Blue Shark by NavalGroup

Kino.

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Cute. Are they going to try and sell it to a country only for Americans to cancel the deal?

    There is no limit to how much American cock Macron can get up his ass, so they should definitely go for it.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Hexagons
    What is with these mockups/CGI and putting hexagons on them? Is it to make them look futuristic?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      AESA radar arrays maybe?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      We Deus Ex now

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >radar kite
    Could it work IRL?

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Also from Naval Group, the latest design for the future french aircraft carrier. A third EMAL is a possibility, same for a potential second ship.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      FCAS seems to be pretty large, maybe F-22 tier in size?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      they got rid of the shitty mosque island, good

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Mosque island?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous
          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >adhan music slowly gets louder

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/ZeZefYs.jpg

      I swear, the sheer lack of ambition the French have in regards to their next gen carriers always annoys me.They never try to statistically surpass the Charles de Gaulle all that much, only match her.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The new carrier design is supposed to displace 75k tons, nearly twice the size of the CdG. And they could theoretically manage to juust about squeeze in a third EMALS at a later date, since there's a bit of room on the deck for it.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Whats up with euro naval builders and strange futuristic designs?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The idea of 'stealth' ships appeals to Euros because they don't have the ability to support large vessels. It's a doctrinal thing. Their idea is strictly sea control, which means that a 'stealth' ship that can take down other ships is preferable. US doctrine is 'power projection', which means supporting sea, air, and land control. The problem is that it requires a massive expenditure compared to simple sea control, and most countries don't have the means to support that doctrine.

      I don't knock them for it; you make do with what you've got. There's a reason we're pimping out the LHD's to Europe; they're cheaper than actual CV(N)'s, but still allow a modicum of projection.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        great explanation thanks

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I wonder if it would be possible to get some EU-funded aircraft carriers, maybe smaller LHDs or even just drone launchers. Pooling the resources together and then voting to decide when and how to use them.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Hopefully not. Even a minor scuffle that Europe is only indirectly involved with, like the embarrassing little invasion that the Russian drunkards are currently involved in, shows how much European countries struggle to work together because of differing ideologies, political aspirations or one country's reliance on the enemy, or how one country, or even one politician, can veto things so nothing gets done.
          Thankfully, most countries in Europe still have most of their autonomy, but a EU military would be an absolute nightmare.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          probably in 50-100 years, when europe realizes it has to federalize to survive against indea, china and the US as well as developing african countries

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            technically we are allmost completely federalized with the big difference of the unanimity in all decisions.
            If you reduce that to 50/66% you have a very similar "federal" structur as the US but with other names.
            I have seen both, american and european engineering, and if we really tried, this wouldnt even be a competition.
            But as some old US foreign pope (who was from ussr originally - forgot the name): If europe doesnt focus on a collective unified foreign doctrine, it will burst from within because of interieur political topics.
            Thinking about it, what unifies america so uniquely is the commong goal on the geopolitical stage.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        but didnt the USA industrialize the first stealth ships and abandoned the concept after building three very pricey ships?
        I think the future lies in many but small carriers, idealy launching unmanned aircraft and a small contigent of F35.
        You could let the unmanned drones follow the F35 with some distance, carrying long range a2a missiles.
        Would be literally unbeatable as long as F35 is undetectable.
        >inb4 magical short wave radar
        >inb4 s400 can lock on F35
        >inb4 SU57

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The main benefit of the supercarriers, in addition to just the pure number of aircraft carried is their ability to deploy dedicated AEW&C aircraft.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You could theoretically be able to bash together an AEW&C pod on an Osprey, but it would likely have worse performance and range compared to an E-2D.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            i do understand that.
            What I am really wondering is that the true strenght in hypersonic missiles doesnt lay within the super velocity but in their ability to approach their target in a non predictable way thus rendering long range anti air systems ineffective.
            One US general commented confidently that the chinese still need to know where their carriers are at any moment.
            I dont know but wasnt there allready two events where a chinese submarine emerged between a carrier and his csg on an exercise?
            tldr: if the chinese can track all carrier groups simultaniously more smaller carrier are the better choice imo. and the risk of that being the case is frightingly high imo.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Fundamentally, the greatest drawback of small carriers is that the amount of random shit you need to put in a boat, for it to properly function as a boat, is a fixed value. So, the larger you go, the more space you have for actual aircraft.
              This also means that small carriers are more cost-inefficient per ton than large ones.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              More carrier groups increases your chances of detection. The difference in trackability between a 100,000 ton vessel with its escort and a 60,000 ton vessel with its escort is marginal, but doubling the number of groups effectively doubles your chances of detection.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Everything must be ANGLED!!!!!

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    beautiful

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      crisp, even

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      elegant, perhaps

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    aw its flying a little kite

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *