Martian2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,809
- Reaction score
- -37
[Note: I've been seriously trolled by a French guy named Armand2REP on the net. I just need a backup place to save my posts on France if he decides to troll me again. Thank you for understanding.]
We are examining the pinnacle of French technology, the most modern French aircraft carrier "Charles de Gaulle."
To wit:
1) It took the French 11 years (e.g. over a decade) to build a 40,000 ton ship. In comparison, it only took the United States 7 years to build a ship 2 1/2 times bigger, the 100,000 ton Nimitz-class supercarrier USS George H.W. Bush. To summarize, it takes the French four years longer to build a much smaller ship (e.g. 40,000 tons vs. 100,000 tons). Armand2REP, this is amazing French technology.
2) French nuclear-powered carrier is "slower than the diesel powered carrier it replaced." Incredible French technology! Use nuclear power to build a slower ship.
3) "Flaws in the "de Gaulle" have led it to using the propellers from it predecessor, the "Foch," because the ones built for "de Gaulle" never worked right and the propeller manufacturer went out of business in 1999." Isn't that impressive French ingenuity? France can't build new propellers; why not take the old propellers and put it on the new ship?! What will French engineers think of next?
4) "Worse, the nuclear reactor installation was done poorly, exposing the engine crew to five times the allowable annual dose of radiation." If you want to be a guinea pig in a French science experiment, why not join the French Navy? You, too, can experience the privilege of being irradiated by "five times the allowable annual dose of radiation." Look, ma, French technology makes me glow in the dark from absorbing dangerous levels of radiation!
5) "There were also problems with the design of the deck, making it impossible to operate the E-2 radar aircraft that are essential to defending the ship and controlling offensive operations." That's right, French carriers don't need "E-2 radar aircraft...to defend the ship and control offensive operations." This is French engineering, where the deck is designed to "make it impossible to operate E-2 radar aircraft."
6) "The cause of the problems can be traced to the decision to install nuclear reactors designed for French submarines, instead of spending more money and designing reactors specifically for the carrier." What will the French think of next?! Why didn't anyone else think of installing "nuclear reactors designed for French submarines" and putting them on aircraft carriers instead?! Those French engineers can't be beat!
Charles de Gaulle
"Nonetheless, the Charles de Gaulle has suffered from a variety of problems [see James Dunnigan's "How NOT to Build an Aircraft Carrier"]. The Charles de Gaulle took eleven years to build, with construction beginning in 1988 and entering service in late 2000. For comparison, construction of the American CVN 77 began in 2001 with a projected delivery in 2008. The 40,000 ton ship is slower than the conventionally powered Foch, which she it replaced. The propellers on the CDG did not work properly, so she recycled those of the Foch. The nuclear reactor was problematic, with the engine crew receiving five times the allowable annual radiation dose. The flight deck layout has precluded operating the E-2 radar aircraft."
How NOT to Build an Aircraft Carrier
" How NOT to Build an Aircraft Carrier
James Dunnigan 12/7/2003 8:07:02 PM
France is considering joining with Britain to buy a new carrier of British design. Actually, the French had planned to built a second nuclear powered carrier, but they are having so many problems with the first one that they are quite reluctant about building a second like the troubled "Charles de Gaulle". Britain is building two 50,000 ton conventionally powered carriers, at a cost of $2.5 billion each. Under the proposed plan, France would order a third of this class, and bring down the cost of all three a bit. This project might not come off, because France wants a lot of the work to be done in French shipyards.
The new French nuclear carrier "Charles de Gaulle" has suffered from a seemingly endless string of problems since it was first conceived in 1986. The 40,000 ton ship has cost over four billion dollars so far and is slower than the diesel powered carrier it replaced. Flaws in the "de Gaulle" have led it to using the propellers from it predecessor, the "Foch," because the ones built for "de Gaulle" never worked right and the propeller manufacturer went out of business in 1999. Worse, the nuclear reactor installation was done poorly, exposing the engine crew to five times the allowable annual dose of radiation. There were also problems with the design of the deck, making it impossible to operate the E-2 radar aircraft that are essential to defending the ship and controlling offensive operations. Many other key components of the ship did not work correctly, including several key electronic systems. The carrier has been under constant repair and modification. The "de Gaulle" took eleven years to build (1988-99) and was not ready for service until late 2000. It's been downhill ever since. The de Gaulle is undergoing still more repairs and modifications. The government is being sued for exposing crew members to dangerous levels of radiation.
The cause of the problems can be traced to the decision to install nuclear reactors designed for French submarines, instead of spending more money and designing reactors specifically for the carrier. Construction started and stopped several times because to cuts to the defense budget and when construction did resume, there was enormous pressure on the builders to get on with it quickly, and cheaply, before the project was killed. The result was a carrier with a lot of expensive problems.
So the plan is to buy into the new British carrier building program and keep the "de Gaulle" in port and out of trouble as much as possible. The British have a lot more experience building carriers, and if there are any problems with the British designed ship, the French can blame the British."
We are examining the pinnacle of French technology, the most modern French aircraft carrier "Charles de Gaulle."
To wit:
1) It took the French 11 years (e.g. over a decade) to build a 40,000 ton ship. In comparison, it only took the United States 7 years to build a ship 2 1/2 times bigger, the 100,000 ton Nimitz-class supercarrier USS George H.W. Bush. To summarize, it takes the French four years longer to build a much smaller ship (e.g. 40,000 tons vs. 100,000 tons). Armand2REP, this is amazing French technology.
2) French nuclear-powered carrier is "slower than the diesel powered carrier it replaced." Incredible French technology! Use nuclear power to build a slower ship.
3) "Flaws in the "de Gaulle" have led it to using the propellers from it predecessor, the "Foch," because the ones built for "de Gaulle" never worked right and the propeller manufacturer went out of business in 1999." Isn't that impressive French ingenuity? France can't build new propellers; why not take the old propellers and put it on the new ship?! What will French engineers think of next?
4) "Worse, the nuclear reactor installation was done poorly, exposing the engine crew to five times the allowable annual dose of radiation." If you want to be a guinea pig in a French science experiment, why not join the French Navy? You, too, can experience the privilege of being irradiated by "five times the allowable annual dose of radiation." Look, ma, French technology makes me glow in the dark from absorbing dangerous levels of radiation!
5) "There were also problems with the design of the deck, making it impossible to operate the E-2 radar aircraft that are essential to defending the ship and controlling offensive operations." That's right, French carriers don't need "E-2 radar aircraft...to defend the ship and control offensive operations." This is French engineering, where the deck is designed to "make it impossible to operate E-2 radar aircraft."
6) "The cause of the problems can be traced to the decision to install nuclear reactors designed for French submarines, instead of spending more money and designing reactors specifically for the carrier." What will the French think of next?! Why didn't anyone else think of installing "nuclear reactors designed for French submarines" and putting them on aircraft carriers instead?! Those French engineers can't be beat!
Charles de Gaulle
"Nonetheless, the Charles de Gaulle has suffered from a variety of problems [see James Dunnigan's "How NOT to Build an Aircraft Carrier"]. The Charles de Gaulle took eleven years to build, with construction beginning in 1988 and entering service in late 2000. For comparison, construction of the American CVN 77 began in 2001 with a projected delivery in 2008. The 40,000 ton ship is slower than the conventionally powered Foch, which she it replaced. The propellers on the CDG did not work properly, so she recycled those of the Foch. The nuclear reactor was problematic, with the engine crew receiving five times the allowable annual radiation dose. The flight deck layout has precluded operating the E-2 radar aircraft."
How NOT to Build an Aircraft Carrier
" How NOT to Build an Aircraft Carrier
James Dunnigan 12/7/2003 8:07:02 PM
France is considering joining with Britain to buy a new carrier of British design. Actually, the French had planned to built a second nuclear powered carrier, but they are having so many problems with the first one that they are quite reluctant about building a second like the troubled "Charles de Gaulle". Britain is building two 50,000 ton conventionally powered carriers, at a cost of $2.5 billion each. Under the proposed plan, France would order a third of this class, and bring down the cost of all three a bit. This project might not come off, because France wants a lot of the work to be done in French shipyards.
The new French nuclear carrier "Charles de Gaulle" has suffered from a seemingly endless string of problems since it was first conceived in 1986. The 40,000 ton ship has cost over four billion dollars so far and is slower than the diesel powered carrier it replaced. Flaws in the "de Gaulle" have led it to using the propellers from it predecessor, the "Foch," because the ones built for "de Gaulle" never worked right and the propeller manufacturer went out of business in 1999. Worse, the nuclear reactor installation was done poorly, exposing the engine crew to five times the allowable annual dose of radiation. There were also problems with the design of the deck, making it impossible to operate the E-2 radar aircraft that are essential to defending the ship and controlling offensive operations. Many other key components of the ship did not work correctly, including several key electronic systems. The carrier has been under constant repair and modification. The "de Gaulle" took eleven years to build (1988-99) and was not ready for service until late 2000. It's been downhill ever since. The de Gaulle is undergoing still more repairs and modifications. The government is being sued for exposing crew members to dangerous levels of radiation.
The cause of the problems can be traced to the decision to install nuclear reactors designed for French submarines, instead of spending more money and designing reactors specifically for the carrier. Construction started and stopped several times because to cuts to the defense budget and when construction did resume, there was enormous pressure on the builders to get on with it quickly, and cheaply, before the project was killed. The result was a carrier with a lot of expensive problems.
So the plan is to buy into the new British carrier building program and keep the "de Gaulle" in port and out of trouble as much as possible. The British have a lot more experience building carriers, and if there are any problems with the British designed ship, the French can blame the British."
Last edited:
