French developers refused to lighten the hull and began to book a promising aircraft carrier

Model of a promising aircraft carrier PANG

The French defense industry, within the framework of the PANG project, is working on the creation of a promising aircraft carrier and at the same time a new flagship of the country's Navy, the construction of which is expected to begin in 2025.

In particular, the ship must receive ballistic protection. The country's General Directorate of Armaments (DGA) has published footage of the first tests of the new armor.

By firing ammunition at targets that mimic ship hull protection, this testing allows for design refinement and shielding development to provide the best countermeasures.

- indicated on the DGA website.

At the same time, strength characteristics of horizontal floors are being tested. On November 15, DGA demonstrated footage of a pyrotechnic charge detonating on a structure that simulates the flight deck of the operating aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle.

This first small-scale test will evaluate the effects on a ship of a possible crash of a combat aircraft or an explosion while transporting ammunition.

- noted in the DGA.

Judging by the ongoing tests, the French developers, when creating a promising aircraft carrier, intend to go their own way, deviating from the general trend of maximizing hull lightening and, for the first time after World War II, starting to armor large ships.

Comments

[Aerodrome]

French developers refused to lighten the hull and began to book a promising aircraft carrier

the fate of "Moscow" was the reason .. I think so.

[Cheshire]

Isn't it more logical to develop missile defense and fire extinguishing means in connection with the fate of "Moscow"?

[Myths]

It is logical to go either way. They left dreadnoughts just because of the speed of ships, firepower and because of the price of such ships. Hanging dynamic protection will turn an aircraft carrier into a slow turtle. True, such ships do not go unaccompanied. It was only Moscow that could be framed like that.

[dnestr74]

Not a single missile defense will give 100 percent, and fragments of a downed missile are very dangerous

[ProkletyiPirat]

what are the dangerous fragments? if you shoot down a missile at a sufficient range, then they will go down or to the side, simply due to a violation of aerodynamics, the anti-ship missile hull will turn around and begin to sharply slow down, unless purely ballistic missiles deviate their course, but they are detectable much earlier and shoot them down much easier. ..

[Alex_Rarog]

I agree) Any modern rocket or torpedo makes booking meaningless, because for it it's like foil.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: Alex_Rarog

Any modern rocket or torpedo makes armor meaningless, because for it it is like foil.

You are right, but the main point is not this, but the fact that any increase in armor is absolutely meaningless because it is countered by armor-piercing modifications of missiles / torpedoes / drones \ etc....

moreover, the cost of modifying means of destruction is many orders of magnitude less than the modification of means of armor protection.

[Romario_Argo]

and if, in addition to 100 mm armor, put 3 PTZ compartments with 3 bulkheads of 50 mm armor
= 250 mm almost like Iowa
+ add 500 mm ceramics - at least silicon carbide,
equivalent as 2 meters of armor steel, weight as 100 mm armor steel per 1 sq.m.
= 2250 mm - from BB, OF - without taking into account the slope of the reservation (up to + 30% 2925 mm)
or 750 mm from cumulatives
+ 3 PTZ compartments of 3,5 meters each = 10,5 meters - the jet will collapse in the 1st

[bk0010]

Quote: Cheshire

Isn't it more logical to develop missile defense and fire extinguishing means in connection with the fate of "Moscow"?

An aircraft carrier should be able to keep the explosion of its fueled and armed aircraft on deck (McCain is dead, but his work lives on). So that the same fire extinguishing means are not destroyed by the explosion.

[Chief Officer Lom]

Yes, I think everything will eventually be limited to strengthening the upper deck.

[Real Pilot]

The appearance of sea drones in the image and likeness of "Mikola 3", for example. Which work like a firewall ... Well, anti-ship missiles too.

And in the case of booking - after being hit by a drone, they grimaced, and then went for painting ...

[Evil 55]

Well, what ... The Russians will help, they are kind and naive .. They will supply metal, copper, gas, saltpeter, rare earth elements, etc. for construction ... And then the Americans will present this aircraft carrier to UKRAINE for the evil of Russia.

[ilya.muromczev2013]

And what about Moscow? First of all, we are talking about armoring the DECK of an aircraft carrier, and not about the entire hull. Moscow is not an example here. Rather, even then it is necessary to recall the Falklands conflict, when an Argentinean (aka French) unexploded missile disabled an English destroyer, simply breaking through its side ...

[Herman 4223]

There was a fire in Moscow, then they would need to develop the latest fire extinguishing systems, and not armor the hull.

[Bingo]

So I didn’t understand, do they book the hull or the take-off?

[Alex777]

Quote from Bingo

So I didn’t understand, do they book the hull or the take-off?

The correct question!

[Andrey Moskvin]

Everything is coming back... We are waiting for new dreadnoughts.

[paul3390]

Let's say on Onyx - a head of 300 kg, but on supersonic .. Well, what kind of armor? Moreover - one hell of an armored belt like old battleships will not work. Yes, and you can’t cover the entire filling of a modern steamer with an armored belt.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The body can be very complex, with many cavities. Each cavity can be protected as far as possible.

And not all threats are as scary as Onyx. You also need to defend yourself from long-range artillery, and from kamikaze drones.

[paul3390]

If all the cavities are protected, then there will be nothing left for the payload .. And from artillery and drones, the aircraft carrier should be protected by an escort, because that’s why it is dragging behind it?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

No escort will protect against very long-range artillery now. Shoot back and disappear over the horizon. And hull protection can be tricky, of course there will be a balance between payload and armor. Categories like "everything", "nothing left", "escort must protect" are all extremes.

[ProkletyiPirat]

what the hell is "art VS aircraft carrier"? an aircraft carrier always keeps at a distance of tens and hundreds of kilometers from the coast, the maximum that threatens this is the MLRS and then not the classic "blanks" but "smart" ones, that is, available for shipborne air defense / missile defense systems.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The range of modern artillery is measured in tens of kilometers.

[ROSS_51]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

The range of modern artillery is measured in tens of kilometers.

What kind of artillery? Are you stuck in the last century? Remember about battleships.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

It still needs to be seen who and where is stuck. The "Coalition-SV" has a declared firing range of 70 km, albeit with an active projectile.

[ROSS_51]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

It still needs to be seen who and where is stuck. The "Coalition-SV" has a declared firing range of 70 km, albeit with an active projectile.

I didn’t say anything about the last century in vain, you probably didn’t hear about the Bastions?

[Alex777]

Have you heard of mopeds? Range 1000 + km.
And in Iranian nature there are not only mopeds.
How will you fight off a massive UAV raid?
The French did not just cheer up.
Looking forward to more clear information.

[ROSS_51]

Quote: Alex777

Have you heard of mopeds? Range 1000 + km.
And in Iranian nature there are not only mopeds.
How will you fight off a massive UAV raid?
The French did not just cheer up.
Looking forward to more clear information.

I asked a man about anti-ship missiles. What is it with mopeds anyway? They will saw your mopeds with Volcanoes, that's the point .. It's not interesting.

[Alex777]

There are no Volcanoes on modern ships, even among the Yankees.
And the French never had them.

[ROSS_51]

Quote: Alex777

There are no Volcanoes on modern ships, even among the Yankees.
And the French never had them.

Then yes .. Everything is gone. The French are fools, they won’t figure out how to deal with mopeds.
They don’t have Russian ingenuity to put Thor on the deck of a tugboat ((

[Xnumx vis]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

The body can be very complex, with many cavities. Each cavity can be protected as far as possible.

A diamond boat is obtained ... with a platinum rim ...

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

A double hull on a conventional commercial tanker is now the norm. On the contrary, on warships, the desire for economy and simplification crossed the line of reason.

[ROSS_51]

Quote: 30 vis

A diamond boat is obtained ... with a platinum rim ...

As CBO shows, better, because cheaper does not work in modern conflict.
A simple example is to shoot off a truck of conventional land mines (if they don’t already cover it with anti-battery fire) to destroy a single target, or release one terribly expensive Excalibur and dump it into the fog?

[Xnumx vis]

Quote: ROSS_51

one terribly expensive Excalibur and dump into the fog?

Ammunition is understandable. Launching one expensive Krasnopol and hitting the target is cheaper than shooting a truck of conventional shells with a whole battery ... And safer .. I'm just stating the fact that weapons are becoming more and more expensive, diamond with a platinum rim .. We'll have to look for a middle ground ...

[ROSS_51]

Quote: 30 vis

We'll have to look for the middle ground...

Yes, they will not look for the golden mean, they will make it expensively rich. The French (and indeed the entire Western world) have no doubts that cheap is never good.
After all, we came up with this a long time ago and widely advertised a new combat parameter - price / quality. In battle, the truth does not help much ..

[Xnumx vis]

Quote: ROSS_51

that cheap is not good.

So it is true of life.

[Donbass Russia]

Light anti-ship missiles and kamikaze drones will not hit the sides, because. it does not make sense. They will hit the superstructure with its radar and aircraft on deck.

[Romanenko]

Of course, they know better there in Paris, but if you think about it, well, what is an aircraft carrier of NATO countries - a tool for waging colonial wars, that is, against countries that do not have serious means of countering aircraft carrier groups.
What weapons can be used in response to the bombings?
Marine drones or something from UAVs?
More or less serious anti-ship missiles produced in the same NATO bloc delivered to the Papuans in export version, or old ones made back in the USSR will be shot down far on the way by air defense systems of an aircraft carrier, sea drones also have little chance of success just like UAVs.
And if the Aircraft Carrier is affected by something modern like Iskander or Dagger, nothing will save it.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: EFIM LYUBIN

The creation of hypersonic missiles is a funeral march for a mass grave called an aircraft carrier.

This is populist nonsense, even subsonic anti-aircraft missiles can shoot down a hypersonic missile, you just need to work "on a collision course" that some anti-aircraft missiles are quite capable of, the only question is how good the seeker is, but even if they are bad, then you can rework the warhead of the missile defense system, which is drastically reduce the requirements for the GOS.

[Rasp]

Where and how many hypersonic missiles did you, dear, shoot down with an anti-aircraft missile or a butterfly net?

[ROSS_51]

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

This is populist nonsense, even subsonic anti-aircraft missiles can shoot down a hypersonic missile, you just need to work "on a collision course" that some anti-aircraft missiles are quite capable of, the only question is how good the seeker is, but even if they are bad, then you can rework the warhead of the missile defense system, which is drastically reduce the requirements for the GOS.

You can shoot down .. you can recycle .. One or two countries have hypersound in service, and no one has yet thought of claiming that hypersound can be shot down, but quite the opposite, everyone is creating their own at an accelerated pace. And here comes the "specialist-hyper-blower" ..
The question is how long is the reaction time from detection to shooting down a target that has a speed of Mach 5.
- Cuckoo cuckoo - how long do I have to live?
-Ku..
-What so ma ...

[ProkletyiPirat]

you seem to be another witness to the wunderwaffe ?!
if you really want to calculate like that, then take it and calculate it, I just did it, that's why I know

And yes, before declaring "already 5 Machs and their prodigy", ask at what height they are reached and what is the coefficient of speed drop in a denser atmosphere, moreover, absolute speed, not relative. After that, take an interest in the AUG / KUG formations, and the principles of decentralized air defense / missile defense. When you master this basis, your dreams of "hypersound destroying aircraft carriers" will fall apart dramatically.

[PPD]

subsonic anti-aircraft missiles can shoot down a hypersonic missile,

This, excuse me, is not populist, it's just nonsense.
Remember - to hit a target, the speed of an anti-aircraft missile must be equal to or exceed the speed of the target.
Grandfather Neupokoev to help you.

[evgen1221]

Let it float in the floating dock right away, and make a roof over it, in general, not one PKR will take it!))) The French Monsieurs know a lot about perversions.

[Kostadinov]

Only booking is combined with active defense or near missile defense.

[dnestr74]

Kaptsov was read at VO, even there they listen to us ...))))

[smershxnumx]

Yeah, about armor - just a balm for wounds for Kaptsov

[Sergey985]

Nothing new. The fact that the French did not protect the vital zones on their aircraft carrier is purely French bungling. So there can be no talk of any exclusive French way.

[Boniface]

That bore!
The latest armor in the Navy was used in the Orlan-type TARKR ("Kirov", "Kalinin", "Lazarev", Peter the Great) - but okay, I won’t spread where and how!


But here! Toad-eaters decided to turn the aircraft carrier into a dreadnought of the type "Courbet" or "Republique"
Well done!
The latest Project 09852 Navy nuclear submarines will turn this scrap metal into a coral reef at the bottom of the Ocean!

[Kuroneko]

Quote: Andrey Moskvin

Everything is coming back... We are waiting for new dreadnoughts.

They woke up late. Zircon will also pierce Yamato. If only he were still alive today. Pure kinetics.

[alch3mist]

Quote: Evil 55

Well, what ... The Russians will help, they are kind and naive .. They will supply metal, copper, gas, saltpeter, rare earth elements, etc. for construction ... And then the Americans will present this aircraft carrier to UKRAINE for the evil of Russia.

As far as I understand, it's still in the design stage. Then how many more will build such a coffin. It is sad that such a long life is predicted for Hochland ...

[Alexander Emrys]

From heavy missiles, like Zircon, it will not cover, but some Geranium, even with a massive raid on an armored aircraft carrier, will sharply lose the percentage of the chance of success

[Div Divich]

Drones are several times smaller and more economical than airplanes. This means that the ship for them will need to be smaller, that is, cheaper at times. And the engines are not nuclear, and the takeoff ramp is the simplest, and landing across the deck will probably work out.
It's time to create aircraft carriers only with drones.

[Donbass Russia]

Booking the board will not work. Now the main anti-ship missiles for strikes on an aircraft carrier are ballistic and GPZ missiles. And they attack from above. In addition to Russia, China and Iran have such missiles. The hit of even one such missile will destroy or damage all aircraft on the upper deck and superstructure with radar and damage the deck itself, most likely either catapults or finishers. Those. aircraft will be partially destroyed, and the rest will either not be able to take off or land.

[Pavel57]

Quote: paul3390

Let's say on Onyx - a head of 300 kg, but on supersonic .. Well, what kind of armor? Moreover - one hell of an armored belt like old battleships will not work. Yes, and you can’t cover the entire filling of a modern steamer with an armored belt.

Onyx is still a small ramjet rocket. One of the damaging factors was the turbojet engine, which retained high kinetic energy during the destruction of the rocket. This was also shown by Pike when firing at cruisers.

[Ivanov IV]

I emphasize: we are talking about aircraft carriers.
Has it been calculated, modeled, what thickness is needed for the hull and deck? We will not go through the options, I propose to consider only the "Dagger".
Yes, and our "morons" this question. They also want to "spend" the loot on the same shit.