Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: 2009 displays of the F-22 and the Rafale
Bluewings12    6/24/2009 5:03:48 PM
Let 's watch them first :-) The F-22 h*tp://www.air-attack.com/videos/single/cAhL7lJCk4I The Rafale : h*tp://www.dailymotion.com/user/ministeredeladefense/video/x9ma8h_demonstration-du-rafale_news Both aircrafts are pulling nice stuff . Rafale only does it twice faster . Explaination and details to follow . Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
usajoe1       8/7/2009 2:12:24 AM
The CDG is about one thing, pride.  It allows France to move a couple dozen Rafale's pretty much anywhere in the ocean, but that is a force too small to do anything but small-scale punitive strikes against an opponent with any real level of capability. 

When shes not in harbor for repairs of another poorly designed feature, or overhal, then she might be usefull aginst some third rate Military, somewhere in Africa or the Mid East.
 
Ship or submarine launched cruise missiles would offer the same capability at a tiny fraction of the cost.  
 
And be more reliable, knowing that France has designed successful subs and cruise missiles. 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    U've mnet the burden   8/7/2009 9:24:47 AM

Read that press release again.

 

You know, the burden of proof is on you. So unless you can quote the exact words, telling me to read it again simply won't work. But you can't since this is an order for modification of existing PWII kits, it does not include bomb bodies or fuzes.

 

Note that the French forces do use some US-made bombs and fuzes but the vast majority of bombs (mk8x/CBEMS with PWII or AASM kits) use a French fuze.

Paveway afterbody uses a US base fuse to detonate the fill in the bomb body blank, amateur.

You really are not well informed are you?

 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       8/7/2009 9:44:47 AM
Ship or submarine launched cruise missiles would offer the same capability at a tiny fraction of the cost.
 
No.
CdG can deliver 100 to 110 Rafale sorties per day at maximum and assuming 70 are for strike it means we can deliver 660 precision guided bomb per day or almost 5000 in a week.To use 5000 cruises missiles would be costly (twice price of CdG in missiles alone) and need as much VLS that US Navy have.
Difficult to think that an air threat that can detect and reach any target in a 2000 km radius is something to dismiss.
Civilian ships can be detected and hit at will in those 4000 km wide spot and I think it would seriously distrub naval traffic of a country like India or China unless they managed to sink it...if they can.
I don't know how India or China could today easily sink it in blue sea 2000 km away from their coast since India has no operational SSN and few SU30 and China has noisy SSN and inferior SU.
When German send the Bismarck in Atlantic, UK was panicked for its sea lines and managed to sink it but they had a strong naval superiority over Germans.
 
CdG is not a secondary tool: its is a major diplomatic tool and military tool for conventional (or nuclear) reprisals with global reach and only US and France have such a tool.
Maybe only one for France does not seems impressive but better than zero.
36 Rafale and 3 E2C on board does not seems impressive but still better in strenght than all air forces and navies of Latin America and Africa (except Algeria or Egypt which are close to France and that our air force can reach) or Indian ocean except India.
Even a 40 modern surface ship navy like Japan has no chance to sink a target like CdG battle group in blue water.There ships would be detected much before they get in reach of french battle group to launch their 200 km antiship missiles and they would be hit ressently by our aircrafts.
Only SSN are a real threat for our battle group in blue water (SSK are too slow and are like dormant mines) and it supposes you have several decent ones and ability to counter ours.Only USA, UK and Russia have that
 
We need a second one to be able to deploy even when CdG is in maintenance. Granted.
China or India or Russia or UK try to get such tool for a good reason.Currently only Russia has an aircraft carrier with decent air superiority fighter but few on it, no AWACs like E2C, and little payload and autonomy for strike since their navalized Sukhoi are STOBAR.
Now it is not a cheap tool.
She had cost to France (including specific R&D) 15 billions $ with its aircraft complement without even its surface or SSN escort.The price of 10 modern SSN.
Compare to USA and its 11 carriers and 57 modern SSN, France with 1 carrier (60% of a US one) and 6 SSN look pale since it is 5,5% of USA for naval air and 10% in SSN but not a force to dismiss since other navies have much less in blue water(except UK and Russia).
I agree that USA dominates completly blue water ocean unless striked by surprise in harbor and by SSN in peace time.
But USA is not France ennemy.A single REAL carrier give us a global capability second in world.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       8/7/2009 9:48:57 AM
Sorry I forgot to correct my message
 
CdG can deliver 100 to 110 Rafale sorties per day at maximum and assuming 70 are for strike it means we can deliver 420 stand off precision guided bomb per day like AASM (50 km range) , or almost 3000 in a week.Or with all sorties to strike, 660  or almost 5000 in a week.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    To be fair   8/7/2009 9:55:44 AM
I think FS has a point...Only France has a sustained air power projection capacity...certainly Britain doesn't.  I believe s/he is correct in stating that the CdG could deliver the level of firepower against the Russians, Indians and PRC he claims...I think that against the PRC and Russia it would be a one-off thing, one strike and then the CdG is sunk, but it COULD be done.  I think the CdG could hold its own against the Indians.
 
Bottom-line: Not everything Fs says is wrong...just most of it.  But s/he is correct in the claim that after the USN France has the most sustained air strike capacity, assuming the CdG isn't broken on the day you need to launch the air strikes.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       8/7/2009 10:18:44 AM

To Herald

 

"For the rest of you, some nations do  some things very well. Ballistic rockets and subs, even torpedoes, the French do very well (better than the US in many cases MU90 being an example) ."

Thank to recognize it 
Better to say, I am unbiased and objective0-something which you cannot claim..
"Commercial aviation their products are  pedestrian to terrible(A400M disaster)."
 

Like Falcon jet from Dassault, Ecureuil or Dauphin from french part of Eurocopter, A300 or A330 (won US tanker contract initially, won Australian or Canadian contracts), or CFM 56 joint venture?
 
The Dolphin was just okay. As soon as the USCG  had something with which to replace it we did. As for Falconjet,
 
Only one of many yo correct Dassault incompetence. By the way did you ever thank Lear and MBB for the technology you STOLE?
 
EADS double gouvernance problem are specific happened since EADS was formed and also due to German.

That was ALL 1%er France, you misinformed poster. The German management told YOU to go to hell.

Likewise combat aircraft (Rafale). Combat ordnance, their A2G ordnance in its latest iteration is fair to excellent depending on type(SCALP being excellent). Their latest  A2A weapons and SAM systems, as long as its not modern MBDA [Matra]), is only just okay (CROTALE and Matra Magic and 530 work aa intended, the rest is junk.).

Rafale is good but late on roadamp improvment since funding is slow due to budgetary constraint.Still best aircraft in the world outside USA.And Mica is good as Aster.

 You cannot alibi failure.


Their latest surface fleet combatant series (Forbin and Lafayette) are jokes (Combat information system integration failures and one hit and they explode and sink design horrors).
   


Crap. Just developement problems lile US have.Remember the DD51 which has to be towed back to an US harbor because of a software fault.

 Our combat systems have seen combat. They work. WE corrected our softwate glitch, amnd it was not towed back, liar. It steamed back on manual.

The French use a heck of a lot more American technology than they care to admit,

We use some US tech like USA which use some french tech also in the Pac 3 for exemple.The key is to be able to produce it or duplicate it in case of bad relationship with USA.Like for you.
 
We don't use much of your stuff at all, (Durandel we use to bust runways) because we know most of it doesn't work. What we do use that you call "French" (CAD and operations software) WE DEVELOP HERE. Your holding companies do not even understand the tech that their US subsidiaries make that you buy from us and use. Why do you think that most of your "French" software has its origin point in Massachissettes, Minnesota, Washington, California, and Georgia?    

We use US tech when:

1)It is a secondary system which could not prevent us to militarly act, even US put an embargo, and which would be too costly to develop ourselves:

exemple: E3F AWACs, or E2F which have a french specific software maintained by us and a good stockpile of spares.
 
You  are ignorant. The software is OURS, the countermeasures are ours the exploits are ours. We can blind you at a whim becauase we KNOW our own system
 
Quote    Reply

Blue Apple       8/7/2009 11:15:01 AM
Paveway afterbody uses a US base fuse to detonate the fill in the bomb body blank, amateur.
 
What the hell is the "fill in the bomb body blank"? Could you at least try to speak English?
 
And as you're an "expert", you should know that different types of fuze can be fitted to the bomb used on a Paveway kit. For example, the UK uses the multi-function bomb fuze (MFBF) 947 or 960 on their PWII kit.
 
Likewise, French air force and Aeronavale have used different fuzes, some the older Matra designs, some US-made bought as an interim solution until their own next generation fuze were available and now this next generation fuze.
 
You really are not well informed are you?

If you're so well informed, please give us the reference of the US fuze used in French PWII. Obviously it's a FMU-xyz. Shouldn't be too hard for an "expert" like you.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       8/7/2009 12:01:56 PM
I'm sorry Herald, it was not a DD 51 which was towed to harbor by a software malfunction, but a US Aegis cruiser.
Rest of your message is complete bullsh*t like usual.
Anybody can do research and dimiss completely your usual amount of bigotry and lies.
I'm not prejudiced like you but fair and I know unless you, what I'm speaking about because I'm professional.
 

Software glitches leave Navy Smart Ship dead in the water

"The ship had to be towed into the Naval base at Norfolk, Va., because a  database overflow caused its propulsion system to fail, according to  Anthony DiGiorgio, a civilian engineer with the Atlantic Fleet Technical  Support Center in Norfolk. "
"The Yorktown has been towed into port several times because of the  systems failures, he said. "
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       8/7/2009 12:42:59 PM

Paveway afterbody uses a US base fuse to detonate the fill in the bomb body blank, amateur.

 

What the hell is the "fill in the bomb body blank"? Could you at least try to speak English?

Explosive, poster.

And as you're an "expert", you should know that different types of fuze can be fitted to the bomb used on a Paveway kit. For example, the UK uses the multi-function bomb fuze (MFBF) 947 or 960 on their PWII kit.

Sure, but their fises WORK , or doidn't you read where I said that?

Likewise, French air force and Aeronavale have used different fuzes, some the older Matra designs, some US-made bought as an interim solution until their own next generation fuze were available and now this next generation fuze.

You really are not well informed are you?



If you're so well informed, please give us the reference of the US fuze used in French PWII. Obviously it's a FMU-xyz. Shouldn't be too hard for an "expert" like you.

FMU-152 joint programmable or FMU-159 hard target
.
What else? 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Well   8/7/2009 12:57:40 PM

I'm sorry Herald, it was not a DD 51 which was towed to harbor by a software malfunction, but a US Aegis cruiser.

Rest of your message is complete bullsh*t like usual.

Anybody can do research and dimiss completely your usual amount of bigotry and lies.

I'm not prejudiced like you but fair and I know unless you, what I'm speaking about because I'm professional.

 


Software glitches leave Navy Smart Ship dead in the water


"The ship had to be towed into the Naval base at Norfolk, Va., because a  database overflow caused its propulsion system to fail, according to  Anthony DiGiorgio, a civilian engineer with the Atlantic Fleet Technical  Support Center in Norfolk. "

"The Yorktown has been towed into port several times because of the  systems failures, he said. "


 

 

Dug that up? Liar.
 
I often don't use it, but:
 
 

DiGiorgio denies reported statements


Regarding your story on the USS Yorktown [GCN, July 13, Page 1], just for the record:


I did not say that the Yorktown was towed into Norfolk.


Logic does not allow the combination of the words ?self-proclaimed
whistle-blower.? It may sound good, but there is no such thing.


Your reporter seems to have spent his formative years as a reporter at the National
Enquirer. This is based on [his] disregard of what was actually said for the sake of
writing what he wanted to write.


Thanks for introducing me to being quoted. The way you obtained the information and the
way you misused it is beginning to make me think that, maybe, there is validity to the
claim made by the average American redneck that the media is the problem.


Anthony DiGiorgio
Engineer
Atlantic Fleet Technical Support Center
Norfolk, Va.


Editor?s note: GCN stands by its story.
 
 

Smart Ship inquiry a go

  • By Gregory Slabodkin
  • Aug 31, 1998

All new apps must run under NT,
Navy CIO Ann Miller says.





The Navy?s systems chief has begun an investigation into the computer failure that
left the Aegis cruiser USS Yorktown dead in the water for several hours last fall.


Navy chief information officer Ann Miller is conducting a detailed inquiry of the
incident. The Yorktown is the Navy?s test bed for its Smart Ship program, which seeks
to reduce crew workloads and operating costs by using shipboard PC systems running under
Microsoft Windows NT.


On Sept. 21, 1997, the Yorktown experienced what the Navy called ?an engineering
LAN casualty? [GCN, July 13, Page 1]. A systems
administrator fed bad data into the ship?s Remote Database Manager, which caused a
buffer overflow when the software tried to divide by zero. The overflow crashed computers
on the LAN and caused the Yorktown to lose control of its propulsion system, Navy
officials said.


The Navy CIO Office is trying to determine whether the crash was caused by the software
application, NT or some other problem.


?So far, it doesn?t seem like it?s an NT issue but a basic programming
problem,? said deputy CIO Ron Turner, who is in charge of the inquiry.


The Navy?s Pacific and Atlantic fleets in March 1997 selected NT 4.0 as the
standard operating system for the Navy?s Information Technology for the 21st Century
initiative.


Miller recently issued service

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics