> At that point you're not even maintaining any institutional knowledge, engineers will retire before they see a second aircraft carrier being constructed. Thi

> At that point you're not even maintaining any institutional knowledge, engineers will retire before they see a second aircraft carrier being constructed. This was a huge talking point when I was working there. "Maintien des compétences" is a huge issue that also plague the civil nuclear industry. > France would never export a nuclear submarine Naval Group doesn't sell nuclear subs made for the French marine but they do sell the technology transfer to help a country develop their own. The Brazilian contracts was also a mess (good engineer, bad sells man :D) but we were well on track to help them make their first nuclear sub. > (even the planned Australian contract wasn't nuclear, iirc) At their explicit demand I might add. It was always stated that the subs were supposed to be conventional. I remember that it was actually kind of an issue for the engineer because they wanted specs that were way above what most conventional subs were able to handle (in term of range and time submerged), and the main design was supposed to be more or less a retrofit of the Barracuda class.