French indigenous technology is highly questionable

Discussion in 'Americas' started by Martian, May 23, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Martian

    Martian Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,340
    Likes Received:
    260
    Location:
    Boston
    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!

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/cdg.htm

    "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."

    http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/478-97.aspx

    " 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."
     
    nrj likes this.
  2.  
  3. Martian

    Martian Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,340
    Likes Received:
    260
    Location:
    Boston
    French "aggressively" try to steal American military secrets and technology

    Due to the obvious problems with French military technology, the French have resorted to stealing American military secrets and technology. The following article was published in yesterday's New York Times that accuse the French of being technology thieves.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/us/politics/22intel.html

    "Dispute Over France a Factor in Intelligence Rift
    By MARK MAZZETTI
    Published: May 21, 2010
    ...
    Unlike America’s relationship with Britain and other close allies like Australia, the United States and France have a long history of spying on each other. For example, intelligence experts said the French had been particularly aggressive in trying to steal secrets about the American defense and technology industries. For its part, the United States has long been suspicious of French government and business ties to countries like Iran and Syria, and about North African militant groups whose operatives work inside France."
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2010
  4. Martian

    Martian Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,340
    Likes Received:
    260
    Location:
    Boston
    Rafale comes in last place at Brazilian fighter jet competition

    If anyone wants more proof, there is more. Let's take an objective look at France's premier fighter, the Rafale.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0526029620100105?type=marketsNews

    "Tue Jan 5, 2010 8:59am EST

    Brazil Air Force prefers Swedish jets-report

    BRASILIA, Jan 5 (Reuters) - The Brazilian Air Force would prefer to buy its next-generation fighter jets from Sweden, putting it at odds with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's preference for French planes, media reported on Tuesday.

    The deal, which could initially be worth more than $4 billion, has sparked fierce competition among aircraft manufacturers.

    An Air Force report presented to Defense Minister Nelson Jobim said Sweden's Saab (SAABb.ST) had presented the best overall project among the three finalists, Folha de Sao Paulo newspaper reported on Tuesday.

    The U.S.-made Boeing (BA.N) F18 was runner-up in the report, and France's Dassault Aviation (AVMD.PA) placed last with its Rafale jet.

    The Brazilian government said last year that it was in the final stages of talks to acquire the Rafale.

    Accused by critics of cutting short the bidding process, the government insisted no final decision had been made. Lula said he would have the final word and that his decision would be political and strategic.

    Brazil has signed a strategic defense agreement with France worth billions of dollars, including the local assembly of helicopters and conventional and nuclear-powered submarines.

    Brazil is seeking a generous technology transfer offer and local assembly as part of a contract to buy 36 jet fighters. The deal could eventually rise to more than 100 aircraft.

    Saab's Gripen NG jet had a lower purchase and maintenance cost and would allow for more technology to be transferred to Brazil, Folha cited the Air Force report as saying.

    Unlike the Rafale, which is a finished product, the Gripen NG would be developed with Brazilian participation, the Air Force said according to Folha.

    The Veja news magazine reported this week that Jobim told friends there might not be a decision on the deal before he steps down in April to run for public office in October general elections.

    For more than a decade, Brazil has been studying how to replace its aging fleet of fighter jets.

    The Air Force declined to comment, and the defense ministry was not immediately available to comment. (Reporting by Raymond Colitt; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn)"
     
  5. mattster

    mattster Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    518
    Location:
    California
    Martian......are you posting here because you want to make a point or get Armand worked up.

    If your post is about making a real point; then let me say that you started out with the dumbest premise that you can make by comparing France to the US.

    No country in the world has the experience of the United States when it comes to aircraft carriers. The US has by far built the biggest and largest nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in the world and has the largest fleet of ACs anywhere in the world. Not even the Russians can compete in this area.

    So it goes without saying that US naval shipyards and defense companies have a hundred times more experience in the complex process of building nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. So why are you comparing the US to France. It just ludicrous to make such a comparison.

    it took France 11 years to build their nuclear-powered aircraft carrier - Imagine if India or China had tried it. It would have taken 25 years and they still would not have done it.

    So stop making these childish comparisons. If you really want to compare, then compare it to the first ever US nuclear-powered aircraft carrier experience. Even that would not make sense since the US had been building a lot of conventional AC before they started with nuclear powered ones.
     
  6. Martian

    Martian Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,340
    Likes Received:
    260
    Location:
    Boston
    "Most of France's tanks, helicopters and jet fighters are unusable"

    In my threads, Armand keeps bragging about the superior French military. However, is it true? Let's take a look at the facts uncovered by Britain's Telegraph newspaper.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...French-army-falling-apart-documents-show.html

    "French army falling apart, documents show
    Most of France's tanks, helicopters and jet fighters are unusable and its defence apparatus is on the verge of "falling apart", it has emerged.

    By Henry Samuel in Paris
    Published: 5:16PM BST 06 Jun 2008

    [​IMG]
    France's military has been given a bleak prognosis

    According to confidential defence documents leaked to the French press, less than half of France's Leclerc tanks – 142 out of 346 – are operational and even these regularly break down.

    Less than half of its Puma helicopters, 37 per cent of its Lynx choppers and 33 per cent of its Super Frelon models – built 40 years ago – are in a fit state to fly, according to documents seen by Le Parisien newspaper.

    Two thirds of France's Mirage F1 reconnaissance jets are unusable at present."
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2010
  7. mattster

    mattster Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    518
    Location:
    California
    Yeah right........and like China did not use their soldiers as guinea pigs.

    Martian....you should go read accounts of the Sino-Vietnam border war. Vietnamese generals killed so many Chinese troops who were sent to certain death in wave after wave that some of the Vienamese commande said that Chinese soldiers were like ants.
     
  8. tarunraju

    tarunraju Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    3,884
    Location:
    Hyderabad
    Is this thread serving a community purpose, or are you just needling certain members with it?

    Ah, a upon reading a deleted post it seems the latter is true. Don't try this again.

    Besides, are you seriously comparing French (or any country's) technology using America as benchmark? I mean seriously?

    Try talking about Chinese "indegenous technology" using France as the benchmark, and you'll see how it's even more laughable.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2010
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page