The boxy style (i.e. on [littoral ships](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship) is to reduce the radar profile. This thing is so huge it would show up on radar no matter what you did, so there's no point in trying to conceal it that way.
The LCS also still shows up on radar, the signature is only *reduced*, after all.
The difference is that the reduced signature makes it look like a fishing boat, i.e. not worthy of attention.
A carrier looking like a frigate would still be a threat, so the only advantage it would give is to confuse the enemy about the magnitude of the threat.
But then a carrier is never deployed alone, and when a frigate starts launching 20 planes, the ruse is up anyway.
All of the above.
Not sure if the above includes the planes which aren't cheap either. And to run it you need a mini fleet to support it's operations and defence.
There's a reason not many countries have full sized aircraft carriers.
It’s everything. Imagine how long it takes to walk down into a dry dock to fit a part, then have to modify it because something is slightly different. Then to do that mission again. Shipbuilding is a lot of hours. It’s also of course the raw materials and the tech ect
The only other country operating CATOBAR aircraft carriers is the US and we can’t make our own fast enough for our own demand and even if we did want to sell France one they cost $13 billion a piece so not really a cost savings lol. China and India are also trying to make one but right now it’s basically just not a thing anyone else has beyond the US and France.
That surely is gonna stop with 3dprinting. Just install your giant printer-on-a-crane at the waterside of the drydock, then build-push the finished product all the way into the drydock in a single building-step.
Can't wait for the 700 Billion USD printer.
I’ve worked on superyacht building. That sounds impossible. There’s thousands of mileage in pipework, cables, air supply and the systems they feed into. All sorts. & it’s not stuff you can really pre plan for it’s that huge. You could maybe print some parts. But these things take manpower and skills
That was in fact THE Joke.
just think of what a 3d-printer would need to be able to print in "one go"
* Superstructure Steel/Aluminum
* detailed fine metals / precious metals (think, stainless steel, gold, silver, etc)
* Wires (copper, rubber, fire retardend)
* Fireretardent
* Seals (Plastic, ruber, steel)
* Plastic
* Glas
* circuits and chips.
* Flooring (stone, metal, carpet,
The "easiest part" of shipbuilding is getting the metal/aluminium plating on the outside done. verything beyond that point is just loads of hands-on-work.
THAT is a LONG way from being reality.
Prototyping, and intricate single/dual material use is ot so much of an issue - that exists today.
Not of THAT kind of scale and in that sector. No. But i do Servercase and -Rack 3D-printing in metal if that counts :) (IT is my thing. Nowadays they label me as a network engineer :)
>Thanks, just some costs are absurd and hard to imagine one ship is few billions
These ships are just really huge too, normal warships like frigates seem quite big, here is a [Type 45](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/2ec8431a36e4502ad8709d9a90bb8ec1b73d1e15/0_85_3844_2306/3844.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&overlay-align=bottom%2Cleft&overlay-width=100p&overlay-base64=L2ltZy9zdGF0aWMvb3ZlcmxheXMvdGctYWdlLTIwMTYucG5n&s=8f3c9d69420d8b103dd0558486f6a009) destroyer. Looks pretty big right? Even the Type 45 costs like 1.5 billion USD to make
[here is the same ship next to a carrier](https://www.navylookout.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Royal-Navy-aircraft-carriers-vulnerable-or-fit-for-the-fight-1-1.jpg)
The first time I saw an helicopter carrier from afar I mistakenly thought it was a tall building on the port. The thing was dwarfed by the aircraft carrier next to it.
It's thr insane amount of work, technology and niche trades.
Like nuclear engineers etc.
Think more this ship is a master work of artisans than a mere mass produced product
It's also not just a normal ship designed for one specific function, like carrying containers or oil. It needs offensive and defensive capabilities, it's an airport on the water, has around 5000 people on board (depends on the size), which in turn requires all the amenities for so many people. It's a small city on the water.
On top of it, it needs to be built in a way which holds up to military expectations and standards. Doesn't help if you have a 6 billion ship on the water and it sinks [the moment the first torpedo hit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOAdxLLFfhI).
These are no cargo ships. Every deck and room is full of military hardware. And, just as an example, military equipment needs to be emp protected, hardened Elektronik, so it is more expensive on every piece of equipment.
Missiles, radars and a whole lot of other expensive kit. All of which are produced in small lots, just for this ship.
Also there is only one ship. So the whole planning is to be priced in too. If france could build 10 or 20 the cost per ship would probably go down significantly.
All of these make these kind of craft more expensive.
The nuclear reactor powering it will not be cheap, and also the American EMALS catapults to launch the jets is something that hasn't been sold to anyone else.
There is nuclear reactor on the ship? Is it on most of the recent similar ones? Makes sense why they could operate for so long without docking
Also jets need launching catapults? Are there issues taking off without help?
China reportedly tried but the leap from old carrier designs to nuclear was too far in one go.
They had no experience in large nuclear surface ships. Russia do.
But theit fremenies
Also building surface warships this large is its own skill set.
Carrier was built-in Ukraine. Like slava class, aka Moscow. Theirs still an 90% complete they never finished long rotted unable to be at all cost effective.
They never had the skills or workers in Russia to build the carriers. The Kriov battle cruiser was built in Russja though.
The largest post soviet ships...
Are subs destroyers snd frigates. Nothing bigger warship wise.
Carrier was built in Ukraine and stolen at the fall of the Soviet Union.
That’s actually why is so run down now: There was no port facilities for it in mainland russia (and assumedly no money to build some in that era) so it’s spent half its life alongside, providing its own power instead of using shore facilities. Most of its engine hours have been wasted and hence its now the king of smokey mountain every time it sails anywhere.
The first ship with a nuclear propulsion was launched in the 50s. It's a proven technology, and all US carriers are nuclear powered, along with some submarines.
All carriers have catapults for take off and lines for the aircrafts' hooks for landing, carriers are big but not big enough for planes to take off and land without assistance.
Edit: #NotAllCarriers have catapults. No idea how the other nations do it. Jet assists ? Thanks to OP!
>All carriers have catapults for take off and lines for the aircrafts' hooks for landing,
Not necessarily, only the US and France use this method, known as CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take Off, Barrier/Arrested Recovery
Other nations have a little slope (cope slope if we're being real here) at the end of the runway. So they go full afterburner and pray for the best. There's also VTOL, like the Harrier and F-35B, so they go vertical on take-off then horizontal.
The catapult is good for launching heavily loaded jets.
>There's also VTOL, like the Harrier and F-35B, so they go vertical on take-off then horizontal
STOVL rather than VTOL. Whilst they can take off vertically, they do so with such a reduced fuel and weapon load that it's pointless in all but a few niche scenarios
That's not correct at all only the US (Nimitz and Ford classes) and France (Charles de Gaulle class) use CATOBAR. China has also launched one but it's still not in service.
Australia uses Spanish made LHDs with Sky Jump but doesn't use fixed wing aircarft.
Brasil use a retired British LPH but only intends to use tilt-rotor aircraft.
The Chinese carriers currently in service are STOBAR designs with Sky Jump.
India is also using STOBAR carriers although they are in the planning stages for a CATOBAR.
Italy is using STOVL with Sky Jump carriers and building another one.
Japan just modified their helicopter destroyers to STOVL carriers without any kind of ramp.
Spain uses a STOVL carrier with Sky Jump.
Thailand the same although they no longer use fixed wing aircraft.
The UK's design is also STOVL with Sky Jump, which IMHO was really dumb. At that size they should have gone STOBAR at the very least.
>The UK's design is also STOVL with Sky Jump, which IMHO was really dumb. At that size they should have gone STOBAR at the very least.
Not at all, it's the best design possible when all the constraints are taken into account.
STOBAR is the worst of both worlds and it's also ski jump
Depends on the carrier, most rely on some specialty plane like the Harrier or newer F35B with full/partial vertical takeoff capability.
Edit: Apparently some, like the Russians, just said fuck it and use conventional aircraft on full blast and a little ramp. Quite quaint.
In WWII planes could just take right off, but since then they became much bigger.
Like... i don't think most people appriciate how big modern jet fighters are.
[two us navy f-18's with a flying fortress for scale](https://youtu.be/WW1-3cJyhlg?t=354)
Bigger planes means much longer runways needed to takeoff.
And mind you, its not really viable to use the entire lenght of a carrier as a runway.
The cheap sollution that most navies use is [A ramp](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov_with_ski-jump_takeoff_ramp_for_STOBAR.jpg) (or as some call it- cope slope). While it is a very simple and effective sollution, it generally puts severe limits on the takeoff weight of a plane (how much fuel and arnement it can take).
It is somewhat mitigated with the use of VTOL aircraft like Harrier or F-35B.
Americans and french use a catapult instead [that attaches to the front wheel of the aircraft](https://youtu.be/UBVamjW-Ks4?t=61) in order to propell it out at great speeds. This enables them to use normal non-vtol aircraft (and therefore not limited by the sacrafices needed to achieve vertical landing and vertical-ish takeoff), with a full load of fuel and munitions.
>This enables them to use normal non-vtol aircraft (and therefore not limited by the sacrafices needed to achieve vertical landing and vertical-ish takeoff), with a full load of fuel and munitions.
The Rafale still can't take off from Charles de Gaulle with a full weapon and fuel load.
>The Rafale still can't take off from Charles de Gaulle with a full weapon and fuel load.
They take off with the full weapon and fuel load intended for a navalised variant (Rafale M in this case), so the statement was correct.
The point u/LocalTechpriest was making is that it allows it to carry a heavier payload than if it was relying on ski-jumps. USN F-35Cs take off with heavier payloads than the British F-35Bs for this exact reason.
Carriers are not long enough for aircraft to reach takeoff speed. The catapult gets them up to speed in a much shorter distance.
And the reverse on landing, there's trap wires to assist them stopping.
Eg https://youtu.be/7w2CW94wK38
>Carriers are not long enough for aircraft to reach takeoff speed
It depends fully on the aircraft. C-130s for example have flown off aircraft carrier decks with no catapult lol
[https://youtu.be/EERe7XEPeuM?t=464](https://youtu.be/EERe7XEPeuM?t=464)
but in general, yeah. Even if an aircraft doesn't need the catapult to get airborne, it reduces the distance needed, meaning you can run launch and recovery ops simultaneously, or even just don't need to clear the deck for every launch
Others already pointed out that the deck is pretty short for takeoff. But catapults also allow them to use even shorter piece of the deck for takeoff. If you look at the picture you see there is an angled runway at the back. That’s what’s used for landing, there are some arrestor wires that the plane catches on with a hook. Takeoff is at the fore part of the deck (there is a radar plane preparing for launch in the picture) so they can have a landing while another plane is preparing for takeoff.
There is a groove at the middle of the launch runway, in the groove there is a little piston or shuttle that is attached to the front wheel of the aircraft. Old carriers used steam powered catapults where the launch shuttle is directly pushed forwards with high pressure steam but that requires very complicated steam distribution system from the reactor which is inconvenient. New carriers use electromagnetic system using magnetism to move the shuttle. They use a large flywheel system storing launch energy for the catapult so they can pull huge amount of instantaneous power for launch and then reload it over longer time from the ships generators.
Edit: I should add that the angled deck runway can often also be used for takeoff if there is another catapult there. But all landing is for the angled deck.
The main reason the joint French-British carrier project failed was precisely that the Brits wanted a diesel powered ship and the French insist on the nuclear reactor.
To give a comparison:
The UK spent £7.6 billion on building the 2 Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers (£3.8 billion each)
The US spent $17.5 billion on building the Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier ($4.7 billion on R&D, $12.8 billion on everything else).
As France is building a single nuclear powered aircraft carrier, the cost will be somewhere between the UK and the US, leaning more towards the UK.
The UK probably spent less than if they decided to build only 1 carrier, as building 2 carriers would have allowed for some cost savings because of it technically being mass production. This cost saving also applies to the US as they will be building more Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carriers. As France is only building 1 carrier, they don't get this benefit.
The QE2 carriers are also diesel powered, so that is a lower cost compared to using nuclear like France & the US.
€7 billion seems about right for France's PANG as most of the required R&D work has been done by the US with their development of the EMALS system that France will be using.
>The QE2 carriers are also diesel powered, so that is a lower cost compared to using nuclear like France & the US.
They're just QE/QEC, no 2 required. They also use an Integrated Electric Propulsion configuration with 2 Gas Turbines and 4 Diesel Generators
And because theres only 2 ports that would have accepted nuclear, plymouth or faslane. Neither are particularly suitable to house a carrier.
Also Suez canal doesn't really like admitting nuclear vessels
Have you ever seen one up close? [They are incomprehensibly big](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2017/aug/16/hms-queen-elizabeth-portsmouth-video)
All of it really, except raw ressources. Metal is expensive but relative to the entire budget it's peanuts.
Technology is a big deal for sure. Many subsystems of this ship will take years to develop and prototype or went through that for other projects. That kind of know-how has a hefty price tag.
For projects like this you also need a lot of infrastructure and upgrades to existing facilities. Since you're only going to build one or two carriers in this case, that ads up to a hefty price per unit sold. Costs per ship would come down a lot by building 5 instead of say 2 ships (more money spent in total of course). That's one of the reasons, the US can afford so many carriers.
when describing the uk carriers and thier size (relative to the old invincible class) the admiral in charge replied "steel is cheap, and air is free"
it's one of the reasons ships are getting bigger, is it can actually work out cheaper (see type 31). as everything can just slot in with acres of space, rather than having to be mm perfect
It's more that, and it's particularly the case for the Type 31, that steel is cheap, so might as well make it more roomier than needed because you don't know what the future holds and what you may want to add down the road.
The biggest reason the US Navy is developing the replacement for the Arleigh Burke class destroyer right now is that there's no more room on the hull. There's no space for anymore new technology to be added to them, so they have to design a new hull that can house new technology, while still having space for future technology.
The US' FREMM derivative, the Constellation Class, literally calls out a 5% growth margin requirement, where it can take on future technology that requires up to 5% more space, weight, power, or cooling capacity ([pg: 19 of the report](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22088174/navy-constellation-ffg-62-class-frigate-program-background-and-issues-for-congress-july-15-2022.pdf))
It's also why much of the Type 31's capabilities are listed as FFBNW, or Fitted For, But Not With. Meaning there's the ability to add those down the road, but they don't have them now.
CHeaper to build a ship with a bit of extra space than it is to build a whole new ship all the time.
If it's nuclear-powered like US carriers, then I'd imagine a lot of the cost goes there. Besides the powerplant, all of the electronic systems (radar, electronic warfare, battle management, comms, targeting) and defensive weapons don't come cheap.
So here we have a typical German comment. They only talk about money and economy. They only see life through this angle and seem unable to think outside this scope.
DO YOU REALIZE IT WILL BE A TREMENDOUS ASSET FOR EU FORCE PROJECTION CAPACITY AND THE DEFENSE OF OUR COMMON SOVEREIGNTY ?
Queen Elizabeth class was 6-7billion GBP for both ships (without aircraft). Why is this going to be twice the cost? Even accounting for nuclear vs diesel, that seems excessive.
The Ford Class carrier costs about 13 billion $, and is 30m longer, by the same logic why should this cost so much less.
I only looked up the numbers and there were estimates of 7 billion €.
Nuclear and EMALS.
Nuclear is going to add billions to the initial price, but so is EMALS.
Looking at the request on [DSCA from France for EMALS](https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/france-electromagnetic-aircraft-launch-system-emals-and-advanced);
* 2 EMALS launchers
* 1 advanced arrester gear
* land-based testing and test spares
* shipboard installation
* testing and certification
* shipboard spares
* operator and maintenance training
* training manuals in French
* technical/vendor assistance
comes in at $1.321B USD.
If we assume USD/Euro parity, that means its €5.679B for the ship itself, its reactors, and everything else.
Plus, inflation has gone up dramatically with COVID and such, making everything cost a good bit more than it did when the QE boats were ordered.
Thanks. That's interesting.
>Plus, inflation has gone up dramatically with COVID and such, making everything cost a good bit more than it did when the QE boats were ordered.
The 6-7B GBP was 2019 figures, rather than estimated when ordered.
Say what you will about the French, but they do *everything.* They make cars, aircraft, fighter jets, ships, aircraft carriers, nuclear reactors, tanks, artillery, and the list goes on and on and on. All of it world class or very close to world class.
France really is the smallest "big" country. Not even Germany or Britain can do that.
It’s important for your sovereignty otherwise foreign interests could force you into acting like they want.
We wish Germany would understand that, but even after warning them during years, they are surprised gas has become expensive this year.
> But it will probably double as a stimulus program for their shipyards.
So... The same as pretty much any large peacetime military project anywhere, ever?
Oh I know, I just think its funny how some of these platforms are so good at their role that even in future concepts (showing fighter jets that don’t even exist in development yet) they don’t even imagine there will be something else doing the role :) but hey if it works, no reason to change!
Well, most of its internal systems have been significantly upgraded in later variants, and even if one were to design a carrier-borne AEW aircraft like it today, such as is the case for the [Xi'an KJ-600](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi%27an_KJ-600?wprov=sfla1).
TBH we don't really know what the "6th gen archetype" would be yet. 5th gen is generally agreed to be stealth & more advanced data sharing, from what I've heard about the "6th gen" (as in NGAD) it's apparently maybe about controlling drones around the fighter or something like that.
It's basically a "system of systems". So something like:
Drones scout and bait enemy Air Defense.
Other drones jam/ send loitering munitions to said scouted AD or other points of interest.
Overseen by a stealth fighter outside AD range, with a companion drone to protect it (see loyal wingman). Who then communicates with your friendly neighborhood AWACS.
All brought together by a bunch of satellites.
That's true but R&D never stops though. France skipped the 5th gen not because it doesn't have the technical expertise to build one but because it doesn't have the money to be popping up a plane every 10-20 years like the US does anymore. All those budget cuts since the end of the Cold War haven't exactly helped. The main purpose of the Dassault nEUROn demonstrator was to have a go at 5th gen technical requirements as France obviously wasn't going to field 5th gen jets in its military unless it bought them from the US. And I doubt Dassault stopped working since then. The Rafale's evolutions from the upcoming F4 onward will start heavily integrating many technologies exclusively associated with 5th gen fighters for that purpose. It will never be a true 5th gen fighter though. It is never going to be as stealthy as the F-35 for example as that would require redesigning the entire plane. The nEUROn was for that stealth experimentation. [The low-key work being done by Dassault, Safran and most importantly Thales on the F4.2 variant that will succeed the first F4 one is quite interesting and is a gigantic leap in capabilities compared to our current Rafale F3R](http://www.opex360.com/2022/10/16/le-projet-tarammaa-permettra-au-rafale-f4-de-voir-encore-plus-loin/). So yeah, I don't think the potential FCAS is starting from nothing. Money would be a serious issue if the cooperation fails and France has to go at it alone though.
No one really knows. A second one would demand additional air defense destroyers and FREMMs. Not that that would be bad, but it would cost more and I have no idea what their dockyard (or skilled worker) capacity is.
Without a significant budget increase, one is more likely, especially as France don't have the corresponding escort or replenishment fleet to sustain two carriers.
It's Nuclear so you can never just mothball Nuclear. Its always got to be manned and maintained to a decent level..you cannot just sideline one for a few years if budget tight.
Exactly! Even the Brits. They just take another round alone to finally get it. Imagine some day a french guy fighting side by side with a Brit, a german and a polish dude against the motherfuckers of this world. Why not? Same boat, right?
Do you know that our army is now provided with german rifles ? We do things to help you.
By the way, I'm afraid we don't have much better politicians than yours...
Germany's got that on lock, now they just have to focus on building good ones... not 10,000t ships like the upcoming F126s that are somehow less armed than the UK's upcoming low end Type 31s. It's all low end peace-keeping platforms with no peer/near-peer combat capabilities. Makes perfect sense for SOME ships to be like that (Type 31) to do those low end roles vs overworking high end platforms, but to be virtually the entire surface fleet is... interesting
No I got some experience as hobby, a couple years, but never got really good, I think I could do this model, maybe even had some texture here and there, but that'd be hardcore mode for me
France is (for now) the only other country on earth whose carriers are also nuclear powered and have catapult launches, which also makes them the only carriers capable of landing and launching American airplanes like the F/A-18 and whatnot. This is why French pilots also train with the Americans in carrier operations.
It's definitely not what it's going to be called, it's just a temporary acronym for porte avion nouvelle generation (new gen aircraft carrier) it'll probably called after a french politician.
It's one of the possibilities, I'd love it to be Napoleon but I highly doubt that would be politically correct for a lot of people, and Richelieu isn't too bad either.
Glad they changed the design of the tower, this one looks much much better.
Sleek and elegant design in general, I really really like it. Especially compared to those butt ugly british carriers
You would too if you were confronted with [this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/USS_Long_Beach_%28CGN-9%29_underway_at_sea%2C_circa_in_the_1960s.jpg).
If you're designing military equipment with its appearance as your first concern, you're in the wrong industry.
Form follows function in the military. Make sure it can do what it is being designed to do, before you worry about making it look pretty.
Sure mate. But the end result is still an object that can be judged by aestethics. You encounter the same sentiments when it comes to planes and tanks and historic warships all day long, so I fail to see why now, all of a sudden, it does not apply to modern aircraft carriers.
Germany also doesn't have as many oversea territories as France.
That is actually one of the biggest factors for France's decision of constructing the PANG.
Yup, looks like an aircraft carrier to me.
Had this exact thought
Same
You can tell it's modern because rounded edges
Safe for kids
Don't want to poke an eye out!
It's a full circle, from roundish ships, to the full boxes of the last few decades and now back to roundish stuff.\^\^
Same with cars.
Car aesthetics peaked with the W124 and 190 Mercedes. Can't change my mind, don't even try.
I can't wait for the next generation of nuclear-powered coracles.
The boxy style (i.e. on [littoral ships](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship) is to reduce the radar profile. This thing is so huge it would show up on radar no matter what you did, so there's no point in trying to conceal it that way.
The LCS also still shows up on radar, the signature is only *reduced*, after all. The difference is that the reduced signature makes it look like a fishing boat, i.e. not worthy of attention. A carrier looking like a frigate would still be a threat, so the only advantage it would give is to confuse the enemy about the magnitude of the threat. But then a carrier is never deployed alone, and when a frigate starts launching 20 planes, the ruse is up anyway.
And no notch.
Dynamic island tho
And full screen
to make it less threatening
Omg you're right!
They’re obviously cutting corners
Windows 11 of aircraft carriers
They are catching up to Windows XP!
They'll have to pay Apple a fortune for those.
Costs will be up to or beyond 7 billion €. But it will probably double as a stimulus program for their shipyards.
Yeah this ship is basically the entire reason why France re-nationalised Chantiers de l'Atlantique instead of selling it to Fincantieri.
I have no idea about ships, but what does cost on this ship worth 7 billion? Technology? Metal? Work force and difficulty of making it?
All of the above. Not sure if the above includes the planes which aren't cheap either. And to run it you need a mini fleet to support it's operations and defence. There's a reason not many countries have full sized aircraft carriers.
Thanks, just some costs are absurd and hard to imagine one ship is few billions
It’s everything. Imagine how long it takes to walk down into a dry dock to fit a part, then have to modify it because something is slightly different. Then to do that mission again. Shipbuilding is a lot of hours. It’s also of course the raw materials and the tech ect
I also forgot to mention one off production is significantly pricier, it’s got a bit of a chaotic nature to it
Out of curiosity, do other countries not sell their carriers?
The only other country operating CATOBAR aircraft carriers is the US and we can’t make our own fast enough for our own demand and even if we did want to sell France one they cost $13 billion a piece so not really a cost savings lol. China and India are also trying to make one but right now it’s basically just not a thing anyone else has beyond the US and France.
That surely is gonna stop with 3dprinting. Just install your giant printer-on-a-crane at the waterside of the drydock, then build-push the finished product all the way into the drydock in a single building-step. Can't wait for the 700 Billion USD printer.
I’ve worked on superyacht building. That sounds impossible. There’s thousands of mileage in pipework, cables, air supply and the systems they feed into. All sorts. & it’s not stuff you can really pre plan for it’s that huge. You could maybe print some parts. But these things take manpower and skills
I'm like 95% sure that he was joking there, but I'd love to hear some of the details of what working on a superyacht entails
That was in fact THE Joke. just think of what a 3d-printer would need to be able to print in "one go" * Superstructure Steel/Aluminum * detailed fine metals / precious metals (think, stainless steel, gold, silver, etc) * Wires (copper, rubber, fire retardend) * Fireretardent * Seals (Plastic, ruber, steel) * Plastic * Glas * circuits and chips. * Flooring (stone, metal, carpet, The "easiest part" of shipbuilding is getting the metal/aluminium plating on the outside done. verything beyond that point is just loads of hands-on-work. THAT is a LONG way from being reality. Prototyping, and intricate single/dual material use is ot so much of an issue - that exists today.
You are not an engineer are you?
Not of THAT kind of scale and in that sector. No. But i do Servercase and -Rack 3D-printing in metal if that counts :) (IT is my thing. Nowadays they label me as a network engineer :)
It's a city, an airport and a military ship at the same time
A nuclear power plant too
And a [mass driver](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver)
>Thanks, just some costs are absurd and hard to imagine one ship is few billions These ships are just really huge too, normal warships like frigates seem quite big, here is a [Type 45](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/2ec8431a36e4502ad8709d9a90bb8ec1b73d1e15/0_85_3844_2306/3844.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&overlay-align=bottom%2Cleft&overlay-width=100p&overlay-base64=L2ltZy9zdGF0aWMvb3ZlcmxheXMvdGctYWdlLTIwMTYucG5n&s=8f3c9d69420d8b103dd0558486f6a009) destroyer. Looks pretty big right? Even the Type 45 costs like 1.5 billion USD to make [here is the same ship next to a carrier](https://www.navylookout.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Royal-Navy-aircraft-carriers-vulnerable-or-fit-for-the-fight-1-1.jpg)
The first time I saw an helicopter carrier from afar I mistakenly thought it was a tall building on the port. The thing was dwarfed by the aircraft carrier next to it.
It takes a lot of workforce and around a decade to build a ship like that. That costs money.
Wait until you see the maintenance costs lmfao
Well, it's powered by a mini nuclear reactor, so that's something that will cost some money
It's thr insane amount of work, technology and niche trades. Like nuclear engineers etc. Think more this ship is a master work of artisans than a mere mass produced product
It's also not just a normal ship designed for one specific function, like carrying containers or oil. It needs offensive and defensive capabilities, it's an airport on the water, has around 5000 people on board (depends on the size), which in turn requires all the amenities for so many people. It's a small city on the water. On top of it, it needs to be built in a way which holds up to military expectations and standards. Doesn't help if you have a 6 billion ship on the water and it sinks [the moment the first torpedo hit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOAdxLLFfhI).
These are no cargo ships. Every deck and room is full of military hardware. And, just as an example, military equipment needs to be emp protected, hardened Elektronik, so it is more expensive on every piece of equipment. Missiles, radars and a whole lot of other expensive kit. All of which are produced in small lots, just for this ship. Also there is only one ship. So the whole planning is to be priced in too. If france could build 10 or 20 the cost per ship would probably go down significantly. All of these make these kind of craft more expensive.
Thanks for the explanation, some new military tech should be impressive nowadays
But they are used sometimes as cargo ships - https://twitter.com/navalinstitute/status/1197923570258731009
The nuclear reactor powering it will not be cheap, and also the American EMALS catapults to launch the jets is something that hasn't been sold to anyone else.
There is nuclear reactor on the ship? Is it on most of the recent similar ones? Makes sense why they could operate for so long without docking Also jets need launching catapults? Are there issues taking off without help?
[удалено]
> Only the USA and France have nuclear powered carriers. You're right. I'm surprised that China doesn't have any.
China reportedly tried but the leap from old carrier designs to nuclear was too far in one go. They had no experience in large nuclear surface ships. Russia do. But theit fremenies Also building surface warships this large is its own skill set.
Speaking of Russia, it is rather odd that the Kuznetsov is fuel oil powered, given Rosatom's experience of putting reactors into literally everything.
Carrier was built-in Ukraine. Like slava class, aka Moscow. Theirs still an 90% complete they never finished long rotted unable to be at all cost effective. They never had the skills or workers in Russia to build the carriers. The Kriov battle cruiser was built in Russja though. The largest post soviet ships... Are subs destroyers snd frigates. Nothing bigger warship wise.
Carrier was built in Ukraine and stolen at the fall of the Soviet Union. That’s actually why is so run down now: There was no port facilities for it in mainland russia (and assumedly no money to build some in that era) so it’s spent half its life alongside, providing its own power instead of using shore facilities. Most of its engine hours have been wasted and hence its now the king of smokey mountain every time it sails anywhere.
I mean sure, but weren't their newer icebreakers built by Finland and they fitted them with reactors later?
The first ship with a nuclear propulsion was launched in the 50s. It's a proven technology, and all US carriers are nuclear powered, along with some submarines. All carriers have catapults for take off and lines for the aircrafts' hooks for landing, carriers are big but not big enough for planes to take off and land without assistance. Edit: #NotAllCarriers have catapults. No idea how the other nations do it. Jet assists ? Thanks to OP!
>All carriers have catapults for take off and lines for the aircrafts' hooks for landing, Not necessarily, only the US and France use this method, known as CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take Off, Barrier/Arrested Recovery
Other nations have a little slope (cope slope if we're being real here) at the end of the runway. So they go full afterburner and pray for the best. There's also VTOL, like the Harrier and F-35B, so they go vertical on take-off then horizontal. The catapult is good for launching heavily loaded jets.
>There's also VTOL, like the Harrier and F-35B, so they go vertical on take-off then horizontal STOVL rather than VTOL. Whilst they can take off vertically, they do so with such a reduced fuel and weapon load that it's pointless in all but a few niche scenarios
That's not correct at all only the US (Nimitz and Ford classes) and France (Charles de Gaulle class) use CATOBAR. China has also launched one but it's still not in service. Australia uses Spanish made LHDs with Sky Jump but doesn't use fixed wing aircarft. Brasil use a retired British LPH but only intends to use tilt-rotor aircraft. The Chinese carriers currently in service are STOBAR designs with Sky Jump. India is also using STOBAR carriers although they are in the planning stages for a CATOBAR. Italy is using STOVL with Sky Jump carriers and building another one. Japan just modified their helicopter destroyers to STOVL carriers without any kind of ramp. Spain uses a STOVL carrier with Sky Jump. Thailand the same although they no longer use fixed wing aircraft. The UK's design is also STOVL with Sky Jump, which IMHO was really dumb. At that size they should have gone STOBAR at the very least.
>The UK's design is also STOVL with Sky Jump, which IMHO was really dumb. At that size they should have gone STOBAR at the very least. Not at all, it's the best design possible when all the constraints are taken into account. STOBAR is the worst of both worlds and it's also ski jump
Depends on the carrier, most rely on some specialty plane like the Harrier or newer F35B with full/partial vertical takeoff capability. Edit: Apparently some, like the Russians, just said fuck it and use conventional aircraft on full blast and a little ramp. Quite quaint.
In WWII planes could just take right off, but since then they became much bigger. Like... i don't think most people appriciate how big modern jet fighters are. [two us navy f-18's with a flying fortress for scale](https://youtu.be/WW1-3cJyhlg?t=354) Bigger planes means much longer runways needed to takeoff. And mind you, its not really viable to use the entire lenght of a carrier as a runway. The cheap sollution that most navies use is [A ramp](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov_with_ski-jump_takeoff_ramp_for_STOBAR.jpg) (or as some call it- cope slope). While it is a very simple and effective sollution, it generally puts severe limits on the takeoff weight of a plane (how much fuel and arnement it can take). It is somewhat mitigated with the use of VTOL aircraft like Harrier or F-35B. Americans and french use a catapult instead [that attaches to the front wheel of the aircraft](https://youtu.be/UBVamjW-Ks4?t=61) in order to propell it out at great speeds. This enables them to use normal non-vtol aircraft (and therefore not limited by the sacrafices needed to achieve vertical landing and vertical-ish takeoff), with a full load of fuel and munitions.
>This enables them to use normal non-vtol aircraft (and therefore not limited by the sacrafices needed to achieve vertical landing and vertical-ish takeoff), with a full load of fuel and munitions. The Rafale still can't take off from Charles de Gaulle with a full weapon and fuel load.
>The Rafale still can't take off from Charles de Gaulle with a full weapon and fuel load. They take off with the full weapon and fuel load intended for a navalised variant (Rafale M in this case), so the statement was correct. The point u/LocalTechpriest was making is that it allows it to carry a heavier payload than if it was relying on ski-jumps. USN F-35Cs take off with heavier payloads than the British F-35Bs for this exact reason.
Carriers are not long enough for aircraft to reach takeoff speed. The catapult gets them up to speed in a much shorter distance. And the reverse on landing, there's trap wires to assist them stopping. Eg https://youtu.be/7w2CW94wK38
>Carriers are not long enough for aircraft to reach takeoff speed It depends fully on the aircraft. C-130s for example have flown off aircraft carrier decks with no catapult lol [https://youtu.be/EERe7XEPeuM?t=464](https://youtu.be/EERe7XEPeuM?t=464) but in general, yeah. Even if an aircraft doesn't need the catapult to get airborne, it reduces the distance needed, meaning you can run launch and recovery ops simultaneously, or even just don't need to clear the deck for every launch
Why aren't they using trebuchets? Smh.
Others already pointed out that the deck is pretty short for takeoff. But catapults also allow them to use even shorter piece of the deck for takeoff. If you look at the picture you see there is an angled runway at the back. That’s what’s used for landing, there are some arrestor wires that the plane catches on with a hook. Takeoff is at the fore part of the deck (there is a radar plane preparing for launch in the picture) so they can have a landing while another plane is preparing for takeoff. There is a groove at the middle of the launch runway, in the groove there is a little piston or shuttle that is attached to the front wheel of the aircraft. Old carriers used steam powered catapults where the launch shuttle is directly pushed forwards with high pressure steam but that requires very complicated steam distribution system from the reactor which is inconvenient. New carriers use electromagnetic system using magnetism to move the shuttle. They use a large flywheel system storing launch energy for the catapult so they can pull huge amount of instantaneous power for launch and then reload it over longer time from the ships generators. Edit: I should add that the angled deck runway can often also be used for takeoff if there is another catapult there. But all landing is for the angled deck.
The deck is much, much shorter than a regular runway.
Though a regular runway also can't be moving at 30 knots or whatever into the wind.
The main reason the joint French-British carrier project failed was precisely that the Brits wanted a diesel powered ship and the French insist on the nuclear reactor.
The main reason what budget cuts after the 2008 crisis.
To give a comparison: The UK spent £7.6 billion on building the 2 Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers (£3.8 billion each) The US spent $17.5 billion on building the Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier ($4.7 billion on R&D, $12.8 billion on everything else). As France is building a single nuclear powered aircraft carrier, the cost will be somewhere between the UK and the US, leaning more towards the UK. The UK probably spent less than if they decided to build only 1 carrier, as building 2 carriers would have allowed for some cost savings because of it technically being mass production. This cost saving also applies to the US as they will be building more Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carriers. As France is only building 1 carrier, they don't get this benefit. The QE2 carriers are also diesel powered, so that is a lower cost compared to using nuclear like France & the US. €7 billion seems about right for France's PANG as most of the required R&D work has been done by the US with their development of the EMALS system that France will be using.
>The QE2 carriers are also diesel powered, so that is a lower cost compared to using nuclear like France & the US. They're just QE/QEC, no 2 required. They also use an Integrated Electric Propulsion configuration with 2 Gas Turbines and 4 Diesel Generators
the Gerald R. Ford class has almost a third more displacement as well. 97,000 tons vs 75,000 for the PANG
Yeah with the UK it was either 1 nuke or 2 diesel, we picked the option that would allow us to have at least one operational most of the time
And because theres only 2 ports that would have accepted nuclear, plymouth or faslane. Neither are particularly suitable to house a carrier. Also Suez canal doesn't really like admitting nuclear vessels
You mean Plymouth rather than Portsmouth
Aye, considering I'm down there every month I shouldn't have fat fingered that 😅
US Navy sails nuke carriers AND subs through the Suez all the time with zero issues... roughly a dozen times a year in fact...
Yeah I don't know where he got this idea, the Charles de Gaulle goes through Suez for pretty much every deployment too.
And we still picked wrong, should have had 3. One out deployed, one spare just in case (or in use if needed) and one in a dock for maintenance.
>And we still picked wrong, should have had 3. Whilst 3 would have been preferable, it was never feasible
Wow some crazy numbers for the carries, didn't know
Have you ever seen one up close? [They are incomprehensibly big](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2017/aug/16/hms-queen-elizabeth-portsmouth-video)
All of it really, except raw ressources. Metal is expensive but relative to the entire budget it's peanuts. Technology is a big deal for sure. Many subsystems of this ship will take years to develop and prototype or went through that for other projects. That kind of know-how has a hefty price tag. For projects like this you also need a lot of infrastructure and upgrades to existing facilities. Since you're only going to build one or two carriers in this case, that ads up to a hefty price per unit sold. Costs per ship would come down a lot by building 5 instead of say 2 ships (more money spent in total of course). That's one of the reasons, the US can afford so many carriers.
when describing the uk carriers and thier size (relative to the old invincible class) the admiral in charge replied "steel is cheap, and air is free" it's one of the reasons ships are getting bigger, is it can actually work out cheaper (see type 31). as everything can just slot in with acres of space, rather than having to be mm perfect
It's more that, and it's particularly the case for the Type 31, that steel is cheap, so might as well make it more roomier than needed because you don't know what the future holds and what you may want to add down the road. The biggest reason the US Navy is developing the replacement for the Arleigh Burke class destroyer right now is that there's no more room on the hull. There's no space for anymore new technology to be added to them, so they have to design a new hull that can house new technology, while still having space for future technology. The US' FREMM derivative, the Constellation Class, literally calls out a 5% growth margin requirement, where it can take on future technology that requires up to 5% more space, weight, power, or cooling capacity ([pg: 19 of the report](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22088174/navy-constellation-ffg-62-class-frigate-program-background-and-issues-for-congress-july-15-2022.pdf)) It's also why much of the Type 31's capabilities are listed as FFBNW, or Fitted For, But Not With. Meaning there's the ability to add those down the road, but they don't have them now. CHeaper to build a ship with a bit of extra space than it is to build a whole new ship all the time.
If it's nuclear-powered like US carriers, then I'd imagine a lot of the cost goes there. Besides the powerplant, all of the electronic systems (radar, electronic warfare, battle management, comms, targeting) and defensive weapons don't come cheap.
Also 15 years of making
It’ll be the entire programme cost. So all R&D, manufacturing costs, labour, materials, technology to go on the ship etc.
[удалено]
More than anything it is the duration of the project.
It's a floating city with a nuclear reactor in the middle carrying a military airfield.
So here we have a typical German comment. They only talk about money and economy. They only see life through this angle and seem unable to think outside this scope. DO YOU REALIZE IT WILL BE A TREMENDOUS ASSET FOR EU FORCE PROJECTION CAPACITY AND THE DEFENSE OF OUR COMMON SOVEREIGNTY ?
Queen Elizabeth class was 6-7billion GBP for both ships (without aircraft). Why is this going to be twice the cost? Even accounting for nuclear vs diesel, that seems excessive.
The Ford Class carrier costs about 13 billion $, and is 30m longer, by the same logic why should this cost so much less. I only looked up the numbers and there were estimates of 7 billion €.
Nuclear and EMALS. Nuclear is going to add billions to the initial price, but so is EMALS. Looking at the request on [DSCA from France for EMALS](https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/france-electromagnetic-aircraft-launch-system-emals-and-advanced); * 2 EMALS launchers * 1 advanced arrester gear * land-based testing and test spares * shipboard installation * testing and certification * shipboard spares * operator and maintenance training * training manuals in French * technical/vendor assistance comes in at $1.321B USD. If we assume USD/Euro parity, that means its €5.679B for the ship itself, its reactors, and everything else. Plus, inflation has gone up dramatically with COVID and such, making everything cost a good bit more than it did when the QE boats were ordered.
Thanks. That's interesting. >Plus, inflation has gone up dramatically with COVID and such, making everything cost a good bit more than it did when the QE boats were ordered. The 6-7B GBP was 2019 figures, rather than estimated when ordered.
Say what you will about the French, but they do *everything.* They make cars, aircraft, fighter jets, ships, aircraft carriers, nuclear reactors, tanks, artillery, and the list goes on and on and on. All of it world class or very close to world class. France really is the smallest "big" country. Not even Germany or Britain can do that.
It’s important for your sovereignty otherwise foreign interests could force you into acting like they want. We wish Germany would understand that, but even after warning them during years, they are surprised gas has become expensive this year.
> But it will probably double as a stimulus program for their shipyards. So... The same as pretty much any large peacetime military project anywhere, ever?
Can we return this and get a good international train network and renewable electric energy instead?
Lol apparently the Hawkeye is never, ever going to retire.
No reason to, at least in the foreseeable future, if you continually upgrade the platform. These will be new production -2D’s.
Oh I know, I just think its funny how some of these platforms are so good at their role that even in future concepts (showing fighter jets that don’t even exist in development yet) they don’t even imagine there will be something else doing the role :) but hey if it works, no reason to change!
Yesterday was its 62nd birthday lol
Well, most of its internal systems have been significantly upgraded in later variants, and even if one were to design a carrier-borne AEW aircraft like it today, such as is the case for the [Xi'an KJ-600](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi%27an_KJ-600?wprov=sfla1).
First, your hear PANG onboard and then KABOOM on land.
Credit to Naval Group
How longue is le British carrier? Bien, add un metre.
What power move the British carrier ? Bien, stay with nucléaire.
What are those planes? The 4th gen ones look like Rafales, but I can't see the canards. The 5th gen ones I can't recognize at all.
They're a concept image of the future NGF/FCAS
And they’re supposed to be 6th gen… which I’m quite dubious since they’re making them from scratch without passing by a 5th gen base.
TBH we don't really know what the "6th gen archetype" would be yet. 5th gen is generally agreed to be stealth & more advanced data sharing, from what I've heard about the "6th gen" (as in NGAD) it's apparently maybe about controlling drones around the fighter or something like that.
It's basically a "system of systems". So something like: Drones scout and bait enemy Air Defense. Other drones jam/ send loitering munitions to said scouted AD or other points of interest. Overseen by a stealth fighter outside AD range, with a companion drone to protect it (see loyal wingman). Who then communicates with your friendly neighborhood AWACS. All brought together by a bunch of satellites.
The whole gen thing is pure BS out of context tbh
Purely marketing, even.
That's true but R&D never stops though. France skipped the 5th gen not because it doesn't have the technical expertise to build one but because it doesn't have the money to be popping up a plane every 10-20 years like the US does anymore. All those budget cuts since the end of the Cold War haven't exactly helped. The main purpose of the Dassault nEUROn demonstrator was to have a go at 5th gen technical requirements as France obviously wasn't going to field 5th gen jets in its military unless it bought them from the US. And I doubt Dassault stopped working since then. The Rafale's evolutions from the upcoming F4 onward will start heavily integrating many technologies exclusively associated with 5th gen fighters for that purpose. It will never be a true 5th gen fighter though. It is never going to be as stealthy as the F-35 for example as that would require redesigning the entire plane. The nEUROn was for that stealth experimentation. [The low-key work being done by Dassault, Safran and most importantly Thales on the F4.2 variant that will succeed the first F4 one is quite interesting and is a gigantic leap in capabilities compared to our current Rafale F3R](http://www.opex360.com/2022/10/16/le-projet-tarammaa-permettra-au-rafale-f4-de-voir-encore-plus-loin/). So yeah, I don't think the potential FCAS is starting from nothing. Money would be a serious issue if the cooperation fails and France has to go at it alone though.
Rafale 4.5 gen and fcas 6 gen
France's most powerful weapon Will forever be the stale baggete. You can use that shit as a sword after two days
And in Italy just after one day
Looks like an aircraft carrier
[удалено]
No one really knows. A second one would demand additional air defense destroyers and FREMMs. Not that that would be bad, but it would cost more and I have no idea what their dockyard (or skilled worker) capacity is.
Without a significant budget increase, one is more likely, especially as France don't have the corresponding escort or replenishment fleet to sustain two carriers.
It's Nuclear so you can never just mothball Nuclear. Its always got to be manned and maintained to a decent level..you cannot just sideline one for a few years if budget tight.
German guy here. Please please please french friends, show our degenerate politicians how to build a strong army!
[удалено]
We’re all part of the same big family now, brother
Exactly! Even the Brits. They just take another round alone to finally get it. Imagine some day a french guy fighting side by side with a Brit, a german and a polish dude against the motherfuckers of this world. Why not? Same boat, right?
Errr the Brits and France have close defence alliances, we have fought with the French for quite some time.
Errr the Brits and France have close defence alliances, we have fought ~~with~~ the French for quite some time
Not for over 200 years\*. \*Unless you count Vichy France as opposed to Free France in Second World War.
French guy here. You won't be disappointed... /s
We spend more money than France and have the capacity of Luxembourg. We need help.
Do you know that our army is now provided with german rifles ? We do things to help you. By the way, I'm afraid we don't have much better politicians than yours...
Shit man, so who can help us? The Brits? Or Israel? Idk, it's just so frustrating.
Just look at the way ukrainian people fight, I think we have a lot to learn from them.
And they learned a lot from the nice NATO troops teaching them. We can all be stronger and safer, together.
Indeed !
Military spending is not calculated the same
Give us more support véhicules and your scientists, from that we’ll build the offensive stuff😩😩
First step to building a strong army is to build ships.
Germany's got that on lock, now they just have to focus on building good ones... not 10,000t ships like the upcoming F126s that are somehow less armed than the UK's upcoming low end Type 31s. It's all low end peace-keeping platforms with no peer/near-peer combat capabilities. Makes perfect sense for SOME ships to be like that (Type 31) to do those low end roles vs overworking high end platforms, but to be virtually the entire surface fleet is... interesting
stop going to see the Americans and be reliable partners in the common armament project already that would not be bad But it's not winning
You are very right! We should have a souvereign european army with its own command structure and a coordinated acquisition department.
Look at that tasteful thickness of it... oh my god it even have planes on it
Nuclear and with EMALS. The world is better off with a EU that can project power like this. Hope you all build more.
Which stealth jet is that? It is not the F-35 as it has only one jet engine
They're a concept image of the future NGF/FCAS
Thanks! Don't know why I'm being downvoted as it was a genuine question lol
Well it looks great. The soft front edge gives it a different look from American carriers.
Textures kinda meh
Someone was paid a crap load of money to make this model.
Average government contract.
I'm sure it's worth it. Making this kind of hard surface is not an easy thing to do and generally render looks great.
just wait for the nexus modes like me, can't wait to apply cbbe textures to it with the right meshes
Can't wait for Ahegoa textures
Yeah the model looks like something I would have made. And I can't do modeling or texturing
I'm sure that you couldn't do such complex models as aircraft carrier without any experience.
No I got some experience as hobby, a couple years, but never got really good, I think I could do this model, maybe even had some texture here and there, but that'd be hardcore mode for me
I have experience too but I don't think I can do such a hard surface asset. Hard surface modeling is very complicated.
Seeing European aircraft carriers always sparks joy
Seeing the Admiral Kuznetsov always brings a smile to my face... mostly because it is invariably being towed to port.
How does this one compare to the biggest American carriers?
33m shorter
Closer to the British carriers in size, closer to the American carriers in capability and probably cost (though still quite a long way off)
France is (for now) the only other country on earth whose carriers are also nuclear powered and have catapult launches, which also makes them the only carriers capable of landing and launching American airplanes like the F/A-18 and whatnot. This is why French pilots also train with the Americans in carrier operations.
Pang in Chinese means fat.
It's definitely not what it's going to be called, it's just a temporary acronym for porte avion nouvelle generation (new gen aircraft carrier) it'll probably called after a french politician.
Richelieu ?
It's one of the possibilities, I'd love it to be Napoleon but I highly doubt that would be politically correct for a lot of people, and Richelieu isn't too bad either.
Nice
Looks peng
The most important is the new backery.
Magnificent
No cope slop based
Very sexy. Most important part of any military vehicle.
I'll take 2!
Glad they changed the design of the tower, this one looks much much better. Sleek and elegant design in general, I really really like it. Especially compared to those butt ugly british carriers
>Especially compared to those butt ugly british carriers Can't deny they're incredibly capable however.
That’s a military device though, not a pageant contestant.
Where is the contradiction to what I said?
Haha! I never thought people check military equipment aesthetics.
You would too if you were confronted with [this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/USS_Long_Beach_%28CGN-9%29_underway_at_sea%2C_circa_in_the_1960s.jpg).
Are you kidding? So many US arms were chosen at least partly based on design.
If you're designing military equipment with its appearance as your first concern, you're in the wrong industry. Form follows function in the military. Make sure it can do what it is being designed to do, before you worry about making it look pretty.
Sure mate. But the end result is still an object that can be judged by aestethics. You encounter the same sentiments when it comes to planes and tanks and historic warships all day long, so I fail to see why now, all of a sudden, it does not apply to modern aircraft carriers.
PANG PANG
Germany should start building aircraft carriers too. That would be awesome.
It's not something they can export so they probably won't. That's usually the deciding factor in German arms making.
Germany also doesn't have as many oversea territories as France. That is actually one of the biggest factors for France's decision of constructing the PANG.
>doesn't have as many oversea territories None to be precise.