the PHA used as a base for a future light aircraft carrier, I do not think it would be viable, as this ship series is basically a peacetime military ship, built around civilian specs, and the presence of that elevator at the very end of the deck is quite problematic.
PHA / BPC are excellent military assets, they were key to operations during HARMATAN.
And good enought the russians would have liked to have them in 2014, and i guess in 2022, good thing we didn't deliver them.
Yup ! 3 CV are a must with such a large EEZ and 5 would be a luxury (retrofits and maintenance rotations)
1 per "zone" ; 1 pacific, 1 europe/baltic, 1 caribeans/atlantic
@@Real_Claudy_Focan the USN has 10 carriers to cover all of this while having to deal with maintenances etc... Not doable.
Tout est dans les détails. 👍
Very nice production and very interesting views on french defence technology. I hold french engineering in the highest esteem but am aware of the historical difficulties regarding cooperation w other countries. Will be most interesting to follow this in the future.
Love the channel, but maybe i misunderstood, you said this would be roughly equivalent to the Nimitz class. The Nimitz and the Ford classes are basically the same size, around 100K tons, and 1000 ft long. This you said would be around 75K tons. Isn't this closer to the British QE carrier?
American carriers are the standard for measurement, that's why
The QE class are light and mid-sized while the new French carrier may be light but it's dimensions are not far off from those of Chinese and US carriers. I'm guessing that it is going to be much lower in the water than the other 1000ft'ers
@@krashd Actually my point is that its NOT on a par with the NIMITZ, since the Nimitz is almost the same exact dimensions as the Ford. The main difference in the Ford is that it will have newer tech (catapults and greater Electrical capacity). But dimensions and weight are almost exact. So the French carrier is 25% lighter and slightly smaller dimensionswise. the QE class is actually 65K tons. I'd say midsized. The last American carriers that were in the 60K+ ton range were the Kitty Hawk and Enterprise (90K) Classes
@@MG-Nordster You just ignored everything stated in the video and by myself, the new French carrier will have a deck of similar size to the US supercarriers. It doesn't matter how much displacement they have if they have found some way to increase their surface area.
@@krashd Its true, but its a little hard to believe they can lop off 1/4 of the weight, unless its built with lighter materials. Its nuclear, so it will require same size/weight propulsion system as Nimitz class, the EMLS aren't a weight reducing feature, yes, they will have only 3 as opposed to 4. As far as sitting lower in the water, that would mean reduced hangar/lower crew compartment space. Things are squeezed in pretty well on ships. Those dimensions inherently bring comparable weight. Something doesn't add up. Even the Chinese carriers are in the 90K tonnage range. see this from WIKI..
"Earlier press reports and Chinese media generally suggested that the ship might have a displacement of around 80,000 tons to 85,000 tons. Later assessment backed by satellite images suggested the displacement was underestimated, and the Type 003 carrier might be closer in displacement to about 100,000 tons.[11][20][21] Analyst Robert Farley believes the Type 003 will be the "largest and most advanced aircraft carrier ever built outside the United States" when completed.[14]"
We will see, the Nimitz and Fords are spacious flight decks. Thats weight IMO and its the most criical part to be built for heavy use and damage.
Another addendum to this otherwise excellent video: contrary to US carriers, the Charles de Gaulle is equipped with tactical nuclear missiles (ASMP). The carrier is part of the French nuclear deterrent.
Good point. I forgot to mention.
Addendum to the addendum by the carrier is equiped with nuclear missiles he means nuclear munitions are held on the carrier to be launched from the Rafales of the naval aviation and not the carrier itself.
@@andresmartinezramos7513 Thanks for the meta-addendum.
Well researched topics. And well-grounded and humble effort and presentation. Keep the excellent job. Average people tend to understand or explain things differently. Merci Beaucoup...
I really don't think we (I am french) are going to build 2 new carriers, recently the top admiral said they would have trouble manning the ship and the accompanying fleet.
But your solution if 1 big and 3 small is actually a clever one.
The somewhat low total power output of French nuclear carriers is directly related to the fuel that they use. This fuel is low enriched uranium, at an enrichment level equivalent to that used in common civilian nuclear power plants. It also greatly reduces the amount of time between required refuelings, thus increasing total costs and reducing availability. On the positive side, it is simple to source and handle the fuel as it is integrated into their civilian power fuel cycle which reduces costs in that area. It also is somewhat less of a security concern than high enriched nuclear fuel that could potentially be stolen and used for weapons. On the other hand, France maintains a nuclear weapons program and has access to high enriched uranium (HEU) if they chose to go that route for military nuclear power.
Personally I think that France should upgrade their civilian nuclear power to use high assay low enriched uranium (HALEU). This could also be a better option for military nuclear power than low enriched uranium (LEU). LEU is typically enriched to 2-6%. HALEU is typically enriched to 15-19.75%. HEU is anything enriched to 20% or more but requires around 80-95% for practical use in weapons.
In the past, there was an incentive to use LEU whenever possible because the enrichment process was expensive and time consuming. However, in recent years enrichment technology has progressed and is vastly more efficient. This can be a problem for nuclear weapons proliferation but for civilian nuclear power it makes HALEU much more attractive. HALEU has already been in use in numerous research reactor projects because the higher enrichment allows for a smaller and more efficient reactor and thus a less expensive research program. Some have worried that large scale use of HALEU could make it easier for a country to make the leap to a supply of HEU for weapons but in the case of France they already have them.
HALEU for both civilian and military nuclear power would allow for more efficient reactors that require less frequent refueling and smaller reactors for a given power output. Shielding requirements go up slightly but the handling procedures and safety requirements are still well understood. HALEU costs more for the enrichment but the total costs for nuclear power go down because of the greater efficiency and availability and smaller volume required for containment. The greater efficiency also produces less total nuclear waste and less of the more hazardous types of waste.
The French like the British and the US now use bomb-grade HEU (80%-plus enriched) for their submarine reactors so the French do have experience building such reactors. The big advantage with this approach is that a single fuel load at launch will operate the sub for its expected operating lifespan of about 30 years or so and any refits don't involve cutting the hull in half to access the reactor spaces for a refuelling operation. The downside is that the submarine's operational lifespan cannot be noticeably extended beyond that 30 year mark because the reactor's fuel is depleted.
The problem for the French is that either they go the USS Enterprise route of fitting eight small 50MW sub-sized reactors to power such a large ship or they design a new generation of larger reactors of the sort that power the Nimitz and Ford-class. According to the announced specs they're going the new-design route of two new reactors. This is expensive with only four such reactors ever being built unlike the US which has a requirement of over twenty Ford-class reactors which spreads out the development costs.
The suggested power output of 200MW (I presume this means electrical power, not thermal) per reactor for the proposed French carriers is more than the Nimitz-class carriers of ca. 150MW but the Nimitzes were conventionally propelled using steam turbines which used reactor heat for that purpose (also the steam catapults). From what I understand, the Fords are electrically propelled and their reactors produce 300MW electrical each. It's likely the French carriers will similarly be driven by electric motors like the QEs and most modern military vessels.
One reason the Fords are over-specced for electrical power is the expected future deployment of directed-energy weapons and railguns for close-in defence and possibly anti-ballistic missile defence too. There's no easy way to add extra electrical generating capacity in a future refit, it's easier to over-specify the original design. I expect the French designs planning is taking this sort of future-proofing into consideration too.
@@robertsneddon731 French use LEU because of laws around nuclear safeties.
Also no french navy doesn't cut the hull in half to refuel.
@@pew3561 Military reactor operations aren't covered by civilian nuclear rules and the safety considerations are regulated in different ways.
Previous generations of nuclear-powered vessels used LEU or HALEU fuel and did require refuelling at roughly five to ten year intervals depending on a number of factors. Carriers and other surface ships like Soviet/Russian nuclear icebreakers have big enough reactor spaces that refuelling is possible without major structural alterations. They still use 5% LEU or possibly HALEU (ca. 19.7% U-235, what used to be called Medium Enriched Uranium or MEU).
Submarines on the other hand don't have the sort of access to their reactor spaces that surface ships do so refuelling them usually required cracking the hull during a refit or even splitting it in half to safely extract the spent LEU fuel and replace it with fresh fuel elements. This might only be done once or maybe twice in a given sub's lifespan but it cost a lot and took the sub out of commission for much longer than a conventional refit would. This drove the move towards Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) fuel for sub reactors so their initial fuel load now lasts the entire life of the boat.
@@robertsneddon731 French nuclear submarines use LEU and are equipped with refuelling hatches. No need to cut anything.
@@robertsneddon731 They have the exact same safety rules, and they are monitored by a section of the ASN, called ASNd.
"Submarines on the other hand don't have the sort of access to their reactor spaces that surface ships do so refuelling them usually required cracking the hull during a refit or even splitting it in half"
That's a lie, and submarine reactor are easier to acces than a aircraft carrier for logic reasons.
i don't have time arguing over something this basic.
Have a good day.
I always appreciate your videos. Thank you! Merci!
Having one carrier is as good as having no carrier. Your enemies will make in unavailable or wait until it's deep in drydock on an overhaul leaving France to make a terrible decision either way. With at least two, you have regular rotations, an entire set of spares including personel, etc. Perhaps Britain could be talked into buying a second ship? Being able to launch non VTOL aircraft opens up the possibility for higher performance, heavier aircraft, and better payloads. It would also bring down the costs. Brazil also might want a carrier like that considering all the fun Venezuala is threatening.
I'm interested in why you consider the British-Italian-Swedish Tempest less problematic than the Franco-German led FCAS. Is that solely based on the French need for a replacement carrier fighter as the British are using the F35B? Love your channel and appreciate the quality content you put out :)
Team Tempest is just not squabbling like team FCAS does.
The brits have a better track record of making multinational aerospace programme work. The tornado, jaguar, eurofighter. And I think that The Swedish have also collaborated with BAe in that the Gripen is marketed by them so the Brits already have dealings with them.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech And now they have the help of Japan and unveiled a new design, definitely influenced by Japan.
@@jimmywan87 Plus the Harrier Jump jet. V/STOL 1960s They all had a go. But it was a British manufacture Hawker Siddeley a Jet design what many attempted during that era. To take off from car parks and forest clearings.
Everyone on team Tempest agrees that Britain is the senior partner, while everyone else has a more junior status. I'm sure there are still debates and disagreements, but overall, things appear to be moving forward relatively uneventfully. So far, this hasn't been the case for the FCAS.
The UK has got overseas dependant territories that the
UK has defence responsibility for.... in effect they are colonies... e.g. the Falklands, so France is not the only European country with colonies.
even germany has colonies. ballerman and gran canaria.
@@certaindeath7776 JAJAJAJA
Mallorca, the mythical 17th Bundesländer
The US also has colonies if we're just calling all overseas territory colonies now.
Shh we dont call them colonies anymore its not politically correct enough for todays terminology.
@@krashd
The US only has a few small territories that are defence orientated in nature. They are there to stop invasions of the US.
This was very informative and helpful to understand!
Very interested in more videos like this. Thank you sharing the French perspective.
They need a carrier because France is a transcontinental country where the sun never sets with the biggest territorial waters in the world and the most numerous timezones.
So France is taking back Haiti, Louisiana, Algeria, and Vietnam?
@@Menaceblue3 What are you talking about? you ok?
Actually second largest territorial waters, USA is still Number 1 but I think France is trying to claim an expansion in the Pacific
@@mathieuschafer1360 that's true. France has the second largest territorial waters but the largest EEZ in the world
1. Why do the French need a carrier? Basically for French interests all over the world since the French maritime domain is really huge, the French "Exclusive Economic Zone" being the first or the second in the world: 10,2 millions Km2. I was about to give some information about the overseas "territories" but you said everything in the end of your video. Administratively speaking, most are "Territories" with some kind of autonomy and a dedicated currency (Franc Pacifique in Tahiti or New Caledonia for example) but some are "departements" with exactly the same status as any departement in metropolitan France (Martinique, Guadeloupe, Guyanne, La Réunion, Mayotte) using Euros, even being more than 9000 Kms away from Europe.
Among funny unexpected things, note that French Guyana being a "département", France has de facto a border with Brazil ...
2. The fighter developped with Germany and Spain: in my view you can forget it. It's dead on the german side: they were mainly interested in technology transfers (which is an issue for France in general, Dassault in particular) but not that much in military business for which they rely almost exclusively on the Americans ... In the mean time, they bought the F35, so ...
3. There is no problem of interoperability with US carriers: the CDG operates already with the US Navy and even the aircrafts are "compatible", American Hornets operating from the CDG and Rafales from US carriers. Moreover note that the "carrier training" of the French Aéronavale pilots is performed in the US Navy.
4. When you say "there is only one Charles de Gaulle", that's so true !!! I'm French, you guessed it and I can tell you that since De Gaulle we have been facing a succession of bad to worse "leaders" so that, as we say, we are now "touching the bottom", tocchiamo il fondo ...! But maybe I digress here ...
Coming back to carriers, I would personnally prefer 2 "small" carriers than a big one, for obvious reasons of operational "permanence". Anyway, first we will probably not have the money for 2 large carriers and second, there is another problem: the size of dry docks to build a ship that large. The size of the CDG was indeed limited by the shipyard itself, not the design of the carrier. So an additional cost to be taken into account ...
Well, to be continued, although in 2038 I will very likely be in the next world ...
Best regards
I agree with you. As a American and former Naval Aviator. I think the French would be better served by smaller carriers capable of operating a air wing of 45-50 aircraft. Two F4 Rafale squadrons. 3 E-2D’s. A MQ-25 type of UCAV for AAR SIGNT/ELINT x4. Also like to see a EA-18G SEAD platform x5. Not sure if the F4 Rafale would make sense in the R&D $$$ vs buying a small number of EA-18G’s. But since the USN/Air force operate a few joint manned EA-18G squadrons that are not assigned to any CV air wings and are land based units. It could be possible to get one of these squadrons carrier qualified and assigned to the CDG or it’s replacement. Just like Rafale’s have cross deck qualified on US carriers and be assigned during a crisis aka war with the Chinese as let be honest the French get it and know that China wants to dominate the world.
"second, there is another problem: the size of dry docks to build a ship that large. The size of the CDG was indeed limited by the shipyard itself, not the design of the carrier. So an additional cost to be taken into account ... "
Not really : France's Saint Nazaire shipyard can build ships of that size (and even bigger) since the 70 ies. They built the Batillus class tankers (414 m) back in 1975 and many of the largest cruise ships in the world, like Queen Mary 2 (345 m) or the harmony of the seas (362 m). That's why they will also build the PANG. The CDG was build at the smaller Brest Shipyard, for political reasons.
@@kovyfra5987 Thanks for clarifying the point about the shipyard. You are probably right about Saint-Nazaire, I'm not a specialist in shipyards. I've always been told this limitation for the size of the CDG, being built in the same place as the previous carriers Clémenceau and Foch. You mention "political reasons" for Brest: it's possible indeed, perhaps for discretion reasons since it's not a cruise ship?
@@patolt1628 It is the DCN unions who pressured the governement to build the CDG at the Brest shipyard. They won, therefore the CDG size was adapted to the Brest dry dock. Now, it is not obvious that the CDG would have been bigger if built at Saint Nazaire anyway (for cost reason). As a reminder, the Foch was built at Saint Nazaire...
@@kovyfra5987 Ok, trade unions in France ... 🙄it makes sense, especially at the time and if the Foch was built in Saint Nazaire ... How do you know all that?
For information, overseas territories of France are not covered by NATO's article 5.
It was implied in your very good video, but it doesn't hurt to emphasize it.
Love the Super E... Almost as much as the Viggen
You really need to talk about China's Anti Ship Ballistic Missiles. They have a 2500 mile range and can hit moving targets. When these things proliferate the carrier's day is on the wane. Also, if the US/NATO can takeout the Moskva with Harpoons claiming it was a Neptune missile. China and Iran can use that same gambit. China and Iran signed a military pact recently. It's just a matter of time till we see a carrier sitting at the bottom of the Sea.
A carrier wing with anti radiation and other long range missiles can out range anti ship missiles.
@@djl5634 What carrier based plane has a range greater than 2500 miles?
Did you hear about retaliation ? Any country who dares to sink our aircraft carrier will be considered hostile and will have to deal with a nuclear massive return. Want to bet ?
@@CaptainDangeax Not if that country happens to be China or Russia. If the Russians have to suck it up over losing a capital ship, guess what so does the USA.
@@TheTalkWatcher tomahawk missiles around all aircraft carriers. tomahawks that fire 2500km. Target them with satellite or aircraft then let it rain. F35 with external tanks can fly 1800miles using standoff wepons than can reach another 1000miles. B2 bombers on a special anti missile battery mission can fly around the world. And with in flight refueling on all naval aircraft carriers means range of stealth aircraft like f35 can easily be 3000 to 5000 miles. 2 refuels their and back. And I'm not even scraping the surface of a aircraft carrier fleet. Or specialist wepons like stealth missile destroyers like zumwald. If the treat exist we have a wepon to defeat it. Or the last defenses the missile gun and laser defense of the actual fleet itself.
Why does France need a carrier? OTIS is definitely British!
😂
For à french guy, it’s very interesting to ear your opinion. You seem’s to have work à lot for this opus. Thanks a lot i Will see your Chanel with interest.
Another great video. The only comment is the Nimitz and Ford carriers are pretty close in size.
France copies no one, and no one copies France
In fact, there is some countries that copy France military materials with or without consent. including China.
Did you know the Dutch had a few aircraft carriers? The last one was sold to Argentina. Later sunk by the British during the Falkland War.
It was not sunk by the British. The Argentine Navy took it to port to avoid losing it and then it was sold for scrap during the 90s.
the Karel Doorman war renamed ARA 25 de Mayo and wasn't sunk by the Brits
Thanks for correcting me :)
Her displacement at 75k full load will actually be 25% smaller than both the Ford and Nimitz classes. But still a massive ship.
Sir, I congratulate you for your content, I see that you have a lot of knowledge about France, and as you point out so well in your video, very few people know that France has a huge maritime territory to protect all over the globe, hence the need to have a fleet of ships capable of projecting themselves far and quickly.
A large carrier needs different operational expertise than smaller carriers, LHDs etc. That means the ship operations, not just the air wings. One of the issues with the singular Charles de Gaulle carrier has been that every few years it goes into a special dry-dock to get refitted and refuelled and the new crews that take her back to sea a couple of years later have to relearn everything from scratch again. It's a major reason the British built two QE-class conventionally-powered carriers, to ensure a continuous at-sea carrier capability as well as having two decks in service much of the time with no loss of institutional knowledge and training while one hull is in refit.
The "single supercarrier plus three smaller carriers" concept you suggest still means that every few years there is no big carrier available, and the refit time is extended by another year or so of retraining to the point where the ship can be considered operational with worked-up crews.
I mentioned dry-docks -- the French are going to have to rebuild their existing refit dock currently used for the CdG at great expense to handle the very much larger carriers even if they end up building only one of them. Such docks are specialised to handle nuclear materials for refuelling and they are not cheap. When the UK was deciding between conventional propulsion and nuclear propulsion for what became the QE-class the cost of such facilities was a significant factor in plumping for diesel plus gas turbines in the end. The alternative would have been to use American drydock facilities for refitting and refuelling British nuclear carriers by "special arrangement" but that was not going to be too practical in the long run given the US has eleven nuclear carriers that must be rotated through their refit cycles too.
The crews do not lose any experience as they are sent to an USN Nimitz carrier for a couple of years. French Navy and US Navy are 100% interoperable.
The French are experienced and have the facilities to handle nuclear powered vessels. Perhaps not the dry dock for a large carrier. But I highly doubt one is necessary on a regular basis.
@@dne9394 the Dry Dock of the CDG is always done in France in Toulon. We have the appropriate military facilities to handle it, there a large dry docks too in Brest. Also if military shipyards don't cut it Need I remind that the civilian Shipyard in Saint Nazaire builds the largest ferrys in the world and human history? We can build a carrier the size of the Gerald Ford, it's just way too expensive for France.
@@Frencho9 100% interoperable, except for that "pounds of fuel" thing and measurements in feet and inches and all the aircraft being different and...
The CdG has a ship operations crew of about 1300 or so with most of the ratings and junior officers deployed on-board for duty periods not exceeding two years before being reassigned to new duties elsewhere in the Marine Nationale. It's possible some of the nuclear engineering specialists will have longer deployments but two years is most likely. The Marine Nationale can't afford to send 3% of their entire military complement of 37,000 military personnel off to the US when the CdG is in refit, instead they get redeployed, sent to on-shore duties etc. When the CdG is ready for sea again most of the crew that embark on her will be totally new to the ship and the specialised operations a carrier requires with a lot of hands-on learning needed with no large cadre of experienced personnel around to make things easy.
With two carriers, when one goes into dock for refit the crew can mostly be deployed to the other carrier to relieve the existing crew, keep up their operational skills, continue pilot flight training on a carrier deck (another loss of skills that takes time to reacquire in a single-carrier Navy) and so on. It's the reason building and operating two carriers can be actually cheaper than one carrier in the long term.
@@dne9394 They do need a dock that can handle a 75,000 tonne warship and at the moment they don't have one. Such a dock can be used for other smaller ships but it has to be big enough for these carriers in a secure military area. Dealing with a nuclear fuel reloading operation in this dock is an additional level of expense and complexity.
This just made me think about just how the UK was all stuck up and full of themselves over deciding not to design and build new carriers with France, let alone new planes for those carriers, literally just because of being prejudice towards France.
Would you be surprised after them quit EU.
@@xiaogangdasha This was a year or two before Cameron even announced that there will be a "Brexit" referendum.
@@Leifthrasir But the winds were already blowing that way, they always were
You need to understand that the UK started it's new carrier building programme independently as a development from the 3 Invincible class of ships as the STOVL Harrier was becoming obsolete and as the UK are international partners on the F35 STOVL 5th generation aircraft it made sense to utilise the UK's experience with STOVL naval warfare in the new generation of carriers. . France requested to join the UK development some time after the design process was being completed. It was France that asked to join the UK development and it was France that decided to leave the programme later on . The UK was never prejudiced toward France and it was France that asked to join the already existing UK development.
@@andresmartinezramos7513 No, they were not. Until 2015 no one in the UK except for a handful of rich Tories had any desire to leave the EU.
Very informative, keep a great work.
Also keep in mind the vulnerability of large ships to issues like stranding or grounding. We don't have to remember far back when Evergreen's largest container ship ran off the center of the Suez Canal channel and essentially became wedged in a perpendicular angle, blocking the channel for all shipping. No a carrier may need to react quickly and needs to be able to transit narrow channels like the Suez or some key places between Denmark and Germany, or into the Black Sea, with ease and not become a sitting Duck for attack.
Vive la France from Germany!
Good go France one of our good allies and they make great equipment
With a carrier you also need 20+ support ships to go along with it. Cruisers, Frigates, Destroyers, cargo ships, AV fueling ships, a few subs, repair ships... A Carrier Task Force could have as many as 30,000 people in ships stretched out for hundreds of miles in any direction.
Great video!
Regarding the FCAS programme, we see again the same troubles that, back in the 90's, forced Europeans to split into 2 different teams for the development of the Eurofighter Typhoon.
Short story: France went alone developing the Rafale, and all the others (UK, Germany, Italy and Spain) went together developing the Typhoon. The reasons were the same: France obssesion with being the "leader" and the French attempt to charge its partners with the cost of developing a CATOBAR capable aircraft that nobody but France needs. Germany has not a single aircraft carrier and Spain sticks to the V/STOL configuration.
Thats so true especially the part with France being too proud and obsessed with being in charge xD
France has the right idea, Europe needs to get out from under Americas wing when it comes to security you cannot do this if you are relying either on American weapons or every little country wants to do it's own thing in terms of design.
Macron desperately wants to be Napoleon Bonaparte in his own way or at least to carry the legacy of Napoleon, he is of course woefully unequipped to ever do so but he has a vision at least and that's more than I can say for most of the other leaders.
This also follows the logic of professor John Mearsheimer when he says basically that Europe as it is right now, a collection of fragmented states, is insignificant on the world stage but if the EU were to create a United States of Europe that could easily change, but it would require an unheard of level of cooperation between states with very old rivalries.
This shift I think will be necessary as America is a nation in decline now and won't be able to protect the rest of the world anymore, either Europe can adapt to a post-American future or it will likely go the way of the Indian tribes in America when they refused to band together until it was too late and they were destroyed piecemeal, granted as a White man I am glad the Indians did not triumph for obvious reasons, but the lesson still holds.
And this how France ended with an aircraft decades ahead of the typhoon, soon forced to turn from an interceptor to a bomber, which took about twenty years.
The problem with the FCAS is Germany, not having built a fighter jet by itself in 80 years and wanting to take the lead.
You are just another French basher, talking without knowing.
Many other issues arose, which makes the French decision perfectly rational. Including the fact that EFs were designed primarily for air superiority, and that their overall performances (low speed maneuvrability in particular) implied drastic changes in the French Air Force's doctrine. Dassault engineers regarded the EF´s adjacent air intake as too dangerous, and not particularly stealth, and more importantly Rolls-Royce was given the lion's share in the engine design and manufacture. This would have compromised technological sovereignty on a key sector. We are very far from any "obsession" here. After all, this is the country of Descartes.
Un avion avec les deux entrées d'air collé? jamais la France aurait accepté un tel faux bi réacteurs.