[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/k/ - Weapons



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



https://www.wsj.com/articles/german-engineering-yields-new-warship-that-isnt-fit-for-sea-1515753000?mod=e2fb
>>
>>36465961
>>
>Sinking submarines
>Now this

Why does any country buy marine equipment from these scat eating shitskins and not China or Sweden?
>>
>>36465961
fucking wall street shills locked article behind pay wall
>>
>>36466394
>Sinking submarines
Literally what
>>
Should have bought Chinese.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0KaY9CXVSg

Should have done it when they had the chance back then.
>>
>>36465961
And?
Warships get sent back or the builders get called all the time to rectify issues - especially for first-in-the-class.
>>36466394
Why do you assume the builder was at fault? When training and maintenance were known to be major issues.
>>
File: 1407884324557.jpg (31 KB, 217x278)
31 KB
31 KB JPG
>>36465961
>subscribe to read
At least paste it or some shit, how am I supposed to read this?
>>
>>36466449
No one buys Chinese and nations that can build their own ships will definitely not buy Chinese.
>>
>>36466490
>noone buys

Thailand, Pakistan, South East Asia, half of North Africa disagrees.

>will definitely not buy Chinese

Still better than ships that sink themselves.

Chinese Frigates have been patroling the Gulf of Aden for 10+ years by now and not broken down once, which would have been noticable, as they need to cross the closely observed waters of multiple hostile nations.
>>
File: 1481591911490.webm (2.91 MB, 480x284)
2.91 MB
2.91 MB WEBM
>>36466449
>Should have bought Chine-
>>
>>36466517
>Thailand, Pakistan, South East Asia, half of North Africa disagrees.
Who?

>Still better than ships that sink themselves.
This thread is about German ships, not American ones.
>>
>>36466539
minor design faults that have been fixed with the succeeding batches is still better than ships that are not sea-worthy.
>>
>>36466545
Same Germany that inducts a naval helicopter that cant fly over water?
>>
>>36466394
this. There is a reason why many countries even here in Europe don't buy German ships and submarines. That the sort of meme that only third world shitholes fall for
>>
Can the Germans fall any farther?
>>
>>36466552
Rightly or wrongly, the point is that just because you don't hear about issues with Chinese warships - doesn't mean they don't happen.

You'd be really stretching not calling that a major issue, given the crew went into total damage control with having to manually bail the water out!
>>
>>36466517

>literal who countries

thanks for the laugh chang
>>
>>36466555
Yes, the same Germany that has functioning naval helicopters. The ones that serve in other navies as well. Thanks for your concern though, next time we'll buy your cheap electroshit instead.
>>
>>36466517
>Thailand, Pakistan, South East Asia, half of North Africa disagrees.
Can you really be proud of this customer base?
>>
>le Southern Asians are subhumans XD im totally not mad!

Why are Germans such abysmal human beings? Why are you getting this arseDresdened just because China makes better marine machinery than you nowadays?
>>
>>36466649
Nobody has said this though, but those nations are hardly known for being high capability, big spenders nations.

So it seems pretty ridiculous using the lower end of the warship market to claim that the Chinese produce high capability, big spender products that compete with the actual high capability, big spender producers.
>>
It was fucked from the beginning.
>7,200t
>NO VLS

Its like they deliberately tried to make a bad ship.
>>
>>36466707
Hardly, if you understood what the requirements of the ship were.
>>
>>36466715
Were the requirements to be absolutely useless?
>>
>>36466649
>Southern Asians are subhumans
No, you are the subhuman Huang. Not the poor bastards that buy your garbage.
I don't care if you want to post 6 million greentext stories on this board on a daily basis but using Pakistan, your ally, and other poor nations as an example for your great success when it comes to selling your cheap crap is just pathetic. This thread does not have anything to do with China or your fucking ships, piss off and post some thread about great Chinese technology instead.
>>
File: r499999999.jpg (12 KB, 230x230)
12 KB
12 KB JPG
>this grim retard ITT that keeps using the word "hardly" incorrectly.
It's painful being British and having to listen to non-native speakers attempt English.
>>
>>36466739
What do you think?
>>
>>36466739
It is a German ship.
>>
>>36466768
>It's painful being British

We know Nigel, we know.
>>
>>36466768
Are you retarded? You can use "hardly" in expressing disagreement or the same way as you use "barely".
>>
File: 2349284.jpg (11 KB, 291x343)
11 KB
11 KB JPG
>>36466822
>German humour

woeful. A pity that bomber Harris is no longer with us
>>
>>36466773
Well a quick look at wikipedia says
>Enhanced land attack capabilities
Only land attack capabilities are guns.
>Peacekeeping
>Long maintenance periods
Useless considering Germany doesn't have a blue water navy.
>>
>>36466848
Im not even german. Beeing german is probably even worse.
>>
>>36466851
You realise that you don't need to be a blue water navy to send your ships out for peacekeeping or joint operations, right?

Of course, you don't.

But for the sake of educating you, navies frequently rotate their ships for anti-terrorism and counter piracy missions in areas like the Gulf, Caribbean etc. Key example being Combined Task Force 150.
>>
>>36466874
It can't be worse than being an inbred tiny islander.
>>
>>36466897
>joint operations
Doing fucking what in these joint operations?
Yeah, this 7,200t ship can patrol the coasts of third world countries, oh and it can also blow up somali fishing boats.
Meanwhile all other ships with this displacement have VLS cells so they can actually be useful.

If Germany is so concerned with peacekeeping, why don't they make a dedicated ship that isn't a heavy piece of shit?
And the German Navy rejected it anyway, so why are you defending it?
>>
>>36466552
>better than ships that are not sea-worthy
That ship would not be considered sea worthy in a nation that actually values human life.
>>36466567
>many countries even here in Europe don't buy German ships and submarines
They actually do, though. At least for submarines. The only ones that don't are the ones that build subs themselves.
>UK
>France
>Italy (G)
>Germany (G)
>Spain
>Greece (G)
>Sweden
>Netherlands
>Norway (G)
>Portugal (G)
>Poland (G)
European NATO members who operate submarines. The ones with (G) use German submarines. That's over half of them.
>>
>>36467006
>Doing fucking what in these joint operations?
The exact same thing as all the other warships.
>Yeah, this 7,200t ship can patrol the coasts of third world countries, oh and it can also blow up somali fishing boats.
Which is what it was designed for.
>Meanwhile all other ships with this displacement have VLS cells so they can actually be useful.
Do you think SM-2, SM-6, SM-3 have any use against realistic somali fishing boats?
The best you'd need for this role is either ESSM or RAM/CWIS.
>If Germany is so concerned with peacekeeping, why don't they make a dedicated ship that isn't a heavy piece of shit?
Try and reason why that ship is so heavy. Do you think they've just filled it with lead?
This ship can sustain itself out for 24 months without a home port - to put that into perspective other warships only deploy up around the 9ish months outside their home ports.
>And the German Navy rejected it anyway, so why are you defending it?
1. Because you're criticizing it on requirements it was never supposed to fulfill.
2. Because they haven't rejected the concept or the ship itself, just that the issues that the ship is suffering that require the builders to fix.
>>
>>36467176
Ah, my mistake.
I thought the point of a military was to be used during warfare.
Clearly Germans have discovered that it is better to use a military for peacekeeping.
Thanks for enlightening me.
>>
>>36467210
What a retarded post
>>
>>36467210
Ah, yes apply facetiousness when you don't have any legitimate criticism.
A military is exactly what the state needs it to do, Germany places priority on keeping sea lanes open. To responded to this, they've created a class of ship that supports that requirement. Nothing more, nothing less.

you doubledowning retard
>>
>>36467254
I'm serious.
I didn't know that Germans don't require their military ships to conduct warfare.
You learn something new every day.
>>
File: db0.jpg (26 KB, 349x642)
26 KB
26 KB JPG
>>36467265
>>
>>36466449
Kiel Canal?
>>
>>36467265
That's why multiple ship classes exist in the German Navy you troglodyte. You can leave now.
>>
>>36467265
Germany is far more cucked than Japan, like Ireland-tier cucked, so it makes sense.
>>
>>36466545
>Still better than ships that sink themselves.
>This thread is about German ships, not American ones.

Our ships don't sink themselves, they get sunk by freighters and fishing trawlers.
>>
>>36466394

France is only country in Europe capable of building sea worthy ships these days. Sad..
>>
>>36466449

Nice Lafayette ship ripoff...
>>
>>36465961
more e3vidence that we should just break Germany into 8 countries to keep these small dicked german bloods in check
>>
>>36467066

Apart from Norway, these are all getting billions of aids from Germany though and probably wouldn't want or could affort state of the art ships anyway.
>>
>>36467393

It will come to that eventually when ever France figure out the EU is just one big rip off. Nuke Berlin and take the Rhineland.
>>
>>36467378

Given their escort fleet are basically downgraded versions of the ships the Italians are sailing, and that the Dutch and British also exist I'd say how about no.
>>
>>36467436
>Dutch
what century do you think this is?
>Italian
You realize they buy their ships from France right?
>British
Meh, nothing impressive there at all.
>>
>>36467515
I don't understand the point of type this wrong shit when it is easily google-able.

Like why bother?
>>
>>36467066
>European NATO-members
>Sweden

Try again
>>
>>36467176
The issue is you are calling a frigate what is essentially a glorified patrol boat.
>>
>>36467515

>what century do you think this is?

The century when the De Zeven Provincien kicks the ass of anything the French have in the escort field.

>You realize they buy their ships from France right?

Except they don't? Horizon and FREMM are joint designs, that the Italians REdesigned because the French requirements were utter shit.

Also of kek worthiness, Italy basically owns France's main builders now.

>Meh, nothing impressive there at all.

Apart from the Daring and City classes that are just objectively better at their given roles than France's own escort designs. Their Horizon doesn't even have an AESA and relies on a single facing rotating PESA instead of a dual mount. There's a reason the Brits left that project, and why the Italians upgraded their ships. The common trend was "France's weren't good enough".
>>
>>36467542
>The issue is you are calling a frigate what is essentially a glorified patrol boat.
When was this point made?

Also I'm not the one personally calling it a frigate. If it matches the Germany navy's ship classification scheme for a frigate, then it is a frigate. Anything else is just opinion.
>>
>>36467515

French FREMM - Small PESA
Italian FREMM - Big AESA

French FREMM - No anti-sub missiles
Italian FREMM - Anti-sub missiles present

French FREMM - CODOG, 28 knots
Italian FREMM - CODAG, 30+ knots

French FREMM - 76mm gun with no Strales radar or specialist munitions
Italian FREMM - 127mm gun PLUS a second 76mm Strales with all the specialist munitions

French FREMM - No LRAD
Italian FREMM - LRAD present

French FREMM - Only Aster 15
Italian FREMM - Both Aster 15 and Aster 30

French FREMM - No CIWS
Italian FREMM - CIWS present in 76mm Strales radar

French FREMM - No acoustic dampening
Italian FREMM - ASW focused version

tl;dr - France's main escorts are Italian monkey models
>>
>>36467547
>De Zeven Provincien
Like what? Snatching somalian pirates?
>FREMM
Rofl except not, those were all developed in France. That France gave in to Italian requirements to patrol muh Lybian coast while France had to travel litteraly the whole glob isn't an argument.
>muh british navy meme
Same reason brits can't be bothered to offer themselves a decent assault rifle. They are a xenophobic pig trash nation with no future. And their ships are trash, which is WHY THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES TO USE THEM, you pig shit stain dumb fucking ass.

>>36467530
yeah, whatever retard.
>>
>>36467578

All French designs. The fact France has more realistic goals is irrevelant.

You realize the italian navy is just patrolling the mediterrianian right?
>>
>>36467591
>yeah, whatever retard.
Still didn't answer my points.

You're literally type shit that can be disproven in two clicks, like why bother?
>>
>>36467620
Ok, ok retard. I'll wait here while you make you two clicks deep shit. You can't even be bothered to read apparently. So how about you just kys? Ok?
>>
>>36467591

>Like what? Snatching somalian pirates?

Do you even know what the De Zevens are and what they have?

>Rofl except not, those were all developed in France.

Errrr no.

>That France gave in to Italian requirements to patrol muh Lybian coast while France had to travel litteraly the whole glob isn't an argument.

Kinda funny given the Italian version also has a longer range and greater endurance.

>Same reason brits can't be bothered to offer themselves a decent assault rifle

Again, kinda funny given they're actually still using a solid rifle they're developing further, while France just went and bought German.

>And their ships are trash, which is WHY THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES TO USE THEM

Not an arguement. Especially given the FREMM just got shitcanned from Canada's competition with the City class being the favourite, and the Daring class was never up for export.

Just saying "THEY'RE TRASH" isn't really telling anything. Again, there's a reason why the British left the Horizon project after seeing France's requirements. It wasn't good enough for what they needed. Thats why they upgraded the eh EMPAR for a dual sided AESA instead on a ship with greater growth potential.
>>
>>36467608

Except they aren't "French" designs.

FREMM was a joint project between France and Italy.

Italy ended up going further because France's ones weren't good enough.
>>
>>36467591
>Like what? Snatching somalian pirates?
At their role. Like AAW.
>Rofl except not, those were all developed in France.
Can you prove that DCNS had lead?
>That France gave in to Italian requirements to patrol muh Lybian coast while France had to travel litteraly the whole glob isn't an argument.
Except that Italy doesn't just patrol the Libyan coast given they're also involved with international operations, but whatever Italy's mission for those ships is irrelevant because we're talking about ship quality.
Italy's FREMM is currently the favorite America's frigate program, what does that say about their quality then?
>Same reason brits can't be bothered to offer themselves a decent assault rifle.
Dunno, after they fixed the initiate run of the rifle they seem to be pretty happy with it.
>And their ships are trash, which is WHY THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES TO USE THEM
Oh? Is that why France was wanting to buy the British carrier design? Or that other countries are wanting to buy their new Type 26 frigate design?
>>
>>36467638
>De Zevens
Jesus KYS you dumb nigger. Are you seriously using a 1950 ships to prove a point? HOW DUMB ARE YOU. Consider suicide sly..
>Errrr no.
Yes.
>longer range and greater endurance.
Except the French ones are hundred million cheap and they have many mores you faggot.
>kinda funny given they're actually still using a solid rifle they're developing further
rofl kys, the l85a2 is Germany design you piece of shit and yet it's still shit, they are making a A3 and it's garbage. They just don't want to go full HK.


>>36467650
DUde, I ain't talking to you. Kys. Mhh ok?
>>
>>36467724
Not even involved in this, but why france would want a diesel carrier with a fucking ramp?
>>
>>36467733

>Jesus KYS you dumb nigger. Are you seriously using a 1950 ships to prove a point? HOW DUMB ARE YOU. Consider suicide sly.

Holy fucking kek

Do me a favour, go google "De Zeven Provincien class frigate" and have a look at the top few results.

You just exposed that you know fucking nothing, lad.

>Except the French ones are hundred million cheap and they have many mores you faggot.

"Cheap" doesn't mean "Good in warfare"

Also, Italy has more of them than France does. Might wanna learn to count.

>rofl kys, the l85a2 is Germany design you piece of shit

The upgrades were done by the British owned HK facility, in the UK, by mostly British people.

>they are making a A3 and it's garbage

You've used it then?
>>
>>36467733
>Jesus KYS you dumb nigger. Are you seriously using a 1950 ships to prove a point? HOW DUMB ARE YOU. Consider suicide sly..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Zeven_Provinci%C3%ABn-class_frigate
>Except the French ones are hundred million cheap and they have many mores you faggot.
France has a total order from FREMM of 8, Italy has a total order of 10.
>rofl kys, the l85a2 is Germany design
uhhhh, the weapon was rebuilt by a UK team.
>>
>>36467748

The British were originally designing a Catobar one for them to use Rafales on, nuclear or conventional was still undecided, both were offered.

France then cut its budget and had to kill its 2nd carrier program forever, so it never came to anything.
>>
>>36467748
Because it realized that a nuclear carrier wasn't worth the hassle for them and they were planning to fit cats 'in' traps, instead of the ramp.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_PA2
>>
>>36466539
I remember when this first got posted the G-unit screeched that it was actually a feature!
Good keks were had that day
>>
>>36467814
I remember that too. God, they'll say anything.
>>
File: deebly gonserned.jpg (290 KB, 1078x871)
290 KB
290 KB JPG
Why are naval threads on /k/ allways the most autistic threads?

This one isnt even shat up by battleshipfag (yet) and its still close to his level of sperg.
>>
>>36467912
Navy threads lack people with knowledge, that's why they're bottom tier in terms of discussion.

All the other topics (tanks, jets etc) have a reasonably sized cadre of users with understanding, but yeah, just nil for navy.
>>
>>36466473
You don't want to read WSJ anyway. Bunch of twats.
>>
File: 1515488361736.png (643 KB, 1022x731)
643 KB
643 KB PNG
>>36466545
This is bait, but I'll take it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_in_service

If you're one of the ungrateful cunt nations we defend, fuck you for draining our tax money and turning your culture over to North African/Middle Eastern rapists while you're at it. If not, you're much too big for your britches.
>>
File: IMG_0679.jpg (38 KB, 336x252)
38 KB
38 KB JPG
>>36466599
Merkle: Halte mein bier
>>
>>36466539
>US ship gets run over by a tanker...sails to port.

>Chinese sailor opens exterior hatch...Ship almost sinks
>>
>>36467912
Real in depth understanding about naval matters is something of a niche topic, unlike tanks and planes and the like. Of course it doesn't take a detective to figure out Germany's navy is dogshit.
>>
>>36465961

Happens all the time - they get those new weapon systems installed that won't appear in the official stats.....bundeswehr anon here. You're so woefully uneducated about the state of our military....falling for the meme reality lel.
>>
File: f35.jpg (61 KB, 1200x675)
61 KB
61 KB JPG
>>36466609
>just because you don't hear about issues with Chinese warships - doesn't mean they don't happen
Actually it does mean they DON'T happen.
You think the Chinese could hide a destroyer stop dead in the Panama canal (Zumwalt)? Atlantic Ocean(Type 45)?

>You'd be really stretching not calling that a major issue, given the crew went into total damage control with having to manually bail the water out!

Chinese: literally a $10 hatch malfunction.
Murica: how about a $10,000 F-35 hatch malfunction.
>>
File: rp.jpg (55 KB, 957x621)
55 KB
55 KB JPG
>>36469864
Not even trying
>>
File: image (15).png (459 KB, 660x441)
459 KB
459 KB PNG
>>36469892
wow strong comeback
>>
>>36465961
They have been shit for a while too. People rag on LCS (rightfully so) but ignore the major shortcomings of everyone else.
>>
File: 76AxDxx.jpg (114 KB, 901x889)
114 KB
114 KB JPG
>>36470076
You aren't worth talking to.
>>
>>36469864
This

Americans are grasping at straws because they can't stand the fact that their navy is the incompetent one compared to China. There's no video of naval problems aside from the hatch, while American Navy tries to hide the fact they were incompetent and tried to put the blame on the merchant ship.
>>
File: jc.jpg (27 KB, 600x733)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
>>36470120
>>
>>36470100
>You aren't worth talking to.
but you just did
>>
>>36466539
What's going on here
Why did someone open a hatch and why is someone filming it
>>
>>36468270
>1.4 billion USD Burke destroyer gets hit by an oil tanker with AIS on traveling at slow steam, ten crew dies
>some chink opens a hatch and let's some water in
>>
kek, germany slave state being forced to prepare a navy while abiding retarded post ww2 naval treaties
tries to launch a 7kt frigate with everything including the kitchen sink and they can't get one into training. dunno why they don't just let france take over their naval yards so they can get around the restrictions
>>
>>36465961
>wsj.com
>>
Better than Russian ships that's for sure
>>
>>36471909
Bitch, please.
>>
File: 1514686770860.jpg (3.75 MB, 3189x2126)
3.75 MB
3.75 MB JPG
Shit, how is Germany now going to defend itself against Viking raids?
>>
>>36472598
oh look a rinky dink tub with worthless harpoons and a single seasparrow launcher. wow, nothing
germans are weakling cucks and couldn't man 1/10th the navy that they had in ww2
>>
File: 1514686770881.jpg (596 KB, 2210x1473)
596 KB
596 KB JPG
>>36472652
And why would we? Who do we have to defend against with our navy?
Also why don't you come here and start some shit if you want to test how much our police and soldiers are cucks? Faggot.
>>
File: 406.jpg (35 KB, 600x777)
35 KB
35 KB JPG
>>
File: berlin 1945 km.jpg (51 KB, 604x533)
51 KB
51 KB JPG
>>36472709
>>
File: 1515531643437.jpg (1.21 MB, 2882x1509)
1.21 MB
1.21 MB JPG
>>36472783
Whoa dude you really showed me. Now come here and start some shit, certainly you'll have a good time since we're all cucks.
>>
File: german ecstasy.png (518 KB, 1225x908)
518 KB
518 KB PNG
>>36472810
Well, if you insist.
>>
>>36472820
Yeah just leave your computer for once and see what you can actually do here lmao
>>
File: on the way to liberate.gif (2.78 MB, 550x242)
2.78 MB
2.78 MB GIF
>>36472833
>>
>>36467416
>billions of aids from Germany
Source on that please..

>>36467378
There are several great frigate-sized ships comming out of Europe. Apart from the French ones both Norway and Denmark have recently fielded new frigates with great succes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fridtjof_Nansen-class_frigate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iver_Huitfeldt-class_frigate
>>
>>36473295
Leave us Norwegians out of this please
>>
>>36473295
True about the Scandis. I really also like the modularity of the Danish StanFlex system.
>>
>>36467378
Ahem, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalon-class_support_ship
>>
>>36468213
That would in this case be the Flintenuschi, otherwise known as Ursula von der Leyen, exfamilyminister, now defenseminister
>>
>>36472709
Junge, jeder weiss das Bayern nur teil von Deutschland auf Papier ist...
>>
>>36473295
Would not call the Nansen-class a success, but it might be difficult to seperate the failings of the project from the faults of the ship
>>
File: 1468683375078.png (17 KB, 102x128)
17 KB
17 KB PNG
>>36473404
Deutschland ist Deutschland, Spalter raus.
>>
>>36473411
I'd say that implementing a full AEGIS-system in a frigate is quite a quality. Apart from that it seems to have the (good) specifications that you would expect from a modern frigate and last but definitively not least they are boasting new and advanced surface-to-surface missiles in the form of the Naval Stike Missiles - where many western ships are still rocking old Harpoons

I don't know of troubles during devellopment or such, if that's what you're reffering to
>>
>>36473404
Na Gott sei Dank. Ich wäre lieber mit den Österreichern, Südtirol und den Deutsch-Schweizern in einem Bund als mit NRW, Bremen, Berlin und ähnlichen Shitshows ... für die müssten wir wenigstens nicht andauernd zahlen.
>>
>>36467292
Filename.
>>
>>36473528
Das war ja die Pointe, der rest von Deutschland (vielleicht abgesehen von Sachsen) ist unter aller Sau.
>>
>>36469864
>Actually it does mean they DON'T happen.
>You think the Chinese could hide a destroyer stop dead in the Panama canal (Zumwalt)? Atlantic Ocean(Type 45)?
Yes, given their track record of controlled media.
>Chinese: literally a $10 hatch malfunction.
Oh, fuck off. That hatch did not malfunction - that is a design flaw. That entire section of the ship is a design flaw given it let water into the ships internal area! Look at the video, don't you see the non-water tight doors on the left?!

Lets not even get started on that tiny drain.
>>
>>36473415
Würde die Ostgebiete JEDERZEIT gegen Bayern tauschen.
>>
File: 1515601756311.jpg (126 KB, 1106x452)
126 KB
126 KB JPG
>>
File: 1473026155446.jpg (1.59 MB, 3008x2000)
1.59 MB
1.59 MB JPG
>>36467547
>De Zeven Provinciën

You mean the ships that aren't battle-ready by the navy's own admission?
>>
>>36473415
Tja, frankfurt a. main hat ja jetzt weniger als 50% deutsche einwohner, wieviel Deutschland da noch Deutschland is lässt sich bestreiten.
>>
>>36473753
These are hate facts, anon. Just because a Muslim is an illegal immigrant and criminal doesn't make him any less German.
>>
>>36466424
Argentinian sub was german built nigger.
Best shipbuilder in Europe is France anyway.
>>
>>36473660
Müssten beide Reichsmitglieder sein. Die Familie kommt auf beiden Seiten aus Schlesien und trotzdem mag ich nicht tauschen, Bayern gehört zu Deutschland. Nach dem Bruderkrieg stellt sich die Frage doch gar nicht.

>>36473862
So if I buy a French submarine and she sinks after 30 years because of my own incompetence and lack of proper maintenance it is the fault of the French? Don't push your own failure onto other people, Juan.
>>
>>36467781
>The British were originally designing a Catobar one for them to use Rafales on, nuclear or conventional was still undecided, both were offered.
Except the british didn't do anything. It was a DCNS job, at some point it was even intended for the Royal Navy as well in case they buy a catobar plane, and the french state paid 100 fucking millions euros to access the blueprints and in actual studies conducted by DCNS. The french even bought 2 90meters long catapults from the US that are still rotting somewhere in a warehouse.
The french also wanted to put a nuclear reactor on these at first, but the idea didn't please the brits so it was cancelled to.

>France asking britain to design a catobar carrier. From a country that decommissioned its last catobar carrier in 1979.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ark_Royal_(R09)

Seriously britfags these days...
>>
>>36473862

>Best shipbuilder in Europe is France anyway.

There's literally an entire thread above disproving this.
>>
>>36473949

>Except the british didn't do anything

Except design the carrier, and be the ones who actually did research into the EMALS fitting and did consider it. PA2 would have used that system, be it the US one or the one the UK briefly started working on before realising it wasn't going to get used.

>The french also wanted to put a nuclear reactor on these at first, but the idea didn't please the brits so it was cancelled to.

Citation fucking needed.

France cancelled it in a white paper budget cut. Nothing about "oh the Brits were too cheap to go nuclear". PA2's design was never finalised.

>France asking britain to design a catobar carrier. From a country that decommissioned its last catobar carrier in 1979.

Except thats what happened, hence why they were going with a British design.
>>
>>36473949

>Brit

I'm Irish you frog fuck
>>
File: 1514989407586.jpg (285 KB, 959x720)
285 KB
285 KB JPG
>>36473949
Just no.
>>
File: 20140205214456_28890.jpg (58 KB, 1000x675)
58 KB
58 KB JPG
>>36473965
hurrrrrrr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_PA2

"The original design had to meet the Royal Navy's requirements, so nuclear propulsion was not an option: the British government rejected nuclear propulsion as too costly.
the British government rejected nuclear propulsion as too costly.
the British government rejected nuclear propulsion as too costly.
the British government rejected nuclear propulsion as too costly.
The idea of renouncing nuclear propulsion in this way was alleged by France to be a backward step for French technology, but the operational and political gains from a common design apparently outweighed the downsides of conventional propulsion. Before cancellation the carrier's propulsion system was expected to be an integrated full electric propulsion (IFEP) based on two Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines. The carrier would have had a range of approximately 10,000 nautical miles (19,000 km)."

>and be the ones who actually did research into the EMALS fitting and did consider it.
The french bought steam catapults and never considered Emals.
The french design was the reason catapults were being considered in the first place.
Therefore your story doesn't make any sense.
Anyway.

>Except thats what happened, hence why they were going with a British design.
And except several other projects were proposed for a 2nd french carrier that didn't involve anyone else. Pic related is just an example.
This was about saving costs, not being unable to design a new carrier... What the fuck are you smoking?

>>36474008
Eat my baguette and lick the creme fraiche out of it you cockgobbling mongrel.
>>
>>36474066

Wikipedia is not a source, nor does it have a citation. So basically you've got nothing here. The British NEVER considered nuclear for numerous reasons, mostly because they didn't have a carrier scale reactor and they saw the shitshow that the CdG turned into when you try to use sub reactors. You're talking horseshit, lad.

Your claim was that France left the project because the Brits were too cheap to use nuclear. That is not accurate. France left the project because they cancelled their entire fucking program to even get a second carrier in the first place in 2013.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/france-whitepaper-livre-blanc-012462/

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/english/content/download/206186/2393586/file/White%20paper%20on%20defense%20%202013.pdf

>The french design was the reason catapults were being considered in the first place.

Which were being developed in the UK. Never heard of EMCAT? Converteam?

The US was NEVER contacted for use of their steam catapults for it, only the EMALS, which came in after 2010 as a counteroffer to EMCAT.

This was developed from 2009 to 2014. ie - It was what would have been undoubtedly used as it was the only ongoing system development for the carrier hull at that time. France didn't have one, the Brits did, and even though they confirmed in 2012 they weren't going for Catobar, this development continued due to knowing there was a potential customer.

Once France backed out on their budget cuts, EMCAT ceased to be.

https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/05/whatever-happened-emcat/

Like it or not, the UK was developing France's carrier. France would only have built it.

>And except several other projects were proposed for a 2nd french carrier that didn't involve anyone else. Pic related is just an example.

It was never officially pursued.
>>
>>36474066
>The original design had to meet the Royal Navy's requirements, so nuclear propulsion was not an option: the British government rejected nuclear propulsion as too costly.
>the British government rejected nuclear propulsion as too costly.
>the British government rejected nuclear propulsion as too costly.
>the British government rejected nuclear propulsion as too costly.
>The idea of renouncing nuclear propulsion in this way was alleged by France to be a backward step for French technology, but the operational and political gains from a common design apparently outweighed the downsides of conventional propulsion. Before cancellation the carrier's propulsion system was expected to be an integrated full electric propulsion (IFEP) based on two Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines. The carrier would have had a range of approximately 10,000 nautical miles (19,000 km)."
So?
The French did not cancel the carrier on this premise.
>The french bought steam catapults and never considered Emals.
No, what happened is that EMALS was consider, but not chosen.
>The french design was the reason catapults were being considered in the first place.
No, it depended on what the British were choosing.
>And except several other projects were proposed for a 2nd french carrier that didn't involve anyone else. Pic related is just an example.
>This was about saving costs, not being unable to design a new carrier... What the fuck are you smoking?
Nobody has said the French were incapable of designing their own. This was about the quality of British design that somehow didn't match up to your reality that France was the only one capable.

You keep changing your arguments.
>>
>>36474066

So to surmise, the Frogs in this thread have:

- Not even known the De Zeven frigates exist
- Think France has more FREMMs than Italy, despite Italy having numerous more both in service and planned
- Think France designed and built Italian FREMMs, despite that not being the case at all (especially now that Italy owns French yards)
- Think French FREMMs have a longer range when they actually don't

And now we can add:

- Using unsourced wikipedia entries as their only backing in making a retarded statement while at the same time completely changing their arguement's direction and goal.

Is this the birth of Rafalefag for ships?




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.