Forbes: USA can offer France something more interesting than a broken submarine contract

October 25 2021 34

After the United States intercepted a contract from France for the construction of submarines for Australia, Paris and Washington reoriented themselves to concluding an equally promising arms agreement. According to Forbes magazine, at the end of October, Emmanuel Macron and Joseph Biden will discuss the prospects for military cooperation during a personal meeting in Rome.

The United States is ready to offer France a contract for the joint construction of aircraft carriers. Paris and Washington share a common goal of protecting their own economic zones in different parts of the world (overseas territories of France). Both countries face a major challenge in monitoring more than 4,3 million square miles of ocean and need to establish a common rapid response force.

That being said, France is in the early stages of updating its aircraft carrier program. The only existing French aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle (R91), is due to be decommissioned in the late 2030s. To replace it, France intends to build a medium-sized nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, turning to the United States for technological support.

In addition, in the course of cooperation with the United States, Paris will be able to use Technology EMALS - an electromagnetic system for launching aircraft using a catapult, which will allow the French to lift heavier aircraft from the new aircraft carrier.

During the Rome meeting of the G-20, Biden and Macron should seize the opportunity to strengthen military cooperation between their countries. Thus, the Americans and the French will be able to replace the thwarted submarine deal with a more valuable contract for the construction of modern aircraft carriers for both sides.

Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

VK Zen Telegram

34 comments

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Cyril

-10

25 October 2021 10: 25

So, as I already told the user Bakht, the interests of France are fully taken into account (although it is not a superpower), and the Americans cannot just give a damn about the interests of such countries. A broken submarine deal will be offset by a better deal.
1. isofat
  
  +3
  
  25 October 2021 10: 51
  
  Quote: Cyril
  ... and Americans can't just give a damn about the interests of such countries.
  
  Cyril! They didn’t give a damn, for a reason, of course. They just don't spit, just for your own benefit... And they don't make lucrative offers without profit.
  1. Cyril
    
    -8
    
    25 October 2021 11: 56
    
    No, they didn't give a damn. They didn't give a damn - if it hadn't been compensated. For your own benefit - yes, of course, as in any normal transaction. They are not the USSR / Russia :)
    1. isofat
      
      +4
      
      25 October 2021 12: 32
      
      Cyril! If I spit in your face, then my, subsequent to this event, "profitable" offer does not cancel the fact of spitting.
      1. Cyril
        
        -7
        
        25 October 2021 13: 02
        
        "Spit in the face" is if Americans would conclude with the french contract, and then it would be terminated. As the same French did with Russia (Mistral). Wow - a slap in the face. With rubbing.
        
        And so French people done Australia their proposal, the Americans - theirs. The Australians have chosen what is more beneficial for them. Where is the "spit in the face" here?
        
        isofat
        
        +2
        
        25 October 2021 13: 28
        
        Quote: Cyril
        The Australians have chosen what is more beneficial for them. Where is the "spit in the face" here?
        
        Cyril! I agree that it is difficult to find a comparison for the termination of a bilateral contract worth tens of billions of dollars. Slap, stab in the back ... etc.
        
        What's better? It's a matter of your taste, take your pick. The Internet is replete, so the choice is great!
        
        Cyril
        
        -7
        
        25 October 2021 15: 13
        
        Slap, stab in the back ... etc.
        
        No, Isophat. Backstab (c) is when a Turkish fighter jet shoots down a Russian bomber. And at the same time it is really a slap in the face.
        
        isofat
        
        0
        
        25 October 2021 15: 42
        
        Cyril, I can’t help you anymore, seek comfort yourself.
        
        Cyril
        
        -3
        
        25 October 2021 16: 03
        
        I can't help you anymore
        
        God forbid from your help :)
        
        seek comfort yourself.
        
        Consolation from what?
2. TermNachTer
  
  +3
  
  25 October 2021 12: 16
  
  And what will the cooperation be about? Aircraft carriers of the "Ford" type, which build mattress mats, are too expensive for paddling pools, and they are sharpened for other types of aircraft, except for "hokai". Where is the benefit for France? Buy mattress equipment?))))
  1. Cyril
    
    -6
    
    25 October 2021 12: 18
    
    And who said that the French are offered aircraft carriers of the "Ford" type? Where is it said in the article?
    1. TermNachTer
      
      +3
      
      25 October 2021 18: 09
      
      So what will the collaboration be about? How will mattress mats want to help the paddling pool?
      1. Cyril
        
        -5
        
        25 October 2021 18: 28
        
        The article says at least about electromagnetic catapults
        
        TermNachTer
        
        0
        
        26 October 2021 17: 41
        
        Do the paddling pools on their aircraft carrier have enough electricity? She eats crap.
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        26 October 2021 21: 25
        
        The French have nuclear powered aircraft carriers. And the French are quite capable of making ship nuclear reactors.
      2. Alex777
        
        +1
        
        25 October 2021 21: 06
        
        The article is nothing. The topic of compensation is completely invented.
        The states take all possible money for themselves and will not share it with France or with anyone else.
        The US has a national debt of 27+ trillion.
        The era has come - every man for himself.
        The French are weak, and the weak are beaten. Yeah.
3. boriz
  
  +3
  
  26 October 2021 00: 36
  
  A broken submarine deal will be offset by a better deal.
  
  Of course beneficial, but for the United States. Only not in monetary gain, they will print money themselves. But the joint program will also drag France into their AUKUS. They were already in Libya used them as idiots. Themselves, in recent years, prefer not to fight.
  And France has overseas possessions and bases in the Pacific Ocean. Small, but more conveniently located than Australian ones, closer to the routes of tankers, container ships, etc.
  At the same time, France will be weakened by participation in this mess.
123

+4

25 October 2021 10: 46

Have we prevented you from selling an item? Well, it doesn't matter, you can buy something from us, we are friends.
They were deprived of the opportunity to earn money, and now they are still trolls.
Americans cannot just give a damn about the interests of the satellites, this is not their handwriting. But to spit, and then, with childish spontaneity, pretend that they do not understand what they are talking about, smiling broadly and looking straight into the eyes to pour the dew of God from above, this is their style.
Judging by the comments, there are adepts accustomed to such behavior. They like everything, they will justify the owner in any situation
1. Cyril
  
  -7
  
  25 October 2021 12: 03
  
  Have we prevented you from selling an item? Well, it doesn't matter, you can buy something from us, we are friends. laughing
  They were deprived of the opportunity to earn money, and now they are still trolls. smile
  
  Firstly, they did not interfere, but made Australia a more advantageous offer. Nuclear submarines instead of diesel-electric submarines, and even at a lower cost. Australia that needs to be abandoned?
  
  Secondly, the Americans are also going to offer the French (according to the article) a contract for joint construction of aircraft carriersinvolving technology exchange. And this is even more profitable than money, including for the French.
  
  Judging by the comments, there are adepts accustomed to such behavior. yes They like everything, they will justify the owner in any situation winked
  
  Judging by the comments, there are still supporters of "gratuitous aid to fraternal peoples" :)
  1. 123
    
    +2
    
    25 October 2021 12: 36
    
    Firstly, they did not interfere, but made Australia a more advantageous offer. Nuclear submarines instead of diesel-electric submarines, and even at a lower cost. Australia that needs to be abandoned?
    
    Not in the way? Maybe they even helped them? It makes no difference to me what the descendants of the convicts will do there, but the fact is, the Anglo-Saxons crossed the path to their French partners. Nothing personal, just business.
    
    Secondly, the Americans are also going to offer the French (according to the article) a contract for the joint construction of aircraft carriers, including the exchange of technologies. And this is even more profitable than money, including for the French.
    
    I also speak about it. so they would build boats for the Australians and make money, and so the Americans will earn on the French. Who else can they build aircraft carriers for? After the Mistrals, no one in their right mind would have anything to do with them. And it’s not clear whether they will be able to, they haven’t built it for a long time. And then there is a new project, and even those partners. The Americans of their "Ford" for so many years have not been able to bring to mind, and the cost with them will fly out of the sky. So in the list of clients, probably only Ukraine, only she needs to be given money
    1. Cyril
      
      -7
      
      25 October 2021 15: 06
      
      Not in the way? Maybe they even helped them?
      
      They didn’t help, but they didn’t interfere. The French made their offer to Australia, the Americans theirs. The American proved to be more beneficial for the Australians. Where is the "spit in the face" of France from the United States is not clear.
      
      so they would build boats for the Australians and make money, and so the Americans will make money on the French.
      
      Both sides will earn on each other. The Americans will receive money from France, France - the most advanced technologies for building aircraft carriers from a country that has the greatest experience in the construction and combat use of aircraft carriers.
      
      After the Mistrals, no one in their right mind would have anything to do with them.
      
      It's strange ... Australia wanted to deal with France "after the Mistrals", Greece not so long ago also signed a contract with France for several frigates. Somehow these at least 2 facts do not fit into your pink universe.
      
      Americans of their "Ford" so many years they cannot bring to mind, and the cost with them will fly out of the sky.
      
      How many years is that? The 100-ton ship was laid down in 000, launched in 2009, and entered the first factory tests in 2013. It is now 2017.
      1. 123
        
        +4
        
        25 October 2021 18: 44
        
        They didn’t help, but they didn’t interfere. The French made their offer to Australia, the Americans theirs. The American proved to be more beneficial for the Australians. Where is the "spit in the face" of France from the United States is not clear.
        
        Everywhere, so they do with all their lackeys. But you seem to like it.
        
        Both sides will earn on each other. The Americans will receive money from France, France - the most advanced technologies for building aircraft carriers from a country that has the greatest experience in the construction and combat use of aircraft carriers.
        
        Earn on each other? Seriously? But only the Americans will receive the money ... The French are morally satisfied. What technologies will they transfer to them? When did they share? The shipbuilding of a private empire is in decline, Ford will not be brought to its senses, nothing decent can be built. While leaving on the backlog of grandfathers.
        
        It's strange ... Australia wanted to deal with France "after the Mistrals", Greece not so long ago also signed a contract with France for several frigates. Somehow these at least 2 facts do not fit into your pink universe.
        
        Again bikes from the brown driveway? One lie. Australia wanted? Truth? Good blunt Has Greece signed a contract? When did you have time? Less than a month, September 28:
        
        Paris - France and Greece signed a Memorandum of Understanding on September 28 to sell three French Defense and Intervention (FDI) frigates with an option for a quarter in a deal worth around € 3 billion ($ 3,5 billion).
        https://sldinfo.com/2021/09/greece-signs-agreement-to-buy-french-frigates-september-2021/
        
        A memorandum is a statement of views, a declaration of intent, so to speak. What will actually happen we'll see. The Greeks do not seem to peck money, at a billion euros for a frigate. So there is no contract. By the way, the French themselves do not yet have these frigates, the first is expected in 2024.
        
        How many years is that?
        
        Themselves unable to count?
        
        Cyril
        
        -6
        
        25 October 2021 19: 26
        
        Everywhere, so they do with all their lackeys.
        
        That is, when the Russian Federation wins a military contract from some country - is it also "a spit in the face of its lackeys"? :)
        
        Earn on each other? Seriously? But only the Americans will receive the money ... The French are morally satisfied.
        
        Are you privy to the details of this contract to validate it?
        
        What technologies will they transfer to them?
        
        Can't you read? The article says at least about the technology of the electromagnetic catapult. So far, only the United States has it.
        
        The shipbuilding of a private empire is in decline
        
        Russia would have such a "decline" :) For 16 years, 19 Virginias were put into operation, while they manage to make new aircraft carriers,
        
        Ford will not be brought to mind, new
        
        They haven’t been brought to mind in any way for how many years, and Ford is gradually being brought up :)
        
        they cannot build anything decent.
        
        Decent - is it like "Kuznetsov"?)
        
        Again bikes from the brown driveway? One lie.
        
        I don't know what's going on in your brown alley :)
        
        Australia wanted? Truth?
        
        Have you lost your memory? France tore up the contract with Russia in 2014, the contract with Australia was signed in 2016. Is 2016 later or earlier than 2014? Can you handle this task for grade 2?
        
        Good blunt laughing
        
        Really good to blunt, 123 :)
        
        Has Greece signed a contract? When did you have time? Less than a month, September 28:
        
        https://iz.ru/1227884/2021-09-28/frantciia-podpisala-kontrakt-na-postavku-trekh-fregatov-gretcii - читаем:
        
        French President Emmanuel Macron and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis signed on Tuesday 28 September military contract for Athens to order three frigates as part of strengthening the "strategic partnership" between the countries. This is reported by the newspaper Le Figaro.
        
        According to Macron, we are talking about three Belharra frigates. They will be built in the city of Lorient.
        
        Even if so far not a contract has been signed, but a preliminary agreement, this still does not leave your
        
        After the Mistrals, no one in their right mind would have anything to do with them.
        
        Themselves unable to count?
        
        I'm able to. And you don't seem to be. Sadly.
        
        123
        
        +1
        
        26 October 2021 07: 36
        
        That is, when the Russian Federation wins a military contract from some country - is it also "a spit in the face of its lackeys"?
        
        As a rule, Russia's competitors in the arms market are not bound by any allied agreements with them. Therefore, spitting to lackeys is not ours.
        
        Are you privy to the details of this contract to validate it?
        
        No contract , there is a "memorandum of understanding" .. What the hell are the details?
        
        Can't you read? The article says at least about the technology of the electromagnetic catapult. So far, only the United States has it.
        
        Will they transfer technology? Seriously? The French will be offered to buy a catapult and no more.
        
        Russia would have such a "decline" :) For 16 years, 19 Virginias were put into operation, while they manage to make new aircraft carriers,
        
        We do not need their decline, let them sip themselves. Virginia began to be developed back in the Soviet Union, the lead SSN-774 Virginia was launched in 2003 and entered service in 2004. The production has been worked out for a decade and a half. But with the new one is already a problem. By the way, could you list the "new one hundred thousand aircraft carriers"? And then I have problems on the list after the USS Gerald R. Ford, I can't remember the rest I repeat ...
        
        The shipbuilding of a private empire is in decline, Ford will not be brought to its senses, nothing decent can be built. While leaving on the backlog of grandfathers.
        
        For many years, they will not bring you to mind, and Ford is gradually being brought
        
        As I understand it, as a matter of fact, you have nothing to argue, because you yourself say they are driving, which means they did not. Is it a nervous breakdown about the mind? Or are you still in the early stages of accepting the inevitable? Denial and anger.
        
        Decent - is it like "Kuznetsov"?
        
        This is your nervous An attempt to translate the arrows.
        
        Have you lost your memory? France tore up the contract with Russia in 2014, the contract with Australia was signed in 2016. Is 2016 later or earlier than 2014? Can you handle this task for grade 2?
        
        So there is a contract? Will boats be built? Have some other Australians abandoned it?
        
        Really good to blunt, 123 :)
        
        The link is curious. What can I say, it looks like the level of competence of journalists is falling dramatically. We just reprinted an emotional speech from Le Figaro on the topic - yes, figs with them with the Australians, we drank at them, now we will put the Greeks on how many
        The Greeks themselves write the same as the French, a memorandum of intent has been signed. It turns out there is no contract
        
        Greek National Defense Minister Nikolaos Panagiotopoulos, Naval Group President and CEO Pierre Eric Pommelle and MBDA President and CEO Eric Beranger today signed a Memorandum of Understanding, meaning the delivery of three FDI HN frigates and their equipment, with the option of acquiring another frigate
        https://www.kathimerini.gr/pages/announcements/561517618/i-ellada-ypografei-mnimonio-synennoisis-me-ti-naval-group-kai-tin-mbda/
        
        Even if not a contract has been signed yet, but a preliminary agreement, it still does not leave your "After the Mistrals, no one in their right mind will deal with them."
        
        From what? Everything is exactly the opposite. They are used for political purposes. The Greeks have problems with Erdogan, and the latter, in turn, with Macron. It reminds me very much of Ukraine, they also sign and declare a lot of things.
        
        I'm able to. And you don't seem to be. Sadly.
        
        If you were able, you probably would not ask such questions. You have listed the dates yourself, but you cannot count how many years.
        
        Cyril
        
        -5
        
        26 October 2021 10: 37
        
        Russia's competitors in the arms market, as a rule, are not bound by any allied agreements with them.
        
        Is an allied agreement obliged to exclude economic competition in the arms market? O_o Where is it written? That is, Russia and, for example, Belarus are obliged not to "overlap" on the arms market and not to participate in the same tenders?
        
        Although you are right about one thing - Russia does not have developed allies capable of producing modern weapons. I don't even know whether to be proud of it or not.
        
        There is no contract request, there is a "memorandum of understanding" .. What the hell are the details? belay
        
        I spoke about the details of the proposed contract between the United States and France. It is true, it has not yet been concluded - but you are already unequivocally asserting who will sell what to whom and who will eat it :)
        
        Will they transfer technology? Seriously? The French will be offered to buy a catapult and no more.
        
        How do you know? Do you have inside information with the US Department of Defense? Forbes is talking about the transfer of the technology of the electromagnetic catapult.
        
        Virginia began to be developed during the Soviet era,
        
        In the late 80s :) Oh, well, how long ago it was for ships of this class. So, let's see. The development of the Virginia nuclear submarine began in the late 80s, the first submarine was launched in 2003 (at least 13 years later), and entered service in 2004. Development of "Ford" began in early 2001, the lead ship was launched in 2013 (after 12 years), entered service in the US Navy in 2017 (after 16 years). Alert status is expected in 2022.
        
        And this despite the fact that an aircraft carrier, by definition, is more complicated than a nuclear submarine, because it carries an air wing and infrastructure to maintain its combat capability.
        
        But with the new one is already a problem.
        
        You have, yes, you have problems :) Both with the new and with the old ...
        
        By the way, could you list the "new one hundred thousand aircraft carriers"?
        
        No problem. "Gerald Ford" - put into service, put into service, is being tested and fine-tuned
        
        "John F Kennedy" - laid down in 2015, launched in 2019, currently undergoing final works.
        
        And then I have problems on the list after the USS Gerald R. Ford, I can't remember the rest
        
        Old age is not a joy ... :)
        
        Is it a nervous breakdown about the mind?
        
        Everything is fine with me, you are constantly hysterical :) It's just that, unlike you, I understand that the creation of new types of weapons is inevitably associated with difficulties and the completion of the lead ship of a new series is an inevitable and normal process. You, apparently, have not grown up to this yet :)
        
        This is your nervous yes Attempt to translate the arrows.
        
        This is puzzling for me :) And no translation of the arrows. We're talking about an aircraft carrier, right? So. You said that the Americans cannot create anything "decent" now - so I ask what is "decent" :) Kuznetsov was just an example.
        
        So there is a contract? Will boats be built? Have some other Australians abandoned it?
        
        And they refused because of the story with the "Mistrals"?) Did the Australians tell you about it?) I've heard that it was simply because of the more advantageous offer of the Americans.
        
        The Greeks themselves write the same as the French, a memorandum of intent has been signed. It turns out there is no contract
        
        But has the memorandum been signed? Signed :)
        
        They are used for political purposes.
        
        This is your speculation. Do you have a specific document? Yes, and your link says:
        
        Memorandum of understanding, meaning the supply of three FDI HN frigates and their equipment, with the possibility of purchasing another frigate
        
        If you were able, you probably would not ask such questions.
        
        You told the math teacher that way at school too, when he asked you "how much is 2 x 2"?)
        
        I have verified that you have basic intellectual abilities. You did not pass the test :)
        
        123
        
        +2
        
        26 October 2021 16: 34
        
        Is an allied agreement obliged to exclude economic competition in the arms market? O_o Where is it written?
        
        From what? But a country that is not bound by any treaties like NATO where there is the United States and the six is quite difficult to write down as a lackey.
        
        That is, Russia and, for example, Belarus must "not overlap" on the arms market and not participate in the same tenders?
        
        I wrote, as a rule, but there are exceptions to the rules. I doubt that we have tough competition with Belarus and we are doing the same. In any case, I don’t remember Lukashenka’s speech in Macron’s style on this issue.
        
        Although you are right about one thing - Russia does not have developed allies capable of producing modern weapons. I don't even know whether to be proud of it or not.
        
        Definitely proud Russia itself is capable of producing weapons; as a rule, it does not need such allies. And a pack of allies, well-developed and not very developed, let them lick their boots in Brussels. Yesterday in Moscow they bent their backs, today in Brussels, tomorrow they will see where the wind is blowing.
        
        I spoke about the details of the proposed contract between the United States and France. It is true, it has not yet been concluded - but you are already unequivocally asserting who will sell what to whom and who will eat it :)
        
        O!!! Do you have options? Can you tell us more about this? Will the French sell the catapult to the Americans and get it on? Or will the Americans sell and the French will weld?
        
        How do you know? Do you have inside information with the US Department of Defense? Forbes is talking about the transfer of the technology of the electromagnetic catapult.
        
        Can I have a reference? Forbes can talk about anything, it's not up to them to decide. The United States is very reluctant to share military technology. Are there examples of transmissions that are comparable in importance? It is the transfer and not the sale.
        
        And this despite the fact that an aircraft carrier, by definition, is more complicated than a nuclear submarine, because it carries an air wing and infrastructure to maintain its combat capability.
        
        What does harder mean by definition? Who told you that?
        
        You have, yes, you have problems :) Both with the new and with the old ...
        
        I will treat your attempts to jump on the personality with condescension. I understand that there are no arguments, but you, as an exemplary groveling element, cannot recognize the degradation in the development of warships
        
        No problem. "Gerald Ford" - put into service, put into service, is being tested and fine-tuned
        "John F Kennedy" - laid down in 2015, launched in 2019, currently undergoing final works.
        
        Introduced into service? As a rule, tests are first carried out, the completion of which is accepted for service.
        Kennedy is about 80% ready, they promise to complete it in 2024.
        https://newsroom.huntingtoningalls.com/releases/photo-release-newport-news-shipbuilding-division-progresses-construction-activities-on-the-aircraft-carrier-john-f-kennedy-cvn-79
        
        We will see what will come of this, they have not yet solved the problem with the first one.
        
        Everything is fine with me, you are constantly hysterical :) It's just that, unlike you, I understand that the creation of new types of weapons is inevitably associated with difficulties and the completion of the lead ship of a new series is an inevitable and normal process. You, apparently, have not grown up to this yet :)
        
        And they still have difficulties with the Zumvolt, corvettes (litralniki), although they are no longer talking about the lead ships. I'm telling them they have problems with new ships. That's why you scream about hysteria and who has grown to what. Take care of your nerves, no one needs a lackey with seizures, they will cut you down with a kick into the street
        
        This is puzzling for me :) And no translation of the arrows. We're talking about an aircraft carrier, right? So. You said that the Americans cannot create anything "decent" now - so I ask what is "decent" :) Kuznetsov was just an example.
        
        Could you just give an example of what they have done decently in the last, say, 10 years? It looks like no, that's why you make mistakes about Kuznetsov's Soviet construction. For example, we have RTOs, corvettes and frigates quite successful. And they somehow did not work.
        
        And they refused because of the story with the "Mistrals"?) Did the Australians tell you about it?) I've heard that it was simply because of the more advantageous offer of the Americans.
        
        So have they given up or "have an affair"? You will somehow decide. How they substantiate the question is secondary.
        
        This is your speculation. Do you have a specific document?
        
        If I start asking you for documents on all conclusions, mustache, paws, tail will not work
        
        There is no contract and you have nothing to cover, that's why you break down. These are these nonsense:
        You told the math teacher that way at school too, when he asked you "how much is 2 x 2"?)
        I have verified that you have basic intellectual abilities. You did not pass the test :)
        
        It's nervous. you just have nothing to say.
        
        Cyril
        
        -3
        
        26 October 2021 21: 24
        
        From what? But a country that is not bound by any treaties like NATO where there is the United States and the six is quite difficult to write down as a lackey.
        
        Really? Is Belarus not a part of the Union Treaty with Russia and the CSTO?
        
        I wrote, as a rule, but there are exceptions to the rules.
        
        They are only found in languages.
        
        I doubt that we have tough competition with Belarus and we are doing the same.
        
        Of course, because Belarus is to France in military-technical terms as to Beijing in the pose of the famous crustacean. And by weight on the world stage, too.
        
        Undoubtedly proud of yes Russia itself is capable of producing weapons; as a rule, it does not need such allies.
        
        A funny attempt to justify Russia's lack of significant allies :)
        
        O!!! Do you have options? Can you tell us more about this? smile Will the French sell the catapult to the Americans and weld? Or will the Americans sell and the French will weld?
        
        The option is indicated in the article - the Americans will sell the EM catapult technology to the French.
        
        Can I have a reference? Forbes can talk about anything, it's not up to them to decide.
        
        You haven't read the article you're discussing at all?
        
        The United States is very reluctant to share military technology. Are there examples of transmissions that are comparable in importance? It is the transfer and not the sale.
        
        Yes, complete. Transfer of technology for the development of the F-16 to Japan, for which it developed the F-2. Transfer of technologies to Japan for the production of Delta LV (produced by Japan under license), on the basis of which Japan developed its N-1 LV. The Americans helped the British with the development of British nuclear weapons (however, just like the British helped the United States with the Manhattan Project). The Americans helped Israel to develop the Hetz and David's Sling, etc., etc.
        
        What does harder mean by definition? Who told you that?
        
        This is elementary logic. An aircraft carrier is not just a floating vehicle and a combat ship, but also a command and control center, a transport and logistics complex that provides coordination, maintenance, and repair of dozens of the most complex aircraft.
        
        I will treat your attempts to jump on the personality with condescension.
        
        Oh, whose cow would moan :)
        
        I understand that there are no arguments,
        
        You have - yes :)
        
        but recognize the degradation in the development of warships
        
        ... which you still cannot prove, and therefore ...
        
        you are an exemplary groveling element
        
        start to pour insults :)
        
        Adopted?
        
        At least accepted into the US Navy.
        
        Introduced into service? As a rule, tests are first carried out, the completion of which is accepted for service.
        
        Refinement and testing after adoption is a common practice throughout the world. Let us recall from the nearest examples of the Su-57, which was put into service, but tests with a second stage engine are still ongoing. Another example is the Mi-28, which, after being put into service, was not just refined, but greatly reworked.
        
        Kennedy is ready about on 80%, promise to complete the construction in 2024.
        
        That's what I'm talking about - "Virginias" rivet like pies, and even manage to build new aircraft carriers :) One is already in the ranks, the second is 80% ready. Russia would have such a "degradation".
        
        And they still have difficulties with the Zumvolt, corvettes (litralniki), although they are no longer talking about the lead ships. I'm telling them they have problems with new ships.
        
        And who says that all US military programs end in complete success? In general, it's kind of natural to make mistakes when trying to create something new. Didn't it happen before? It was. We recall the American cruisers of the "Alaska" type, the UDC of the "Tarawa" type. Was that only the Americans? Also no. We recall the Soviet "Novorossiysk", which tried to combine the capabilities of a cruiser with an aircraft carrier, and in the end neither one nor the other. Remembering the Soviet squadron submarine artillery boats "Pravda"
        
        It is impossible to develop without erroneous concepts. You still cannot understand this simple truth.
        
        Could you just give an example of what they have done decently in the last, say, 10 years?
        
        Landing ships dock "San Antonio" - what's not good?
        
        For example, we have RTOs, corvettes and frigates quite successful.
        
        Oh really? Is that all right? "Mercury" (project 20386) predicted the fate of the "breakthrough", "the first Russian stealth ship", a large series was planned. In the end, what?
        
        The General Director of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) Alexei Rakhmanov told the Interfax news agency that the Mercury could become an experimental ship and not join the Russian Navy.
        
        As usual, Alexey Lvovich spoke floridly, but the meaning was still caught: “If, within the framework of our understanding, modern technologies are applied on the corvette, then, in fact, its construction may drag on until these technologies are developed. And if we take into account that the ship itself can become an experimental vessel, then it will never (will not enter the Navy. - AI). It will plow the sea and develop new technologies. If it really is an experimental vessel, then it will be put into operation as an experimental vessel ”.
        
        By the way, on "Mercury" Russian shipbuilders also tried to apply the so criticized principle of modularity.
        
        So have they given up or "have an affair"? You will somehow decide. How they substantiate the question is secondary.
        
        No, this is the primary issue. You argued that after the Mistral story with France, no one in their right mind would want to do business. But Australia wanted to. You've done a little shit again. Australia's refusal from the Mistral contract has nothing to do with it.
        
        If I start asking you for documents on all conclusions, mustache, paws, tail will not work
        
        Duc ask who is stopping you.
        
        It's nervous. you just have nothing to say.
        
        I always have something to say, unlike your screams about "groveling" and the like :)
        
        123
        
        0
        
        27 October 2021 10: 17
        
        They are only found in languages. (exceptions)
        The option is indicated in the article - the Americans will sell the EM catapult technology to the French.
        
        The allegations.
        That there are exceptions only in languages, I suppose this is your personal opinion and nothing more.
        There is not a word about the sale of technologies in the article, the United States is ready to offer joint construction. That's all. The rest is your fantasy.
        I see no point in discussing the weight of Belarus and comparing the potential of the military-industrial complex of it and France, this does not apply to the topic, your verbiage is just the desire to blabber, not the ability to confirm your own point of view with arguments.
        
        An amusing attempt to justify Russia's lack of significant allies
        
        Allies are different, weighty and not so. France has other allies, such as Turkey. As I understand it, your words are quite offensive for the Baltic small fry. They are allies too. We observed how the "100500 countries" coalition works in Syria, and NATO has achieved this in Afghanistan too. What's the use of this pack of allies?
        
        Yes, complete. Transfer of technology for the development of the F-16 to Japan, for which it developed the F-2. Transfer of technologies to Japan for the production of Delta LV (produced by Japan under license), on the basis of which Japan developed its N-1 LV. The Americans helped the British with the development of British nuclear weapons (however, just like the British helped the United States with the Manhattan Project). The Americans helped Israel to develop the Hetz and David's Sling, etc., etc.
        
        Examples are clearly not good
        I apologize for quoting Wiki, but if you wish, you will find information in other sources. A little about Mitsubishi F-2 (site: tftwiki.ru). The Americans tried to prevent the independent development of the fighter, the Japanese were limited access, and they themselves received access to their technologies. God forbid us from such partners
        
        On the American side, high-ranking officials in Department of State and Department of Defense backed the project as a means of US access to Japanese technology and as a means of strengthening US-Japanese relations
        After George W. Bush took office as President of the United States in January 1989, the US government responded to domestic criticism of the deal by demanding a “clarification” of the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, which the Japanese government saw as an attempt to revise it. The Bush administration was particularly concerned about the risks of technology transfer to Japan. Bush announced a revised agreement in April 1989, shortly before the resignation of his Japanese counterpart Noboru Takeshita, according to which Japan's access to flight and weapons control software was limited, while the United States should have access to any new technology Japan developed. for this project. US contractors were guaranteed at least 40% of the program's production. Congress ratified the deal in June 1989, expressing official dissatisfaction with it
        .
        RN "Delta" this is how I understand you about space? What does it have to do with weapons?
        
        What they helped with the Manhattan project still needs to be figured out, Great Britain participated in the development. Technology transfer is out of the question.
        
        Maybe he helped Israel to develop the Hetz and David's Sling, but in the end Israel has these complexes, the United States does not have anything comparable in efficiency. Who there helped whom more still needs to be figured out. Again, development collaboration and transfer of off-the-shelf technologies are not the same thing.
        It turns out that you did not give examples of the transfer of ready-made technologies
        
        This is elementary logic. An aircraft carrier is not just a floating vehicle and a combat ship, but also a command and control center, a transport and logistics complex that provides coordination, maintenance, and repair of dozens of the most complex aircraft.
        
        "A floating vehicle, a combat ship are practically all warships, any large ship can be a" command and control center ", large supply vessels are a" transport and logistics complex. " because it's easier.
        
        Oh really? Is that all right? "Mercury" (project 20386) predicted the fate of the "breakthrough", "the first Russian stealth ship", a large series was planned. In the end, what?
        
        Firstly, there is project 20380, 20385. Secondly, 20386 is not ready yet, to say that nothing happened prematurely. Again, you can quote your words:
        
        It is impossible to develop without erroneous concepts. You still cannot understand this simple truth.
        
        and further in the text. As a result, we have 2 good working projects, the third is not yet ready.
        
        No, this is the primary issue. You argued that after the Mistral story with France, no one in their right mind would want to do business. But Australia wanted to. You've done a little shit again. Australia's refusal from the Mistral contract has nothing to do with it.
        
        So Australia "does business with them" or did it refuse? In general, you were born dressed up
        
        I always have something to say, unlike your screeching about "groveling" and the like
        
        Naturally there is, only one Kholui squeal turns out
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        27 October 2021 13: 26
        
        Article there is not a word about selling technology, The United States is ready to offer joint construction. That's all. The rest is your fantasy.
        
        Damn it, 123:
        
        In addition, in the course of cooperation with the United States, Paris will have the opportunity to using EMALS technology - an electromagnetic system for launching aircraft using a catapult, which will allow the French to lift heavier aircraft from the new aircraft carrier.
        
        I see no point in discussing the weight of Belarus and comparing the potential of the military-industrial complex of it and France, this does not apply to the topic, your verbiage is just the desire to blabber, not the ability to confirm your own point of view with arguments.
        
        Why is it irrelevant? Belarus is for Russia the same ally in military-political blocs as France is for the United States. If, in the case of the United States and France, you call the situation with enticement of the customer "spitting in the face of lackeys", would you also name the similar situation between Russia and Belarus? It's a simple question.
        
        We saw how the "100500 countries" coalition works in Syria,
        
        And also observed in Iraq (2 times). And in North Korea (1 time). In Libya (1 time) and Yugoslavia (2 times).
        
        Examples are clearly not good no
        
        Quite successful. Did I say that during the production of the F-2, the Americans transferred ALL technology to the Japanese? No. But part of it was passed by definition, because the F-2 is a reworked version of the F-16.
        
        RN "Delta" this is how I understand you about space? What does it have to do with weapons?
        
        Early launch vehicles of the Delta family are modified TOP ICBMs. What do ICBMs have to do with weapons to explain to you too?)
        
        What they helped with the Manhattan project still needs to be figured out, Great Britain participated in the development. Technology transfer is out of the question.
        
        https://nvo.ng.ru/spforces/2018-05-11/10_995_atom.html
        
        As an alternative, a new "Agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom on Mutual Defense" was developed and adopted in 1958, concerning the unprecedented expansion and deepening of cooperation between the two countries, including in the field of the military atom. The agreement was open-ended with the condition of its renewal every 10 years.
        
        Americans also gave the British information on a thermonuclear productknown as W28. After minor modifications, it began to be produced in the UK under the name "Red Snow". This device was the basis for the development of the head part of the British Blue Steel air-to-ground missile designed to arm the Vulcan B.2 and Victor B.2 strategic bombers.
        
        Next:
        
        The process of creating SSBNs of the "Resolution" type was very poorly covered in the press, but it is known that specialists from the US Navy Bureau of Shipbuilding provided enormous assistance in the creation of submarines of this type.
        
        Further, about the first British nuclear submarine "Dreadnought":
        
        Although the plan was to build all-British nuclear-powered submarines, a lot of time could be saved. adopting American nuclear technology. The excellent relationship between Admiral Mountbatten and US Navy Chief of Naval Operations Arleigh Burke expedited the receipt of this assistance. This despite the fact that Rear Admiral Hyman Rikover, in charge of the US naval nuclear energy program, was opposed to any technology transfer; indeed, Rikover prevented Mountbatten from inspecting the USS Nautilus. It was only after a visit to Britain in 1956 that Rickover changed his mind and dropped his objections.
        
        Maybe he helped Israel to develop the Hetz and David's Sling, but in the end Israel has these complexes, the United States does not have anything comparable in efficiency. Who there helped whom more still needs to be figured out. Again, development collaboration and transfer of off-the-shelf technologies are not the same thing.
        
        The Americans have Patriots and THAAD.
        
        "A floating vehicle, a combat ship is practically all warships, a" command and control center "can be any large ship, a" transport and logistics complex "is large supply vessels.
        
        But the aircraft carrier is all this put together at once.
        
        The pinnacle of the Navy's technology is the nuclear submarines of the countries that know how to build them, that know how to build larger aircraft boats, because it's easier.
        
        We look at who knows how to build their own nuclear submarines:
        
        USA, Russia, China, France, India, Brazil (developing), Great Britain.
        
        Only:
        
        USA, China, UK, France, India. Of these, only the United States and France make nuclear aircraft carriers. The rest (Italy, Thailand, Japan) have light helicopter carriers that can be used for VTOL aircraft. Russia also cannot build its own aircraft carrier, only operate the outdated Kuznetsov.
        
        First, there is the project 20380, 20385.
        
        Likewise, the United States has successful San Antonio as well as quite successful LCS Independence.
        
        Secondly, 20386 is not yet ready to say that nothing happened prematurely.
        
        but you say the same about Gerald Ford :)
        
        So Australia "does business with them" or did it refuse?
        
        Do you want to repeat for the third time that Australia's refusal from the deal has nothing to do with Mistrals?) I'm not sure that this simple truth can reach you :)
        
        only one Kholui screech turns out
        
        Yeah, stop screaming :)
        
        123
        
        0
        
        27 October 2021 16: 12
        
        In addition, in the course of cooperation with the United States, Paris will be able to use EMALS technology
        
        They will be sold a catapult and they will use it. Where is it written about technology transfer?
        
        Why is it irrelevant? Belarus is for Russia the same ally in military-political blocs as France is for the United States. If, in the case of the United States and France, you call the situation with enticement of the customer "spitting in the face of lackeys", would you also name the similar situation between Russia and Belarus? It's a simple question.
        
        This is really beside the point. Comparison of the capabilities of Belarus and France is irrelevant. Your verbiage on this topic is not interesting to me. Why should I give you some examples.
        
        And also observed in Iraq (2 times). And in North Korea (1 time). In Libya (1 time) and Yugoslavia (2 times).
        
        And what does this mean? Remove the USA from the list of participants and there is nothing to talk about.
        
        Quite successful. Did I say that during the production of the F-2, the Americans transferred ALL technology to the Japanese? No. But part of it was passed by definition, because the F-2 is a reworked version of the F-16.
        
        It was a co-production. It is not clear who and how much transmitted, perhaps the Japanese transmitted no less.
        
        Early launch vehicles of the Delta family are modified TOP ICBMs. What do ICBMs have to do with weapons to explain to you too?
        
        Do the Japanese use them in the defense sphere? A lot of technologies emerged from the military-industrial complex, but not all of them are considered military.
        
        Why are your long quotes about the "unprecedented expansion and deepening of cooperation" between the United States and Britain? These countries signed the agreement and worked together on the development. This is about selling technology.
        
        We look at who knows how to build their own nuclear submarines:
        USA, Russia, China, France, India, Brazil (developing), Great Britain.
        Only:
        USA, China, UK, France, India. Of these, only the United States and France make nuclear aircraft carriers. The rest (Italy, Thailand, Japan) have light helicopter carriers that can be used for VTOL aircraft. Russia also cannot build its own aircraft carrier, only operate the outdated Kuznetsov.
        
        What an unpretentious juggling Something like this was the case in March of this year for India, which is "able to build nuclear submarines".
        
        India plans to start building six nuclear submarines (nuclear submarines) of its own design to maintain the balance of power in the Indian Ocean zone and beyond. The Times of India reported this on Wednesday, citing government sources.
        Their construction will take place at the Visakhapatnam shipyard in the southeastern state of Andhra Pradesh. The construction of the first nuclear submarine is scheduled to be completed in 2032.
        
        https://bigasia.ru/content/news/society/indiya-planiruet-nachat-stroitelstvo-shesti-apl/
        
        I don't even want to talk about the Brazilian nuclear submarines. In total, out of 7 countries, two of them were clearly undeservedly included in the list.
        But if we are talking about aircraft carriers, then suddenly they began to be divided into full and defective Moreover, it is not clear on what grounds. Why are you offending Italians? Their Cavour is considered to be an aircraft carrier. Why India has a full-fledged one and the Italians do not have it is not clear. And Kuznetsov suddenly became obsolete. Is it worse than the Indian "full-fledged" aircraft carrier?
        Russia possesses all the technologies necessary for the construction of an aircraft carrier, including a nuclear one. Nuclear icebreakers are churning out in batches, which the Americans are not capable of.
        
        Likewise, the United States has successful San Antonio as well as quite successful LCS Independence.
        
        Is San Antonio all that the "great ocean power" could give birth to? Only a clown and propogandon rolled into one can call LCS Independence successful. Americans themselves do not consider them to be.
        
        but you say the same about Gerald Ford
        
        Can't you see the difference? I do not classify project 20386 as ready-made, but you bring Ford just under this category.
        
        Do you want to repeat for the third time that Australia's refusal of the deal has nothing to do with Mistrals?) I'm not sure that this simple truth can reach you
        
        Just answer a simple question. Is there a contract and are the Australians dealing with the French?
        
        Yeah, stop screaming
        
        This is your echo
        Goodbye, it's time to finish. You won't write anything new, and I don't see any sense in repeating the same thing several times.
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        27 October 2021 20: 17
        
        They will be sold a catapult and they will use it. Where is it written about technology transfer?
        
        You don't see the word "technology" because you don't want to or because you have agnosia for this word?)
        
        This is really beside the point. Comparison of the capabilities of Belarus and France is irrelevant. Your verbiage on this topic is not interesting to me. Why should I give you some examples.
        
        Merged :)
        
        And what does this mean? Remove the USA from the list of participants and there is nothing to talk about.
        
        And what does your example with Syria and Afghanistan mean?) You cited them as an example of the worthlessness of the US allies. I gave you an example of the opposite.
        
        It was a co-production. It is not clear who and how much transmitted, perhaps the Japanese transmitted no less.
        
        And joint production means the exchange of technologies. Otherwise, it will not be fixed.
        
        Do the Japanese use them in the defense sphere? A lot of technologies emerged from the military-industrial complex, but not all of them are considered military.
        
        Having received these technologies, Japan got access to the development of its own ICBMs. The fact that they did not develop it is a consequence of other reasons. Plus, Tokyo received a means to launch its military satellites into orbit.
        
        Why are your long quotes about the "unprecedented expansion and deepening of cooperation" between the United States and Britain? These countries signed the agreement and worked together on the development. This is about selling technology.
        
        Damn, 123, well, don't be stupid :) Once again I will cite an excerpt (shortened, you cannot master the long one) and I will highlight it in fat, so that it is easier for you:
        
        Although the plan was to build all-British nuclear-powered submarines, much time could have been saved by adopting American nuclear technology... The excellent relationship between Admiral Mountbatten and US Navy Chief of Naval Operations Arleigh Burke expedited the receipt of this assistance.
        
        The Americans also passed on information to the British on a fusion device known as the W28. After minor modifications, it began to be produced in the UK under the name "Red Snow".
        
        What an unpretentious juggling laughing Approximately this was the case in March of this year for India, "able to build nuclear submarines".
        
        Okay, excluding India and Brazil. There remain 5 countries that can reliably build nuclear submarines. Remember - 5 countries.
        
        But if we are talking about aircraft carriers, then suddenly they began to be divided into full-fledged and defective laughing And it is not clear on what grounds.
        
        You are right, I put it inaccurately. Let's use the generally accepted classification:
        
        Supercarriers (also "heavy" or "multipurpose strategic") - having unlimited range, capable of carrying a large (more than 50 aircraft) air wing, receiving aircraft with both classical takeoff and landing, and VTOL aircraft (which expands the manning of the air wing) and helicopters. Able to perform the widest range of tasks and operate anywhere in the world.
        
        Multipurpose aircraft carriers ("medium") - take on board up to 50 aircraft (both conventional and VTOL aircraft) and helicopters. They are able to solve the widest range of tasks, but have a limited range (with the exception of "Charles de Gaulle").
        
        VTOL aircraft carriers (light aircraft carriers) - can take up to 20-25 VTOL aircraft and / or helicopters. They perform a limited set of functions and are designed for use in the near sea zone. It is to them that "Cavour" belongs.
        
        It was the first 2 categories that I inaccurately called "full-fledged" - for a long cruising range, versatile composition and large size of the wing, a wide range of tasks.
        
        I called light aircraft carriers (VTOL / helicopter carriers) "inferior" - for their short range, regional use, limited air wing composition and limited functionality.
        
        That is why India has a full-fledged, while Italy has an "inferior"
        
        Now let's see who can.
        
        Supercarriers - USA only;
        
        Multipurpose aircraft carriers - France, China (its own "Shandong" is completed), potentially India (its own aircraft carrier "Vikrant" is being completed). Russia - but there is a reservation that "Kuznetsov" was built in the USSR, Russia only supports its combat capability (well, as it supports ....).
        
        All the rest are at most light VTOL aircraft carriers or helicopter carriers.
        
        So, this is what I mean. Only 4 countries - the USA, France, China and India - have experience and capabilities in building multipurpose aircraft carriers.
        
        But we compared aircraft carriers to nuclear submarines, and not to any submarines, right? This is an important technological moment. It would be fair to compare how many countries are able to build nuclear submarines and nuclear aircraft carriers.
        
        So, 5 versus 2 countries can reliably build nuclear submarines, and only 5 countries can reliably build a nuclear multipurpose aircraft carrier - the USA and France.
        
        Because - again - building a multipurpose aircraft carrier is by definition heavier than a submarine.
        
        And Kuznetsov suddenly became obsolete. Is it worse than an Indian "full-fledged" aircraft carrier?
        
        No worse - it is as outdated as the Indian one. But India is forgivable, Russia is not.
        
        Russia possesses all the technologies necessary for the construction of an aircraft carrier, including a nuclear one. ...
        
        She can't even repair non-nuclear.
        
        Russia possesses all the technologies necessary for the construction of an aircraft carrier, including a nuclear one.
        
        The USSR also churned out nuclear icebreakers in batches. Did the USSR have at least one nuclear aircraft carrier? Need to explain the difference between an icebreaker and an aircraft carrier?
        
        Only a clown and propogandon rolled into one can call LCS Independence successful. Americans themselves do not consider such a thing lol
        
        Everything is normal with the ships of the Independence series, the problems were found only on the lead ship and were eliminated. Since 2014, ships of this series have been successfully participating in long-distance cruises, including as part of the AUG, and various exercises:
        
        In a four-hour event, the ship fought the opposition forces alone against four other ships without finding its whereabouts for nearly two hours. Independence completed its first joint joint operations, serving as a forward base for the Navy and foreign high-speed helicopter operations teams, and almost simultaneously operated two helicopters for launching and lifting boats. The ship performed from two to three tasks a day and performed all of them, while it was not necessary to enter the port and refuel twice. The RIMPAC exercises were performed at a much faster pace than previous tests and the Independence performed its tasks without any major difficulty.. [49]
        
        Can't you see the difference? I do not classify project 20386 as ready-made, but you bring Ford just under this category.
        
        O_o where I called it "Gerald Ford" ready - quote my words, please.
        
        Just answer a simple question. Is there a contract and are the Australians dealing with the French?
        
        I answered for a long time. The contract was signed after the story with the Mistrals. Apparently, you still do not get it. It is sad.
        
        This is your echo
        
        Yes, you screech so loudly that there really is an echo.
        
        You won't write anything new, and I don't see any sense in repeating the same thing several times.
        
        So you are not even able to learn the "old" :)
  2. isofat
    
    +2
    
    25 October 2021 12: 39
    
    Cyril! Offers become profitable when benefits are received. For example, "profitable" offers to the indigenous population, the Indians, ended sadly for those. The benefit never came.
Pavel57

0

25 October 2021 19: 08

We haven't bought boats for an hour, but buy an aircraft carrier from us.
NikolayN

0

26 October 2021 22: 45

And you were worried!
Enough to harbor illusions: there is a civil war in the US, the EU is about to fall apart, Ukraine will not join the EU and NATO.
Will not fall apart. Over the next 100 years. And there will be just one state. Why do they need sovereignty? From whom? Sovereignty is needed to be closed and limited. It is no longer fashionable and unnecessary. Does Tatarstan need sovereignty? Komi? Crimea? It's somehow more interesting together.