Does anybody have any idea what that aircraft carrier threw into the water while launching the plane at 18:07 and is that something routine? If you're watching for the splash it's thrown ahead of the aircraft carrier.
That was the bridle that connected the fighter to the catapult shuttle. It's basically a piece of steel cable whose ends attached to the aircraft, and looped around said shuttle and as shown, fell into the ocean after launch. It has since been replaced by a tow bar permanently mounted on the airplane's nose gear strut. It hooks to a notch on the cat shuttle and is a permanent part of the airplane. It allows faster launch, and eliminates the waste of using an expensive cable just once.
This capability is what allowed the English to lend the U.S. a carrier in WWII and allowed the U.S. to equip English carriers with F4U Corsair fighter squadrons to augment English aircraft production. The English and American navies operated together against the Japanese in much of the Pacific campaign. YES, it is an incredible capability. Not sure why the English moved away from flat-deck carriers.
@@huachen3836…… what? No not really in the sino-Japanese war technically yes the japnese were running around in china with US equipment while the chinese german however at the heightened tensions they switched sides the germans supported japan and the US supported china
@@augustuslunasol10thapostle It seems that you have been brainwashed too deeply by American false propaganda. Your historical learning is one-sided and fragmentary. If you systematically and comprehensively understand the entire history of World War II, you will understand that the biggest supporter of the two evil Axis powers, Germany and Japan, is the United States. The United States supported Japan's invasion of China. Without the support of the United States, Germany could not even start the second war. You can check the historical truth outside the United States in detail before drawing a conclusion. If you still don't understand, you can continue to ask me. I suggest you start with why Japan attacked the Pearl Harbor of the Kingdom of Hawaii stolen by the United States in 1941, and why the United States had to wait until Japan fully occupied the southeast coast of China before starting to support China with restrictions.
Soviet Kiev class "Heavy Aircraft Carrying Cruiser" do have a single catapult, but it was decommissioned in 1996 while Kuznetsov doesn't have a catapult.
@@ErnestJay88 Kiev class never had catapults, they operated VTOL aircraft and choppers. One is even still in service as INS Vikramaditya, they added a ski-ramp and arrestor wires to convert it to a pure aircraft carrier, but there were still no catapults.
I'd love to know what it is about these facts, that so few of you seemingly understand today? In today's world, of hi-tech Anti-Ship ballistic missiles, like the Chinese DF-21D - operational range (1700 km's) (that can sink any carrier in the world with a single hit). All Navies, including the USA's, without the ability to stop these missiles, are in effect obsolete today. Russia's Zircon Anti-Ship missile, though inferior in way of operational range-400kms it can be fired from Aircraft, Subs, and Ships making it deadly to any carrier in the world. (Russia also has the Brahmos and the P-800 Oniks Anti-Ship missiles). We know, neither the USA, the British and the French, have a destroyer, or any other means that can defend against these modern hi tech ASM's today! Making these western Navy's obsolete in today's world. The distances, these jets can travel is about 500-650 (max) km's out - and the same back again = 1300 km's range. Seeing them unable to deploy any carrier close enough, to reach any inland target, and then get back again? As anywhere inside 1700 km's, they're sunk, they're toast, they're history. This is also why when we hear the USA trumpeting out how they're sending a carrier to the South China Sea, (as some kind of propaganda imagined threat toward China) you'll never see them closer than 2000 km's from Chinas mainland when looking at their GPS positioning, it's known as "bluster". So why do we see these rubbish remedial misinformation videos all the time?
The french get a lot of dirt thrown their way, but damn it if their engineers aren't marvelous. Thanks for letting me learn about this incredible Carrier
You are so wright, hard cooked baguettes are much better at piercing armor than fluffy squashy Harris bread that would bounce onto it without doing much damages... Question of taste afterall ❤😋
Surprisingly accurate for a non-French channel. One mistake though: the new French aircraft carrier will be significantly bigger than the Queen Elizabeth-class-83,000 tonnes of displacement vs. 65,000. She will be the largest combat ship ever built in Europe.
A lot of people are making fun of french people and army but the fact is they were able to maintain their own armament industry in several key domains which make them quite unique. The Rafale is the only non-US aircraft that can land on and take-off from US Supercarriers. Some other navies will get that capability with the F-35B but in the end it is a US plane. The CDG is the only nuclear carrier outside of US Supercarriers, the only CATOBAR, it is interoperable with US F-18 and Hawkeyes. And it's more than 20 years old! Say what you want but you need conviction, political will of some independence to build such systems on your own.
Just a reminder: without the French Army (led by Generals Rocambeau and La Fayette) and the French Royal Navy ( led by Admiral de Grasse) the Brits, led by Admiral Graves, would have got through to Yorktown where the British Army, led by General Cornwallis, was entrenched and shielded. Graves' defeat at the Battle of the Capes of Virginia, also known as the Sea Battle of the Bay of Chesapeake (September 1781), deprived the English of any reinforcement, ammunitions and food. The capitulation of Yorktown followed, and thus the American independence became factual and official. Incidentally, the French Navy is still affectionately nicknamed "la royale". ⚓
Others may say harsh words about the French military. But I'm sure the us military and others respects them a lot. I mean people respect the US marines but the first thing you would hear is thier man apes that love crayons 😅. Atleast that's the jokes I always hear, even the other branches don't get a break like the coast guard or the space force. The only people who mean what they say are probably civilians who live on the couch and live in the basement.
Yup took a lot of balls, will and foresight, may france keep being blessed with good military procurement laws and programs for many decades to come. 😅😅😅
Q- What is the French Foreign Legion? A- France contracting mercenaries, to get their asses kicked for them...... .....and that's why no one talks about it.
@@Rotorhead1651 the french foreign legion aren't mercenaries they don't hire mercenaries and they have had a exceptionally good track record winning multiple dozen of battles and when they lost they took many enemies down with them
@@Rotorhead1651Not sure if thats supposed to be a joke or not 100% serious but the FFL is actually very good. Too bad unfortunately it suffers from the same flaw as currently (except Italy, ironically) every other western military unit and army, that is, being under the control of an absolute weak coward pussbag president.
@@Rotorhead1651 Is that why they managed to fulfill their mission in Mali in less then 2 years while the Americans completely failed in Afghanistan after 2 decades? Weird huh. France has better quality per solider, the US on the other hand have better equipment for their soldiers but unfortunately that doesn't equate to better infantry, too bad.
People often mock the French but forget France has hundreds of years of Naval Experience and even today has one of the most capable military's in the world
Oh sure, to build Nordstream I and II 🤣🤣 By the way, what's the name of your aircarrier? Die Deutschen haben die arrogante Angewohnheit, ihre Nachbarn zu unterschätzen.
French really are great at making sophisticated and modern Weapons, That's a great aircraft carrier and hopefully the next one is gonna be even better.
Looking forward to the delays in production, the need for imports from other countries, the continued problem of their planes not having folding wings for storage, the lack of a sister ship, and probably creating another several million dollars in problems to fix, that their government will be incredibly hesitant to pay.
@@DemonReign23 I'd love to know what it is about these facts, that so few of you seemingly understand today? In today's world, of hi-tech Anti-Ship ballistic missiles, like the Chinese DF-21D - operational range (1700 km's) (that can sink any carrier in the world with a single hit). All Navies, including the USA's, without the ability to stop these missiles, are in effect obsolete today. Russia's Zircon Anti-Ship missile, though inferior in way of operational range-400kms it can be fired from Aircraft, Subs, and Ships making it deadly to any carrier in the world. (Russia also has the Brahmos and the P-800 Oniks Anti-Ship missiles). We know, neither the USA, the British and the French, have a destroyer, or any other means that can defend against these modern hi tech ASM's today! Making these western Navy's obsolete in today's world. The distances, these jets can travel is about 500-650 (max) km's out - and the same back again = 1300 km's range. Seeing them unable to deploy any carrier close enough, to reach any inland target, and then get back again? As anywhere inside 1700 km's, they're sunk, they're toast, they're history. This is also why when we hear the USA trumpeting out how they're sending a carrier to the South China Sea, (as some kind of propaganda imagined threat toward China) you'll never see them closer than 2000 km's from Chinas mainland when looking at their GPS positioning, it's known as "bluster". So why do we see these rubbish remedial misinformation videos all the time?
@@DemonReign23 You people must surely only be pubescent American teens? You all talk such remedial old hand outright rubbish, and hilariously we see you all actually believing your own made up imagined rubbish? It's funny reading all of you "well-educated" Americans, talking about your military aircraft, that none of you actually know anything about? LOL. You're all stuffed full of so much propaganda, that you don't even know what propaganda is any more. And all we read in these comments will always be many of you Americans, claiming to be fighter pilots, or specially trained engineers, etc, LOL. Yet reading what you all go on to say, only proves you know less than nothing about anything you're attempting to talk about LOL, It really is quite shocking, yet also comically embarrassing to see. I'm English, so please do tell me, why I read so many of you, endlessly claiming the F-22 is so much better than the Russian SU-57, rubbish, that relies on washing machine, chip technology, and has the RCS (radar cross-section) of a Jumbo jet? LOL. Firstly, there is no possible way for any of you to know the RCS of any military aircraft, as they're always classified. Yet, also when you're asked what any of you have ever seen the F-22, actually do, (that would allow you to hold that opinion), none of you can answer that, as you've never seen the F-22, do anything at all, well, other than flying over a beach on a TH-cam Video. So, all you actually prove is, your own opinions are all based on absolutely nothing at all, right?. So, really, what is it all about? But, even worse, you never even ask yourselves the obvious questions, we must always ask? Questions like, how can the F-22 or F-35's (for that matter), detect, track, and target enemy stealth aircraft from BVR (beyond visual range)? The truth, I've come to find, is, that you people have no idea, whatsoever, LOL! Yet, if you had just asked yourselves that one question, you then might start to understand that today's reality, is absolutely nothing at all like you all think! So, I'll ask again, (as we read, so many of you people only talking backward remedial rubbish), to explain just how the F-22 or F-35 (for that matter) are able to detect track and target enemy stealth aircraft from BVR? I'd expect all of you to know this, right? But I've not found one logical or correct answer from any of you, yet, LOL. So come on, all you experts, tell us all how these US aircraft are able to detect, track and target enemy stealth aircraft from BVR? LMAO!
French Rafale Marine is one of the best carrier-capable jets: Empty Weight 10,200 kg (22,500 lb) MTOW 24,500 kg (54,000 lb) Payload 9,500 kg (20,943 lb). Mach 1,8. Hardpoints: 13. 6 AA missiles + 2 hardpoints: 6 GBU or 2 SCALP cruise missiles or 1 ASMP tactical nuclear missile (300 kt) F35-B: Empty Weight 14,700 kg (32,472 lb) MTOW 27,200 kg (60,000lb) Payload: 8,200 kg (18,000 lb) Mach 1.6. Hardpoints: 10 (4 internal, 6 external) 4 internal hardpoints : only 2 AA missiles + 2 bombs. 6 external hardpoints : F35B loses a significantly part of its stealth features.
The F-35C is the carrier variant of the F-35. The B variant is the VTOL variant used by the Marines. The lack of weapons on the F-35 makes sense when you recognize the F-18E has 12 hardpoints and is expected to operate with the F-35 as either a missile or bomb truck. The more planes Americans can put on their carriers allow for more specialization. The Rafale is most likely the best fourth-generation fighter in the world. The key edge it has is the French gave it one of the best aviation and sensor packages in the world. The only plane that beats it in that regard is the F-35.
While the Rafale is a fine 4th generation plane in terms of electronic warfare the F35 is leagues ahead. The sensors and stealth capability are incomparable between them. As one test pilot said: “A 4th generation could probably beat an F35 in a dogfight, it’s just shame they’ll never get close enough.”
Thank you, as a Frecnh/Scotsman with American family, for an English titled TH-cam video that does NOT diss the French. We do what we can, small but stingy. THANK YOU again.
You guys would be a close to a superpower militarily if you just brought your spending up from 1.5 to 3% of gdp and spent it on more navy and a little more air force. That would shoot france up from 6th place to 3rd int the world militarily, so many benefits to europe could come from that...
I appreciate learning about this aircraft carrier as I do not come across much information about the (modern) French Navy in general. Speaking of the rarity of catapult launch systems, the first amusement park to use such a system in a way that could be experienced outside of aircraft carrier operation was "Knott's Berry Farm" in Buena Park, CA (USA). In 1978, the system was adapted into an attraction (amusement ride) called the "Montezooma's Revenge" (currently being redesignated "MonteZooma: The Forbidden Fortress.") The ride enabled guests (passengers) to experience what it is like to launch from an aircraft carrier's catapult system as the attraction takes guests from 0 to 55mph in 4.5 seconds, through a 76 foot, 360 degree loop, then up a 148 foot tower, coming to a temporary stop then reversing backwards through the loop, back through the launch station, then up a second tower, stopping again, then returning down to the station where the ride vehicle is stopped. Other amusement parks around the world have since adopted the system into rides, but "Knott's Berry Farm" was first to give people an aircraft carrier-like launching experience without having to be on an aircraft carrier.
Excellent video. It misses a couple interesting features, though. One relates to the ship’s own armament, which includes Aster missiles. The other is the ability of the carrier to carry ASMPA nuclear missiles and to take part in nuclear deterrent missions.
De Gaulle does have much better self-defense capability than most carriers. Missiles aside, she also carries a bunch of auto cannons for self-defense. That was kinda prescient. Nimitz & Ford have a substantial layered anti-air defense & Japana’s Hyuga & Ise have large missile magazines & their own torpedos. Most modern carriers struggle to take care of themselves, however. QE, for instance, just as Phalanx.
I believe it's the U.S. Marines that say "2 is 1 & 1 is none". This is in reference to the French needing more than 1 nuclear carrier because of the length of time for refueling a nuclear vessel.
I served 21 years in the Marines. I believe the more accurate saying is, "don't f**k with Marines". However you are correct. The US has 11 carriers because about 1/3 are operational around the world, about 13 are in for extended refit and maintenance, and about 1/3 are preparing/training for operational cruises. The US can sortie than 4 carriers during a crisis if necessary. France's carrier force is useless the majority of the time due to the need for maintenance and training before redeploying. France does have a new carrier larger than the de Gaulle that is in design and estimated to be commissioned in 2038 or later if not cancelled like previous aircraft carriers. While the de Gaulle will likely still be operational by then, it will be aging in its technology and will be over 35 years old by then. France is a small country but the tens of billions of dollars it is spending on the Green scam, it could be operating multiple carriers and a stronger military. Russia is a serious threat to NATO for many reasons. NATO cannot trust any treaty or agreement that Russia signs. NATO cannot trust anything Putin says. NATO is woefully short of weapons and ammunitions in the event Russia attacks. Not all NATO countries will honor article 5 of the NATO agreement. Russia has the coordinates of every strategic military target in NATO which includes runways. NATO needs aircraft carriers in order to sustain air defense when its airfields are disabled by Russian missiles. Aircraft carriers can be constantly moving and are unpredictable where they will be at any given hour making them difficult to target. But the standoff distance needed by the carriers means they need aircraft with longer ranges OR the ability to refuel in flight. The US Navy is in the process of solving this problem by developing carrier-based unmanned tankers to refuel aircraft on their way to targets and on their way back to the carrier. But for every such unmanned tanker on a carrier there will necessarily be fewer combat aircraft. The UK is in a better situation than France in that it can have at least one of its two carriers operational most of the time but not all of the time. I applaud France and the UK and even Japan for having some carrier-based offensive capabilities. But in my opinion, NATO and our other allies need to up their game in carrier offensive capabilities. My apologies for the long post. In the 3 years I was in combat, there was never enough support and resupplies were unreliable. But that was before the Middle East wars.
@@BMF6889respect for your service... My cousin and best mate was a Major in the Australian SASR and has trained and trained with the best in the world. He always says of all the soldiers he's worked with, he has the most respect for the USMC and it was on a mission in the early days of Afghanistan where he got a bronze star awarded to him by the marines. So it's fair to say the respect is definitely reciprocated. Partied with some of the boys he made friends from the USMC once too and you mofos are cut from a different cloth. Wild boys, friggin animals 😂
@@BMF6889having only been given the opportunity of serving 10 years in the Marines, have to say you're absolutely right. The two is one motto is true; it refers to having a battle buddy both in operations and visiting foreign ports on short leave. Also having spare parts to make sure critical equipment stays operational.
You forgot about the tactical smokescreen, how do you defeat something that you cannot see??????? Kuznetsov is the greatest sunderwater carrier and smokescreen dispenser in the entire world!
@@antoniohagopian213 Is that supposed to be an actual insult? HERE'S how you insult someone: Q- How many Russian Naval ships have been converted into coral reefs? A- Most of them...... including their submarines.
The ASMP-A which is carried by the Rafale has no equivalent that I know of; no one else has a nuclear cruise missile that can be fitted on a fighter jet, this makes the Charles de Gaulle a VERY lethal ship indeed, possibly the most lethal surface ship.
One of the reasons for such a low amount of jets inside the hangar (23 of 40 aircraft) is the fact that Rafale M does not have folding wings. If it were F-18s or MiG-29Ks (similar in size) up to 30 would fit inside. Also in the US Navy not all the 90+ aircraft that a supercarrier can carry, would fit insisde the hangar. Some must be stored in the deck. This was also true for the F-14 that again does not have folding wing, and looks like a giant dorito from above. In the Russian Navy, less than half of the 45+ jets would fit in the hangar of Admiral Kuznetsov as there is a missile launcher in the space that a bigger hangar would ocuppy. And the Su-33 is a really huge fighter jet in size despite haivng folding wings.
True, the F-14 didn't have "folding wings". But the variable-sweep wings were put into "oversweep" (75º) for taxiing and parking, and in fact took up less deck space than a Super Hornet with wings folded.
The Rafale has somewhat small delta wings, so it's easy to stack them inside even without folding them (which always comes with structural issues - it's why the F-18 can't carry AMRAAMs on its wingtips like the F-16 does). The same was true with the US Navy's A-4. The F-14 had swing wings, which take up less space when swept backwards, but even so it took up more space than a Rafale.
back in the 80's, France sold Exocet air to sea missiles to Italy, and Italy sold some to Argentina and you guys sunk a British ship with it ! Well, sorry you lost that war, the Brits are touchy with their colonies. Anyway the Exocet was combat proven ever since and is still available on the Rafale today 40+ years later (modernised version of course)
(4:25) 120 knots to zero in 1.5s: 120 knots is 61.7 m/s, averaging over 1.5s is 61.7/1.5 ≈ 41.2 m/s² or (41.2/9.8) ≈ 4.2 G of deceleration. Similarly for a catapult launch with CATOBAR: 0 to 150 kt in 2 seconds is about 3.9 G of acceleration.
It doesn't matter if their carrier is small. Being able to construct and have experience in building a carrier, not to mention actually have catapults, is a huge feat in itself
10:12 The French reactors are somewhat close to the reactors on Enterprise (CV-65), which needed *8*. In fairness, Enterprise was a simple mod to the existing Kitty Hawk/Improved Forestall class in most respects, and each reactor was a direct swap for a boiler from the older design.
Enterprise was basically the same size as the Nimitz-class, though. She was fitted with eight submarine reactors cause that was what they had at the time. De Gaulle’s a lot smaller and can make do with less.
@@grahamstrouse1165 Every carrier the US has build since Forestall has been about the same size. De Gaulle is a lot closer to the old Midway class - about half the displacement of the US current carriers, though only a couple hundred feet shorter.
France deserves some credit on this. If you look at their budget, compared to Britain, they are really killing it from the carrier department. To develop such a ship on a small platform is commendable. Sure there are shortcomings, but they are capable. Look at the Queen Elizabeth class carriers of Britain to compare. Of course F-35s can change that calculus considerably in the future.
@@Stewpot-p5l Nothing. It is their implementation of a good design. They were smart enough to know it was far better to, for example, get versions of American catapults rather than develop their own. As an example to the contrary, the British Queen Elizabeth class must use F-35Bs as a fighter complement instead of the more capable F-35C because they have no catapults.
@@conradmeek5142 develop your own ??? Tell me how because the launch systems have been given to the USA , the steam system is only powered different on their vessels
@@Stewpot-p5l I am not going to engage with the ignorant here. French Charles De Gaulle class carriers uses C13-3 derived from the Nimitz. Only two of the world navies currently employ carriers with a catapult launch and all of them use US derived designs. Only one other Navy has commissioned a carrier with steam catapults on a carrier and that was Britain and it hasn't seen service since 1979. Please give me another Navy with catapult launch systems in service. India, China, Russia, and Britain have none in service. It was deleted from the Queen Elizabeth class and China's Type 003 is still under construction. It makes sense to buy something that is proven rather than develop your own. Especially if you are only constructing a low number of ships ship. Maybe the Queen Elizabeth Class could have had a CATOBAR system if the simply bought it from the United States.
@@conradmeek5142 the UK invented the Steam catapult system and then the STOVL system that it’s used in naval warfare which proved to be a quicker launch system and better in bad weather so it does have benefits
The top speed is classified, but since they use the same reduction gears as the conventional carriers did, which are rated to 36 knots, the top speed is 36 knots. All the Navy has ever said about the carriers speed was that they will exceed 30 knots. When I was on the USS Midway (CV-41) we joked that the reason that they picked 30 knots was that the top speed of the USS Midway was 31 knots.
Well if you look at the numbers that's a no contest (as a French, who doesn't like US army mentality). To be fair, it's the only country which can say they really have a carrier fleet. Because carriers need maintenance ~4months a year so with just one you can't keep a permanent presence on a region. It's a strategical error to invest only on one carrier (which is still very expensive) and it was criticized by some of our generals. But politicians need big projects to win votes, they don't care about the utility of it... And for the UK, they have no nuclear carrier lack tankers so they aren't able to deploy their carriers 🤡
@@paul4381It's not that the Royal Navy lack tankers, it's sold support ships. While our tankers have some solid stores capability, we only have 1 dedicated solid stores ship. The replacement class of 3 isn't due until 2029 - 2033.
For the British Royal Navy Carriers to deploy, they require the US Navy to provide escort destroyers because they lack the required number to assemble a battle group to protect the carriers.
Always weird that ships are reffered as 'she' in English as Charles de Gaulle is a major french figure. Having the name of Général Charles de Gaulle used as a feminin noun really sounds weird.
Yeah I know. American carriers like John F. Kennedy, Nimitz, Gerald R. Ford, are also all named after prominent male figures. But ship have been referred to as “she” for a long time, at least in the English language.
@@NotWhatYouThink Look, I'm not saying everyone in every Navy or maritime profession is gay, but until the last century, they sure went to a lot of trouble to keep women off of ships, even claiming it was bad luck. 😂🤣
@@shutout951 The Germans tended to name all their ships as He, Im guessing its becuase ship in German maybe a masculine noun. Which is generally why most countries call their ships he or her. Its masculine and feminine nouns.
The Charles de Gulle, despite its small size, is the only other aircraft carrier that can operate CATOBAR. Although I'm more excited for the PANG as it's more capable, and those look like a scale down Gerald R. Ford at less with it's Island Structure.
Are French Rafael fighters a match for F 35s? I think that’s the real question more than anything else! I am a Canadian and this is gonna sound weird cause I’m not from Quebec. I’m from Western Canada and I’m indigenous, but I wish we would’ve bought the French Rafael fighter with its twin engine design! Canada has traditionally owes you twin engine jets. When you’re flying over the Canadian tundra you want at least one engine to get you home!
Well there is no true answer to that question. Both are formidable aircrafts. F35 have unmatched passive stealth abilities and sensors and everything that we don't know about it, the pride of us military industry. But it is still a young design that will improve over time and get more reliable when all its problems will be solved. Rafale is much more older and developped, combat proven , can do all the missions that would normally require multiples kind of aircrafts. It has top notch sensors developped by Thales, maybe the best active stealth system and can launch meteor missile which is the best air to air missile on the market and has wider range detection and shooting than any other missile. The question would really be : can a meteor missile launched by a rafale detect and shoot an F35 before being shot ? Another question would be : would an F35 do everything a rafale can do as effectively ? In the end it does not really matter since we're allies those planes will only fight together and not against each other. I don't know which is the best but I'm quite sure together they're unbeatable
@@antoinedubocq2052great reply to the bait comment. Two completely different platforms with different purposes. Thank god our countries our allies, god help anyone in our way
Wow the french really made the most out of their much smaller military budget compared to the US. They have by far the most capable carrier and even nuclear powered and armed subs outside of the US itself. If they only had at least one carrier more they could have one combat ready almost all the time. They wouldn't even really need more than one air wing and they could constantly train even if one carrier is in the docks.
The PA-NG (PorteAvion-Nouvelle Génération/Air carrier new generation) is in preparation and will be the largest warship in Europe and one of the most imposing in the world. Called to succeed the Charles de Gaulle, the new generation aircraft carrier (PA-NG) constitutes a major technological and industrial challenge.
Yes, that was an old video clip of the launch of a Super Etendard aircraft which has been retired since. It used a wire sling to connect from the front wheel assembly to the catapult. What you see there is the said wire sling being jettison during launching.
French guy here ; thank you for making a good video about fremch military. Often, we get mocked, and it's quite disappointing... I get why other countries don't like french (we're proud, often too much), but it's nice to see a video that's just spitting facts and not mocking us
@@maxhugen I'm not in the industry but from what I have gathered, it was certainly the right decision. The french subs rely on outdated propulsion and power supply technology, so they really doth protest too much.
The French have been playing with their carriers for a very long time. It is possible that they are the only nation, other than the USA, that has the skills necessary to take full advantage of their carrier. They have experienced crews.
Wrong, GB was the first country to invent Carriers, the Last 20 years are the only time period we havnt had any since pre WW2. We have more experience with aircraft carriers then france historically.
@@ashleygoggs5679 you have been without real carriers for decades. Even your harrier equipped cruisers stopped fixed wing operations almost twenty years ago. You are only just recently getting back in the swing of operations with a real carrier and the last time I heard you don’t even have full air wings yet. Nor are your ships fully crewed. You also are short on escort vessels for proper operations. Experience doesn’t last, you either use it or you lose it and have to regain it, as we recently learned when we let our anti submarine skills decay after the end of the Cold War. Yes you “had” experience in the past but the French have continually maintained operations during your hiatus. My statement still stands.
@@Samaldoful Britain sold off our HMS ocean in 2018 you are correct but she stopped being used as a traditional aircraft carrier for a long time, Her roll was more of an amphibious assault ship. In 2011 she was used as a helicopter carrier which is when apaches where first used in action by the british. So technically i am correct, we havnt used carriers in their conventional sense in around 20 years.
I thought copper-aluminum alloys were used for their ability to work-harden easily to protect against cavitation bubble damage even as it wears down. Like a self-hardening surface on an otherwise ductile part. I guess if they couldn't get a good quality propeller otherwise, there's no choice.
Despite its slow speed, the nuclear-powered French carrier is the only nuclear-powered aircraft carrier outside the United States. China's nuclear-powered aircraft carrier may need to be implemented on the Type 004.
So much better than the Prince of Wales, I cannot understand the crazy design decisions that led to the UK building a non-nuclear carrier with no catobar, no ability to use E2 Hawkeye or equivalent. The Brits are also completely dependent on the US for aircraft, nuclear warheads and delivery systems. The French are truly independent.
You liar ! The UK won’t put their crew on a surface vessel with nuclear reactors because they aren’t cruel and the UK invented the Harrier jet then helped the USA with the F35B when they struggled with it and now make the engines and vtol system
@@lubumbashi6666 then just look up history and facts of today because the USA try and say the copied the Russian Jet VTOL system but don’t realise that they copied the British supersonic version of the P.1154 Harrier’s swivel afterburner design Working in shipbuilding gives you the knowledge to know that no metal or alloy on our planet can protect them reactors anywhere on any sizes vessel during warfare
@@lubumbashi6666 if you don’t believe me then just look up the TRUE FACTS ! because Royce make the systems of the F35B and a nuclear carrier has never seen naval warfare yet but even if was made of triple hulled Titanium it wouldn’t be able to protect them reactors
Omg....shes adorable!!! Love the old school name too! Kid had a bright future. Just love seeing families working and playing together. Now... y'all just need to make abou 3 or 4 more babies! 😉
Anyone else think that it would be an awesome video idea if NWYT did a video about why some countries choose to have Canards (small movable front wings) on their aircraft, while the US chooses not to have them? I’ve read some pros and cons, but it would be cool to see NWYT do a video about it.
Moreover French Nuclear carrier vessel can launch a nuclear strike with Dassault Rafale M F4 + Stealth supersonic cruise missile ASMP-A ( Range 500 km, Speed Mach 3, warhead 300 kt) when US Navy supercarriers has lost this possibility.
Very interesting to hear the effects of having a catapult in an carrier. Back in the day, when my country, Argentina, was not a pathetic joke of a state, we had for a few years 2 aircraft carriers, both from 2nd WW and steam propulsion: from 1969 to 1997 the 25 de Mayo (very old) and before that (from 1959 to 1969) the Independencia. The main difference was, apparently, that the 25 de Mayo had 1 catapult, although it was added, not originally in the ship. The air wing was mainly A-4s and eventually Super Étendard, and a couple of S-2 Trackers and varying helicopters.
Thank You for the interesting videos, I like them a lot! I do not wish to point out wrong pronounciations, as english is not my first language either, but sor-TIE ground my gears. I know how hard it is to un-learn wrong pronounciation, so You have my sympathies. Great video none the less! I did not know the french had a nuclear carrier, or that the russians did not have one.
Tuxton, Rodney, thank you for your frequent uploads and excellent investigations into the world's militaries. I was a while back about your somewhat French accent. I would love to learn more about you two and who you are. Would you consider someday making a brief video about you and the channel? Thanks again.
So this can put in perspective how insane the US Fleets are. USA has 11 super carriers. Nuclear powered. Wish more NATO countries can build super carriers. Only adds to the strength.
The good thing about the French navy is its buildup of warships around the Charles de Gaulle carrier. Britain may have two carriers of larger displacement but if you ask the royal navy to form two carrier battle groups it wouldn’t work. Most nato and eu navies rely on the eu and nato alliance as the allied navies, but France is the only one in my opinion that can operate as an independent carrier battle group.
That is so LGBT+ of China, bless them. This should be highlighted more, they would love that attention. Come WW3, it's not the size of guns, it will be who can draw the biggest rainbow. 🤭
You will see fourth and fifth aircraft carriers equipped with nuclear reactors and electric magnetic catapult in ten years. France spent 14 years in building one carrier. China will spends 20 year in building 5 carriers. And go goggle 055 destroyer， you will see capability of China building warships in recent 20 years.
It seems our engineers and sailors managed to get the best out of this ship, despite her problems (on top of the propulsion problems at the beginning, there was a space problem with the flight deck which needed to be slightly enlarged, and she may become a HR problem because most sailors don't want to be affected on her : she's much less comfortable than our destroyers (which are now all modern ships with reduced crews and larger cabins). Those problems are mostly caused by her reduced size, which is said to be linked to the constraints at the Brest Arsenal where she was built. The future PA-NG should not have such issues, it seems they realized the size of the ship is not the primary cost factor. Also size will not be a problem in the Chantiers de l'Atlantique shipyard, which was at the time designed to build the largest supertankers ever.
Terrific video...thanks for always giving us the best information. I am so happy I guessed right as soon as I saw the question. It could only be the French due to CATOBAR. LOL
Amazing video and very accurate for a non french channel. Thank you! Although... no one ever says "over baguette" nor uses "baguette" to say anything else than "bread" in France :)))))
I could never fathom why the Brits spent that much money on the QE class without giving it CATOBAR from day one. Now there's talk of retrofitting it at astronomical expense.
They where designed initially for emals, but the technology at the time was proving difficult, at the time the UK was also helping Lockheed develop the F35B varient with Collab with Rolls Royce who designed the pegasus engine for the Harriers. While the EMALS were being tested the UK deemed it cheaper and more cost effective to just use ski ramps until EMALS are a proven design concept. Its likely in maybe 10 or 15 years time the Carriers will eventually be upgraded. Babcock designed the ship to be easily modified for the future.
@@kommandantgalileo We will see, but by time the upgrade comes hopefully these wars will have fizzled out and the global economy will be starting to stabalize.
Does anybody have any idea what that aircraft carrier threw into the water while launching the plane at 18:07 and is that something routine? If you're watching for the splash it's thrown ahead of the aircraft carrier.
I’m curious too!
That was the bridle that connected the fighter to the catapult shuttle. It's basically a piece of steel cable whose ends attached to the aircraft, and looped around said shuttle and as shown, fell into the ocean after launch. It has since been replaced by a tow bar permanently mounted on the airplane's nose gear strut. It hooks to a notch on the cat shuttle and is a permanent part of the airplane. It allows faster launch, and eliminates the waste of using an expensive cable just once.
if you go frame by frame you cant see anything so it might just be a wave
@@petesheppard1709 That's right, it was used with the Super Etendard, a now retired aircraft.
@@BruneSixtine 👍
Interoperability between completely different air assets with partner nations is just an incredible thing to have.
This capability is what allowed the English to lend the U.S. a carrier in WWII and allowed the U.S. to equip English carriers with F4U Corsair fighter squadrons to augment English aircraft production. The English and American navies operated together against the Japanese in much of the Pacific campaign. YES, it is an incredible capability. Not sure why the English moved away from flat-deck carriers.
@@jimwolaver9375 Didn't the United States support Axis power Japan during World War II?
@@huachen3836…… what? No not really in the sino-Japanese war technically yes the japnese were running around in china with US equipment while the chinese german however at the heightened tensions they switched sides the germans supported japan and the US supported china
@@augustuslunasol10thapostle It seems that you have been brainwashed too deeply by American false propaganda. Your historical learning is one-sided and fragmentary. If you systematically and comprehensively understand the entire history of World War II, you will understand that the biggest supporter of the two evil Axis powers, Germany and Japan, is the United States. The United States supported Japan's invasion of China. Without the support of the United States, Germany could not even start the second war. You can check the historical truth outside the United States in detail before drawing a conclusion. If you still don't understand, you can continue to ask me. I suggest you start with why Japan attacked the Pearl Harbor of the Kingdom of Hawaii stolen by the United States in 1941, and why the United States had to wait until Japan fully occupied the southeast coast of China before starting to support China with restrictions.
@@huachen3836 uhhh... no
I am embarrassed to not have known that the Charles de Gaulle was the only non-US active carrier with catapults. Thank you for the detailed insights.
And only non-US nuclear carrier in the world.
Soviet Kiev class "Heavy Aircraft Carrying Cruiser" do have a single catapult, but it was decommissioned in 1996 while Kuznetsov doesn't have a catapult.
@@ErnestJay88 Kiev class never had catapults, they operated VTOL aircraft and choppers. One is even still in service as INS Vikramaditya, they added a ski-ramp and arrestor wires to convert it to a pure aircraft carrier, but there were still no catapults.
I'd love to know what it is about these facts, that so few of you seemingly understand today?
In today's world, of hi-tech Anti-Ship ballistic missiles, like the Chinese DF-21D - operational range (1700 km's) (that can sink any carrier in the world with a single hit). All Navies, including the USA's, without the ability to stop these missiles, are in effect obsolete today.
Russia's Zircon Anti-Ship missile, though inferior in way of operational range-400kms it can be fired from Aircraft, Subs, and Ships making it deadly to any carrier in the world. (Russia also has the Brahmos and the P-800 Oniks Anti-Ship missiles).
We know, neither the USA, the British and the French, have a destroyer, or any other means that can defend against these modern hi tech ASM's today! Making these western Navy's obsolete in today's world.
The distances, these jets can travel is about 500-650 (max) km's out - and the same back again = 1300 km's range. Seeing them unable to deploy any carrier close enough, to reach any inland target, and then get back again? As anywhere inside 1700 km's, they're sunk, they're toast, they're history.
This is also why when we hear the USA trumpeting out how they're sending a carrier to the South China Sea, (as some kind of propaganda imagined threat toward China) you'll never see them closer than 2000 km's from Chinas mainland when looking at their GPS positioning, it's known as "bluster".
So why do we see these rubbish remedial misinformation videos all the time?
Didnt the Brazilian carrier have catapults
French here. This is a well informed and balanced vid!
Good job.
Thank you monsieur
Hi French, American here. Have always admired the small-but-mighty CDG.
I told her that night "It's not about the size, but what you can do with it."
How did it go?
never heard back from him @@NotWhatYouThink
@@NotWhatYouThink4:13 did you notice something unusual with the aircraft, what was that?
The French talk a lot.
@@NotWhatYouThink"How my wife reacted...was NOT what you think!"
The french get a lot of dirt thrown their way, but damn it if their engineers aren't marvelous. Thanks for letting me learn about this incredible Carrier
they deserve it tbh this carrier spends more time dry docked for repairs than it does on the ocean
@@dbz9393you mean that USA never had problem with their cariers ?
@@nathanturpin109
Maybe, Skippy, but at least we know how to spell "carriers".
@@dbz9393 hahaha well its an expensive piece after all
stfu you're so arrogant @@Rotorhead1651
This is outrageous : you did not even mention the 2000 baguettes-a-day baking capability of the CDG.
You are so wright, hard cooked baguettes are much better at piercing armor than fluffy squashy Harris bread that would bounce onto it without doing much damages... Question of taste afterall ❤😋
Mates, I guess we're all french, but this is still sensitive, "secret défense" intel you're disclosing !!
Are you taking ZE piss ? The CDG can feed a whole nation on baguettes , every day, MONSIEUR !
Lol
We tried to win the last two world wars with our wands but it was not effective!!!! Lol
Surprisingly accurate for a non-French channel. One mistake though: the new French aircraft carrier will be significantly bigger than the Queen Elizabeth-class-83,000 tonnes of displacement vs. 65,000. She will be the largest combat ship ever built in Europe.
No more African resources, new French carrier will be just a dream...
@@franzmenzies5268 They can get the ressources elsewhere, in case you don't know.
@@franzmenzies5268cry about it and learn that ressources are available elsewhere
@@franzmenzies5268Like wits you show by your comment...a dream...
@@franzmenzies5268Which ressources, engineers and doctors?
A lot of people are making fun of french people and army but the fact is they were able to maintain their own armament industry in several key domains which make them quite unique.
The Rafale is the only non-US aircraft that can land on and take-off from US Supercarriers. Some other navies will get that capability with the F-35B but in the end it is a US plane.
The CDG is the only nuclear carrier outside of US Supercarriers, the only CATOBAR, it is interoperable with US F-18 and Hawkeyes. And it's more than 20 years old!
Say what you want but you need conviction, political will of some independence to build such systems on your own.
those who make fun of this army know nothing about history
Just a reminder: without the French Army (led by Generals Rocambeau and La Fayette) and the French Royal Navy ( led by Admiral de Grasse) the Brits, led by Admiral Graves, would have got through to Yorktown where the British Army, led by General Cornwallis, was entrenched and shielded. Graves' defeat at the Battle of the Capes of Virginia, also known as the Sea Battle of the Bay of Chesapeake (September 1781), deprived the English of any reinforcement, ammunitions and food.
The capitulation of Yorktown followed, and thus the American independence became factual and official.
Incidentally, the French Navy is still affectionately nicknamed "la royale". ⚓
Others may say harsh words about the French military. But I'm sure the us military and others respects them a lot. I mean people respect the US marines but the first thing you would hear is thier man apes that love crayons 😅. Atleast that's the jokes I always hear, even the other branches don't get a break like the coast guard or the space force. The only people who mean what they say are probably civilians who live on the couch and live in the basement.
Yup took a lot of balls, will and foresight, may france keep being blessed with good military procurement laws and programs for many decades to come. 😅😅😅
CDG is a great carrier. Teething problems to start with, but same with every new technology.
"it's not about size but what you can do with it"
At least it has personality
That's cold. 🥶😂
@@Rotorhead1651that’s warm*
That's what she said
I thinks it's massive though
😂
It feels like no one talks about France’s military despite how modern they are, thanks for doing so
Q- What is the French Foreign Legion?
A- France contracting mercenaries, to get their asses kicked for them......
.....and that's why no one talks about it.
@@Rotorhead1651 the french foreign legion aren't mercenaries they don't hire mercenaries and they have had a exceptionally good track record winning multiple dozen of battles and when they lost they took many enemies down with them
@@Rotorhead1651huh? The french foreign legion are not mercenaries what are you talking about?
@@Rotorhead1651Not sure if thats supposed to be a joke or not 100% serious but the FFL is actually very good. Too bad unfortunately it suffers from the same flaw as currently (except Italy, ironically) every other western military unit and army, that is, being under the control of an absolute weak coward pussbag president.
@@Rotorhead1651 Is that why they managed to fulfill their mission in Mali in less then 2 years while the Americans completely failed in Afghanistan after 2 decades?
Weird huh.
France has better quality per solider, the US on the other hand have better equipment for their soldiers but unfortunately that doesn't equate to better infantry, too bad.
People often mock the French but forget France has hundreds of years of Naval Experience and even today has one of the most capable military's in the world
Già nella 1a guerra mondiale
Ci vollero 1milione e700 soldati americani. Nella 2a hanno combattuto 2 milioni di americani.
And don't forget the nukes!
Third most deployed nukes in the world
Aren’t we fourth now ? US, Russia, China, France
@@Dante_YL for nukes? 3rd most deployed, 4th most in total
Bots : "German engineers are the best in the world."
France : "Hold my baguette. "
Oh sure, to build Nordstream I and II 🤣🤣 By the way, what's the name of your aircarrier? Die Deutschen haben die arrogante Angewohnheit, ihre Nachbarn zu unterschätzen.
Eeh, monsieur! Teins ma baguette, sil voids plais.
@@MatthewBaileyBeAfraid Tiens ma baguette, s'il vous plais :-)
il faut admettre que les Français ne sont pas aussi mauvais
Merci 🙏
i m french and i approved this video
Merci!
Yippeee!
I can die happy. 🤨🙄😑
I'm British and I don't approve.
@@ivortoadNormal vous êtes stupides.
French really are great at making sophisticated and modern Weapons, That's a great aircraft carrier and hopefully the next one is gonna be even better.
Yeah their newer one is going to be awesome.
Looking forward to the delays in production, the need for imports from other countries, the continued problem of their planes not having folding wings for storage, the lack of a sister ship, and probably creating another several million dollars in problems to fix, that their government will be incredibly hesitant to pay.
@@DemonReign23🚫❌🛑⛔️📛
@@DemonReign23 I'd love to know what it is about these facts, that so few of you seemingly understand today?
In today's world, of hi-tech Anti-Ship ballistic missiles, like the Chinese DF-21D - operational range (1700 km's) (that can sink any carrier in the world with a single hit). All Navies, including the USA's, without the ability to stop these missiles, are in effect obsolete today.
Russia's Zircon Anti-Ship missile, though inferior in way of operational range-400kms it can be fired from Aircraft, Subs, and Ships making it deadly to any carrier in the world. (Russia also has the Brahmos and the P-800 Oniks Anti-Ship missiles).
We know, neither the USA, the British and the French, have a destroyer, or any other means that can defend against these modern hi tech ASM's today! Making these western Navy's obsolete in today's world.
The distances, these jets can travel is about 500-650 (max) km's out - and the same back again = 1300 km's range. Seeing them unable to deploy any carrier close enough, to reach any inland target, and then get back again? As anywhere inside 1700 km's, they're sunk, they're toast, they're history.
This is also why when we hear the USA trumpeting out how they're sending a carrier to the South China Sea, (as some kind of propaganda imagined threat toward China) you'll never see them closer than 2000 km's from Chinas mainland when looking at their GPS positioning, it's known as "bluster".
So why do we see these rubbish remedial misinformation videos all the time?
@@DemonReign23 You people must surely only be pubescent American teens? You all talk such remedial old hand outright rubbish, and hilariously we see you all actually believing your own made up imagined rubbish?
It's funny reading all of you "well-educated" Americans, talking about your military aircraft, that none of you actually know anything about? LOL. You're all stuffed full of so much propaganda, that you don't even know what propaganda is any more. And all we read in these comments will always be many of you Americans, claiming to be fighter pilots, or specially trained engineers, etc, LOL.
Yet reading what you all go on to say, only proves you know less than nothing about anything you're attempting to talk about LOL, It really is quite shocking, yet also comically embarrassing to see.
I'm English, so please do tell me, why I read so many of you, endlessly claiming the F-22 is so much better than the Russian SU-57, rubbish, that relies on washing machine, chip technology, and has the RCS (radar cross-section) of a Jumbo jet? LOL.
Firstly, there is no possible way for any of you to know the RCS of any military aircraft, as they're always classified. Yet, also when you're asked what any of you have ever seen the F-22, actually do, (that would allow you to hold that opinion), none of you can answer that, as you've never seen the F-22, do anything at all, well, other than flying over a beach on a TH-cam Video. So, all you actually prove is, your own opinions are all based on absolutely nothing at all, right?. So, really, what is it all about?
But, even worse, you never even ask yourselves the obvious questions, we must always ask? Questions like, how can the F-22 or F-35's (for that matter), detect, track, and target enemy stealth aircraft from BVR (beyond visual range)? The truth, I've come to find, is, that you people have no idea, whatsoever, LOL! Yet, if you had just asked yourselves that one question, you then might start to understand that today's reality, is absolutely nothing at all like you all think!
So, I'll ask again, (as we read, so many of you people only talking backward remedial rubbish), to explain just how the F-22 or F-35 (for that matter) are able to detect track and target enemy stealth aircraft from BVR?
I'd expect all of you to know this, right? But I've not found one logical or correct answer from any of you, yet, LOL. So come on, all you experts, tell us all how these US aircraft are able to detect, track and target enemy stealth aircraft from BVR? LMAO!
French Rafale Marine is one of the best carrier-capable jets: Empty Weight 10,200 kg (22,500 lb) MTOW 24,500 kg (54,000 lb) Payload 9,500 kg (20,943 lb). Mach 1,8. Hardpoints: 13. 6 AA missiles + 2 hardpoints: 6 GBU or 2 SCALP cruise missiles or 1 ASMP tactical nuclear missile (300 kt)
F35-B: Empty Weight 14,700 kg (32,472 lb) MTOW 27,200 kg (60,000lb) Payload: 8,200 kg (18,000 lb) Mach 1.6. Hardpoints: 10 (4 internal, 6 external) 4 internal hardpoints : only 2 AA missiles + 2 bombs.
6 external hardpoints : F35B loses a significantly part of its stealth features.
The F-35C is the carrier variant of the F-35. The B variant is the VTOL variant used by the Marines. The lack of weapons on the F-35 makes sense when you recognize the F-18E has 12 hardpoints and is expected to operate with the F-35 as either a missile or bomb truck. The more planes Americans can put on their carriers allow for more specialization.
The Rafale is most likely the best fourth-generation fighter in the world. The key edge it has is the French gave it one of the best aviation and sensor packages in the world. The only plane that beats it in that regard is the F-35.
Rafale is an excellent aircraft.
While the Rafale is a fine 4th generation plane in terms of electronic warfare the F35 is leagues ahead. The sensors and stealth capability are incomparable between them. As one test pilot said: “A 4th generation could probably beat an F35 in a dogfight, it’s just shame they’ll never get close enough.”
Thank you, as a Frecnh/Scotsman with American family, for an English titled TH-cam video that does NOT diss the French. We do what we can, small but stingy. THANK YOU again.
You guys would be a close to a superpower militarily if you just brought your spending up from 1.5 to 3% of gdp and spent it on more navy and a little more air force. That would shoot france up from 6th place to 3rd int the world militarily, so many benefits to europe could come from that...
Awesome 🤩 Viva la France 🇫🇷
I appreciate learning about this aircraft carrier as I do not come across much information about the (modern) French Navy in general.
Speaking of the rarity of catapult launch systems, the first amusement park to use such a system in a way that could be experienced outside of aircraft carrier operation was "Knott's Berry Farm" in Buena Park, CA (USA). In 1978, the system was adapted into an attraction (amusement ride) called the "Montezooma's Revenge" (currently being redesignated "MonteZooma: The Forbidden Fortress.") The ride enabled guests (passengers) to experience what it is like to launch from an aircraft carrier's catapult system as the attraction takes guests from 0 to 55mph in 4.5 seconds, through a 76 foot, 360 degree loop, then up a 148 foot tower, coming to a temporary stop then reversing backwards through the loop, back through the launch station, then up a second tower, stopping again, then returning down to the station where the ride vehicle is stopped.
Other amusement parks around the world have since adopted the system into rides, but "Knott's Berry Farm" was first to give people an aircraft carrier-like launching experience without having to be on an aircraft carrier.
Interesting 😊👍🏼
Thats amazing Ive actuallybeen to a Knotts berry farm, I had no idea!
Brilliant presentation mate!
When the French set their minds to something they deliver top notch products.
Excellent video. It misses a couple interesting features, though. One relates to the ship’s own armament, which includes Aster missiles. The other is the ability of the carrier to carry ASMPA nuclear missiles and to take part in nuclear deterrent missions.
So true it's such a rare and interesting, system
De Gaulle does have much better self-defense capability than most carriers. Missiles aside, she also carries a bunch of auto cannons for self-defense. That was kinda prescient.
Nimitz & Ford have a substantial layered anti-air defense & Japana’s Hyuga & Ise have large missile magazines & their own torpedos. Most modern carriers struggle to take care of themselves, however. QE, for instance, just as Phalanx.
Come on man, "Is not about the size, but what you can do with it". You caught me off guard man, that is pure comedy 😂
Pero bueno, usted por aquí.🫡🫡🫡
Oh yeah? Ask my EX-wife ......"MORE" was never enough!
I believe it's the U.S. Marines that say "2 is 1 & 1 is none". This is in reference to the French needing more than 1 nuclear carrier because of the length of time for refueling a nuclear vessel.
It's also a mean of keeping industrial and operational skills
I served 21 years in the Marines. I believe the more accurate saying is, "don't f**k with Marines".
However you are correct. The US has 11 carriers because about 1/3 are operational around the world, about 13 are in for extended refit and maintenance, and about 1/3 are preparing/training for operational cruises.
The US can sortie than 4 carriers during a crisis if necessary.
France's carrier force is useless the majority of the time due to the need for maintenance and training before redeploying. France does have a new carrier larger than the de Gaulle that is in design and estimated to be commissioned in 2038 or later if not cancelled like previous aircraft carriers. While the de Gaulle will likely still be operational by then, it will be aging in its technology and will be over 35 years old by then. France is a small country but the tens of billions of dollars it is spending on the Green scam, it could be operating multiple carriers and a stronger military.
Russia is a serious threat to NATO for many reasons. NATO cannot trust any treaty or agreement that Russia signs. NATO cannot trust anything Putin says. NATO is woefully short of weapons and ammunitions in the event Russia attacks. Not all NATO countries will honor article 5 of the NATO agreement. Russia has the coordinates of every strategic military target in NATO which includes runways. NATO needs aircraft carriers in order to sustain air defense when its airfields are disabled by Russian missiles.
Aircraft carriers can be constantly moving and are unpredictable where they will be at any given hour making them difficult to target. But the standoff distance needed by the carriers means they need aircraft with longer ranges OR the ability to refuel in flight. The US Navy is in the process of solving this problem by developing carrier-based unmanned tankers to refuel aircraft on their way to targets and on their way back to the carrier. But for every such unmanned tanker on a carrier there will necessarily be fewer combat aircraft.
The UK is in a better situation than France in that it can have at least one of its two carriers operational most of the time but not all of the time.
I applaud France and the UK and even Japan for having some carrier-based offensive capabilities. But in my opinion, NATO and our other allies need to up their game in carrier offensive capabilities.
My apologies for the long post. In the 3 years I was in combat, there was never enough support and resupplies were unreliable. But that was before the Middle East wars.
In the Navy it's "7 is 1" 😂
@@BMF6889respect for your service... My cousin and best mate was a Major in the Australian SASR and has trained and trained with the best in the world.
He always says of all the soldiers he's worked with, he has the most respect for the USMC and it was on a mission in the early days of Afghanistan where he got a bronze star awarded to him by the marines. So it's fair to say the respect is definitely reciprocated.
Partied with some of the boys he made friends from the USMC once too and you mofos are cut from a different cloth. Wild boys, friggin animals 😂
@@BMF6889having only been given the opportunity of serving 10 years in the Marines, have to say you're absolutely right. The two is one motto is true; it refers to having a battle buddy both in operations and visiting foreign ports on short leave. Also having spare parts to make sure critical equipment stays operational.
Charles de Gaulle always wanted France to be independent from the US hegemony.
And pretty successful a that and with the war in Ukraine more funding is being put into projects to make France and Europe more independent
Nella 1 guerra mondiale gli usa inviarono in Francia 1,7 milioni di soldati. Nella 2 gm combatterono 2 milioni di soldati americani.
This why we gave his name to our carrier
Now now gentlemen, we can be independent but we're even better working together.
General de Gaulle was one of the greats
Great video! A lot of info that I was unaware of about this ship class. Thanks!!
The Kuznetsov may not be a great carrier, but it will make a great submarine.
And you can be a immigrant wasteland😂
@@antoniohagopian213 triggered
You forgot about the tactical smokescreen, how do you defeat something that you cannot see???????
Kuznetsov is the greatest sunderwater carrier and smokescreen dispenser in the entire world!
You people are obsessed with Russia.
@@antoniohagopian213
Is that supposed to be an actual insult? HERE'S how you insult someone:
Q- How many Russian Naval ships have been converted into coral reefs?
A- Most of them...... including their submarines.
@4:59 "pointy noise" Well done!
I was wondering if anyone else caught that. 😂🤣😉👍
Oh that wasn't just me thougg what he says next just roles off the tongue.
Hehe just noticed it myself.
That probably happened because I was so focused on what I was going to say next 😅
The ASMP-A which is carried by the Rafale has no equivalent that I know of; no one else has a nuclear cruise missile that can be fitted on a fighter jet, this makes the Charles de Gaulle a VERY lethal ship indeed, possibly the most lethal surface ship.
now, the F35 also can
@@othmanlibra1887F-35 Can only drop nuclear free fall bombe.
@@othmanlibra1887 But of course they can but the french have not the same budget lmao
@@teloneys2845 I don't understand your comment
@@othmanlibra1887Which missile ?
Another great video. Very informative. Thank you.
This is a proper aircraft carrier. UK should have built theirs like this.
Why? Catobar is more expensive and the F-35 can work just fine with a Ski-jump.
@ Ski jumps limit your air t to just one type. You can’t operate E-2D Hawkeye and other fixed wing jets which do not use STOVL
One of the reasons for such a low amount of jets inside the hangar (23 of 40 aircraft) is the fact that Rafale M does not have folding wings. If it were F-18s or MiG-29Ks (similar in size) up to 30 would fit inside.
Also in the US Navy not all the 90+ aircraft that a supercarrier can carry, would fit insisde the hangar. Some must be stored in the deck.
This was also true for the F-14 that again does not have folding wing, and looks like a giant dorito from above.
In the Russian Navy, less than half of the 45+ jets would fit in the hangar of Admiral Kuznetsov as there is a missile launcher in the space that a bigger hangar would ocuppy. And the Su-33 is a really huge fighter jet in size despite haivng folding wings.
True, the F-14 didn't have "folding wings". But the variable-sweep wings were put into "oversweep" (75º) for taxiing and parking, and in fact took up less deck space than a Super Hornet with wings folded.
The Rafale has somewhat small delta wings, so it's easy to stack them inside even without folding them (which always comes with structural issues - it's why the F-18 can't carry AMRAAMs on its wingtips like the F-16 does). The same was true with the US Navy's A-4. The F-14 had swing wings, which take up less space when swept backwards, but even so it took up more space than a Rafale.
Eres el mejor periodista que encontré en TH-cam, saludos de Argentina!
back in the 80's, France sold Exocet air to sea missiles to Italy, and Italy sold some to Argentina and you guys sunk a British ship with it ! Well, sorry you lost that war, the Brits are touchy with their colonies. Anyway the Exocet was combat proven ever since and is still available on the Rafale today 40+ years later (modernised version of course)
(4:25) 120 knots to zero in 1.5s: 120 knots is 61.7 m/s, averaging over 1.5s is 61.7/1.5 ≈ 41.2 m/s² or (41.2/9.8) ≈ 4.2 G of deceleration. Similarly for a catapult launch with CATOBAR: 0 to 150 kt in 2 seconds is about 3.9 G of acceleration.
Love the 94% availability rate 💞💖
It doesn't matter if their carrier is small. Being able to construct and have experience in building a carrier, not to mention actually have catapults, is a huge feat in itself
10:12
The French reactors are somewhat close to the reactors on Enterprise (CV-65), which needed *8*.
In fairness, Enterprise was a simple mod to the existing Kitty Hawk/Improved Forestall class in most respects, and each reactor was a direct swap for a boiler from the older design.
Enterprise was basically the same size as the Nimitz-class, though. She was fitted with eight submarine reactors cause that was what they had at the time. De Gaulle’s a lot smaller and can make do with less.
@@grahamstrouse1165 Every carrier the US has build since Forestall has been about the same size.
De Gaulle is a lot closer to the old Midway class - about half the displacement of the US current carriers, though only a couple hundred feet shorter.
What happened to the planes left engine at 4:15 at the end of the flight deck?
Looks like a compressor stall, or maybe a bird strike.
It exploded
@@antoniohagopian213
In technical terms, it go blowy-uppy. 😂
An American youtube channel praising a French military asset ?? I cannot believe it !! Great video, and greetings from France :)
France deserves some credit on this. If you look at their budget, compared to Britain, they are really killing it from the carrier department. To develop such a ship on a small platform is commendable. Sure there are shortcomings, but they are capable. Look at the Queen Elizabeth class carriers of Britain to compare. Of course F-35s can change that calculus considerably in the future.
What did France invent on the Carrier?
@@Stewpot-p5l Nothing. It is their implementation of a good design. They were smart enough to know it was far better to, for example, get versions of American catapults rather than develop their own.
As an example to the contrary, the British Queen Elizabeth class must use F-35Bs as a fighter complement instead of the more capable F-35C because they have no catapults.
@@conradmeek5142 develop your own ??? Tell me how because the launch systems have been given to the USA , the steam system is only powered different on their vessels
@@Stewpot-p5l I am not going to engage with the ignorant here. French Charles De Gaulle class carriers uses C13-3 derived from the Nimitz. Only two of the world navies currently employ carriers with a catapult launch and all of them use US derived designs. Only one other Navy has commissioned a carrier with steam catapults on a carrier and that was Britain and it hasn't seen service since 1979.
Please give me another Navy with catapult launch systems in service. India, China, Russia, and Britain have none in service. It was deleted from the Queen Elizabeth class and China's Type 003 is still under construction.
It makes sense to buy something that is proven rather than develop your own. Especially if you are only constructing a low number of ships ship. Maybe the Queen Elizabeth Class could have had a CATOBAR system if the simply bought it from the United States.
@@conradmeek5142 the UK invented the Steam catapult system and then the STOVL system that it’s used in naval warfare which proved to be a quicker launch system and better in bad weather so it does have benefits
I love this channel. The way this man presents things is fantastic!
Great Video 🎉
This is what Australia should have purchased.
For people who have been paying attention, the French military rules in the "bang for buck" category.
@Booz2010 Actually, the French will sometimes just set that stuff down on a dry spot on the table. The crust is almost its own dish.
@@stcredzeroIt was just a joke on the "Hold my beer." expression.
Perun already covered how the French military & military industry successfully run themselves on a tight budget
@@axanarahyanda628 I know. That was my pedanterrific "actually" response to that.
Yep! With little we can do more is the motto.
Another excellent release. Thanks for your many high-quality, very informative and interesting videos. Kudos to you & your team.
Very interesting. Thanks for the video and info! 😊😊😊❤❤❤
The top speed is classified, but since they use the same reduction gears as the conventional carriers did, which are rated to 36 knots, the top speed is 36 knots. All the Navy has ever said about the carriers speed was that they will exceed 30 knots. When I was on the USS Midway (CV-41) we joked that the reason that they picked 30 knots was that the top speed of the USS Midway was 31 knots.
Good informative video. Thanks 😊
We need to direct our aircraft with swords on aircraft carriers that's the coolest thing I've ever seen @ 17:52
Thanks for making this video.
“ most powerful aircraft carrier outside of the American fleet” had me dead💀
'Merica!
Well if you look at the numbers that's a no contest (as a French, who doesn't like US army mentality).
To be fair, it's the only country which can say they really have a carrier fleet. Because carriers need maintenance ~4months a year so with just one you can't keep a permanent presence on a region. It's a strategical error to invest only on one carrier (which is still very expensive) and it was criticized by some of our generals. But politicians need big projects to win votes, they don't care about the utility of it...
And for the UK, they have no nuclear carrier lack tankers so they aren't able to deploy their carriers 🤡
@@paul4381
A- A French what?
2- WTF does the U.S. Army have to do with anybody's Navy? &
🔺- Generals don't run the Navy, Admirals do.
@@paul4381It's not that the Royal Navy lack tankers, it's sold support ships. While our tankers have some solid stores capability, we only have 1 dedicated solid stores ship. The replacement class of 3 isn't due until 2029 - 2033.
For the British Royal Navy Carriers to deploy, they require the US Navy to provide escort destroyers because they lack the required number to assemble a battle group to protect the carriers.
Always weird that ships are reffered as 'she' in English as Charles de Gaulle is a major french figure. Having the name of Général Charles de Gaulle used as a feminin noun really sounds weird.
Yeah I know. American carriers like John F. Kennedy, Nimitz, Gerald R. Ford, are also all named after prominent male figures. But ship have been referred to as “she” for a long time, at least in the English language.
The Bismark was called "he," and I'm guessing that's not a tradition anyone wants to keep alive
@@shutout951
Probably has something to do with it's current status as a coral reef.
@@NotWhatYouThink
Look, I'm not saying everyone in every Navy or maritime profession is gay, but until the last century, they sure went to a lot of trouble to keep women off of ships, even claiming it was bad luck. 😂🤣
@@shutout951 The Germans tended to name all their ships as He, Im guessing its becuase ship in German maybe a masculine noun. Which is generally why most countries call their ships he or her. Its masculine and feminine nouns.
Fascinating Insight Segment!👍🙏🙂
The Charles de Gulle, despite its small size, is the only other aircraft carrier that can operate CATOBAR. Although I'm more excited for the PANG as it's more capable, and those look like a scale down Gerald R. Ford at less with it's Island Structure.
Really appreciate the effort you put to say french words
Merci beaucoup
Are French Rafael fighters a match for F 35s? I think that’s the real question more than anything else! I am a Canadian and this is gonna sound weird cause I’m not from Quebec. I’m from Western Canada and I’m indigenous, but I wish we would’ve bought the French Rafael fighter with its twin engine design! Canada has traditionally owes you twin engine jets. When you’re flying over the Canadian tundra you want at least one engine to get you home!
Well there is no true answer to that question. Both are formidable aircrafts. F35 have unmatched passive stealth abilities and sensors and everything that we don't know about it, the pride of us military industry. But it is still a young design that will improve over time and get more reliable when all its problems will be solved. Rafale is much more older and developped, combat proven , can do all the missions that would normally require multiples kind of aircrafts. It has top notch sensors developped by Thales, maybe the best active stealth system and can launch meteor missile which is the best air to air missile on the market and has wider range detection and shooting than any other missile. The question would really be : can a meteor missile launched by a rafale detect and shoot an F35 before being shot ? Another question would be : would an F35 do everything a rafale can do as effectively ? In the end it does not really matter since we're allies those planes will only fight together and not against each other. I don't know which is the best but I'm quite sure together they're unbeatable
Rafale, not Rafael 😭😭
@@antoinedubocq2052great reply to the bait comment. Two completely different platforms with different purposes. Thank god our countries our allies, god help anyone in our way
For once, it was exactly what I thought lol. CATOBAR carriers are awesome. Outstanding video as always.
Great video man.
Nice video !
I’ve come to love your channel. Well done thank you
Wow the french really made the most out of their much smaller military budget compared to the US. They have by far the most capable carrier and even nuclear powered and armed subs outside of the US itself. If they only had at least one carrier more they could have one combat ready almost all the time. They wouldn't even really need more than one air wing and they could constantly train even if one carrier is in the docks.
The PA-NG (PorteAvion-Nouvelle Génération/Air carrier new generation) is in preparation and will be the largest warship in Europe and one of the most imposing in the world. Called to succeed the Charles de Gaulle, the new generation aircraft carrier (PA-NG) constitutes a major technological and industrial challenge.
Awesome coverage.
That's a beautiful aircraft carrier 🤩
Very well researched video! I wish that good relationship between our two navy will continue as long as possible 🇫🇷🇺🇸
What was the splash at 18:06? Was it part of the launching catapult apparatus?
Yes, that was an old video clip of the launch of a Super Etendard aircraft which has been retired since. It used a wire sling to connect from the front wheel assembly to the
catapult. What you see there is the said wire sling being jettison during launching.
@@445Navigator Called the 'bridle' in US naval terms.
French guy here ; thank you for making a good video about fremch military. Often, we get mocked, and it's quite disappointing... I get why other countries don't like french (we're proud, often too much), but it's nice to see a video that's just spitting facts and not mocking us
Very interesting video.
And AFAIK, the France has overtaken Russia in value of arms exports, making it the second largest exporter after the US.
Just not submarines.
Sorry, couldn't resist it!
@@JP_TaVeryMuch As an Aussie, I can relate to that. We pissed off the French when we cancelled the sub order. But might live to regret it? 🥴🇦🇺
@@maxhugen I'm not in the industry but from what I have gathered, it was certainly the right decision.
The french subs rely on outdated propulsion and power supply technology, so they really doth protest too much.
it's just because they have you by the balls, and without balls it's impossible to say no to them.
@@jomo350350 Call me a dingbat but who is your "you" and who also is your "they" pray?
“It’s not about the size, but what you can do with it” NWYT, keep preaching🗣️🔥🗣️🔥
The Brits have two islands. One is for flight opps. The other is a pub.
94% availability rating is ABSOLUTELY INSANE
That alert readiness is mad.
The French have been playing with their carriers for a very long time. It is possible that they are the only nation, other than the USA, that has the skills necessary to take full advantage of their carrier. They have experienced crews.
🇬🇧
Wrong, GB was the first country to invent Carriers, the Last 20 years are the only time period we havnt had any since pre WW2. We have more experience with aircraft carriers then france historically.
@@ashleygoggs5679 bro uk only had a gap between the last gen Invincible class aircraft carrier and the QE class of 4 years not 20.
@@ashleygoggs5679 you have been without real carriers for decades. Even your harrier equipped cruisers stopped fixed wing operations almost twenty years ago.
You are only just recently getting back in the swing of operations with a real carrier and the last time I heard you don’t even have full air wings yet. Nor are your ships fully crewed. You also are short on escort vessels for proper operations. Experience doesn’t last, you either use it or you lose it and have to regain it, as we recently learned when we let our anti submarine skills decay after the end of the Cold War.
Yes you “had” experience in the past but the French have continually maintained operations during your hiatus. My statement still stands.
@@Samaldoful Britain sold off our HMS ocean in 2018 you are correct but she stopped being used as a traditional aircraft carrier for a long time, Her roll was more of an amphibious assault ship.
In 2011 she was used as a helicopter carrier which is when apaches where first used in action by the british.
So technically i am correct, we havnt used carriers in their conventional sense in around 20 years.
11:41 THIS IS THE PEAK OF COMEDY😆
Ultimately, they did end up going with aluminum from across the pond 😅
@@ArgosySpecOps
America to the rescue again. 😂👍🇺🇲
I thought copper-aluminum alloys were used for their ability to work-harden easily to protect against cavitation bubble damage even as it wears down. Like a self-hardening surface on an otherwise ductile part. I guess if they couldn't get a good quality propeller otherwise, there's no choice.
@@Rotorhead1651The least ravaged Average France Hater :
@@ArgosySpecOpsYour lack of knowledge is as hopeless as your opinion.
when she expresses her disappointment about the size: „have u ever heard of the french charles de gaulle aircraft carrier?“
Despite its slow speed, the nuclear-powered French carrier is the only nuclear-powered aircraft carrier outside the United States. China's nuclear-powered aircraft carrier may need to be implemented on the Type 004.
😂. You killed it with that aluminum joke! Love it!
So much better than the Prince of Wales, I cannot understand the crazy design decisions that led to the UK building a non-nuclear carrier with no catobar, no ability to use E2 Hawkeye or equivalent. The Brits are also completely dependent on the US for aircraft, nuclear warheads and delivery systems. The French are truly independent.
You liar ! The UK won’t put their crew on a surface vessel with nuclear reactors because they aren’t cruel and the UK invented the Harrier jet then helped the USA with the F35B when they struggled with it and now make the engines and vtol system
@@Stewpot-p5l I can't tell if you are being ironic.
@@lubumbashi6666 then just look up history and facts of today because the USA try and say the copied the Russian Jet VTOL system but don’t realise that they copied the British supersonic version of the P.1154 Harrier’s swivel afterburner design
Working in shipbuilding gives you the knowledge to know that no metal or alloy on our planet can protect them reactors anywhere on any sizes vessel during warfare
@@lubumbashi6666 if you don’t believe me then just look up the TRUE FACTS ! because Royce make the systems of the F35B and a nuclear carrier has never seen naval warfare yet but even if was made of triple hulled Titanium it wouldn’t be able to protect them reactors
Plus the fact that they built both QE and PoW led them to be unable to ensure their escort, thus resorting to French and other partners' frigates
man i love when you do any videos on aircraft carriers
Old memories. I served on this thingy
Omg....shes adorable!!! Love the old school name too! Kid had a bright future. Just love seeing families working and playing together. Now... y'all just need to make abou 3 or 4 more babies! 😉
Anyone else think that it would be an awesome video idea if NWYT did a video about why some countries choose to have Canards (small movable front wings) on their aircraft, while the US chooses not to have them? I’ve read some pros and cons, but it would be cool to see NWYT do a video about it.
Apologies if NWYT already has a video about it! Send me the video title if you happen to know it!
Great video
IT *IS* WHAT I THINK! A NEW VIDEO LET'S GOOOOOO!!!
What happened to the aircraft at 4:13 / 18:48? Compressor Stall, or did it lose an engine?
Moreover French Nuclear carrier vessel can launch a nuclear strike with Dassault Rafale M F4 + Stealth supersonic cruise missile ASMP-A ( Range 500 km, Speed Mach 3, warhead 300 kt) when US Navy supercarriers has lost this possibility.
Very interesting to hear the effects of having a catapult in an carrier. Back in the day, when my country, Argentina, was not a pathetic joke of a state, we had for a few years 2 aircraft carriers, both from 2nd WW and steam propulsion: from 1969 to 1997 the 25 de Mayo (very old) and before that (from 1959 to 1969) the Independencia. The main difference was, apparently, that the 25 de Mayo had 1 catapult, although it was added, not originally in the ship. The air wing was mainly A-4s and eventually Super Étendard, and a couple of S-2 Trackers and varying helicopters.
17:53 a sabre hot damn
Muy buena información
Thank You for the interesting videos, I like them a lot! I do not wish to point out wrong pronounciations, as english is not my first language either, but sor-TIE ground my gears. I know how hard it is to un-learn wrong pronounciation, so You have my sympathies.
Great video none the less! I did not know the french had a nuclear carrier, or that the russians did not have one.
Tuxton, Rodney, thank you for your frequent uploads and excellent investigations into the world's militaries. I was a while back about your somewhat French accent. I would love to learn more about you two and who you are. Would you consider someday making a brief video about you and the channel? Thanks again.
So this can put in perspective how insane the US Fleets are. USA has 11 super carriers. Nuclear powered. Wish more NATO countries can build super carriers. Only adds to the strength.
The good thing about the French navy is its buildup of warships around the Charles de Gaulle carrier. Britain may have two carriers of larger displacement but if you ask the royal navy to form two carrier battle groups it wouldn’t work. Most nato and eu navies rely on the eu and nato alliance as the allied navies, but France is the only one in my opinion that can operate as an independent carrier battle group.
The Chinese carrier is equipped with colored smoke.
That is so LGBT+ of China, bless them. This should be highlighted more, they would love that attention. Come WW3, it's not the size of guns, it will be who can draw the biggest rainbow. 🤭
@@PaulGrayUK
Dog......that was so cold it was ICY!
🥶🥶🥶🥶😂
@@PaulGrayUKchina more like California
@@raidenj1295 ah, Chinalifornia. 🤭
You will see fourth and fifth aircraft carriers equipped with nuclear reactors and electric magnetic catapult in ten years. France spent 14 years in building one carrier. China will spends 20 year in building 5 carriers. And go goggle 055 destroyer， you will see capability of China building warships in recent 20 years.
It seems our engineers and sailors managed to get the best out of this ship, despite her problems (on top of the propulsion problems at the beginning, there was a space problem with the flight deck which needed to be slightly enlarged, and she may become a HR problem because most sailors don't want to be affected on her : she's much less comfortable than our destroyers (which are now all modern ships with reduced crews and larger cabins).
Those problems are mostly caused by her reduced size, which is said to be linked to the constraints at the Brest Arsenal where she was built.
The future PA-NG should not have such issues, it seems they realized the size of the ship is not the primary cost factor. Also size will not be a problem in the Chantiers de l'Atlantique shipyard, which was at the time designed to build the largest supertankers ever.
Terrific video...thanks for always giving us the best information.
I am so happy I guessed right as soon as I saw the question. It could only be the French due to CATOBAR. LOL
But his info is flawed as CdG spends more time in repairs than actually sailing !!
@@solentlifeuk You are not wrong...after all, 1 is none and 2 is 1. But when the 1 is ready to go, it is the most powerful...for now.
Amazing video and very accurate for a non french channel. Thank you!
Although... no one ever says "over baguette" nor uses "baguette" to say anything else than "bread" in France :)))))
I could never fathom why the Brits spent that much money on the QE class without giving it CATOBAR from day one. Now there's talk of retrofitting it at astronomical expense.
Very informative video.
I'm still confused as to why the QEs are equipped with a ski jump, they were designed to be able to have catapults...
Check out our video titled: Was the angled flight deck missed on HMS Queen Elizabeth?
@@NotWhatYouThink Oh yeah! I'll go check it out.
They where designed initially for emals, but the technology at the time was proving difficult, at the time the UK was also helping Lockheed develop the F35B varient with Collab with Rolls Royce who designed the pegasus engine for the Harriers. While the EMALS were being tested the UK deemed it cheaper and more cost effective to just use ski ramps until EMALS are a proven design concept. Its likely in maybe 10 or 15 years time the Carriers will eventually be upgraded. Babcock designed the ship to be easily modified for the future.
@@ashleygoggs5679 let's hope the treasury is gonna pay up.
@@kommandantgalileo We will see, but by time the upgrade comes hopefully these wars will have fizzled out and the global economy will be starting to stabalize.
Excellent video! Thanks!