Talk:French aircraft carrier PA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is referenced[edit]

This article is referenced here at defenseindustrydaily. WAS 4.250 11:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that what they say is more intelligent than the discussion on Slashdot [1] ... Rama 11:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger[edit]

On the basis of this article (and other similar ones, the two articles should be merged. Perhaps a new name should be chosen. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree. There is a lot of stuff about this carrier that makes it specific to the UK (mostly the "back story") and making a French and British carrier from the same design is not yet confirmed. Furthermore, there are likely to be differences between the two since the British government has cut out basically every system from this and every other ship its built while the present government has been in power that isnt absolutely necessary (armour, defence, etc). The French government does not have a tradition of doing this. 88.105.250.248 18:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also disagree. The Future French aircraft carrier article discusses many things not relevant to the British carrier, e.g. the history of French carrier procurement and why it's in this position now, the choice of powerplant, the French alliance and construction. The same is true regarding the CVF article. There is a large discussion on the history of the procurement, the different options considered and the carrier alliance — of little or no interest to someone interested in the French carrier. Finally the carriers have yet to be built. Unlikely as it seems both Britain and France could pull out. Mark83 19:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose to the merger. The French seem to be deciding that it may not want a common design with the British, so how can that be a future British design? If anything, neither article can be merged into each other, but into another article... say Future Franco-English aircraft carrier? 70.51.10.43 10:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement removed[edit]

"The choice may also be a quiet admission that the Charles de Gaulle’s propulsion system was inappropriate for an aircraft carrier of its size. The United States Navy has long regarded the concept of a small nuclear-powered carrier as being inefficient, as there is little benefit from having a ship that never needs refuelling if it does not have sufficient reserves of jet fuel and munitions to support combat operations for more than a week (such ships, however, can potentially be maintained on station for longer periods through the use of underway replenishment)."

Reason[edit]

I'm not an expert, but this doesn't make sense to me. Even US carriers sail with auxillarys for underway replenishment. Seems far better to me for the French Navy to have auxillaries full of jet fuel, all of which will support flight operations and none of which will be burned in the carrier's own turbines! --Mark83 11:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

  • Disagree - "Future French aircraft carrier" is not an official term, but leaves readers in no doubt as to the subject. There is a very small portion of people who will know what "French PA2 programme" means. In summary, neither term official but one is very clear, one isn't. Mark83 11:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propulsion[edit]

The following has been quoted several times now off-wiki and may need a balancing opinion:

The price of accepting the British design is accepting a conventionally powered ship; the British government rejected nuclear propulsion as too costly. The idea of renouncing nuclear propulsion in this way is seen as a backward step for French technology. However, the numerous problems with the propulsion system of the FS Charles de Gaulle and the fact that the design was tailored to the Royal Navy's requirements leaves little choice.

A truly expert opinion, perhaps that of a high-level military discussion with technical assitance, like the governments of both countries surely had, might have a different view of this subject. Nuclear propulsion is obviously complicated and dangerous. Likely what the British saw as too costly was a necessary redesign of the fundamental power system, a next-generation nuclear core. If the design has a life of 50 years (and let's face it, it'll be sold and run for another 20 after that), it is an opportune time to project that future technologies may arrive in time for one of the refits. Without all the junk that goes along with an integrated nuclear design, you could easily rip out the turbines and use fuel cells. (Maybe even fusion electricity generation if that technology arrives in a compact or low-temperature form.)

--Brukmann 23:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Charles De Gaulle uses four reactors of the same type as the French strategic submarines (France having declined an American offer to provide nuclear reactors of the type which powers the Nimitz type). I assume that the new carrier would need a new nuclear system, which might indeed be a costly system to design. Rama 13:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date Image[edit]

A new design of the PA.2 was shown recently at EuroNaval 2010 with only 1 island. So the current image is now obsolete and needs to be changed. 76.6.111.203 (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not E-2D?[edit]

Is there some reason the Americans won't sell the E-2D to France? Hcobb (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Mark83 (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second French carrier not going to happen[edit]

As per the April 2013 Defence and Security White Paper, France will not pursue plans for a second aircraft carrier. Significant cuts have also been announced for the rest of the fleet. The White Paper has also admitted that France will not be able to undertake large scale naval operations in an expeditionary capacity unless the British Royal Navy provides support. In total, French conventional capabilities across its armed forces are to be cut in half with the largest overseas deployment for large scale combat operations being 15,000 personnel.Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

Since the carrier has been cancelled, shouldn't this page be renamed? I'd suggest French aircraft carrier PA2, but I'm open to othe suggestions. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/porte-avoins2/
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on French aircraft carrier PA2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on French aircraft carrier PA2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steam catapults?[edit]

The article states (un-referenced) that the PA2 would have had the steam catapults from the Nimitz class - however with no steam on board this would require a steam generation plant. When the QE class were being considered for CATOBAR instead of STOVL, the system was to be EMALS - would this not have also been the case on the French carrier? Jellyfish dave (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it hasn't been answered, as PANG is a completely different design than PA2. BilCat (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some sort of auxiliary steam plant would be needed - note that originally, the CATOBAR option for the QEs was meant to use US C-13 catapults. When the UK Government decided to switch to CATOBAR in 2009, it decided to switch to EMALS.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:French_aircraft_carrier_PA2&oldid=1212855735"