- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 1,624
- Likes
- 423
"How NOT to Build an Aircraft Carrier"
Everyone must be wondering, why is a little French guy from a tiny country trolling in the China forum? Here is my explanation. Armand2REP knows the reason that the New York Times published the accusation that French spies are trying to steal American military secrets and technology. Armand2REP has a giant inferiority complex because he's frustrated that French technology is pretty horrendous.
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."
Everyone must be wondering, why is a little French guy from a tiny country trolling in the China forum? Here is my explanation. Armand2REP knows the reason that the New York Times published the accusation that French spies are trying to steal American military secrets and technology. Armand2REP has a giant inferiority complex because he's frustrated that French technology is pretty horrendous.
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."
Last edited:
