Why This Small Carrier is Most Powerful Outside of the Supercarriers

0:00 What make Charles de Gaulle such a special aircraft carrier?
1:59 The advantages of having catapults on aircraft carriers
3:18 Why Charles de Gaulle has more acceleration on its catapults
4:12 Can Charles de Gaulle launch and land aircraft at the same time?
4:44 How many aircraft can Charles de Gaulle carry onboard?
6:00 Why there is always a helicopter flying next to Charles de Gaulle?
6:32 How Charles de Gaulle maintains a 94% availability rate for its airwing
7:29 The advantages of nuclear power propulsion on aircraft carriers
8:41 Why the island on Charles de Gaulle was moved forward
9:11 Why did Charles de Gaulle receive a submarine reactor design?
9:44 Why Charles de Gaulle has a maximum speed of 27 knots?
10:36 How Charles de Gaulle's propellers limited her maximum speed
10:48 The Charles de Gaulle scandal
12:56 What really limits the autonomous operation of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers
14:33 The biggest weakness of aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle
15:26 Why France only built one nuclear-powered aircraft carrier
16:46 Why was Charles de Gaulle's midlife refit problematic?
18:08 Which aircraft carrier is replacing Charles de Gaulle?
She is not the biggest, but she is just as mighty as American supercarriers. But what makes Charles de Gaulle such a special aircraft carrier, is #NotWhatYouThink #NWYT #longs
Music:
TBD
Footage:
Getty
Shutterstock
Marine Nationale
US Department of Defense
Note: "The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."

[@apathyguy8338]

Does anybody have any idea what that aircraft carrier threw into the water while launching the plane at 18:07 and is that something routine? If you're watching for the splash it's thrown ahead of the aircraft carrier.

[@NotWhatYouThink]

I’m curious too!

[@petesheppard1709]

That was the bridle that connected the fighter to the catapult shuttle. It's basically a piece of steel cable whose ends attached to the aircraft, and looped around said shuttle and as shown, fell into the ocean after launch. It has since been replaced by a tow bar permanently mounted on the airplane's nose gear strut. It hooks to a notch on the cat shuttle and is a permanent part of the airplane. It allows faster launch, and eliminates the waste of using an expensive cable just once.

[@Creature3010]

if you go frame by frame you cant see anything so it might just be a wave

[@BruneSixtine]

@@petesheppard1709 That's right, it was used with the Super Etendard, a now retired aircraft.

[@petesheppard1709]

@@BruneSixtine 👍

[@diegoaguilar5491]

The french get a lot of dirt thrown their way, but damn it if their engineers aren't marvelous. Thanks for letting me learn about this incredible Carrier

[@dbz9393]

they deserve it tbh this carrier spends more time dry docked for repairs than it does on the ocean

[@nathanturpin109]

​@@dbz9393you mean that USA never had problem with their cariers ?

[@Rotorhead1651]

​@@nathanturpin109 Maybe, Skippy, but at least we know how to spell "carriers".

[@diegoaguilar5491]

@@dbz9393 hahaha well its an expensive piece after all

[@Bruh-de8ej]

stfu you're so arrogant @@Rotorhead1651

[@timstevens5769]

I am embarrassed to not have known that the Charles de Gaulle was the only non-US active carrier with catapults. Thank you for the detailed insights.

[@ScarScream]

And only non-US nuclear carrier in the world.

[@ErnestJay88]

Soviet Kiev class "Heavy Aircraft Carrying Cruiser" do have a single catapult, but it was decommissioned in 1996 while Kuznetsov doesn't have a catapult.

[@xTheUnderscorex]

@@ErnestJay88 Kiev class never had catapults, they operated VTOL aircraft and choppers. One is even still in service as INS Vikramaditya, they added a ski-ramp and arrestor wires to convert it to a pure aircraft carrier, but there were still no catapults.

[@Booz2010]

Make BAGUETTEs Great Again 🥖

[@hotstepper887]

I'd love to know what it is about these facts, that so few of you seemingly understand today? In today's world, of hi-tech Anti-Ship ballistic missiles, like the Chinese DF-21D - operational range (1700 km's) (that can sink any carrier in the world with a single hit). All Navies, including the USA's, without the ability to stop these missiles, are in effect obsolete today. Russia's Zircon Anti-Ship missile, though inferior in way of operational range-400kms it can be fired from Aircraft, Subs, and Ships making it deadly to any carrier in the world. (Russia also has the Brahmos and the P-800 Oniks Anti-Ship missiles). We know, neither the USA, the British and the French, have a destroyer, or any other means that can defend against these modern hi tech ASM's today! Making these western Navy's obsolete in today's world. The distances, these jets can travel is about 500-650 (max) km's out - and the same back again = 1300 km's range. Seeing them unable to deploy any carrier close enough, to reach any inland target, and then get back again? As anywhere inside 1700 km's, they're sunk, they're toast, they're history. This is also why when we hear the USA trumpeting out how they're sending a carrier to the South China Sea, (as some kind of propaganda imagined threat toward China) you'll never see them closer than 2000 km's from Chinas mainland when looking at their GPS positioning, it's known as "bluster". So why do we see these rubbish remedial misinformation videos all the time?

[@Mountain-Man-3000]

Interoperability between completely different air assets with partner nations is just an incredible thing to have.

[@tremendousbaguette9680]

This is outrageous : you did not even mention the 2000 baguettes-a-day baking capability of the CDG.

[@vermicelledecheval5219]

You are so wright, hard cooked baguettes are much better at piercing armor than fluffy squashy Harris bread that would bounce onto it without doing much damages... Question of taste afterall ❤😋

[@Kanak_Bodkhe]

I told her that night "It's not about the size, but what you can do with it."

[@NotWhatYouThink]

How did it go?

[@santhoshmamidisetti]

never heard back from him @@NotWhatYouThink

[@krishd4392]

​@@NotWhatYouThink4:13 did you notice something unusual with the aircraft, what was that?

[@glennllewellyn7369]

The French talk a lot.

[@djrobothug]

@@krishd4392its a fa18

[@cameroncunningham204]

People often mock the French but forget France has hundreds of years of Naval Experience and even today has one of the most capable military's in the world

[@remario3542]

Già nella 1a guerra mondiale Ci vollero 1milione e700 soldati americani. Nella 2a hanno combattuto 2 milioni di americani.

[@furnacego2164]

And don't forget the nukes!

[@furnacego2164]

Third most deployed nukes in the world

[@Dante_YL]

Aren’t we fourth now ? US, Russia, China, France

[@furnacego2164]

@@Dante_YL for nukes? 3rd most deployed, 4th most in total

[@Antechristo]

Surprisingly accurate for a non-French channel. One mistake though: the new French aircraft carrier will be significantly bigger than the Queen Elizabeth-class-83,000 tonnes of displacement vs. 65,000. She will be the largest combat ship ever built in Europe.

[@franzmenzies5268]

No more African resources, new French carrier will be just a dream...

[@LesBrouettesHyperactives]

​@@franzmenzies5268 They can get the ressources elsewhere, in case you don't know.

[@hainevidia8753]

@@franzmenzies5268cry about it and learn that ressources are available elsewhere

[@kaa13]

@@franzmenzies5268Like wits you show by your comment...a dream...

[@chrissssa]

@@franzmenzies5268Which ressources, engineers and doctors?

[@romcr3630]

Bots : "German engineers are the best in the world." France : "Hold my baguette. "

[@francinesicard464]

Oh sure, to build Nordstream I and II 🤣🤣 By the way, what's the name of your aircarrier? Die Deutschen haben die arrogante Angewohnheit, ihre Nachbarn zu unterschätzen.

[@laurentnicolas1550]

French here. This is a well informed and balanced vid! Good job.

[@TheTravelingTank]

It feels like no one talks about France’s military despite how modern they are, thanks for doing so

[@Rotorhead1651]

Q- What is the French Foreign Legion? A- France contracting mercenaries, to get their asses kicked for them...... .....and that's why no one talks about it.

[@thefrenchbaguette919]

@@Rotorhead1651 the french foreign legion aren't mercenaries they don't hire mercenaries and they have had a exceptionally good track record winning multiple dozen of battles and when they lost they took many enemies down with them

[@max16485]

​​@@Rotorhead1651huh? The french foreign legion are not mercenaries what are you talking about?

[@cameronspence4977]

​@@Rotorhead1651Not sure if thats supposed to be a joke or not 100% serious but the FFL is actually very good. Too bad unfortunately it suffers from the same flaw as currently (except Italy, ironically) every other western military unit and army, that is, being under the control of an absolute weak coward pussbag president.

[@indi8990]

@@Rotorhead1651 Is that why they managed to fulfill their mission in Mali in less then 2 years while the Americans completely failed in Afghanistan after 2 decades? Weird huh. France has better quality per solider, the US on the other hand have better equipment for their soldiers but unfortunately that doesn't equate to better infantry, too bad.

[@roaling2]

"it's not about size but what you can do with it" At least it has personality

[@Rotorhead1651]

That's cold. 🥶😂

[@CASA-dy4vs]

@@Rotorhead1651that’s warm*

[@paulsteaven]

That's what she said

[@cyrilio]

When the French set their minds to something they deliver top notch products.

[@mathismarcelle9277]

i m french and i approved this video

[@NotWhatYouThink]

Merci!

[@glennllewellyn7369]

Yippeee!

[@Rotorhead1651]

I can die happy. 🤨🙄😑

[@ivortoad]

I'm British and I don't approve.

[@jeenfizz]

@@ivortoadNormal vous êtes stupides.

[@OathTaker3]

I believe it's the U.S. Marines that say "2 is 1 & 1 is none". This is in reference to the French needing more than 1 nuclear carrier because of the length of time for refueling a nuclear vessel.

[@Grimthot]

It's also a mean of keeping industrial and operational skills

[@BMF6889]

I served 21 years in the Marines. I believe the more accurate saying is, "don't f**k with Marines". However you are correct. The US has 11 carriers because about 1/3 are operational around the world, about 13 are in for extended refit and maintenance, and about 1/3 are preparing/training for operational cruises. The US can sortie than 4 carriers during a crisis if necessary. France's carrier force is useless the majority of the time due to the need for maintenance and training before redeploying. France does have a new carrier larger than the de Gaulle that is in design and estimated to be commissioned in 2038 or later if not cancelled like previous aircraft carriers. While the de Gaulle will likely still be operational by then, it will be aging in its technology and will be over 35 years old by then. France is a small country but the tens of billions of dollars it is spending on the Green scam, it could be operating multiple carriers and a stronger military. Russia is a serious threat to NATO for many reasons. NATO cannot trust any treaty or agreement that Russia signs. NATO cannot trust anything Putin says. NATO is woefully short of weapons and ammunitions in the event Russia attacks. Not all NATO countries will honor article 5 of the NATO agreement. Russia has the coordinates of every strategic military target in NATO which includes runways. NATO needs aircraft carriers in order to sustain air defense when its airfields are disabled by Russian missiles. Aircraft carriers can be constantly moving and are unpredictable where they will be at any given hour making them difficult to target. But the standoff distance needed by the carriers means they need aircraft with longer ranges OR the ability to refuel in flight. The US Navy is in the process of solving this problem by developing carrier-based unmanned tankers to refuel aircraft on their way to targets and on their way back to the carrier. But for every such unmanned tanker on a carrier there will necessarily be fewer combat aircraft. The UK is in a better situation than France in that it can have at least one of its two carriers operational most of the time but not all of the time. I applaud France and the UK and even Japan for having some carrier-based offensive capabilities. But in my opinion, NATO and our other allies need to up their game in carrier offensive capabilities. My apologies for the long post. In the 3 years I was in combat, there was never enough support and resupplies were unreliable. But that was before the Middle East wars.

[@dr.victorvs]

In the Navy it's "7 is 1" 😂

[@C.Fecteau-AU-MJ13]

​@@BMF6889respect for your service... My cousin and best mate was a Major in the Australian SASR and has trained and trained with the best in the world. He always says of all the soldiers he's worked with, he has the most respect for the USMC and it was on a mission in the early days of Afghanistan where he got a bronze star awarded to him by the marines. So it's fair to say the respect is definitely reciprocated. Partied with some of the boys he made friends from the USMC once too and you mofos are cut from a different cloth. Wild boys, friggin animals 😂

[@klonkimo]

​@@BMF6889having only been given the opportunity of serving 10 years in the Marines, have to say you're absolutely right. The two is one motto is true; it refers to having a battle buddy both in operations and visiting foreign ports on short leave. Also having spare parts to make sure critical equipment stays operational.

[@happyslappy5203]

French Rafale Marine is one of the best carrier-capable jets: Empty Weight 10,200 kg (22,500 lb) MTOW 24,500 kg (54,000 lb) Payload 9,500 kg (20,943 lb). Mach 1,8. Hardpoints: 13. 6 AA missiles + 2 hardpoints: 6 GBU or 2 SCALP cruise missiles or 1 ASMP tactical nuclear missile (300 kt) F35-B: Empty Weight 14,700 kg (32,472 lb) MTOW 27,200 kg (60,000lb) Payload: 8,200 kg (18,000 lb) Mach 1.6. Hardpoints: 10 (4 internal, 6 external) 4 internal hardpoints : only 2 AA missiles + 2 bombs. 6 external hardpoints : F35B loses a significantly part of its stealth features.

[@BulletRain100]

The F-35C is the carrier variant of the F-35. The B variant is the VTOL variant used by the Marines. The lack of weapons on the F-35 makes sense when you recognize the F-18E has 12 hardpoints and is expected to operate with the F-35 as either a missile or bomb truck. The more planes Americans can put on their carriers allow for more specialization. The Rafale is most likely the best fourth-generation fighter in the world. The key edge it has is the French gave it one of the best aviation and sensor packages in the world. The only plane that beats it in that regard is the F-35.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

Rafale is an excellent aircraft.

[@jetaddicted]

The ASMP-A which is carried by the Rafale has no equivalent that I know of; no one else has a nuclear cruise missile that can be fitted on a fighter jet, this makes the Charles de Gaulle a VERY lethal ship indeed, possibly the most lethal surface ship.

[@StealthCloudchaser]

French really are great at making sophisticated and modern Weapons, That's a great aircraft carrier and hopefully the next one is gonna be even better.

[@rufiorufioo]

Yeah their newer one is going to be awesome.

[@PermissiveMoggy]

Looking forward to the delays in production, the need for imports from other countries, the continued problem of their planes not having folding wings for storage, the lack of a sister ship, and probably creating another several million dollars in problems to fix, that their government will be incredibly hesitant to pay.

[@CASA-dy4vs]

@@PermissiveMoggy🚫❌🛑⛔️📛

[@Booz2010]

Just like AirBus planes compared to Boeing 👀🥖

[@hotstepper887]

@@PermissiveMoggy I'd love to know what it is about these facts, that so few of you seemingly understand today? In today's world, of hi-tech Anti-Ship ballistic missiles, like the Chinese DF-21D - operational range (1700 km's) (that can sink any carrier in the world with a single hit). All Navies, including the USA's, without the ability to stop these missiles, are in effect obsolete today. Russia's Zircon Anti-Ship missile, though inferior in way of operational range-400kms it can be fired from Aircraft, Subs, and Ships making it deadly to any carrier in the world. (Russia also has the Brahmos and the P-800 Oniks Anti-Ship missiles). We know, neither the USA, the British and the French, have a destroyer, or any other means that can defend against these modern hi tech ASM's today! Making these western Navy's obsolete in today's world. The distances, these jets can travel is about 500-650 (max) km's out - and the same back again = 1300 km's range. Seeing them unable to deploy any carrier close enough, to reach any inland target, and then get back again? As anywhere inside 1700 km's, they're sunk, they're toast, they're history. This is also why when we hear the USA trumpeting out how they're sending a carrier to the South China Sea, (as some kind of propaganda imagined threat toward China) you'll never see them closer than 2000 km's from Chinas mainland when looking at their GPS positioning, it's known as "bluster". So why do we see these rubbish remedial misinformation videos all the time?

[@_spooT]

It doesn't matter if their carrier is small. Being able to construct and have experience in building a carrier, not to mention actually have catapults, is a huge feat in itself

[@SergioHidalgoAero]

Come on man, "Is not about the size, but what you can do with it". You caught me off guard man, that is pure comedy 😂

[@EXMX28]

Pero bueno, usted por aquí.🫡🫡🫡

[@RobertGarcia-wv8vx]

Oh yeah? Ask my EX-wife ......"MORE" was never enough!

[@Booz2010]

Sophia Fergara 👀

[@strato1917]

Love the 94% availability rate 💞💖

[@Elongated_Muskrat]

The Kuznetsov may not be a great carrier, but it will make a great submarine.

[@antoniohagopian213]

And you can be a immigrant wasteland😂

[@jonaspete]

​@@antoniohagopian213 triggered

[@pougetguillaume4632]

You forgot about the tactical smokescreen, how do you defeat something that you cannot see??????? Kuznetsov is the greatest sunderwater carrier and smokescreen dispenser in the entire world!

[@zynski3451]

You people are obsessed with Russia.

[@Rotorhead1651]

​@@antoniohagopian213 Is that supposed to be an actual insult? HERE'S how you insult someone: Q- How many Russian Naval ships have been converted into coral reefs? A- Most of them...... including their submarines.

[@joso5554]

Excellent video. It misses a couple interesting features, though. One relates to the ship’s own armament, which includes Aster missiles. The other is the ability of the carrier to carry ASMPA nuclear missiles and to take part in nuclear deterrent missions.

[@guillaumefigarella1704]

So true it's such a rare and interesting, system

[@grahamstrouse1165]

De Gaulle does have much better self-defense capability than most carriers. Missiles aside, she also carries a bunch of auto cannons for self-defense. That was kinda prescient. Nimitz & Ford have a substantial layered anti-air defense & Japana’s Hyuga & Ise have large missile magazines & their own torpedos. Most modern carriers struggle to take care of themselves, however. QE, for instance, just as Phalanx.

[@stcredzero]

For people who have been paying attention, the French military rules in the "bang for buck" category.

[@Booz2010]

Dassaul Rafale and AirBus planes : hold our BAGUETTE 🥖

[@stcredzero]

@@Booz2010 Actually, the French will sometimes just set that stuff down on a dry spot on the table. The crust is almost its own dish.

[@axanarahyanda628]

​@@stcredzeroIt was just a joke on the "Hold my beer." expression.

[@quoccuongtran724]

Perun already covered how the French military & military industry successfully run themselves on a tight budget

[@stcredzero]

@@axanarahyanda628 I know. That was my pedanterrific "actually" response to that.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

@4:59 "pointy noise" Well done!

[@Rotorhead1651]

I was wondering if anyone else caught that. 😂🤣😉👍

[@Caktusdud.]

Oh that wasn't just me thougg what he says next just roles off the tongue.

[@NotWhatYouThink]

Hehe just noticed it myself. That probably happened because I was so focused on what I was going to say next 😅

[@ZratP]

A lot of people are making fun of french people and army but the fact is they were able to maintain their own armament industry in several key domains which make them quite unique. The Rafale is the only non-US aircraft that can land on and take-off from US Supercarriers. Some other navies will get that capability with the F-35B but in the end it is a US plane. The CDG is the only nuclear carrier outside of US Supercarriers, the only CATOBAR, it is interoperable with US F-18 and Hawkeyes. And it's more than 20 years old! Say what you want but you need conviction, political will of some independence to build such systems on your own.

[@INFACTparis]

those who make fun of this army know nothing about history

[@skyden24195]

I appreciate learning about this aircraft carrier as I do not come across much information about the (modern) French Navy in general. Speaking of the rarity of catapult launch systems, the first amusement park to use such a system in a way that could be experienced outside of aircraft carrier operation was "Knott's Berry Farm" in Buena Park, CA (USA). In 1978, the system was adapted into an attraction (amusement ride) called the "Montezooma's Revenge" (currently being redesignated "MonteZooma: The Forbidden Fortress.") The ride enabled guests (passengers) to experience what it is like to launch from an aircraft carrier's catapult system as the attraction takes guests from 0 to 55mph in 4.5 seconds, through a 76 foot, 360 degree loop, then up a 148 foot tower, coming to a temporary stop then reversing backwards through the loop, back through the launch station, then up a second tower, stopping again, then returning down to the station where the ride vehicle is stopped. Other amusement parks around the world have since adopted the system into rides, but "Knott's Berry Farm" was first to give people an aircraft carrier-like launching experience without having to be on an aircraft carrier.

[@NotWhatYouThink]

Interesting 😊👍🏼

[@dancarillo5461]

Awesome 🤩 Viva la France 🇫🇷

[@stefanomaurino8201]

Charles de Gaulle always wanted France to be independent from the US hegemony.

[@thefrenchbaguette919]

And pretty successful a that and with the war in Ukraine more funding is being put into projects to make France and Europe more independent

[@remario3542]

Nella 1 guerra mondiale gli usa inviarono in Francia 1,7 milioni di soldati. Nella 2 gm combatterono 2 milioni di soldati americani.

[@jasonroda1731]

This why we gave his name to our carrier

[@conradmeek5142]

France deserves some credit on this. If you look at their budget, compared to Britain, they are really killing it from the carrier department. To develop such a ship on a small platform is commendable. Sure there are shortcomings, but they are capable. Look at the Queen Elizabeth class carriers of Britain to compare. Of course F-35s can change that calculus considerably in the future.

[@glennllewellyn7369]

Brilliant presentation mate!

[@emanuelfigueroa5657]

One of the reasons for such a low amount of jets inside the hangar (23 of 40 aircraft) is the fact that Rafale M does not have folding wings. If it were F-18s or MiG-29Ks (similar in size) up to 30 would fit inside. Also in the US Navy not all the 90+ aircraft that a supercarrier can carry, would fit insisde the hangar. Some must be stored in the deck. This was also true for the F-14 that again does not have folding wing, and looks like a giant dorito from above. In the Russian Navy, less than half of the 45+ jets would fit in the hangar of Admiral Kuznetsov as there is a missile launcher in the space that a bigger hangar would ocuppy. And the Su-33 is a really huge fighter jet in size despite haivng folding wings.

[@SplashJohn]

True, the F-14 didn't have "folding wings". But the variable-sweep wings were put into "oversweep" (75º) for taxiing and parking, and in fact took up less deck space than a Super Hornet with wings folded.

[@Hypernefelos]

The Rafale has somewhat small delta wings, so it's easy to stack them inside even without folding them (which always comes with structural issues - it's why the F-18 can't carry AMRAAMs on its wingtips like the F-16 does). The same was true with the US Navy's A-4. The F-14 had swing wings, which take up less space when swept backwards, but even so it took up more space than a Rafale.

[@stevo43224]

Great video! A lot of info that I was unaware of about this ship class. Thanks!!

[@desmond-hawkins]

(4:25) 120 knots to zero in 1.5s: 120 knots is 61.7 m/s, averaging over 1.5s is 61.7/1.5 ≈ 41.2 m/s² or (41.2/9.8) ≈ 4.2 G of deceleration. Similarly for a catapult launch with CATOBAR: 0 to 150 kt in 2 seconds is about 3.9 G of acceleration.

[@oxcart4172]

I love this channel. The way this man presents things is fantastic!

[@roycuyler]

Another great video. Very informative. Thank you.

[@kstarks9049]

Thanks for making this video.

[@garymiller5937]

Very interesting. Thanks for the video and info! 😊😊😊❤❤❤

[@SG55552]

“ most powerful aircraft carrier outside of the American fleet” had me dead💀

[@Part_121_Wannabe]

'Merica!

[@paul4381]

Well if you look at the numbers that's a no contest (as a French, who doesn't like US army mentality). To be fair, it's the only country which can say they really have a carrier fleet. Because carriers need maintenance ~4months a year so with just one you can't keep a permanent presence on a region. It's a strategical error to invest only on one carrier (which is still very expensive) and it was criticized by some of our generals. But politicians need big projects to win votes, they don't care about the utility of it... And for the UK, they have no nuclear carrier lack tankers so they aren't able to deploy their carriers 🤡

[@Rotorhead1651]

​​​@@paul4381 A- A French what? 2- WTF does the U.S. Army have to do with anybody's Navy? & 🔺- Generals don't run the Navy, Admirals do.

[@echoharmony926]

@@paul4381It's not that the Royal Navy lack tankers, it's sold support ships. While our tankers have some solid stores capability, we only have 1 dedicated solid stores ship. The replacement class of 3 isn't due until 2029 - 2033.

[@texasforever7887]

For the British Royal Navy Carriers to deploy, they require the US Navy to provide escort destroyers because they lack the required number to assemble a battle group to protect the carriers.

[@edwardmoes1617]

Good informative video. Thanks 😊

[@sargervbftw626]

We need to direct our aircraft with swords on aircraft carriers that's the coolest thing I've ever seen @ 17:52

[@andresnierenberger7468]

Eres el mejor periodista que encontré en KZbin, saludos de Argentina!

[@YashveerSinghTomar]

Great Video 🎉

[@fluffypants]

Great video, buddy

[@iamgarance8191]

Nice video !

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

10:12 The French reactors are somewhat close to the reactors on Enterprise (CV-65), which needed *8*. In fairness, Enterprise was a simple mod to the existing Kitty Hawk/Improved Forestall class in most respects, and each reactor was a direct swap for a boiler from the older design.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

Enterprise was basically the same size as the Nimitz-class, though. She was fitted with eight submarine reactors cause that was what they had at the time. De Gaulle’s a lot smaller and can make do with less.

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

@@grahamstrouse1165 Every carrier the US has build since Forestall has been about the same size. De Gaulle is a lot closer to the old Midway class - about half the displacement of the US current carriers, though only a couple hundred feet shorter.

[@jazening3075]

Fascinating Insight Segment!👍🙏🙂

[@CALIBER-AN-ELITE]

man i love when you do any videos on aircraft carriers

[@CalNupjook]

17:53 a sabre hot damn

[@stephenallen4374]

That's a beautiful aircraft carrier 🤩

[@jamesbellegarde2893]

Are French Rafael fighters a match for F 35s? I think that’s the real question more than anything else! I am a Canadian and this is gonna sound weird cause I’m not from Quebec. I’m from Western Canada and I’m indigenous, but I wish we would’ve bought the French Rafael fighter with its twin engine design! Canada has traditionally owes you twin engine jets. When you’re flying over the Canadian tundra you want at least one engine to get you home!

[@b3njaminp251]

Really appreciate the effort you put to say french words Merci beaucoup

[@horridohobbies]

Very informative. Thank you.

[@user-pj3ch8ou2h]

This is a proper aircraft carrier. UK should have built theirs like this.

[@brudnick39]

Terrific video...thanks for always giving us the best information. I am so happy I guessed right as soon as I saw the question. It could only be the French due to CATOBAR. LOL

[@solentlifeuk]

But his info is flawed as CdG spends more time in repairs than actually sailing !!

[@brudnick39]

@@solentlifeuk You are not wrong...after all, 1 is none and 2 is 1. But when the 1 is ready to go, it is the most powerful...for now.

[@prodelboy2743]

Great video

[@mikedang3613]

Tuxton, Rodney, thank you for your frequent uploads and excellent investigations into the world's militaries. I was a while back about your somewhat French accent. I would love to learn more about you two and who you are. Would you consider someday making a brief video about you and the channel? Thanks again.

[@uss_liberty_incident]

For once, it was exactly what I thought lol. CATOBAR carriers are awesome. Outstanding video as always.

[@pcol2915]

IT *IS* WHAT I THINK! A NEW VIDEO LET'S GOOOOOO!!!

[@Woobieeee]

Great video man.

[@SwanOnChips]

Awesome coverage.

[@alexisianf_2]

The Charles de Gulle, despite its small size, is the only other aircraft carrier that can operate CATOBAR. Although I'm more excited for the PANG as it's more capable, and those look like a scale down Gerald R. Ford at less with it's Island Structure.

[@wicketprofessor375]

11:41 THIS IS THE PEAK OF COMEDY😆

[@ArgosySpecOps]

Ultimately, they did end up going with aluminum from across the pond 😅

[@Rotorhead1651]

​@@ArgosySpecOps America to the rescue again. 😂👍🇺🇲

[@cakilas8966]

I thought copper-aluminum alloys were used for their ability to work-harden easily to protect against cavitation bubble damage even as it wears down. Like a self-hardening surface on an otherwise ductile part. I guess if they couldn't get a good quality propeller otherwise, there's no choice.

[@Solveig.Tissot]

​@@Rotorhead1651The least ravaged Average France Hater :

[@Solveig.Tissot]

​@@ArgosySpecOpsYour lack of knowledge is as hopeless as your opinion.

[@allanliversidge9827]

A good looking well designed functional carrier👌

[@SteenLarsen]

Excellent video! Thanks!

[@JahLuvzU]

Thank You for the interesting videos, I like them a lot! I do not wish to point out wrong pronounciations, as english is not my first language either, but sor-TIE ground my gears. I know how hard it is to un-learn wrong pronounciation, so You have my sympathies. Great video none the less! I did not know the french had a nuclear carrier, or that the russians did not have one.

[@scribehades]

That alert readiness is mad.

[@charlesdeco3821]

Very well researched video! I wish that good relationship between our two navy will continue as long as possible 🇫🇷🇺🇸

[@staticstone1297]

Muy buena información

[@geiers6013]

Wow the french really made the most out of their much smaller military budget compared to the US. They have by far the most capable carrier and even nuclear powered and armed subs outside of the US itself. If they only had at least one carrier more they could have one combat ready almost all the time. They wouldn't even really need more than one air wing and they could constantly train even if one carrier is in the docks.

[@francinesicard464]

The PA-NG (PorteAvion-Nouvelle Génération/Air carrier new generation) is in preparation and will be the largest warship in Europe and one of the most imposing in the world. Called to succeed the Charles de Gaulle, the new generation aircraft carrier (PA-NG) constitutes a major technological and industrial challenge.

[@georgeflitzer7160]

Wow!

[@bamford7]

😂. You killed it with that aluminum joke! Love it!

[@kwhp1507]

What happened to the planes left engine at 4:15 at the end of the flight deck?

[@Pallidum]

Looks like a compressor stall, or maybe a bird strike.

[@antoniohagopian213]

It exploded

[@Rotorhead1651]

​@@antoniohagopian213 In technical terms, it go blowy-uppy. 😂

[@thibaudderieux8506]

Always weird that ships are reffered as 'she' in English as Charles de Gaulle is a major french figure. Having the name of Général Charles de Gaulle used as a feminin noun really sounds weird.

[@NotWhatYouThink]

Yeah I know. American carriers like John F. Kennedy, Nimitz, Gerald R. Ford, are also all named after prominent male figures. But ship have been referred to as “she” for a long time, at least in the English language.

[@shutout951]

The Bismark was called "he," and I'm guessing that's not a tradition anyone wants to keep alive

[@Rotorhead1651]

​@@shutout951 Probably has something to do with it's current status as a coral reef.

[@Rotorhead1651]

​@@NotWhatYouThink Look, I'm not saying everyone in every Navy or maritime profession is gay, but until the last century, they sure went to a lot of trouble to keep women off of ships, even claiming it was bad luck. 😂🤣

[@ashleygoggs5679]

@@shutout951 The Germans tended to name all their ships as He, Im guessing its becuase ship in German maybe a masculine noun. Which is generally why most countries call their ships he or her. Its masculine and feminine nouns.

[@martinsinnombre]

Very interesting to hear the effects of having a catapult in an carrier. Back in the day, when my country, Argentina, was not a pathetic joke of a state, we had for a few years 2 aircraft carriers, both from 2nd WW and steam propulsion: from 1969 to 1997 the 25 de Mayo (very old) and before that (from 1959 to 1969) the Independencia. The main difference was, apparently, that the 25 de Mayo had 1 catapult, although it was added, not originally in the ship. The air wing was mainly A-4s and eventually Super Étendard, and a couple of S-2 Trackers and varying helicopters.

[@michaelmappin4425]

Check out that compressor stall at 4:13 on cat 2.

[@austin.england]

Anyone else think that it would be an awesome video idea if NWYT did a video about why some countries choose to have Canards (small movable front wings) on their aircraft, while the US chooses not to have them? I’ve read some pros and cons, but it would be cool to see NWYT do a video about it.

[@austin.england]

Apologies if NWYT already has a video about it! Send me the video title if you happen to know it!

[@seraphin01]

You always make great video, didn't miss anything. Just a side note though, not only our pilots do joint training with and on US carriers, they also train on us soil for new pilots etc. And yes the biggest weakness of the CDG is being the only French carrier. That being said there were a plan to build a new carrier with UK to reduce cost and share the expenses.. But yeah brexit and all of that.. Also I don't see how that could work since we all have our national interest and the war in Irak proved how those ventures are doomed to fail (much like the fabled European defense macron and some others want) Great job mate, looking forward for your next video as always

[@petesheppard1709]

Thanks for a very informative and interesting video! I had long wondered about that forward island, and put it down to French preference. In truth, the far-aft location of the latest designs looks equally odd.

[@JP_TaVeryMuch]

What do you think about the double whammy of the newest Royal Navy carriers? All we've been told here in the UK is that one's for running the ship, the other for running the flight deck. Sounds sensible but methinks that there's more to it than that. If the two command centres had to shout ever louder to be heard over the other lot, a cheaper solution would surely have been to upgrade their headphones‽

[@petesheppard1709]

@@JP_TaVeryMuch It looks weird, but I guess they wanted that 'midship lift really badly...

[@LuisdeMontevideo]

Muy buen informe

[@richardpoynton4026]

Well it works and has a sizeable air wing. Puts it in a class ahead of the Royal Navy carriers.

[@Pouncer9000]

And has actual AEW. Why GB decided to make the QE class STOVL when they were originally CATOBAR (hence their size) is beyond me. It's not even a case of throwing good money after bad, it's making the initial investment even more expensive by spending additional money for a result that manages to falls short of any expectations. Times two.

[@solentlifeuk]

What a daft post ...

[@TheTfrules]

@@Pouncer9000The reason is that it would’ve meant we could only procure 1 expensive carrier for marginal and debatable capability gain instead of two. As we are finding out with the teething issues of our carriers, two is one and one is indeed none. Two carriers with ramps is orders of magnitude better than one. It’s not fair to directly compare the state of the brand new RN carriers to the very mature Charles de Gaulle either, since they’re at very different points in their service lives. It’ll be interesting to compare the two sets of capabilities in 2029. Finally, and I’m sure most will agree with me here: F-35 > Rafale

[@Crapulax]

​@@TheTfrules F35>Rafale? Depends on the mission and situation. From a carrier with catapult, yes. F35 from a carrier without catapult vs rafale from a carrier with catapult, not really. It has less autonomy and less payload.

[@TheTfrules]

@@Crapulax The F-35B can carry a full payload from a ramp launch. Also I would argue the benefits of improved stealth and sensors outweigh payload capacity in importance from a peer conflict perspective.

[@Mikethemerciless11]

It also has the sexiest planes in the world aboard: The Rafale.

[@joriss5]

It seems our engineers and sailors managed to get the best out of this ship, despite her problems (on top of the propulsion problems at the beginning, there was a space problem with the flight deck which needed to be slightly enlarged, and she may become a HR problem because most sailors don't want to be affected on her : she's much less comfortable than our destroyers (which are now all modern ships with reduced crews and larger cabins). Those problems are mostly caused by her reduced size, which is said to be linked to the constraints at the Brest Arsenal where she was built. The future PA-NG should not have such issues, it seems they realized the size of the ship is not the primary cost factor. Also size will not be a problem in the Chantiers de l'Atlantique shipyard, which was at the time designed to build the largest supertankers ever.

[@jamiebray8532]

Man yhe Raphael is a beautiful aircraft. Its kust something about the shape of the air intake & the fuselage at the cockpit.

[@ZEtruckipu]

Rafale*

[@user-xp5id1kh4r]

What was the splash at 18:06? Was it part of the launching catapult apparatus?

[@445Navigator]

Yes, that was an old video clip of the launch of a Super Etendard aircraft which has been retired since. It used a wire sling to connect from the front wheel assembly to the catapult. What you see there is the said wire sling being jettison during launching.

[@petesheppard1709]

@@445Navigator Called the 'bridle' in US naval terms.

[@josephnason8770]

The Brits have two islands. One is for flight opps. The other is a pub.

[@fridaycaliforniaa236]

Old memories. I served on this thingy

[@ionaguirre]

! Vaya traduccion ! Menos mal que esta subtitulado en ingles.

[@maxhugen]

Very interesting video. And AFAIK, the France has overtaken Russia in value of arms exports, making it the second largest exporter after the US.

[@JP_TaVeryMuch]

Just not submarines. Sorry, couldn't resist it!

[@maxhugen]

@@JP_TaVeryMuch As an Aussie, I can relate to that. We pissed off the French when we cancelled the sub order. But might live to regret it? 🥴🇦🇺

[@JP_TaVeryMuch]

@@maxhugen I'm not in the industry but from what I have gathered, it was certainly the right decision. The french subs rely on outdated propulsion and power supply technology, so they really doth protest too much.

[@jomo350350]

it's just because they have you by the balls, and without balls it's impossible to say no to them.

[@JP_TaVeryMuch]

@@jomo350350 Call me a dingbat but who is your "you" and who also is your "they" pray?

[@fearthehoneybadger]

The Chinese carrier is equipped with colored smoke.

[@PaulGrayUK]

That is so LGBT+ of China, bless them. This should be highlighted more, they would love that attention. Come WW3, it's not the size of guns, it will be who can draw the biggest rainbow. 🤭

[@Rotorhead1651]

​​@@PaulGrayUK Dog......that was so cold it was ICY! 🥶🥶🥶🥶😂

[@raidenj1295]

@@PaulGrayUKchina more like California

[@PaulGrayUK]

@@raidenj1295 ah, Chinalifornia. 🤭

[@alanliu8904]

You will see fourth and fifth aircraft carriers equipped with nuclear reactors and electric magnetic catapult in ten years. France spent 14 years in building one carrier. China will spends 20 year in building 5 carriers. And go goggle 055 destroyer， you will see capability of China building warships in recent 20 years.

[@Nitty_Gritty1.0]

Great video, as always! I do have one question, though. Con anyone tell me what the ball of flame coming from the rear of the lead aircraft is? (4:12)

[@richinoregon]

The top speed is classified, but since they use the same reduction gears as the conventional carriers did, which are rated to 36 knots, the top speed is 36 knots. All the Navy has ever said about the carriers speed was that they will exceed 30 knots. When I was on the USS Midway (CV-41) we joked that the reason that they picked 30 knots was that the top speed of the USS Midway was 31 knots.

[@thinhnguyenduy4099]

Bro pronounced the Rafale in French accent killed me 💀💀

[@davidellis1355]

As a Brit I would love to say the two Elizabeth class carriers are better in every single way ... But rumour is they aren't working all the well

[@jpaulc441]

I'm a Brit too but wouldn't ever say they were better even if they worked perfectly. Actually, I do like the appearance of the RN carriers, if the ski ramps were removed I'd think they were the best looking carriers, despite looks not being important.

[@ryanbrewis6990]

They're still fairly new, prop shafts are prone to issues (because huge rapidly spinning metal bar that needs a hole in the hull is obviously difficult to keep up to snuff) and France had a devil of a time when Charles de Gaulle was new. Believe they had a reactor leak at one point.

[@jomarlefevre5311]

Love the format of your videos but it would be great to see non military videos too.

[@lucwenbourne2337]

We need a second one

[@rufiorufioo]

So this can put in perspective how insane the US Fleets are. USA has 11 super carriers. Nuclear powered. Wish more NATO countries can build super carriers. Only adds to the strength.

[@billienomates1606]

The question should be which nation has the most reliable aircraft carrier! Because the UK's is certainly not fit for purpose.

[@fZionists78]

Whose aircraft carrier is most susceptible to Russia’s hypersonics is irrelevant. They all are.

[@bigwahoo8686]

​@@ts757arseapples to oranges lmao. The zumwalt was a stealth ship that actually pushed technological boundaries. The independence was a cruiser with a carrier face-lift, the carrier body and drive train was not set up for the top heaviness of the carrier deck. Prop issues weren't even the biggest deal with the independence class carriers, it was the shityjob welds breaking because they tried using two different metals for the construction of the shop. there was nothing advanced about that. The US needed carriers built quickly to fight Japan, and we had 2 or 3 operational essx class carriers at the time, and we had 1 in for dry docks. The entire reason the indepance class failed is because it was a botched, rushed attempt at getting more carriers. "Quantity over quality" as the us needed quick completion time on ships during that period in the war. The queen Elizabeth super carrier is poorly designed pile of garbage that gives the English government a false sense of security. The type 45s are the only vessel you mentioned that I don't have 1st or 2nd hand knowledge of but anything designed by the British these days seems to develop some serious issues😂

[@Rotorhead1651]

​@@fZionists78 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣..... ...oh, I'm sorry. Were you being serious? 🖕😈

[@pougetguillaume4632]

​​@@ts757arseif we're being honest the problems the QE has right now has nothing to do with the ship. Most big ships like these have reliability issues in their early years like the CDG used to have in the 2000s, there is also the kerffufle with the f-35 and the genius procurement decision of the governement. BUT the QE is still barely superior to the CDG in some categories while getting massacred in certain crucial capability area. -endurance and speed: people argue the QE isn't any slower than the CDG because their top speed is actually that of their escort, which is technically correct but fails to take resupply into xonsideration, the QE needs alo LOT of resupplying because it burns a lot of fuel on top of everything else. The QE needs to slow down a lot more often for resupply ships to catch up compared to the CDG and the CDG still has higher top speed in emergency situations. -aircraft per vessel: you'd think the QE would have a massive advantage in carry capacity, and it technically does (it can carry twice as many as the CDG) but its effective sortie rate is actually almost the same as the CDG believe it or not, a little above 30 aircraft for both is the sweet spot. The reason is simply that catapult are really good at launching aircrafts meaning even with increased runways it still can barely match that of the CDG -aircraft type: the CDG is catobar meaning it is very liberal in the types of aircraft it can carry and their payload whereas the QE pretty much relies on the F-35 to get an advantage, if the F-35 weren't a thing the QE's aircraft would have reduced operational ranges and limited payload capacity, thank goodness the british procurement managed to secure all of the necessary F 35... Right? Right? -related but deserves its own category: awacs. Awacs are just about the most important aircraft in any carrier group, they don't carry fancy missiles what they do instead is target acquisition, early warning, coordination etc... Tldr awacs are what make a carrier group so scary. The QE cannot carry fixed wing awacs because it's not catobar instead relying on cope rotary wing awacs which have serious range and capability issues (duh). What this means is that the QE is dependant on shore/inland radar, fire control and so on... Or need to team up with a carrier that actually has awacs (cough america cough) As you can see the QE is dramatically less impactful than an equivalent catobar carrier, i think it informs us greatly on the job the royal navy intends to pursue in the future: being the USA's drinking buddy. Its capabilities on its own are fairly unremarkable but adding a more competent catobar carrier and the american made F-35 can fix a lot of the QE's issues while simultaneously making it more affordable. Meanwhile france very much intends to do stuff on its own which explains why catobar is our prefered option compared to more numerous but less independant stobar or stovl (yes i'm a totally unbiased french trust me i totally know what i'm talking about).

[@vigoedwinpandika1545]

5:42 nice formation🫡🇫🇷

[@ioanbota9397]

Its so powerful I like it