Should Britain and France have worked together on a 'Common European Aircraft Carrier' they'd jointly man and operate allowing them to always have at least 1 carrier at sea instead of the existing state of affairs?
Should Britain and France have worked together on a 'Common European Aircraft Carrier' they'd jointly man and operate allowing them to ...
Probably but good luck making this happen in reality. Both countries are ego driven and would not take kindly to falling under the command of one another.
could we not just bulid two give one to us and the frenchies maybe have mixed airwings as a fig leaf sort of thing? but personally i think they money would be better spent on making those light aircraft carriers that also carry tanks and stuff, like the uss wasp/america class
Amphibious Helicopter/VTOL Carrier? What is a theoretical max for a landing force in that scenario? Can they use a mechanized recovery ramp for an amphibious garage deck?
coastal base with beachead landers with fitted river boats (like in apocalypse now) but those boats can also carry 4x4 light machine gun jeeps maybe, on the landers themselves a mixture of light armour and trucks with 4x4 light machine gun jeeps maybe instead of APCS flight deck contains a five plane airwing of harriers for air superiority, along with a ? of four to five ground attack coptors and a couple of chinooks for transport, lower deck for the marines and armament and the main super structure for command and engineer quarters. it would be tight but cool as hell.
They already tried collaborating on designing a CV to cut costs. Britain rightly bailed on that and built the QEs on its own since no common design could be agreed as one wants a CATOBAR CVN and the other a conventional rampy girl.
Meanwhile the 30 years old French debate about building a second CV to complement CdG is morphing into debating whether one or two CV should be planned to replace the CdG.
The PA2 was just going to be France buying a modified Elizabeth class, not a collaboration. And yes it was fully designed for CATOBAR operation.
Frog here. Please leave us alone bongs. For frick sake. We have enough problems already.
>They already tried collaborating on designing a CV to cut costs. Britain rightly bailed on that and built the QEs on its own since no common design could be agreed as one wants a CATOBAR CVN and the other a conventional rampy girl.
>Meanwhile the 30 years old French debate about building a second CV to complement CdG is morphing into debating whether one or two CV should be planned to replace the CdG.
And yet, pic related is supposed to happen now.
Really makes me think.
>And yet
No, not "and yet". It was always planned that the QEs could be converted to CATOBAR. It was also always planned to not do that out of dry dock. What you are saying is disingenuous.
>What happens when one state does something the other disagrees with
This isn't an argument. The answer to your question is the same thing that happens whenever anyone disagrees with each other, does it look like Italy and France swap frigates when they disagree?
Bongs wanted a cat moron but the US EMALS thry wanted to buy were just not capable when they built them.
Whose fault is that? Why pin your hopes on a system that is still in development with a country who also uses steam cats?
They didn't? Can you not read? The only one saying "pin your hopes" is just you?
It’s what the guy I replied to said
No, he didn't. You are the one saying "pin your hopes". It's just you. You're just trying to stuff words in people's mouths to create intentionality.
Can you not read
>Bongs wanted a cat moron but the US EMALS thry wanted to buy were just not capable when they built them.
Bongs wanted a catapult that was and largely is still in development. Now they are stuck without catapults because EMALS wasn’t up to bong standards yet. Thus they pinned their hopes on outfitting their carrier with catapults on a system that was not ready yet.
>Can you not read
Yes I can, and then write the rest of your post proving you can't.
Hey moron, he never at any point said the Brits "pinned their hopes" on anything. He said they saw things the way they were and made the intelligent decision based on what's available. That's the polar opposite of pinning your hopes on something.
Steam cats will always be viable. The audacity of a country with no other aircraft carriers to think that an experimental catapult system was the way to go.
>Steam cats will always be viable
No they aren't. Drones don't like steam catapults and that's why the USN constantly downgraded UCLASS as functionality and pragmatism couldn't meet. EMALS is much easier on an airframe and matches the job that drones will do from carriers one day. That's one of the reasons the USN adopted EMALS in the first place despite the development difficulties.
If you build a steam catapult in modern times, you are locking your carrier to manned aircraft.
steam cats will always be viable simply because of emal reilability
the abysmal performance of emals basically solidified it
other solutions to launch drones will be developed, because that need is going to be massive, and basically so diverse there is nothing to address it right now
>the abysmal performance of emals basically solidified it
Nah. EMALS works fine, by the way.
They work sometimes.
>Nah. EMALS works fine, by the way.
lol
>9x the failure rate of steam
kek
Guess what, those systems are upgradable. What are you harping on about kek, when they're ready and able economically they'll upgrade.
>Should Britain and France have worked together on a 'Common European Aircraft Carrier' they'd jointly man
absolutely not, both nations have sovereign priorities that preclude a joint solution
the most obvious example is that the British will want to deploy to the Falklands and the French don't, so they need the independence to do so
the current setup is fine; with three UK and French carriers (and a couple of Harrier carriers from other nations) Europe has plenty of carrier strike capability available round the clock
>Britain rightly bailed
totally wrong
the British went ahead with the CV
it was the French who bailed because they opted for catapults and ran out of funds
>no common design could be agreed
wrong
the QE is designed for both ramps and catapults
>the uss wasp/america class
are not true carriers and can't sustain fixed wing operations like the QEs or CdG can
fantasy
Eurocorps has been a nothingburger for decades now; Eurocarrier will be a nothingburger
other way round
the British usually lead Anglo-French defence collaboration; the French throw a spanner in every now and then for no reason other than
>muh independent honneur
>perfidious albion
but it's okay, the bongs are used to turning the other cheek to accommodate more volatile peoples
noblesse oblige
>And yet
>Porte-Avions 2 was cancelled in the 2013 French White Paper on Defence and National Security.
>Really makes me think.
Only criminals, Black folk and women are proud of such things. That's the cope that thugs who fricked up their lives comfort themselves with behind bars
>I may be serving 10 but I DEFENDED MY HONNEUR
britain and france's foreign policy goals are not compatible and therefore any attempt at cooperation is futile
>britain and france's foreign policy goals are not compatible and therefore any attempt at cooperation is futile
true^
britain still thinks it can "power project" like its the USA or like its 1919 or something
a delusional fantasy of the moron-tier
France at least lives semi in reality
>britain still thinks it can "power project" like its the USA or like its 1919 or something
No it doesn't. The UK is just more willing to engage in military action than the average euro nation, and as an island has to maintain a decent navy to enable this. The UK does not think it's a superpower, I does think that it needs to do it's part to enable the continuation of the current international order. From which it greatly benefits.
>France at least lives semi in reality
France tries to make it's strategic objectives the EUs. An approach that has currently provided little to no success. Especially considering Frances doesn't seem to give a shit for eastern euro's security issues.
The UK tries to find allies with the same strategic objectives and then create mutually beneficial partnerships. The Joint Expeditionary Force (fellow northern Europeans), the British - Poland -Ukraine trilateral, AUKUS, UK- Japan Defence Agreement, Lancaster House treaties (with France) and the 'special relationship'.
>britain and france's foreign policy goals are not compatible and therefore any attempt at cooperation is futile
where do people come up with this headcanon (is it burgers or jeets?)?
Britain and France literally already have successful joint cooperation treaties with each other that include working together on logistics like heavy lift (like what happened with Op Serval), joint procurement like MBDA projects (Italy is often a partner too and they have a history of joint projects with Britain) and using their different forces to compliment each other I.e the main bulk of the french fleet is focused on the Mediterranean (aside from a smaller number who operate in the north Atlantic like SSNs and SSBNs) while Britain's main fleet is mostly focused on the Atlantic (with as needed formations in the med and "east of suez") including providing ASW support for French SSBNs in the NE Atlantic
>britain still thinks it can "power project"
Yes anon nations like Britain and France with carrier groups, all their supporting fleet auxiliaries and strategic airlift capability are joint 2nd (ahead of ziggers and chinks) in terms of their capability to project military power and kick over any 3rdie shithole. Remember kids
>France flew 4,000 troops and their equipment around the world including tanks and other heavy lift equipment and airbidging entire airforce units to the theatre all at short notice within days during the successful Operation Serval
>Russia took months to mass troops on their own borders and still failed in Operation Special Military
>Britain sailed a carrier group 8,000 miles, established air superiority and pulled off the only amphibious landing since WW2 done entirely outside the range of land based supporting elements
>China can't even project their power inside the South China Sea even with building reef airstrips to help out their sino-soviet rape baby carriers.
They're compatible enough to cooperate on defence projects but to jointly operate a fricking carrier? Definitely not.
>China can't even project their power inside the South China Sea even with building reef airstrips
says who? China has more or less annexed the SCS anon
The European continent is screaming for a competent aircraft carrier design. Something that can not only launch f-35 but also larger aircraft like AWACS or refuelers. Sadly, I don’t think we will see anything like that this decade
Why? What is there in the Atlantic that necessitates these super carriers?
>having aerial refueling and fixed wing UAS is seen as having superhuman capabilities
You're not answering my question. Why?
Your question contained a false equivalence. Being able to launch refuelers and fixed wing AEW is a great capability to have. Claiming you don’t n…n..need it is moronic. The only reason the UK doesn’t have these capabilities is because they can’t afford it
No, I'm fricking asking you why Europe needs supercarriers, what is it in the Atlantic ocean that necessitates them? For what fricking purpose?
Because they care about their national defense maybe? And why limit their use to the atlantic? Hell, why even have a navy at all with your reasoning
If European national defence is your concern then Europe barely needs a navy with ships larger than a destroyer. There are no seaborn threats to Europe, there's a big one on land.
>There are no seaborn threats to Europe, there's a big one on land.
This. If anything, air and land forces need to be built up, especially anti-air and anti-missile capabilities. Oh, and nukes, definitely more nukes.
You don't need a super carrier to launch fix winged AWACs. The US was doing that in the 50s and 60s.
France has the largest EEZ and has overseas territories on all oceans and timezones
>supercarriers
>a carrier which can launch AWACS and refuelers
Bruh, what? Anyway, France has holdings in the Pacific, Britain still has the Falklands and any country benefits from being able to project force further via refueling and carriers.
Neither the Falklands nor the French pacific holdings are worth the investment though, it's certainly not something the EU should be funding, especially considering the only threat to Europe is via conventional land forces from Eurasia. Fleet carriers are vanity projects for anyone that's not the UK or France and even then.
The only reason for an extensive naval build up would be to deter the US, that's it imo.
The European spaceport in South America is pretty important.
The Falklands is inhabited by White people and must be protected from argentine aggression.
If the US is going to back away from guaranteeing the right of free passage on the high seas, Europe needs an expeditionary capability sufficient to deter state-supported (openly or tacitly) piracy.
The more French production of... Anything continues the more I'm convinced they should be excised from Europe and relegated to some far off island so they can LARP as the colonial power they want to be instead of participating in the European community. They're impossible to collaborate with, an English-Dutch-Italian carrier project would be more successful than anything involving the french.
>as they want to be
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7afrique
Yeah I know, what I mean is, just go all in on the colonial power shit and stop trying to participate in Europe, your population is already 50% Algerian.
>Another batch of minds where France lives rent free
Many such cases, triste!
>I'm proud my country decided to be mediocre but self produced instead of excellent but collaborative
Bwo...
it's a good thing competent people and not terminally online PrepHoleoid morons are the ones calling the shots, which is why certain things like the Aster, Meteor and FREMM exist
France would want Nuclear and Britain wouldn't
Britain is fixated on STOVL because of Rolls Royce engine while France would want CATOBAR
Even if Britain agreed they'd pick the F-35C while France would want it flying the Rafale a jet of their own design and manufacture
What happens when one state does something the other disagrees with, in the Iraq War would they have not been able to participate or been laid up for weeks as the French crew were withdrawn and British replacements loaded?
honestly the perfect union would be us creating the boats (uk being a island an all)and the french building the fighters. (which will be used across the board by uk military) i'd rsther that then buying mcgoy slop from the white chinks
best part is you got neither.
instead the UK impotently built a non-functional ramp carrier, for jets it doesnt have, staff it doesnt have and a mission it doesnt have
truly bong-like decision making tree there
yep our military industrial complex in a nutshell. which by the way has been a disaster for pretty much all western nations
>yep our military industrial complex in a nutshell. which by the way has been a disaster for pretty much all western nations
totally agree,
basically every single program that began after 1991 and "le end of history" designed for fighting in the israeli theatre
>(i.e. defenseless sand countries)
has been a catastrophic boondoggle of near MIC ending proportions
>f22, complete failure canceled 15 years ago
>f35 utter and complete failure $trillions to spend, and will still end up going back to F15/F16
>Zoomerwalt - never worked, couldnt even make the ammo, complete failure
>"muh hypersonic missile we totally already had in the 60's" - complete failure, program restarted like 5 times, with 5 different names and 5 different capability sets
I could go on, but there is no point
every single last western MIC thing is
>"in development"
>"planned"
>'expected 2030'
>"currently testing"
its exhausting
its a bunch of .jpg and .webm grifting,
and thats it
i do however wish the US would ell thier f16 raptors to us, its a great plane. tbh i dont see why we cant maintain and update the aircraft and fleets from the 80s when NATO was the strongest, its not like any other nation had the capacity even challenge that even today. its all just pointless overkill.
Nato was its strongest in the 80s, because they both had someone to fear and their main enemy was far behind them technologically.
yeah without a bogeyman, corruption and greed was allowed to truly set in as a priority, who knows though it might get better again
Jack shit to do with that, everything to do with the USSR collapsing and military spending essentially taking a nosedive. There were no more apparent threat and large military budgets are not a vote winner.
But there is. The Chinese are weaker yes but underestimating them for decades does nothing but set NATO up to have the rug pulled up from underneath them.
>will still end up going back to F15/F16
Forgot about the F18 Super-hornet? Well it is navy based, it could be adapted for land based forces.
>Forgot about the F18 Super-hornet? Well it is navy based, it could be adapted for land based forces.
yep, thats for sure going no where, just on its "buddy fueling" system alone
lmfao, and just exactly who did the uk think would man the artillery tubes, and in what trench?
The Ukrainians in the same trenches they're now, obviously. Living under a rock?
>The Ukrainians in the same trenches they're now, obviously. Living under a rock?
so british defense sector output should be for ukraine?
i dont get it?
what kind of national strategy is that?
you would rather have scrapped the carrier to build 155mm shells for a failed state?
what a bizzarre take on domestic defense spending schemes
>i dont get it?
>what kind of national strategy is that?
It's a bit like paying mercenaries to fight for you. Except the mercenaries are free, highly motivated, and only ask for donations.
British aid to Ukraine serves British interests. Don't think the brits will pass up a chance to frick with the russians either, for old times sake.
>we "fricked" with Russia by making them economically and militarily stronger than they have been in 50 years"
the perfidious albion strikes again!
>economically and militarily stronger
You're brown.
Is that why they're pulling out tanks declared obsolete 50 years ago and getting their legacy fleet sunk by donated french and british missiles? Funnily enough this is not the first vacation in Crimea.
>W-we’re going back to F-16
>Pretending half of the USAF viper squadrons aren’t flying the F-35A already
>Pretending Panther procurement has been curtailed in any way
You know nothing about anything and should shut the frick up immediately.
https://www.key.aero/article/usaf-f-35a-squadrons-complete-guide
>paywall
>every single last western MIC thing is
no they aren't moron. F35 is being fielded by more nations than there are RU 5th gens. Meanwhile China "caught up" by copying all past Western MIC designs.
Nothing wrong with copying what works. Never understood this cope.
If your industrial espionage is so top tier you’re able to make working temu versions of everything your enemy releases you’re doing it right.
>What happens when one state does something the other disagrees with, in the Iraq War would they have not been able to participate or been laid up for weeks as the French crew were withdrawn and British replacements loaded?
Britain would sink the ship and kill thousands of French sailors. Source: history
>Day one of the Special de-Frenchisation operation
>Both UK carrier, still moored in Portsmouth are destroyed by artillery fire from the other side of the Channel
I love how the french still seethe about this despite clearly being in the wrong
This is your mind on Bongoloidism.
>frog pride prevents him from accepting reality
Many such cases
>t. seething frog
>hey, why don't these two countries who have been enemies for most of the last 1000 years and whose foreign policies are at odds with each other make a carrier that neither of them can direct at will, thus defeating the point of having a carrier?
bruv franch and Britain use to be one country for centuries, we have more justification to unify the most american states.
>bruv franch and Britain use to be one country for centuries, we have more justification to unify the most american states.
AHHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHHAHAH
aHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
this cant be serious
France and Britain have probably never been further apart,
and there is a "reason" France left nato, and went totally independent from the united cuckdom, or do you think the uk's nukes 'belong to them' or something?
bruv france left nato because it refused to allow american troops on its soil. nothing to do with us. and yes we were one country twice actually, first time as french/norman proxy second by conquest.
France left nato because it wanted to control its own nuclear fate, have its own deterrence capabilities outside the anglo (France is Catholic) and not be beholden to obvious and clear nato insanity
American troops on soil,
is just one of those "insane" traits of nato, among many
the real push dor leaving was the rejection of foreign military bases because the memory of geman occupation during ww2 was still fresh. when the french rejected the americans, us brits opened our legs wide for them which is reason why in the 60s there were loads of us base in the uk compared to today.
The warheads are built entirely in the UK and they're under national and NATO use. The USA only provides the rockets, launch and targeting hardware. Actual targeting is managed entirely by hmg.
>t. knower
>The USA only provides the rockets, launch and targeting hardware.
>"only provides"
>"only"
lol,
lmfao even
it turns out even 50yo tanks are effective when paired with modern drones and targeting solutions
and ha, yah, the navy sunk by those with no navy!
when is the next vacation to Crimea?
2 weeks?
Take it you won't take my word - what a shame. You can easily corroborate my statements online with any official .gov website that pertains to UK nuclear policy.
Russian armored warfare at this point would call an unmitigated disaster a step up from 100% casualty by barbeque, as at least a routed army can retreat.
>it turns out even 50yo tanks are effective when paired with modern drones and targeting solutions
>and ha, yah, the navy sunk by those with no navy!
>when is the next vacation to Crimea?
>2 weeks?
France never left NATO, open a fricking History book instead of "learning" it from a stupid ass memepic, you bunch of morons
>France left nato in every way except the purely psychological
it must be hell being a "message maker" in the west
you dipshits can figure out a unified message for anything
Aviginion Empire
The Normans controlled England+ half of France at the peak of their power
In WWII, the British government seriously proposed a Union with France just before they fell to Germany.
The final "Declaration of Union" approved by the British War Cabinet stated that;[5][6]
France and Great Britain shall no longer be two nations, but one Franco-British Union. The constitution of the Union will provide for joint organs of defence, foreign, financial and economic policies. Every citizen of France will enjoy immediately citizenship of Great Britain, every British subject will become a citizen of France.
I believe the development of a PANG or a new carrier for EU uses is more likely in the next decades.
No, because every defence project the French touch turns to shit.
France is better off doing things alone, tbqh, no need to bother with incompetents.
But serious answer, yes, when those two callbs, it's successful. Put in Italy in as well, the missing piece to complete the triforce of success.
I guess they need a backup camera fitted.
>France is better off doing things alone, tbqh, no need to bother with incompetents.
Yes they are, the problem is that it cost a fricking ton of money, what they manage to do with a fraction of the US budget on their own is genuinely fricking incredible but they need to look for partnerships, not for the competence but for the money.
>waaaaaah why aren't euros helping in the red sea
>also euros don't need naval forces, it's useless considering on the other side it's just Amercia, invest in air and ground forces instead
Pick up your narrative already, /k/
It seems your reading comprehension is lacking. No large carriers are needed to help in the red sea - as demonstrated by the British and French.
Would it be cool to have more carriers? Sure.
Does it make sense to invest in other areas first in the current situation? Definitely.
For things like the current conflict in the red sea you don't need carriers. The French didn't send the Charles De Gaulle, they sent a frigate. This is equivalent to gunboat diplomacy in the 19th century.
And we need aircraft carriers to defend it from...? I'm not even opposed to carriers in principle, it just seems like a massive waste of money for very little gain.
You don't need carriers until you do. If Iran goes apeshit, carriers are needed.
That's an american pidgeon. Even if the EU had carriers there's probably a 99% chance you would never see them of the coast of Iran.
>If Iran goes apeshit, carriers are needed.
Define "apeshit". Invade Iraq? Turkey? Pakistan? Not going to happen.
Get nukes? What can a carrier group do what you can't do from surrounding countries?
Accept it, we are more concerned about uncle Vladimir going apeshit and not enough is done about that right now.
>Accept it, we are more concerned about uncle Vladimir going apeshit and not enough is done about that right now.
This. One carrier equivalent of 155mm shells would be a much better investment right now.
>If Iran goes apeshit
so fricking what if it i does?
Iran is the super-power of its region, even if the US doesnt like it, or thinks it has "muh alien tech compared to Iran"
Iran will do exactly as it pleases now, and the US will accept it, bow and exit the red sea quietly
No it won't lmao. Cope more euro, you need us more than we need you.
>/k/ is one guy with one set of opinions
Brexit means Brexit, now frick off.
Yes, they should have, but the French are c**ts that would cut off their noses to spite anyone else.
Because in britain the french are still an enemy nation. Why change foreign policy that has been the same for 900 years
Carriers are the best possible weapon for winning World War 2, but that war is over. They won't survive a hostile peer.
Oh, it's the vatBlack person typing in all lower cases
EU aircraft carrier
EU aircraft carrier
Total waste of money. Tying something like that up behind EU bureaucracy means it would never get out of port.
that's the fun part. The boring part is that it would never get built
The frogs are absolute c**ts to work with. It's good that the Europeans have developed their own intertwined defense industry without France in the mix. Frick France I hope that entire country is wrecked by nafris in the next century.
>The frogs are absolute c**ts to work with
Whenever this moronation comes up, it's immediately followed up by something obviously untrue like
>It's good that the Europeans have developed their own intertwined defense industry without France in the mix
Like half of all the missile systems Europe makes are made by MBDA. The most successful frigate Europe is currently manufacturing is the Italio/French FREMM, but they also make the Horizon class together. France is also crucial to European satellite infrastructure, with all of the Galileo satellites in orbit being launched from French sites, mostly on French rockets.
Pierre you are absolutely seething, and, if I dare say, coping as well. Is losing all of your allies in the sahel gettin to ya?
>Pierre
This is the best you can do because you're wrong. I'm not French or European.
Remember, nobody cares what you think. All anybody is thinking of is that you claim the European defense industry is dysfunctional and you cry ad hominem and misdirection when an actual facts get brought up.
This is warriortard by the way
>Remember, nobody cares what you think. All anybody is thinking of is that you claim the European defense industry is dysfunctional and you cry ad hominem and misdirection when an actual facts get brought up.
>Like half of all the missile systems Europe makes are made by MBDA
which is thankfully only about a third French, otherwise everything would be moronic
>The most successful frigate Europe is currently manufacturing
I didn't know the French made the Type 31?
Hey, it's the usual seething Kraut
NO, frick these multinational Euro projects. Both France and the UK can engineer and build world-class (ie competitive with the U.S.) carriers — but they just have to decide they need them enough to PAY for them. These Euro projects tend to end up with everyone trying to screw everyone else to get the best / most benefit. The F-35 was a giant success because most of the engineering was done by the U.S. and the U.S. can use its superpower status to enforce fairness within the program. Look. White-Western endeavors are EXPENSIVE, we’re not low-maintenance peasant slaves and having a high-IQ middle class means you have to include a lot of people — so FINE, that’s nothing new, just DO it.
>Yet another seethe about frogchads by the dude who calls everyone warriortard
Many such cases
I want to address to my French countrymen (don't even waste your time if you're not Français) :
Out of curiosity, are you guys as proud as I am, when I come to /k/ (or anywhere else, either IVL or IRL) and see this aggregation of :
-Anglo-saxons
-Jews
-Latins (Italy/Spain/Portugal)
-Irrelevant european nations
-Slavs
-Baltic countries
-Scandinavians
-Turd worlders (India being at the top of the list)
-Asians
-The whole world
Coming together to hate us and seethe at us? To use the same buzzwords, the same messages, words, slanders, thinking that somehow we will bow our heads, atone or apologize? Am I the only one who's extremely proud of feeling all eyes on us, who feed himself with the universal jealousy and anger that we trigger?
And finally : est-ce que je suis le seul à souhaiter que la France frappe de toute sa force nucléaire afin de faire taire toutes les bouches une bonne fois pour toutes?
Whoa, there Voltaire.
Nous sommes beaucoup à rigoler du COPE et du SEETHE virant vers le CRINGE que nous témoignent ces chèvres francophobes analement dilatées par l'existence de la France, en effet.
Le problème, c'est qu'on est même pas d'accord entre français, et qu'on est dirigés nous aussi par des chèvres.
Ah, déjà un premier message positif, voila qui me réjouit!
> Le problème, c'est qu'on est même pas d'accord entre français, et qu'on est dirigés nous aussi par des chèvres.
C'est la le drame de notre situation et de notre destin, et ça m'a amené à la conviction suivante : la France a besoin d'une figure qui surplombe les autres, elle semble ne fonctionner qu'avec un chef à sa tête (que ce soit le Roi, l'Empereur ou bien un président de la carrure de De Gaulle - et je sens d'emblée que je vais me faire emmerder pour avoir cité le vieux Charles)
Non, clairement je pense pas que tu as tort, je dirais que l'on a un certain besoin d'hommes forts dans ce pays pour réunifier les diverses couches de la population qui préfères ce battre sur des broutilles, que de s'unifier face aux mangent-merdes qui nous gouvernent.
Avant d'avoir des hommes forts, ça serait bien d'avoirs des hommes au service de la nation et pas de leurs intérêts ou de leurs agendas étriqués. Et ça se bouscule pas au portillon, au niveau de nos têtes pensantes... (que ce soit politiques, société civile, mais aussi cadres et dirigeants de grosses entreprises. tout est sclérosé)
>I'm proud of being a shithole filled with Algerians and making civilized peoples disgusted at our presence
Phew, not a good look there Jeanne. Maybe another 2 terms of homosexual leadership will fix it though.
Napoleon, is that you?
I kneel
Yes i genuinely come here to laugh at the untermensch trying to grasp our transcendental god given providence
The problem with any European Army or coalition is politics. UK, France, and Germany all want to be top dog, and they cannot share. The reality is that only a NATO army would work because US would prevent any shitflinging by virtue of being the ultimate shitflinger.
This isn't true. Most cooperative engagements in Europe between defense firms end up working just fine. Most of the failures aren't from shitflinging, either, just politicians who didn't plan out a program intelligently as they don't know anything about defense.
Like take the carriers, for instance. The fact that France wanted nuclear power was a good thing, France shouldn't budge on that. The fact that UK explicitly wanted no nuclear power to save money was a good thing, UK should budge on that. That means don't let the politicians sign an agreement in the first place, because it won't work. It was just an example of different goals that binary opposites.
>Defense firms
Okay, now let's see how a Euro army works out... Oh wait, the Germans just sabotaged it because it would have ended up being majority French and we can't have that. Try again next time!
Exhibit A
You are moronic and lying.
sorry but no air craft carriers should not have nuclear power. its too much of as vulnerability for such a high priority target. in fact only deterrent subs or ice breakers should have reactors, no other boat. diesel is fine,for a war machine who sole purpose is to get jets as close to a target as possible, along with the capacity for secondary command. in case the nuke subs are comp.
>its too much of as vulnerability for such a high priority target
It what sense is it a vulnerability? Worst case scenario, the carrier is sunk, the reactor ends up a few km under water, which is the safest place for it to be.
maasive amount of money if lost, not as easliy repaired or modifiable, not to mention the environmental disaster if sunk as well. consider the things somewhat expendable, with it being a extension of the true mobile base which is the nucelar sub
Nuclear carriers is a non starter.
In a peer war, which is what everyone keeps LARPing is going to happen within our lifetimes, your carrier’s going to get hit. Reactor might be exposed, leaking, damaged. The image of a leaky floating Chernobyl potentially coming to my port for repairs/refit isn’t something I’m too keen on if I’m the harbour master. Otherwise just sink it at sea and call it a multi billion dollar loss.
Carriers seem more and more like white elephants.
a ships nuclear reactor, due to its very nature, is literally armored. It is also, at least on carriers, located so deep in the ship that if it gets significantly damaged the ship is a total loss anyway. And a nuclear reactor in the water is no big deal really, happened a few times already.
Any ship - even merchant vessels - are designed to withstand a bilged engine room/machinery space. Type A vessels are even designed to survive with a bilged engine room and a further bilged hold.
So if the Carrier does get struck there and it’s a total loss of the asset then that would make the carrier less stable in a damage stability condition than a coastal feeder tanker.
Just seems like a total non starter. Why have it?
i dont know maybe the unlimited range with no refueling for years thing has something to do with it
>unlimited range
She’s a ship. She needs food, lube oil, greases, paints, fresh water, critical spares - especially if the fresh water generator packs up. Not to mention the literal cargo she carries require constant ceaseless deliveries of jet fuel.
Her range is dictated by her endurance, which is dictated by all of the above and more.
I’m like 99% certain nuclear carriers are a thing because someone somewhere got massive kickbacks in the US DOE or whatever when they were being planned.
>She’s a ship. She needs food, lube oil, greases, paints, fresh water, critical spares - especially if the fresh water generator packs up. Not to mention the literal cargo she carries require constant ceaseless deliveries of jet fuel.
and she can carry so much more of these thanks to not having to have the gigantic fuel tanks required to move a ship of that size with conventional propulsion
honestly the only reason ALL bigger ships aren't nuclear is solely because people are pussies and bleeding hearts
This. Having a ship pulling half of its weight in fuel, if not more, is a complete waste of efficiency and space.
See rockets. It's because everyone pussies out that we have to lift fricking fuel and end up with so little space for actual payload.
the QE class carrier weighs 65,000 metric tons
she carries 7,000 metric tons of fuel.
That's just under 11%
>That's just under 11
No it isn't, and that doesn't take into account the secondary fuel storage which is a further 4000-8000 tons.
>GIGANTIC FUEL TANKS
>HALF ITS WEIGHT IN FUEL D:
Big self admit neither of you’ve sailed on a ship. Fuel tanks are miniscule in proportion to the vessel - especially on something as light/mid range as an aircraft carrier.
The only people who think aircraft carriers are super yuge are navy gays and shoreBlack folk who legitimately call 100k GRT containerships ‘boats’.
But I digress. Point at hand was that it increases the carriers endurance. Reality is that it doesn’t since the bottleck on endurance for most ships is feeding the fat fricks that crew em.
Last year I was on a ship for 30 days at sea. We were fine. Still had a hundred ton or more in bunker onboard. Why did we break off ops and head back to port? Because we were down to like a day’s worth of tinned food.
https://steemit.com/science/@akmal007/how-long-could-a-u-s-aircraft-carrier-sustain-itself
According to this a US carrier has enough food to go 70 days, with constant top ups for aviation fuel from resupply ships, and the longest the author was at sea was 89 days. I'm leaning towards the other anon. I mean you can't deny that having less fuel burden is good in the fleet is handy it's not like it increases the range of the flotilla, just lowers the logistics burden a bit
not him, but something I wondered about is the fact that the supporting fleet are often not nuclear, so you've still got to find a port to refuel the flotilla at regardless unless you send the carrier out alone.
It seems more like the advantage is you have to take less oilers with the flotilla as there is one less ship to fuel
It also means that you can dedicate more mass and space towards carrying fuel for your planes rather than for the ship itself, which allows you to generate more sorties before having to resupply.
Yes. In fact i think european NATO allies should form 4 groups that would fund a aircraft strike group. Command would be rotational.
>1 for baltic and 1 for north sea (germany, denmark, norway, poland, sweden, finland, lithuania, latvia, estonia)
>2 for atlantic (uk, france, netherlands, belgium, spain, portugal)
>1 for mediterranean sea (italy, slovenia, croatia, greece)
>1 for black sea (turkey, bulgaria, romania, maybe ukraine in the future)
>Some small and landlocked countries should join the group that makes the most sense.
I can't see the UK, France or Italy tying up their budget in a pan-european carrier(s) that they can't even use for their interests. Too many voices at the table.
Mom says it's my turn to use the aircraft carrier.
Building it would be fine, the UK and France collaborate on many defence projects to great success. The issue would be using it since both countries pursue different foreign policies, meaning either one country would have more control (which neither would agree to) or it wouldn't be used for such purposes (defeating the whole point). That's the problem with a lot of European military integration, at least when it comes to the major powers.
I'm not sure what you are smoking OP. Britain's 2 conventional carriers manage to maintain at least 1 operational carrier if not both.
It's only the French who have availability problems due to their strange insistence on using nuclear reactors without being able to design one that can go more than 5 years without refueling (Compared with Anglo reactors which can last 15 years without refuel or the entire life of the vessel in the case of the modern generation).
The time between CDG's refueling is 11 years.
>commissioned May 2001
>Charles de Gaulle's first major overhaul began in September 2007. The highlight of this 15-month refit was the refueling of the nuclear power plant, a necessary step after six years in service
>The aircraft carrier underwent an 18-month midlife upgrade and refit begun in February 2017 and returned to service in September 2018.[25][26][27] The nuclear reactor was refueled
May 2001- Sept 2007= 6 years, 3 months
(plus 15 months)
Jan 2009-Febuary 2017 = 8 years, 1 month
(plus 18 months)
Sept 2018- January 2024 = 5 years, 3 months
Average refueling interval = 7 years 2 months
Why are twinks so bad at maths?
like a lot of things in life, the recommended time for something and the time something actually happens tends to vary, or get put off until later.
When was it first fueled? Remember it was built in 1994 but spent years undergoing refits - was the reactor installed and on during all of that? If so that would mean it was refueled after 13+ years
2007-2017 is 10 years
I don't think the reactor was running during the fitting out aside from a few reactor tests.
>2007-2017 is 10 years
not when you include the 15 months it was laid up being refuelled plus the fact it was September 2007 to Febuary 2017
Or, maybe, you know, when you have to go to the dock for maintenance over other parts, you take the opportunity to refuel. Like when you go to the supermarket and the gas station is just 50m away, you refuel the car even if 1/3 of fuel is still left.
>hey uh can I just drop by and do that open heart surgery on my way to the supermarket?
nuclear refuelling is a multi-year process that involves cutting open the ship, removing the reactor, fuelling the reactor, replacing the reactor, and patching the ship back up
Why would we want to be slowed down by The Fr*nch?
>Check out Le Aircraft Carrier Projéct.
>They've spent 8 months engineering a way to deploy a white flag and signal surrendering in every spoken language and all know machine languages.
France and UK are both enemy countries. They only fought on the same side in WWI and WW2...
the british can already have 1 carrier at sea
the UK and France don't really like each other and have spent 130 years at war with one another. They have different priorities and might collaborate on stuff but would never share command in a billion years
A common aircraft carrier design might make sense but joint operation is a non-starter. Something like that would make a lot more sense for the Nordic countries, maybe Germany and the Netherlands etc. Countries that are generally less assertive with their foreign policy.
Not directly related to the OP, but why haven't drone carriers become the go-to option for naval power projection for middle powers? Not talking about suicide drones, but shit like Predators.
As far as I can tell those would be much cheaper than dedicated aircraft carriers, but still be able to fulfill their main function: projecting air power in a mobile way.
Is it just that none of the countries that could build and operate it have no need for such power projection, or is there a major flaw in the concept I'm not aware of?
Iran and Turkey are both actively working on this.
bongs are also doing trials with this
Yeah. HMS Prince of Wales just arrived back from the US last month after 3 months of trials with a bunch of different drones.
And the fact nuclear reactors are expensive. Which is the main argument against them for domestic power too, outside of morons who think every reactor will inevitably play out like Chernobyl.
>is there a major flaw in the concept I'm not aware of?
yes, drone links are not as good as you think they are and even future combat drones will be loyal wingmen type ie have very-short-range line of sight jam-resistant control links
the British are thinking of operating sensor drones ie for AWACS from their carriers, that's a wholly different proposition from flying a combat drone on a 500nm strike mission
>Britain and France agree to a joint Carrier program
>France spends five years b***hing about not being able to design the most moronic and autistic mess of a ship in human history
>British politicians argue that the money would be better spent on a range of pointless social programs/ego projects.
>20 years later the production finally starts
>The final product would have been a relatively decent ship, about 10 years before the design process started, but is now just a complete waste of cash, impossibly expensive to run, is a complete hanger queen and maintenance nightmare, and barely floats.
>You also need the agreement of a few dozen EU apparatchiks before you're allowed to do anything more risky than look at the ship.
Great idea OP, no notes.
Unfathomably embarrassing
UK and Norway should build a joint carrier for the North Sea
No, but the Nordic countries should consider something like that. Could involve the Baltic countries too for that matter. Give the Joint expeditionary force it's own aircraft carrier(s) to compliment the QE class.
>2021 defence budgets
>Iceland: $44 million (lol)
>Estonia: 786 m
>Latvia: 699 m
>Lithuania: 1,250 m
>Norway: 7,460 m
>Denmark: 5,420 m
>Netherlands: 14,800 m
>Poland: 13,400 m
>Sweden: 8,360 m
>Finland: 5,960 m
total: US$ 58 billion
or about equivalent to the Italian defence budget
they would barely be able to afford a couple of very very multinational Trieste class LHAs or equivalent, and to do that they would have to reduce their existing navies which are already far from massive
Trieste masses 33,000 tons and its hangar is roughly half that of the QEs / CdG, so it can realistically only carry half the air wing, which is maybe twelve plus F-35Bs, and four or five helicopters for plane guard, ASW and maybe AEW
Shit. Never mind then. I figured they had a lot more funding to play with than that.
They could strike a deal with France to get the CdG at a discounted price once PANG is done
No way : honestly we should keep the Charles for the training of our pilots and sailors and use it to patrol our *secondary* objectives
Besides, there's debates ongoing about that scenario : building the PANG and keeping the CDG in duty
You guys don't realise how much upkeep of two nuclear carriers cost, its a lot cheaper to keep one and train on US carriers like they do now, they can increase force projection with Mistral class derived UAV carriers anyway.
>You guys don't realise how much upkeep of two nuclear carriers cost
oh yes, we do, it's the main reason why the RN went for conventionally-powered QE and POW
>its a lot cheaper to keep one and train on US carriers
it is
the downside is not having a carrier when CdG is in refit or refueling
>they can increase force projection with Mistral class derived UAV carriers
not really a substitute
in your personal opinion, would you really prefer operating one carrier instead of two?
you're right, my mistake
I was looking at the wrong column in my notes, at the FRENCH defence budget
>oh yes, we do, it's the main reason why the RN went for conventionally-powered QE and POW
No you went conventionally powered because you don't have any nuclear infrastructure to support operations, this was'nt about upkeep cost but upfrondt cost, (incidentally your only access to nuclear fuel processing is through a joint venture with French Framatome.)
>the downside is not having a carrier when CdG is in refit or refueling
A temporary downside that can be mitigated with contingency planning compared to a permanent ever increasing money pit.
>not really a substitute
Carriers are nothing more than floating airports, wether the pilot is on the boat or on the plane makes absolutely no difference besides the fact that its a lot better
>in your personal opinion, would you really prefer operating one carrier instead of two?
This isn't about what i prefer it is about whats the less moronic thing to do
oh, here we go
>this was'nt about upkeep cost but upfrondt cost
mmhmm
same kind of short-sightedness that led to PA2
>your only access to nuclear fuel processing is through a joint venture with French Framatome
honey, don't have so very many inflated opinions of yourself, RN fuel comes from the Americans, same place we'd have got it if we went for nuke carriers
>A temporary downside that can be mitigated with contingency planning
lots of big words for "um we'll ask the RN for help and fly long-range Rafale strikes and launch helicopters and drones off Mistrals"
>makes absolutely no difference
answer only with a number, I don't want to hear any more hot air: how many Rafales can Mistrals operate?
no actually don't bother replying, you are constitutionally incapable of peddling anything more substantial than the contents of a Montgolfier
>This isn't about what i prefer it is about whats the less moronic thing to do
some day you will grow up and learn that you don't have all the answers to everything
>mmhmm
same kind of short-sightedness that led to PA2
And your point is?
>honey, don't have so very many inflated opinions of yourself, RN fuel comes from the Americans, same place we'd have got it if we went for nuke carriers
Yes, and its not yours, your only source as in the one you have actual ownership in is the anglo french join venture the brit took a stake in precisely because their only other source is not on they have any say in.
>answer only with a number, I don't want to hear any more hot air: how many Rafales can Mistrals operate?
no actually don't bother replying, you are constitutionally incapable of peddling anything more substantial than the contents of a Montgolfier
ok i guess i win this one since you went full seethe/cope/moron for some reason?
>some day you will grow up and learn that you don't have all the answers to everything
Yeah definitively won this one
fricking nailed that comment formating, you'll figure it out hopefully.
Nta but
>A temporary downside
Not really? So long as CdG needs a refit or refuelling, you are going to be without a carrier. Unless you build a second one to run concurrently that isn't going to change ergo it's permanent.
>that can be mitigated with contingency planning
Again, not really. If something happens while CdG is being refit or refuelled you simply don't have access to a carrier. You can try to avoid having that coincide with events that might require a carrier but nobody can be certain what's going to happen during that time.
>makes absolutely no difference besides the fact that its a lot better
Which is a substantial difference.
>This isn't about what i prefer it is about whats the less moronic thing to do
Here's where I agree. I think a single nuclear carrier actually makes more sense for France as it has a comparatively smaller auxiliary fleet and thus has to budget that logistical burden more conservatively, plus with a strong domestic nuclear power industry it softens the cost of doing so. A single CdG makes sense for France and two QEs makes sense for the UK, they suit their needs, their strengths and their capabilities perfectly.
I don't see why this topic always has to devolve into bongs and frogs shitting on each other.
>I don't see why this topic always has to devolve into bongs and frogs shitting on each other.
it doesn't
I took especial care to respect his viewpoints and the decisions the French MoD made
but you're dealing with a known French ultra-nationalist, might be the same guy as
, who unironically thinks France does literally nothing wrong, except perhaps deign to tarry with lesser mortals
you just can not suck enough French dick to satisfy him, so don't bother even daring to hold a contrary opinion
>I don't see why this topic always has to devolve into bongs and frogs shitting on each other.
That's what we've been doing for centuries, it's in our DNA
if France can find the money to operate it, they should have a second carrier, so they have round-the-clock capability
one is none, two is one
Meanwhile, the French military budget for the 2024-2030 period will be 413.3 billions of euros
>the French military budget for the 2024-2030 period will be 413.3 billions of euros
>413 / 7 = 59
>59 billion euros = 64.3 billion US dollars
that's nice
I'm happy for you
>total: US$ 58 billion
>or about equivalent to the Italian defence budget
From what I can see the Italian defence budget for 2023 was about 20 billion euros, or 22 billion dollars. Not 58 billion.
>Should Britain and France have worked together on a 'Common European Aircraft Carrier'
Yes. We'd have cheaper costs per unit, and a greater industrial capacity to pull from.
>they'd jointly man and operate
No, we may be similar but we have different outlooks on geopolitics.