Mistral class

I agree that it looks very tall, but I find it hard to believe that such experienced ship builders have made any rudimentary mistakes with regards to centre of gravity.

Those pictures are at an angle, by the way. Here is a page where the beam to height ratio is easier to see:

http://www.netmarine.net/bat/tcd/mistral/caracter.htm

The french carrier has high centre of weight also but i guess it never ran into any serious problems…

A new picture:

http://www.netmarine.net/bat/tcd/mistral/photo09.jpg

I agree that it looks very tall, but I find it hard to believe that such experienced ship builders have made any rudimentary mistakes with regards to centre of gravity.

Those pictures are at an angle, by the way. Here is a page where the beam to height ratio is easier to see:

http://www.netmarine.net/bat/tcd/mistral/caracter.htm

I’m not a marine engineer, but as far as I understand it the centre of gravity is more important than the height.

@Terran: You are right. The center of gravity is more important than the height. And besides the ship in pictures is still under contruction. As more and more systems are fitted she will sink a little bit. But never the less she looks to too narrow for her height.

I’m not a marine engineer, but as far as I understand it the centre of gravity is more important than the height.

Isn’t the ship to high for its beam? It suppose she will roll a lot in rough seas.

Here are some pictures of the first unit, Mistral:

http://www.netmarine.net/bat/tcd/mistral/photos.htm

Here is a picture of the front section of the second unit, Tonnerre:

http://www.netmarine.net/bat/tcd/tonnerre/photo01.htm

There has been a rumour that a third unit might be built in cooperation with the army. That unit would be used as a “special forces” carrier.