The ammo racks plural are located in the hull forward left side and turret left side bristle. Not the side side.The Leopard 2 has an ammo rack on the side of the tank. With really thin side armor. You hit it and the turret flies off.
As to the FCS again which version the latest or the older versions used by the Turks and for the record the Leclerc has a much lower turret weight and armor so the suspension is inferior in terms of weight capacity compared to the leopard 2. That's why the makers joint venture included a Leopard 2 hull with a Leclerc turret.
It helps if you actually use the tank correctly and support it with infantry. Also armor kits can be assembled by other makers or negotiated. To date the Saudies don't seem to be ingesting in such.Saudi Arabia has a lot of money, more than the UAE, yet their M1 Abrams haven't worked all that well in Yemen either. It's an obsolete tank design and the US does not have an export armor kit for it that's up to modern standards. The most modern armor kits only exist in limited numbers and are for US only use
Reducing the number of fighters in the carrier air wing. In a already fairly small modern nuclear carrier.The Rafale does not have folding wings because it was decided so, as a cost saving measure
Meaning that every time the CVN has to get a repair or overhaul the French Navy looses all carrier capabilities. The aim of the joint French English program was to allow at a affordable price carriers for the two partners. The single carrier deck limits ther ability to respond to emergency by putting all there eggs in one basket.As for the French carrier program, it was delayed because the French back-pedalled on having a conventionally powered carrier. The conventional power was a government decision to ensure commonality in design and was against the interests of the armed forces who saw it as a step backwards. They wanted a nuclear powered carrier. I would say it's a good thing they delayed the program
No, the Chinese have not been confirmed as building EMALS into there decks.Chinese are currently building conventionally powered EMALS CATOBAR carriers. The QE design was obsolete the moment they decided to use a ski-ramp on such a large carrier. It is about as obsolete as the basic Kuznetsov design
The method of take off and landing of the S/VTOL Queen Elizabeth class is vastly different from that used by the Russian / Chinese carriers the lift system buys extra payload vs that of the Russian system and saves on ship building and electrical drain.