I like how other NATO countries will buy american fighters and say "it's for interoperability with the US", while french made their own fighters and are the only other nation to land on american super carriers.
"in english savoir faire means expertise" my guy, expertise is a french word and it's used the same way as it is in english. Also "savoir faire" really should be translated as "know-how".
That's cause Normands (it's people of a French departement, like a county but lot smaller) kicked ass of england almost 1000 years ago and they replaced the elite of england. (at time , the Normands were mostly compound of "vikings" who were given lands by french kings and were integrate to french society). At these point, most of these new elite spoke french, and many words were from french to english (mostly words about justice, and administration, thoses two specific worlds are the same in french btw, there is a lot of exemple like "Reign" in french, we say Regne, with almost the same prononciation).
@@KMR_ECHO savoir-faire = expression anglaise aussi ( peu utilisé ) qui vient du français et le terme utilisé est "know know" ( moins technique ) sur papier : vos blabla ne servent à rien tous le monde à compris le sens
Most USA citizens who only refer to past and treats French cowards forgets is that Without the direct and indirect assistance of France, it is doubtful that Americans could have won the war for independenc. Between 1778 and 1782 the French provided supplies, arms and ammunition, uniforms, and, most importantly, troops and naval support to the beleaguered Continental Army. The French navy transported reinforcements, fought off a British fleet, and protected Washington's forces in Virginia. So USA Today is an independent nation and not a British colony due to French help. So actually French are USA’s oldest ally of nearly 250yrs. They were never cowards but a real force to recon with. And I’m so glad you especially mentioned that bravo to you👏. Most USA citizens doesn’t know this and if they did they never mention it preferring to mostly insult French people
Armament for Charles De Gaulle currently consists of: 32 vertical launch cells for MBDA Aster 15 medium range surface to air missiles Two 6 cell Sadral launchers for Mistral short range surface to air missiles 3 Nexter Narwhal 20mm close in weapons system
It was our very first nuclear-powered surface ship, for prototypes it is common for there to be problems, now it is not far from 30 years old and does its job with a high degree of reliability and professionalism and after all that is what is asked of it.
It's a prototype so it wasn't perfect. However the experience gained from it is invaluable and most countries (China, Russia...) would love to have that expertise.
As cool as this is, I think their Mistral class amphibious assault ships aka "helicopter carriers" are even cooler. There is a documentary titled "The Gigantic French Navy Ship Built For Warfare" featuring one of the ships in this class, "Tonnerre" on the RUclips channel Spark. It's 50 minutes long but if you like this sort of thing it might be something to watch.
You forgot that a nuke carrier doesn't need tons of fuel, then he has more place for repairing pieces, more rooms for soldiers etc.., it is lighter too and it has far less risk of fire... plus when a fuel carrier is hurted by ammunitions, it has more chance to burn becuause of fuel embrasement... Also when a fuel carrier is refuelling at sea, it is extremely in danger as the manoeuver is risky and needs that the teams are focused on it. They have to go slowlier, then they are an easier prey.
especially an anti sub capability. subs are the bane of carriers. in excercices, it was shown by multiple nations (france included) that even american supercarriers are vulnerable to them without proper watch
I once toured the Charles de Gaulle. It was build in Brest, Brittany and the naval army allowed all people living in the citiy to visit it before the nuclear engin was installed !! What a rush for a normal citizen!!! It was huge !! What impressed me the most at the time was the galley where it the food was made. It was the size of a small factory...!! Lol . At the time it was what made me 'wow ' it !!
i live in Toulon, where the CdG is, and when i was yuonger it was stil possible to go into the military port during heritage day, and i was able to tour the CdG and the Duquesne and both were wonderfull experience :p
@@Clery75019it's not really the food itself it's just that a normal citizen does not typically think about the fact that these aircraft carriers actually accommodate huge kitchens. They forget that thousands of people actually live in these ships for months (especially if they're nuclear powered). So when these see the food-making process and installations, it's impressive.
Here is the ''individual'' armament of the Charles De Gaulle aircraft carrier : 4 × Sylver A43 (8 x Aster 15) 32 missiles en tout (2 groupes) 2 x Sadral (12 missiles Mistral en tout) 8 × canons F2 de 20 mm 3 x tourelles Narwhal (depuis 2019) 4 mitrailleuses de 12,7 mm
19:03 When hooked to a catapult and ready to launch, the jet engines are at full power. So yes, it's to protect the following aircraft and the personnel from the blast.
We also have nuclear powered submarines. Two different kinds of, in fact . 6 "SNA" atack submarines" designed for fights and also 4 "SNLE" meaning "nuclear-powered, ballistic missile launcher submarine".they are designed for nuclear deterrence. very discreet, they are virtually undetectable (even by the french navy) after a maneuver literally called dilution. they can launch up to 16 M51.2 ballistic missiles with a range of 10,000 km, equipped with 10 nuclear warheads of 100 Ktons each. By the way, the Charles de Gaulle's rafales can also be fitted with a 300 kt ASMPA nuclear missile with a range of 5000 km.
Petite précision concernant le Missile ASMP-A embarqué sur le Rafale des FAS et FANU, la porté est classée "secret défense" mais de source ouverte elle est d'environ 500km pas de 5000km. Cependant avec l'aide de l'Airbus A330 MRTT ravitailleur, la capacité de frappe est possible partout dans le monde, rapidement et destiné à l'ultime avertissement avant l'emploi du M51 pour le stratégique. 500 km c'est d'ailleurs une performance pour ce type de missile (taille, charge militaire, propulsion, navigation...)
Actually, nuclear reactors allow the ship engine to warm up and ready to go musch faster. A conventional carrier such the ones use by the Chinese needs 2 days for the engines to get warm and ready to go. While it takes only 1 hour on the US carriers and half an hour on the french one.
Most countries don't have catapultes because they don't have the expertise in creating one (small remember that these tools can accelerate vehicule of hundreds of tonnes to 250 to 300 kph in seconds)
At the beginning, the missile launched wasn't speed up at all. It's an Aster15 or 30 for air defense. The Aster family missiles, are using boosters which are allowing them to accelerate really fast, before separating from the missile. It's a complex, but very precised one.
The issue with the french military is that France is hellbent on being present in every military fields, but obviously does not have the budget of the US. Other nations have made compromises and accepted that they should rely on others to fill capabilities, but as France refused, they end up with a "sample" army, and here for example, only one aircraft carrier. Hence France has its own fully independent nuclear program, both for weapons, and as powerplants in subs and carriers (using a unique technological route of low enriched nuclear fuel, common with the civilian powerplants), space (both in military satellites, and as larger contributor of the european space agency), and all the military gadgets one would want (but haven't made a 5th gen fighter, instead simply having made a 5th gen demonstrator drone). The idea behind this french "stuborness" to be present in every fields is that France consider that the most important is to not loose any know how, so that in case of a major conflict, all the knowledge would already be there and France would then scale up. Plus it helps France geopolitical independence. Now the question of abandoning this model comes every now and then.
Even without cost, the quality is far superior than bigger nations like China and India. The only country wich has more depth in many areas would be the US, but they are the biggest economy in the world and the one that puts the most in its army every yeah since the 1920s.. That's why it's a good thing in my opinion, France became the only nation in Europe capable of sending troops anywhere in the world without relying on the U.S, and it was the aim of french politics after WW2. Sure you have less numbers than countries like Russia China or India but the overall quality is far superior in many aspects.
@@MN-vz8qm Then every nation has a toy army. First of all, there aren't any conventional wars between great powers nowadays and with all the unions standing it would almost never be a 1 on 1 scenario. Second, look how Russia failed Ukraine and even before nato started pouring tons of ressources into it. Look how the US struggled in both afghanistan and iraq. The only thing that matters is having nukes and France has nukes. It's the only thing that protects a country from a real invasion or a great war.
19:30 le kérozen c'est pour les avions. Sans kérozen, plus de mission. En intense activité les avions consomme le kérozen en 2 semaines au lieu de 45 jours. Dans la vidéo il dit "fuel" mais c'est "kérozen" sauf erreur.
Thanks for your video from France. For information at 24:58 you can see a LSO (in French, we say Chien Jaune (Yellow Dog)) brandishing his officer's saber. In the French Navy, saber is used only in special/symbolic occasions. In this case, I guess it was for the last catapulting of a Super Etendard (the preddecessor of the Rafale M) before their retirement. That's also why so much people are on the fly deck (some of them take pictures). One other thing: at 20:00 you seem worried why the CVN needs fuel. That's not for the ship but for the aircarfts ;-)
The Charles de Gaulle uses a catapult because its nuclear reactor produces steam, which is necessary to operate the catapult. This system requires a large amount of energy, which is feasible with nuclear propulsion. France, with its unique expertise in this area, is one of the few nations, along with the United States, to master this advanced technology. Other carriers, often with conventional engines, cannot support such high energy demands and thus use less demanding launch systems.
Some context France is a nuclear power, be it civilian or military With the US, Russia and China it's the only country to be autonomous for nuclear powered ships/submarines (UK has to rely on US for their's) The low enrichment nuke fuel is due to a strong civilian nuclear reactor industry, and an insuficient amount of naval nuclear reactor to justify building a specific high enrichment fuel production line like the US CATOBAR have a huge advantage over STOBAR carrier as they can launch planes with way more payload Nuclear propulsion have 2 major benefit, it allow a heavy production of steam or electricity without need of fuel consumption (a conventional CATOBAR carrier would requier an additionnal boiler for steam catapult) And secondly, it allows to remove ship fuel storage, giving more room for jet fuel tanks The supply ships are here for jet fuel resupply, escort ship fuel resuply, food and other needs
J'ai servi dessus 1 an comme méca, j'étais au TR5 le carburant des hélico à l"époque, tout le circuit de carburant est en inox , une vrai merde quand il fallait changer un tronçon de canalisation car l' inox à une flexibilité proche de zéro c'est compliqué a emboiter, mais j'en garde un bon souvenir et de l"expérience.
We are talking about NUCLEAR aircraft carriers with catapult.. there is a nuclear reactor inside the boat powering everything. The catapult allows the plane to be able to take off even when they wear heavy stuffs. It can't be done with a skijump and also you need "unlimited power" to do that again and again (that's whey nuclear is better because the boat could operate multiple years without the need to refuel). Only 2 countries have that kind of tech, the US and France, UK doesn't have and doesn't know how to build that and China is trying
the refueling is for aviation fuel for the aircafts and also fro food. and also for the other ships of the complete carrier group that are not nuclear power. The british carrier is limited to F35 and helicopters.
Catapults require power to operate and space in the ship's design. If your ship's main power plant is not powerful enough, you can't make a catapult. Those catapult are American made, the only ones in the world beside the new Chinese ones. Russians of course didn't have access to this and the Brits like their VTOL aircraft and also want to decrease the cost of the ships (to make two instead of one). The Task Force architecture or a carrier escorted by other defense vessels (AA or Anti sub) as well as support vessels was designed in WW2 because beforehand, carriers used to operate on their own or in only carrier groups and suffered a lot of casualties doing so. And with nowadays drones techs, a lone carrier would be a sitting duck, not just against conventional air launched or ballistic or cruiser missiles. It has to rely on their support group. The carrier has some self defense weaponry such as AA machine guns or missiles but it's not much against a true attack. And it has to be defended against subs, its bigger threat, until the introduction of naval and aerial drones. Of course, the acceleration by the catapult is higher than the aircraft's own acceleration. Under the craft own engine power, it would need a much longer runway to achieve flight speed. In the early 2000s, lots of corrupt companies suddenly burnt down during investigation in France. The Credit Lyonnais banque in the center of Paris had a similar fate, most likely to hide some evidence ofscandals and corruption... the building was badly damaged and the cast iron glass ceiling of the atrium melted onto the firemen... The raised plate is a flame deflector to protect the aircraft behind from the exhaust of the one leaving. Let's just hope that the PA NG project won't suffer too much hassle in the next few years. Oh and years ago, the French carrier based aircraft use to train on the USS ENTERPRISE herself !
The fuel is for the fighter jets, not for the carrier itself of course. By the way, the British carriers use fuel which explains why they need at least 2 ships due to more frequent maintenance stops. And unlike the C. de Gaulle, they don't have catapults, preventing them to carry heavy airplanes, such as Hawkeye or Rafale with 9 tons payload. Like many other French people, I am sorry we didn't built a second carrier but the coast is high, not for building the carrier itself but to use it and also to pay 1400 x 2 sailors. We rather pay for free schools, free medical coverage, and free universities. After all, we are more often at peace than at war... Thanks God! Just a remark: in the video, we can see the take off of a Super Etendard fighter jet retired since 2016, replaced by the Rafale M.
0:56 Rockets are really fast, some like guided missiles are deliberately not made as fast as they can be because human cant keep up. 11:48 Nuclear powered submarines have interesting disadvantage compared to diesels - diesel can be turned off and on at will, you cant do that with nuclear reactor.
Great ship! Note that certain strategic elements of the aircraft carrier are made exclusively by the USA, like the catapult. Not to mention the French government's mismanagement of General Eletric/Alstom (nuclear boiler plant). In 2003, an American embargo was imposed on essential parts of the aircraft carrier (catapult) following France's refusal to go to IRAQ. As a result, the aircraft carrier was not operational for over 1 year. Relative sovereignty... Pity. Same for the next aircraft carrier under construction soon
The nuclear boiler plant isn’t made by Alstom/General Electrics, Alstom made the turbines and at the time General Electric had nothing to do with Alstom. GE bought Alstom’s turbine section in the 2000s to put their hands on Alstom’s turbine, it only lasted for a few years and Alstom was bought back by France. Why? Alstom’s has always been the rival of GE in nuclear Turbines for power plants, in fact most nuclear power plants around the world use Alstom’s turbine which is far superior to GE turbine. GE and the US government tried to get info on Alstom’s turbine for decades through espionnage and other shady business. They finally managed it in the 2000’s by arresting a bunch of Alstom’s highly placed employees and jailing them in the USA, they did the same with the CEO and the US government put a very expensive fine to be payed by Alstom, impossible to be payed. Then and there GE comes out of « nowhere » saying that they can buy Alstom and pay the fine, the US government would let free the CEO. With no other options Alstom must sell to GE. Once sold the US government doesn’t even ask GE to pay the fine and both GE and the US got what they wanted. GE has done the exact same thing with all its other competitors with superior products in different fields, every time the exact same plan done with the US government. And that’s how GE expanded so much in different fields and its competitors disappeared.
Some answers. CATOBAR is not simple. Just imagine steam horsepower needed to throw a jet at 130 knots up to 23 tons.... and then stop it. Keep it reliable to operate on a 24/7 basis. Steam is generated by 2 × steam turbines with a total 61 MW (82,000 hp) shaft power. Not a tiny piece of equipment as it also holds 1000 psi... only build by one provider world-wide. French Rafale (54,000 lb) is also lighter compared to F35-C (70,000 lb) which means a more compact design for the aircraft carrier as well as CATOBAR systems. By the way E2-C are slower and lighter than F35-C with a max takeoff weight of 57,500 lb. Keep Rafale fighter in the same weight range was a good idea. Being able to launch and recover at the same time is not a practical good idea. In reality aircraft carrier do work with launch and recovery cycle to minimize risks and simplify deck operations. When you do not train you do not operate... so quite useless ability. 4 ctapults gives more reliability as you don't loose 50% of your capacity if one is under maintenance. In term of defensive capabilities French CVN have only 3x20mm autocannon and 15 short-medium range surface-to-air missiles for self protection. Light self-protection armament has also been selected for Gerald R. Ford-class CVN as modern CVNs do focus on operating planes rather than cannons. A task force surrounding the CVN will ensure cannon support as well as missile carriers for surface to ground (Tomahawks) & air (AEGIS) as well as submarine & antisubmarine missions All CVNs do need jet fuel, armament used by planes, a lot of spare parts and well as fresh food. Combat Logistics ship do provide support to a Task Force (which includes non nuclear vessels). The John Lewis-class replenishment oilers in US are double-hulled and can can carry 156,000 barrels of oil and as well as dry cargo storage. With a length of 746 ft each ship is operated by 99 civilian mariners. So not only providing fuel for aircrafts but also dry cargo and fuel for other vessels. To conclude French do their own stuff and avoid to buy US parts, except when unavoidable (like catapults). Interoperability is based on shared specs not bought US equipment. NATO do bring interoperability by promoting common specs and common training exercicses. One of the most forgotten tasks of NATO. BTW NATO Article 5 has been invoked only once in NATO history... by US after 9-11. Who joined military operations in Afghanistan ? all other NATO countries including france with a CVN (Operation Enduring Freedom in 2005). If someone can explain to the orange threat why NATO is a good idea and why cosying with dictators is a bad idea. Thanks from Europe and all democratic countries around the world as well as the one having the largest border with US.
Fire react, Vive la France 👌🇫🇷🇺🇸💪0:51 Aster 15 supersonic antiair system, wasn't speed up. Catobar requires a large production of steam that can only be done with efficiency nuclear power.
@@DarrenTurner-d2i Not all the time... History tells us France was mostly a juggernaut of Europe since Medieval Ages. WW2's period was just a decline as all powers knows one day, and same of US will one day. Nothing is eternal.
Before making comparisons between French aircraft carriers, I invite you to first find out about how aircraft carriers work because you are asking too many questions...
The UK and France have a mutual defence treaty so between both countries there are 3 aircraft carriers. The Queen Elizabeth Class carriers were originally intended to have the catapult system to complement the French and American carriers but this was later reversed due to cost but modern warfare has moved to an emphasis on drones making it largely moot. America seems to operate on the principle of throwing ridiculous amounts of cash at defence to last many decades before it becomes redundant and then repeating the process, but Europe goes the way of 'good enough' that can evolve comparatively quickly and change to meet demands as necessary to keep defence consistent. Both have pros and cons, which makes NATO very important. We're beginning to see what happens when a superpower like Russia can't meet the demands of an expensive war machine when it meets relatively cheap drones from Ukraine. Without China's aid, Russia is in real danger of bankrupting itself and becoming China's pet dog and being invaded by former allies. A very one-sided (nuclear?) war between weakened Russia and an opportunist China is very much on the cards. It's pure conjecture if Europe would then go on a Russian land-grab, especially whilst USA is preoccupied by an emboldened China. Who knows, I could see German jackboots marching through Moscow in my lifetime?
The queen elizabeth carriers use F35B STOVL jets and the carriers were designed for these kinds of jets to use and catapults can go wrong as wellas when aircraft try to land on carriers while F35 can vertically land making it much easier
Avec un petit budget on a pas d'autres choix que de chercher l'efficacité. Un ex lors d'exercice entre les US et la France les Rafales ont décollé 2 fois plus dans la journée alors qu'ils en ont 2 fois moins que sur un porte avions US. 2 fois moins de jets, 2 fois plus efficaces, même résultat.
Unfortunately the French army is a paper tiger. Apparently threatening but harmless in reality. In the event of a high-intensity conflict, it would not last long.
@@yannrousseau5437 que toute attaque nucléaire envers la France subira une reponse immédiate avec notre arsenal nucléaire ni plus ni moins, peu importe contre qui.
I wish the Netherlands Royal Navy would add an aircraft carrier to its fleet again. Perhaps one day, we can commission one together with the other Benelux countries. The Royal Navy of the Netherlands, used to have an aircraft carrier from 1948 until 1969. The ship was called HNLMS Karel Doorman. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_Karel_Doorman_(R81)
It certainly worries me when I see French ships do they carry a white flag just in case they get in trouble with the Russians,and remember having the biggest in anything is not all it’s cracked up to be I should know
@@sylvaincroissant7650 Not very good in ww2 or against Nelson if I remember correctly so let’s be honest not many countries take the french seriously anymore after WW2
@@robertlangley1664 I seem to remember that the US were not even present during the battle of France so what kind of judgement is it?, and that the English fled at Dunkirk (meaning they lost the battle of France too)protected by the French , while the Russians were allied to the Germans at that point. So if France was not very good, the others were even worse by all accounts.... Plus France was a victor of WW2. Should we remind the Us of the surrender at Bataan for instance? It was a beauty of a surrender... Nelson? The guy who died at Trafalgar? Give me a break. Why not talk about amiral De Grasse? It's not not taking France seriously. It's pretending to take history arguments to bash France. While history tells the opposite of what you pretend. Also the French bashing comes from only 2 countries. the UK and the US. My guess is that Britain is still pissed at the Norman invasion that made England a vassal state to France for 350 years (and the battle of Hastings that sealed the fate of England lasted one Day only at the end of which the king was killed and the barons begged to surrender). And the US is still pissed to owe its independence to the French. Some weird complex of inferiority going on here. Because nah. History does not back up this French bashing.
@@sylvaincroissant7650 I seem to too remember that France capitulated not forgetting ww1 and the french army threw away guns and were out fought by the Germans. I believe the french army was the biggest on the western front and it took the Allies the British the USA ,Canada and others too set the french free with the other countries in Europe . You can not rewrite history. PS ayes Nelson was killed but the battle was won and the french fleet was destroyed
I like how other NATO countries will buy american fighters and say "it's for interoperability with the US", while french made their own fighters and are the only other nation to land on american super carriers.
❤🇫🇷
Because France is the only capable and experienced military in Europe. Last time Uk did a turn with their carrier they managed to lose F-35 to the sea
"in english savoir faire means expertise"
my guy, expertise is a french word and it's used the same way as it is in english. Also "savoir faire" really should be translated as "know-how".
Savoir-faire is also in the English dictionary and has the same meaning as in French.
@@yannrousseau5437 its french words
That's cause Normands (it's people of a French departement, like a county but lot smaller) kicked ass of england almost 1000 years ago and they replaced the elite of england. (at time , the Normands were mostly compound of "vikings" who were given lands by french kings and were integrate to french society).
At these point, most of these new elite spoke french, and many words were from french to english (mostly words about justice, and administration, thoses two specific worlds are the same in french btw, there is a lot of exemple like "Reign" in french, we say Regne, with almost the same prononciation).
@@KMR_ECHO savoir-faire = expression anglaise aussi ( peu utilisé ) qui vient du français et le terme utilisé est "know know" ( moins technique ) sur papier : vos blabla ne servent à rien tous le monde à compris le sens
No surrender jokes in the comments section
That's good !
Glad to see that type of video, thanks Connor !
I like the relation with our 2 country
et il fallait bien un tocard pour en parler!
Pas pour l'instant du moins.
whenever I see a surrender joke it's my faith in humanity that I surrender
Most USA citizens who only refer to past and treats French cowards forgets is that Without the direct and indirect assistance of France, it is doubtful that Americans could have won the war for independenc. Between 1778 and 1782 the French provided supplies, arms and ammunition, uniforms, and, most importantly, troops and naval support to the beleaguered Continental Army. The French navy transported reinforcements, fought off a British fleet, and protected Washington's forces in Virginia. So USA Today is an independent nation and not a British colony due to French help. So actually French are USA’s oldest ally of nearly 250yrs. They were never cowards but a real force to recon with. And I’m so glad you especially mentioned that bravo to you👏. Most USA citizens doesn’t know this and if they did they never mention it preferring to mostly insult French people
Ils le savent bien, enfin, si ils lisent des bouquins d'histoire ou compulsent Google ou Wikipédia au lieu de manger des steacks formatés !
80% victory during more 10 centuries… no more to say!
Armament for Charles De Gaulle currently consists of:
32 vertical launch cells for MBDA Aster 15 medium range surface to air missiles
Two 6 cell Sadral launchers for Mistral short range surface to air missiles
3 Nexter Narwhal 20mm close in weapons system
Based🗿🫡
It was our very first nuclear-powered surface ship, for prototypes it is common for there to be problems, now it is not far from 30 years old and does its job with a high degree of reliability and professionalism and after all that is what is asked of it.
It's a prototype so it wasn't perfect. However the experience gained from it is invaluable and most countries (China, Russia...) would love to have that expertise.
Connor the fuel is for the aircraft...
And for escorting ships. That was told in the documentary.
@@Clery75019 he hears but never listens lol
Maintenance doesn't "last for years" the last one took 6 months and it was a huge one
Blastwalls are used in airports throughout the world. Also the fuel is for the jets and other vehicles.
As cool as this is, I think their Mistral class amphibious assault ships aka "helicopter carriers" are even cooler. There is a documentary titled "The Gigantic French Navy Ship Built For Warfare" featuring one of the ships in this class, "Tonnerre" on the RUclips channel Spark. It's 50 minutes long but if you like this sort of thing it might be something to watch.
You forgot that a nuke carrier doesn't need tons of fuel, then he has more place for repairing pieces, more rooms for soldiers etc.., it is lighter too and it has far less risk of fire... plus when a fuel carrier is hurted by ammunitions, it has more chance to burn becuause of fuel embrasement... Also when a fuel carrier is refuelling at sea, it is extremely in danger as the manoeuver is risky and needs that the teams are focused on it. They have to go slowlier, then they are an easier prey.
Connor, i don't think any carrier would survive long without a support group including an anti submarine capability.
especially an anti sub capability. subs are the bane of carriers. in excercices, it was shown by multiple nations (france included) that even american supercarriers are vulnerable to them without proper watch
support group,
France got one of the best new gen Frigate in the world.
ruclips.net/video/IQzBpvjslRc/видео.html
I once toured the Charles de Gaulle. It was build in Brest, Brittany and the naval army allowed all people living in the citiy to visit it before the nuclear engin was installed !! What a rush for a normal citizen!!! It was huge !! What impressed me the most at the time was the galley where it the food was made. It was the size of a small factory...!! Lol . At the time it was what made me 'wow ' it !!
i live in Toulon, where the CdG is, and when i was yuonger it was stil possible to go into the military port during heritage day, and i was able to tour the CdG and the Duquesne and both were wonderfull experience :p
In an aircraft carreer, what impressed you the most was the food? Food is really something important for you French guys... That's not a cliche.
@@Clery75019 not just the food.. the size of the galley to accomodate the sailors !!
Food is a major thing in French arme, cause it keeps moral high and navy is known to have high quality food specialy in submarines
@@Clery75019it's not really the food itself it's just that a normal citizen does not typically think about the fact that these aircraft carriers actually accommodate huge kitchens.
They forget that thousands of people actually live in these ships for months (especially if they're nuclear powered). So when these see the food-making process and installations, it's impressive.
Here is the ''individual'' armament of the Charles De Gaulle aircraft carrier : 4 × Sylver A43 (8 x Aster 15) 32 missiles en tout (2 groupes) 2 x Sadral (12 missiles Mistral en tout) 8 × canons F2 de 20 mm 3 x tourelles Narwhal (depuis 2019) 4 mitrailleuses de 12,7 mm
19:03 When hooked to a catapult and ready to launch, the jet engines are at full power. So yes, it's to protect the following aircraft and the personnel from the blast.
We also have nuclear powered submarines. Two different kinds of, in fact . 6 "SNA" atack submarines" designed for fights and also 4 "SNLE" meaning "nuclear-powered, ballistic missile launcher submarine".they are designed for nuclear deterrence. very discreet, they are virtually undetectable (even by the french navy) after a maneuver literally called dilution. they can launch up to 16 M51.2 ballistic missiles with a range of 10,000 km, equipped with 10 nuclear warheads of 100 Ktons each.
By the way, the Charles de Gaulle's rafales can also be fitted with a 300 kt ASMPA nuclear missile with a range of 5000 km.
Petite précision concernant le Missile ASMP-A embarqué sur le Rafale des FAS et FANU, la porté est classée "secret défense" mais de source ouverte elle est d'environ 500km pas de 5000km. Cependant avec l'aide de l'Airbus A330 MRTT ravitailleur, la capacité de frappe est possible partout dans le monde, rapidement et destiné à l'ultime avertissement avant l'emploi du M51 pour le stratégique. 500 km c'est d'ailleurs une performance pour ce type de missile (taille, charge militaire, propulsion, navigation...)
@@manujan5541 missclick bien vu
the french submariner are aslo by nuclear propultion
You have to check the French made Rafale aircraft
20:08 i think he talk about aircraft's fuel
Actually, nuclear reactors allow the ship engine to warm up and ready to go musch faster.
A conventional carrier such the ones use by the Chinese needs 2 days for the engines to get warm and ready to go.
While it takes only 1 hour on the US carriers and half an hour on the french one.
About submarines, la Royale (French Navy) had several of those too.
Most countries don't have catapultes because they don't have the expertise in creating one (small remember that these tools can accelerate vehicule of hundreds of tonnes to 250 to 300 kph in seconds)
At the beginning, the missile launched wasn't speed up at all. It's an Aster15 or 30 for air defense. The Aster family missiles, are using boosters which are allowing them to accelerate really fast, before separating from the missile. It's a complex, but very precised one.
The issue with the french military is that France is hellbent on being present in every military fields, but obviously does not have the budget of the US.
Other nations have made compromises and accepted that they should rely on others to fill capabilities, but as France refused, they end up with a "sample" army, and here for example, only one aircraft carrier.
Hence France has its own fully independent nuclear program, both for weapons, and as powerplants in subs and carriers (using a unique technological route of low enriched nuclear fuel, common with the civilian powerplants), space (both in military satellites, and as larger contributor of the european space agency), and all the military gadgets one would want (but haven't made a 5th gen fighter, instead simply having made a 5th gen demonstrator drone).
The idea behind this french "stuborness" to be present in every fields is that France consider that the most important is to not loose any know how, so that in case of a major conflict, all the knowledge would already be there and France would then scale up. Plus it helps France geopolitical independence.
Now the question of abandoning this model comes every now and then.
Yes but France is actually 2 nd weapons dealer. That is important for the soft power.
Even without cost, the quality is far superior than bigger nations like China and India.
The only country wich has more depth in many areas would be the US, but they are the biggest economy in the world and the one that puts the most in its army every yeah since the 1920s..
That's why it's a good thing in my opinion, France became the only nation in Europe capable of sending troops anywhere in the world without relying on the U.S, and it was the aim of french politics after WW2. Sure you have less numbers than countries like Russia China or India but the overall quality is far superior in many aspects.
@@vlbluu124 still it is a toy army. Able to play police force in the 3rd world, but in case of major conflict, they can do nothing.
@@MN-vz8qm Then every nation has a toy army.
First of all, there aren't any conventional wars between great powers nowadays and with all the unions standing it would almost never be a 1 on 1 scenario.
Second, look how Russia failed Ukraine and even before nato started pouring tons of ressources into it.
Look how the US struggled in both afghanistan and iraq.
The only thing that matters is having nukes and France has nukes. It's the only thing that protects a country from a real invasion or a great war.
@@MN-vz8qmthe world 2nd weapon exporter is a « toy army » lmfao
19:30 le kérozen c'est pour les avions. Sans kérozen, plus de mission.
En intense activité les avions consomme le kérozen en 2 semaines au lieu de 45 jours. Dans la vidéo il dit "fuel" mais c'est "kérozen" sauf erreur.
et le TR5
Thanks for your video from France.
For information at 24:58 you can see a LSO (in French, we say Chien Jaune (Yellow Dog)) brandishing his officer's saber. In the French Navy, saber is used only in special/symbolic occasions.
In this case, I guess it was for the last catapulting of a Super Etendard (the preddecessor of the Rafale M) before their retirement. That's also why so much people are on the fly deck (some of them take pictures).
One other thing: at 20:00 you seem worried why the CVN needs fuel. That's not for the ship but for the aircarfts ;-)
🇫🇷❤️🇺🇸
The Charles de Gaulle uses a catapult because its nuclear reactor produces steam, which is necessary to operate the catapult. This system requires a large amount of energy, which is feasible with nuclear propulsion. France, with its unique expertise in this area, is one of the few nations, along with the United States, to master this advanced technology. Other carriers, often with conventional engines, cannot support such high energy demands and thus use less demanding launch systems.
Great video as always !
I remember studying the CDG ac when I was in primary school or whatever you call it, I've always found it very interesting and impressive
Some context
France is a nuclear power, be it civilian or military
With the US, Russia and China it's the only country to be autonomous for nuclear powered ships/submarines (UK has to rely on US for their's)
The low enrichment nuke fuel is due to a strong civilian nuclear reactor industry, and an insuficient amount of naval nuclear reactor to justify building a specific high enrichment fuel production line like the US
CATOBAR have a huge advantage over STOBAR carrier as they can launch planes with way more payload
Nuclear propulsion have 2 major benefit, it allow a heavy production of steam or electricity without need of fuel consumption (a conventional CATOBAR carrier would requier an additionnal boiler for steam catapult)
And secondly, it allows to remove ship fuel storage, giving more room for jet fuel tanks
The supply ships are here for jet fuel resupply, escort ship fuel resuply, food and other needs
20:10 it's nuclear powered but you need fuel for the planes. That's what you missed :) The ship doesn't need fuel, the planes need it.
J'ai servi dessus 1 an comme méca, j'étais au TR5 le carburant des hélico à l"époque, tout le circuit de carburant est en inox , une vrai merde quand il fallait changer un tronçon de canalisation car l' inox à une flexibilité proche de zéro c'est compliqué a emboiter, mais j'en garde un bon souvenir et de l"expérience.
Fuel is for aviation bro
We are talking about NUCLEAR aircraft carriers with catapult.. there is a nuclear reactor inside the boat powering everything. The catapult allows the plane to be able to take off even when they wear heavy stuffs. It can't be done with a skijump and also you need "unlimited power" to do that again and again (that's whey nuclear is better because the boat could operate multiple years without the need to refuel). Only 2 countries have that kind of tech, the US and France, UK doesn't have and doesn't know how to build that and China is trying
the refueling is for aviation fuel for the aircafts and also fro food. and also for the other ships of the complete carrier group that are not nuclear power.
The british carrier is limited to F35 and helicopters.
Catapults require power to operate and space in the ship's design. If your ship's main power plant is not powerful enough, you can't make a catapult.
Those catapult are American made, the only ones in the world beside the new Chinese ones.
Russians of course didn't have access to this and the Brits like their VTOL aircraft and also want to decrease the cost of the ships (to make two instead of one).
The Task Force architecture or a carrier escorted by other defense vessels (AA or Anti sub) as well as support vessels was designed in WW2 because beforehand, carriers used to operate on their own or in only carrier groups and suffered a lot of casualties doing so.
And with nowadays drones techs, a lone carrier would be a sitting duck, not just against conventional air launched or ballistic or cruiser missiles. It has to rely on their support group.
The carrier has some self defense weaponry such as AA machine guns or missiles but it's not much against a true attack. And it has to be defended against subs, its bigger threat, until the introduction of naval and aerial drones.
Of course, the acceleration by the catapult is higher than the aircraft's own acceleration. Under the craft own engine power, it would need a much longer runway to achieve flight speed.
In the early 2000s, lots of corrupt companies suddenly burnt down during investigation in France. The Credit Lyonnais banque in the center of Paris had a similar fate, most likely to hide some evidence ofscandals and corruption... the building was badly damaged and the cast iron glass ceiling of the atrium melted onto the firemen...
The raised plate is a flame deflector to protect the aircraft behind from the exhaust of the one leaving.
Let's just hope that the PA NG project won't suffer too much hassle in the next few years.
Oh and years ago, the French carrier based aircraft use to train on the USS ENTERPRISE herself !
🇫🇷 🇺🇸 💪
Fuel is needed for planes
6:10
Funny that you say that, coz you actually do go full throttle when you put it down, for exactly that reason.
check out a fella called Rob Roy, he parks greyhounds on those stamps and is the best narrator for them!
The fuel is for the fighter jets, not for the carrier itself of course. By the way, the British carriers use fuel which explains why they need at least 2 ships due to more frequent maintenance stops. And unlike the C. de Gaulle, they don't have catapults, preventing them to carry heavy airplanes, such as Hawkeye or Rafale with 9 tons payload. Like many other French people, I am sorry we didn't built a second carrier but the coast is high, not for building the carrier itself but to use it and also to pay 1400 x 2 sailors. We rather pay for free schools, free medical coverage, and free universities. After all, we are more often at peace than at war... Thanks God! Just a remark: in the video, we can see the take off of a Super Etendard fighter jet retired since 2016, replaced by the Rafale M.
vive la France 😊
0:56 Rockets are really fast, some like guided missiles are deliberately not made as fast as they can be because human cant keep up. 11:48 Nuclear powered submarines have interesting disadvantage compared to diesels - diesel can be turned off and on at will, you cant do that with nuclear reactor.
Search 'how do aircraft carriers defend themselves'
oui , c'est bien le porte avion Charles De Gaulle qui a tiré un missile , un ASTER 15 ou ASTER 30 !
I'm not sure of that, but maybe the aircraft doesn't sink because the fuel inside is less dense than water ??
ruclips.net/video/qqLlYrxYaTM/видео.html Its because you can't take enough speed in order to take of if you are too heavy
Great ship! Note that certain strategic elements of the aircraft carrier are made exclusively by the USA, like the catapult. Not to mention the French government's mismanagement of General Eletric/Alstom (nuclear boiler plant). In 2003, an American embargo was imposed on essential parts of the aircraft carrier (catapult) following France's refusal to go to IRAQ. As a result, the aircraft carrier was not operational for over 1 year. Relative sovereignty... Pity. Same for the next aircraft carrier under construction soon
The nuclear boiler plant isn’t made by Alstom/General Electrics, Alstom made the turbines and at the time General Electric had nothing to do with Alstom.
GE bought Alstom’s turbine section in the 2000s to put their hands on Alstom’s turbine, it only lasted for a few years and Alstom was bought back by France.
Why?
Alstom’s has always been the rival of GE in nuclear Turbines for power plants, in fact most nuclear power plants around the world use Alstom’s turbine which is far superior to GE turbine.
GE and the US government tried to get info on Alstom’s turbine for decades through espionnage and other shady business. They finally managed it in the 2000’s by arresting a bunch of Alstom’s highly placed employees and jailing them in the USA, they did the same with the CEO and the US government put a very expensive fine to be payed by Alstom, impossible to be payed. Then and there GE comes out of « nowhere » saying that they can buy Alstom and pay the fine, the US government would let free the CEO. With no other options Alstom must sell to GE. Once sold the US government doesn’t even ask GE to pay the fine and both GE and the US got what they wanted. GE has done the exact same thing with all its other competitors with superior products in different fields, every time the exact same plan done with the US government. And that’s how GE expanded so much in different fields and its competitors disappeared.
C'est la perche de ravitaillement en vol .... Que vous voyez sur l'avant du rafale ...
Some answers.
CATOBAR is not simple. Just imagine steam horsepower needed to throw a jet at 130 knots up to 23 tons.... and then stop it. Keep it reliable to operate on a 24/7 basis.
Steam is generated by 2 × steam turbines with a total 61 MW (82,000 hp) shaft power. Not a tiny piece of equipment as it also holds 1000 psi... only build by one provider world-wide.
French Rafale (54,000 lb) is also lighter compared to F35-C (70,000 lb) which means a more compact design for the aircraft carrier as well as CATOBAR systems.
By the way E2-C are slower and lighter than F35-C with a max takeoff weight of 57,500 lb. Keep Rafale fighter in the same weight range was a good idea.
Being able to launch and recover at the same time is not a practical good idea. In reality aircraft carrier do work with launch and recovery cycle to minimize risks and simplify deck operations. When you do not train you do not operate... so quite useless ability. 4 ctapults gives more reliability as you don't loose 50% of your capacity if one is under maintenance.
In term of defensive capabilities French CVN have only 3x20mm autocannon and 15 short-medium range surface-to-air missiles for self protection. Light self-protection armament has also been selected for Gerald R. Ford-class CVN as modern CVNs do focus on operating planes rather than cannons. A task force surrounding the CVN will ensure cannon support as well as missile carriers for surface to ground (Tomahawks) & air (AEGIS) as well as submarine & antisubmarine missions
All CVNs do need jet fuel, armament used by planes, a lot of spare parts and well as fresh food. Combat Logistics ship do provide support to a Task Force (which includes non nuclear vessels). The John Lewis-class replenishment oilers in US are double-hulled and can can carry 156,000 barrels of oil and as well as dry cargo storage. With a length of 746 ft each ship is operated by 99 civilian mariners. So not only providing fuel for aircrafts but also dry cargo and fuel for other vessels.
To conclude French do their own stuff and avoid to buy US parts, except when unavoidable (like catapults). Interoperability is based on shared specs not bought US equipment.
NATO do bring interoperability by promoting common specs and common training exercicses. One of the most forgotten tasks of NATO.
BTW NATO Article 5 has been invoked only once in NATO history... by US after 9-11. Who joined military operations in Afghanistan ? all other NATO countries including france with a CVN (Operation Enduring Freedom in 2005).
If someone can explain to the orange threat why NATO is a good idea and why cosying with dictators is a bad idea. Thanks from Europe and all democratic countries around the world as well as the one having the largest border with US.
UK and china have diesel propulsion aircraft carriers
The aircraft carrier was a British invention, like most other things.
Fire react, Vive la France 👌🇫🇷🇺🇸💪0:51 Aster 15 supersonic antiair system, wasn't speed up. Catobar requires a large production of steam that can only be done with efficiency nuclear power.
Until they fold within a few weeks!
@@DarrenTurner-d2i you don’t know french history! More 80% victories during 10 centuries!
@@Reg2B Don't awnser ignorant trolls 🤣
@@Reg2B they fold all the time, history tells us that.
@@DarrenTurner-d2i Not all the time... History tells us France was mostly a juggernaut of Europe since Medieval Ages. WW2's period was just a decline as all powers knows one day, and same of US will one day. Nothing is eternal.
Before making comparisons between French aircraft carriers, I invite you to first find out about how aircraft carriers work because you are asking too many questions...
Catapults are not everything, 😂
The UK and France have a mutual defence treaty so between both countries there are 3 aircraft carriers. The Queen Elizabeth Class carriers were originally intended to have the catapult system to complement the French and American carriers but this was later reversed due to cost but modern warfare has moved to an emphasis on drones making it largely moot.
America seems to operate on the principle of throwing ridiculous amounts of cash at defence to last many decades before it becomes redundant and then repeating the process, but Europe goes the way of 'good enough' that can evolve comparatively quickly and change to meet demands as necessary to keep defence consistent. Both have pros and cons, which makes NATO very important.
We're beginning to see what happens when a superpower like Russia can't meet the demands of an expensive war machine when it meets relatively cheap drones from Ukraine. Without China's aid, Russia is in real danger of bankrupting itself and becoming China's pet dog and being invaded by former allies. A very one-sided (nuclear?) war between weakened Russia and an opportunist China is very much on the cards. It's pure conjecture if Europe would then go on a Russian land-grab, especially whilst USA is preoccupied by an emboldened China. Who knows, I could see German jackboots marching through Moscow in my lifetime?
The queen elizabeth carriers use F35B STOVL jets and the carriers were designed for these kinds of jets to use and catapults can go wrong as wellas when aircraft try to land on carriers while F35 can vertically land making it much easier
You are verryyy funy :)))
No.
@deuxalex562 not as funny as the fact the french carrier still uses the mirage i guess not every military can be as modern.
Your lack of knowledge is as hopeless as your opinion
@@jackduddle9449 Never has one single jet Mirage landed on a French aircraft carrier. Barely unbelievable ignorance. I didn't know it as possible.
🇫🇷⚜️🇫🇷⚜️🇫🇷⚜️
So it's not as good as the US or UK ones, but better than the Chinese ones that break even at port, is what I'm getting?
It’s far better than the UK ones that still don’t work as they should so many years after being built.
the UK need a new carrier
94% availability rate is imaginary and laughable. I don't know where they found this.
Well, that’s facts. The French air force aircraft’s availability rate is also much higher than the US one.
Avec un petit budget on a pas d'autres choix que de chercher l'efficacité. Un ex lors d'exercice entre les US et la France les Rafales ont décollé 2 fois plus dans la journée alors qu'ils en ont 2 fois moins que sur un porte avions US. 2 fois moins de jets, 2 fois plus efficaces, même résultat.
Ça m'étonne mais merci à vous 2 pour vos informations. Ça devait être contre des F-35 par temps orageux 😉
Unfortunately the French army is a paper tiger. Apparently threatening but harmless in reality. In the event of a high-intensity conflict, it would not last long.
Comme la plupart des pays mais il ne faudrait pas oublier la dissuasion nucléaire.
moi si j'étais N'IMPORTE quel pays du monde , je ne m'y frotterais pas .
@@Fabio-om4kb elle dissuade qui et de quoi ?
@@yannrousseau5437 bon apres si t es debile c est ton problème
@@yannrousseau5437 que toute attaque nucléaire envers la France subira une reponse immédiate avec notre arsenal nucléaire ni plus ni moins, peu importe contre qui.
I wouldn't trust the Frogs, they fold everytime.
exemple?
@@backtotheblak are you that thick!
@@backtotheblak wwii
Cringe comment, nice display of your ignorance.
@@Siphrifri No, just a military historian.
I wish the Netherlands Royal Navy would add an aircraft carrier to its fleet again. Perhaps one day, we can commission one together with the other Benelux countries. The Royal Navy of the Netherlands, used to have an aircraft carrier from 1948 until 1969. The ship was called HNLMS Karel Doorman.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_Karel_Doorman_(R81)
De Ruyter would be a nice name too, he was so appreciated that the French repatriated his body to the Netherlands with honors.
@@CROM-on1bz a fitting name for a potential flagship for the Benelux Navy.
Formerly HMS Venerable, built in Birkenhead.
it's always under repair🤣
Your lack of knowledge is as hopeless as your opinion
It certainly worries me when I see French ships do they carry a white flag just in case they get in trouble with the Russians,and remember having the biggest in anything is not all it’s cracked up to be I should know
Average Virgin Cringe Brainless Fatherless Anti France Troll Fanboy taking Copium over here ⬆️
You re worried when you see French ships? I guess it's a good thing then...
French ships were very useful at the Chesapeake battle if I remember well.
@@sylvaincroissant7650 Not very good in ww2 or against Nelson if I remember correctly so let’s be honest not many countries take the french seriously anymore after WW2
@@robertlangley1664 I seem to remember that the US were not even present during the battle of France so what kind of judgement is it?, and that the English fled at Dunkirk (meaning they lost the battle of France too)protected by the French , while the Russians were allied to the Germans at that point. So if France was not very good, the others were even worse by all accounts....
Plus France was a victor of WW2.
Should we remind the Us of the surrender at Bataan for instance? It was a beauty of a surrender...
Nelson? The guy who died at Trafalgar?
Give me a break. Why not talk about amiral De Grasse?
It's not not taking France seriously. It's pretending to take history arguments to bash France. While history tells the opposite of what you pretend.
Also the French bashing comes from only 2 countries. the UK and the US. My guess is that Britain is still pissed at the Norman invasion that made England a vassal state to France for 350 years (and the battle of Hastings that sealed the fate of England lasted one Day only at the end of which the king was killed and the barons begged to surrender).
And the US is still pissed to owe its independence to the French. Some weird complex of inferiority going on here. Because nah. History does not back up this French bashing.
@@sylvaincroissant7650 I seem to too remember that France capitulated not forgetting ww1 and the french army threw away guns and were out fought by the Germans. I believe the french army was the biggest on the western front and it took the Allies the British the USA ,Canada and others too set the french free with the other countries in Europe . You can not rewrite history. PS ayes Nelson was killed but the battle was won and the french fleet was destroyed
My brother, I really like France😅 you make a lot of videos about it ahah 🇫🇷🥹 thank you for talking about my country