France is building new Nuclear Submarines

It's to recall the marking of the RAF that saved their ass in WWII.

O-ok

Belgians, I swear... It's a fucking headlight to light the way in front of them, of course. How do you think they'd drive this shit otherwise without crashing into cliffs or whatever is underwater?

>the RAF that saved their ass in WWII.
>tf
>tp
youtube.com/watch?v=w6C5P-AYGdY

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation

You absolute ungrateful Subhuman

Attached: dunkerque-1940-2.jpg (400x226, 32K)

youtube.com/watch?v=P8viAEaUELs
ah
if you had the translation of 2002 poem for France, tat predicted so many things.

Well, I found text here.
generalermoloff.livejournal.com/61701.html

Come on user, we both know Dunkirk was Belgium's fault.

No we have nukes and your subs will be operated by Muhammeds soon enough

Attached: 1460784949950.gif (400x222, 1.37M)

>Come on user, we both know Dunkirk was Belgium's fault.
No. Matter Fact the whole 39-40 campaign was YOUR fault for refusing to coordinate a Full scale invasion of the Rhineland as your groups were stationed in Northern France/Belgium and we were in the Saar border

Aucun intérêt

On ferai mieux d'injecter de l'argent pour l'espace et avoir notre propre programme spatial sans l'UE. De toute façon 50% du budget + l'envoi des fusées dans l'espace est assuré par la France, c'est donc pas normal qu'on dise l'Europe. Au pire on devrait dire la France aidée de l'UE.

I thought it was the jew's fault?

no nukes inside its a SNA not a SNLE

As much as I love space, this submarine worth its cost.

>Be Br*ttoid
>War in poland breaks out
>Gather Troops in Northern France
>France: Do we do it?
>Br*ttoid: no. wait
>France: but they are focusing on the ea-
>Br*ttoid: I SAID NO!
>France: k
>Be 1940: Denmark, Norway, Belgium, NL invaded
>France: Why are we not Moving?
>Br*ttoid: I dunno?
>France: What the fu-
>Sedan Breakthrough, surrounded
>France: UK, My Brother, Help me!
>Br*ttoid: k bye lol
>Paris captured. Vichy'd

And yet somehow we are still credited as the cowards… really makes you think.

Attached: Eternal Britt.png (600x741, 229K)

nukes dont exist. Fallout boy

also your submarines are going to get sunk by China

Attached: China_generals_logo.gif (200x200, 20K)

good please come to the red sea and nuke sudan

Macron's trying to measure his dick with Lizzy's, whereas Germany is taking all the money.

They're attack submarines so, while being nuclear-powered, they don't have ballistic missiles like the Triomphant-class submarines (they do have anti-ship Exocet missiles and long range SCALP cruise missiles, but with conventional warheads).
They're designed to hunt other submarines and sink ships, not to raze cities unless their larger SNLE cousins.

do you still get all your nukes from that one armory in alabama

>Nukes in Muslim hands

What? we've been manufacturing our own nukes since the 50s.
No way we'd trust the US after the Suez incident...

It's the UK

didn't get what you said

like we would rely on the US for our vital defense muhahaha delusional kek

>the whole 39-40 campaign was YOUR fault for refusing to coordinate a Full scale invasion
Oh hey, that bit sounds familiar, Pierre.

>Why, yes Nigel stand still, it won't hurt I promise.

Attached: March05BNDroneShieldPic.jpg (906x604, 63K)

why not, worked out fine in ww2

>worked out fine in ww2
We went at war with Germany in 1939. The US stayed out of the war until Germany declared war on them - more than 2 years later.
After that, they still did little except farting around in Africa and Italy, for more than two years. At that point the Soviets were steamrolling towards Germany so their troops in France would have been withdrawn within months anyway.
And in 1956, the US actually hindered our Suez operation using nuclear blackmail. So we got the message, "France needs its own nukes to remain independent".
Hence the domestic deterence force.
Not that I'm bitching about the US staying out of WW2 mind you, it isn't America's job to put out wars other people started.

The real cowards are quick to deflect attention. Not so for the French, French people are based

can hear a pin drop

Russia still has the most powerful nuke in the world.

SSN = Sub Surface Nuclear, in other words: No.
SSBN = Sub Surface Ballistic Nuclear, in other words: Yes.
SSGN = Sub Surface Guided Nuclear, in other words: Kind of?

>Kind of?
Not in our navy - because of doctrine, in France we (currently) don't have "tactical" nuclear weapons. We used to have some during the cold war, but retired them during the 90s.
Our only nuclear weapons are the ballistic missiles in SNLE (equivalent of SSBN) and some smaller aircraft-carried nukes, intended to deliver a "final warning" in form of a small nuclear blast before the real fireworks.

Note that it would be easy and quick to fit the cruise missiles carried by submarines (and planes and ships) with nuclear weapons, but it doesn't fit with our current deterence strategy which is to target population center and inflict massive casualties on a country targeting the vital interests of France.
Tactical nukes are seen as paranoia-inducing, so not worth having in the modern world.

So those Barracuda-class boats don't have nuclear weapons on board, unless I'm much mistaken. All the missiles and torpedoes have conventional warheads.
Only the Triomphant-class boomers have nukes (16 missiles each, with up to 10 warheads for each missile).

In addition, we still manufacture diesel-powered attack submarines, the Scorpène-class. They're a hot export item and were sold to Brazil, India, Malaysia, Chile... with Canada being reportedly interested in them to replace their aging Victoria-class boats.

The warheads are manufactured in the UK. The Trident missile system is what comes from the US.

Non

u big boi now

I'm not sure what you mean.

I say kind of because they were basically originally built as SSBNs, but their nuclear silos were just converted to fit between 6 - 8 Tomahawk missiles each. On an Ohio class SSBN, that would mean you could theoretically fit up to 160 Tomahawk missiles (with conventional, non-nuclear warheads) aboard one submarine.
> doesn't fit with our current deterence strategy which is to target population center and inflict massive casualties on a country targeting the vital interests of France
Same here, except we also target numerous Russian, Chinese, Iranian, and North Korean silos, to thwart a counter-attack. Hopefully it never comes to this though.

Attached: 300px-USS_Louisiana_(SSBN-743).jpg (300x215, 13K)

Fake news
globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/w88.htm

Those submarine wont stop the NAFRI BVLL
les poilus sont entrain de se retourner dans leur tombe en vous voyant

Sorry, can you refer to the exact line that contradicts my statement?

The British produce their own warheads.

They don't though, Pantex Plant, which is based in Texas, and the Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado produce the W76 and W88 MIRV warheads respectively, both are used specifically for the Trident II D-5 missile platform, which are the SLBMs your Vanguard classes use.

do you have submarines for lac Léman?

how fucked are you in case of shitstorm?

Attached: nukes targets.jpg (2560x1620, 2.98M)

Very, I live 15 minutes from Jew York City

Highly fucked.

They do have a small flotilla of patrol boats

Attached: Patrouilleur_80.jpg (1024x925, 143K)

Lol, the ma deuce on the bow..

Why the fuck Italy is so behind military wise
Fuck all the leftist that kept us down

I know that they more or less let France in charge of their sky security. I remember reading an article about that.

I've asked to point out the specific line, you have failed to do so.

The UK does not procure the W76 nor the W88 warheads from the US. It produces its own at the Atomic Weapons Establishment sites. Seriously, you will find no reference, ever of fully produced or physics package being transferred from the US to the UK for the Trident system.

The UK has both low and high yield options for their warheads - this option does not exist for the US warheads currently.

Do not trust this map. It is not remotely reliable.

après moi le déluge

I fuck your bitch

Aaaaaand wrong again.

Attached: Capture.png (682x204, 18K)

What's the current Italian marine status?

If you're going to snip from Wikipedia - you could at least acknowledge what is said on the very *first* line.

Attached: Capture.png (1960x56, 10K)

It's no US/UK SSN, but it does the trick.

Attached: HMS Swiftsure, 1977, Kiev Propeller.jpg (960x539, 64K)

You win this time, but in regards to what you claimed earlier:

>The UK does not procure the W76 nor the W88 warheads from the US. It produces its own at the Atomic Weapons Establishment sites. Seriously, you will find no reference, ever of fully produced or physics package being transferred from the US to the UK for the Trident system.

globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/w76.htm

Attached: Capture.png (1712x89, 20K)

Italy builds a diesel-powered submarine conjointly with Germany (called the Type 212, or Todaro-class in Italy).
It's modern and probably effective but lacks in operating range and endurance (12 weeks at sea at most - 3 weeks without snorkelling) so it wouldn't fit our needs, or those of countries like Australia.
They sold four to Norway though.

I'm sorry, but you clearly don't understand what you're discussing - as I was very specific with my language - reentry bodies assembly kits are not "fully produced [warheads]" nor physics packages.

And you're still yet to explain how the UK fields a low yield option on their warheads when that is not possible for the US own W88s.

Pretty nice.
Triomphant replacements?

ebin

It doesn’t matter, you still got our help for your nuclear arsenal and you practically stole our rocket platform.

We don’t need a “low yield package” or any variable yield for that matter. That’s what thermobaric warheads and MOABs are for. But clearly you asshats don’t understand the concept behind those either, since you don’t field them.

Do you always act like such a self-righteous cunt?

No, they're attack submarines so they replace the Rubis-class.
The Triomphant replacements will be built starting 2023 and are scheduled to enter service starting in 2030. The design studies won't be over till next year.

There will be a diesel-powered export variant of these Barracuda (called Shortfin Barracuda for now), if you guys are interested ;) it's the one Australia ordered twelve of.

They no longer have periscopes... end of an era.

why are you two dickheads arguing like you were the former lead on the project or some shit. the brit is factually correct, shut up already

Nice.

>if you guys are interested ;)
Our Navy choose a Scorpene but longer, there will also be a nuclear, which will be a bigger Scorpene.

>They no longer have periscopes... end of an era.
How will it work then?

Attached: file.png (722x597, 394K)

suck his dick some more, fucking cuck

>It doesn’t matter, you still got our help for your nuclear arsenal and you practically stole our rocket platform.
Since the beginning of nuclear weapon development, the UK and US have shared scientists, data and funding. Both countries have continued to work alongside each other, both providing funding and technical capabilities into our deterrent. This is what two historic allies share, it is not a problem or a shame as you imply.

The UK provides valuable funding and technical skills into the Trident system, this is most certainly not theft, but a joint enterprise that each benefit from - not including, of course, the deterrent value of NATO, the key to the security both countries.

>We don’t need a “low yield package” or any variable yield for that matter. That’s what thermobaric warheads and MOABs are for. But clearly you asshats don’t understand the concept behind those either since you don’t field them.
Sorry, but you need to review the US nuclear arsenal, as the US does field low yield and variable yield weapons, just not on their strategic systems. Though that's currently changing as the most recently Nuclear Posture Review called for a low yield option for Trident in the future.

>Do you always act like such a self-righteous cunt?
Person insult aside, I have continually pushed you to substantiate each claim made - you failed on each account, before moving on to make another unsubstantiated point. That is your failing, not mine.

I have literally no idea what is his deal is, probably autism.

An "optronic mast" captures images and they're digitally transmitted to the center of operations.
It's much smaller than a periscope (important on any sub), only requires tiny holes in the hull (tougher) and it allows to get various images at once on several screens: amplified light, infrared...

>be france
>highest nominal dept in the entire EU
>Macron want muh world power status back france lost after the suez crisis
>lets waste money on submarines, worked so well for greece!
Can't wait for the yellow vest riots again

The future Brazilian (and Indian) Scorpènes will have the same masts btw

All you’ve really given me are claims with no real pieces of concrete evidence to back them up, not to mention any references/links to them, you just shell out random facts like Oprah Winfrey does money; Makes you wonder who the real autist is in this scenario. L2debate.

Attack submarines are hot export items and Australia already ordered twelve of these Barracudas, so it's good money actually.
And we've been building nuclear subs since before we were born, Macron had nothing to do with it.
And last I heard, 74% of the French population is against building nuclear weapons (a few years ago it was more like 90%). But it's money well spent.

>Someone else is buying them
How is that effecting the ones you keep? ANd the french state didn't build them, Direction des Constructions Navales did and they are selling them to you for the normal price.
And they are selling them to australia as well. DId you realy thougth, any state owned company build and give them to you for free?
Stop wasting your money! You will be the next greece ffs. YOu are destroying my euro

Right, so the fact that the UK has a government organization that is dedicated to "the design, manufacture, and support of warheads" is not, in itself, evidence that the UK designs, manufactures, and supports its own warheads?

You, sir, are declared silly.

Attached: 157644274132.png (890x661, 166K)

How come you lot didn't kick the germans out of Rhineland in 1936 when they marched into the region even though the Versailles treaty prohibited them from doing so?

Well, it's expected since they're from the same class.
The only difference is the BR one is longer because they wanted more range.

At least my country is not in economic shambles

Attached: 9CE1C0C5-4E55-4C5A-9CB4-AD3768B81A64.png (327x316, 211K)

man, I love to bash americans, but this one is right tho.
There is a reason you nigel niggers aren't out of the Union yet

>How is that effecting the ones you keep
The design costs are split over more units, and it gives work to many people who won't go unemployed and will pay taxes.

>Stop wasting your money!
It's money well spent. We tried not spending enough on defense. In the 30s. Didn't work.

Ah, I'll take you moving the discussion away from nuclear weapons as you conceding then.

Im not the same poster you were arguing your nukes bullshit with, but when I see the Ol’ Monarchy trying to shit on freedom, i intercede

For having family working in the nuclear industry, we can roll up mass produced war heads anytime if necessary.

It has nothing to do with shitting on freedom. It is correcting some moron commenting on something he doesn't understand, nothing more, nothing less.

13.612 Employees for 6 uBoots for, per contract possible maximal costs of 7,9 Billion EUR. Thats what, 600k per personal?! Oh boy I hope they'll spend that on taxes because if thats how you frenchies count monetary value I am not surprised to see you with the highest dept and highest rising deps in the entire EU.

And again, defense against whom?! Us? We don't even have one functional sub. THe russians? They barely beat some rebells in syria and are scratisching on bancrupcy because fighting wars is expensive AF, there GDP is droping like no tomorrow. AGAINST WHO?! There is no emey that would justify that. The military industrial complex is tricking you to spend tax payers money on useless shit and ppl like you are helping willingkly. WHere will you be when the deps you horded is collected? I guess rioting in Paris against high prices. Pah!

>And again, defense against whom?! Us? We don't even have one functional sub. THe russians? They barely beat some rebells in syria and are scratisching on bancrupcy because fighting wars is expensive AF, there GDP is droping like no tomorrow. AGAINST WHO?! There is no emey that would justify that. The military industrial complex is tricking you to spend tax payers money on useless shit and ppl like you are helping willingkly. WHere will you be when the deps you horded is collected? I guess rioting in Paris against high prices. Pah!
You're welcome to tell the last country that gave up their nuclear weapons that nobody would attack them. Do you know who that was?

It was Ukraine.

>Look what happend to this very specific case of ignorance and missthreating of global politics, that means its everytime this way!
Google Inductionproblem.

You can spin this however you want, but the fact is, not long into Ukraine's existence after giving up their nuclear weapons - Russia launched an aggressive campaign to seize their territory. Something that many of your types refused to consider it possible because you cannot fathom that others do not share your value system.

I was pretty aware that russia would not give up its only all year free blue water port and german policy makers are idiots for not seeing this.
But when should something like this ever happend to france?

ALso, as if Ukrain would have ever used nukes.

This thing called sonar and maps??

People were tired of war
So many brilliant minds naively believed “That fucking sucked, but at least we’ll never go through something like that again! That’d be just crazy”
:(