It goes directly to wrong choices which has been a continuous theme I have about most technological incompetence..

So that a SAM radar can look directly at it in passive mode and hunt for sidelobe noise.

fs > As a gift for our US readers

Some interesting confirmation in a public NATO document of what I have explained before:

etc......

gf > as you would know, that is an extremely dumbed down articulation of RCS management opportunity and principles.....  there are no longer 4 basic principles for RCS management. - and in real terms that hasn't been so for nearly a generation.  I can only suggest that the above is intended for a very very basic delivery of first order principles 

just noticed the dates on that doc, so I guess my comments are self evident....

The APG-77s array is angled? That's news to me! Thought the APG-79 was the first one with an angled array, followed by the -81.

Yes, it is angled.  Even without a shot of the array itself, it is obvious from the way the radome meets the fuselage:

 

As an option but not as a working option. We also mention biplanes in aeronautucs but aside from Stearmans and other stunt planes do you see any serious applications?

 

. 

If you check routinely internet you would notice that much more information is now publicly available on stealth and for a simple reason.

Or even are on the right track. Do you even know how many mistakes the US made?

 

If there is a nation which cannot manage very well system level management outside USA, it is France.

-poor construction quality 

-supply chain of critical components  (screws/propellers) bungled.

-safety factors ignored.

-allied (USN) suggestions to fix the problems when construction was underway ignored.

-Massive cost overruns and delays during program 

-up to now non-mission capable. (Showboat and harbor queen are the derisive terms used)

 

Our M51 work, our Triomphant class work ,and Rafale has well.In initial budget minus few percent more or less, in time,  and with predicted performance.Russians could learn some nothing from France.

Lookdown as opposed to lookup?

 

CREF Chuckles de Gaulle and previous examples..

 

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) . Commercial aviation their products are  pedestrian to terrible(A400M disaster). 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.). 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).   

 

The French use a heck of a lot more American technology than they care to admit, because their own stuff doesn't work that well. Their GP bombs for example. (fuses)  American fuses finally do work (only avarage performance here , Russian and British are just better designs) after decades of being the example of the worst fuse technology tree on Earth

 

The Charles de Gaulle is an example of political choices screwing up what should have been a fine ship.

 

The politicians refused to fund a new generation of nuclear reactor.

 

Consequence: several nuclear sub engines were used instead. But even then the ship was still underpowered.

 

So the reactors run hotter than in the sub, leading to radiation leaks issues and a need to refuel the cores at an unhealthy rate. But that still wasn't enough. So DCN decided to use a new screw design in order to extract a increase speed by a couple of knots. When the first set was cast, quality control showed that there were too many bubbles and that it might break. A new set was ordered but since there is exactly one company in France that can cast such large items, the delivery delay was >12 months. The navy decided to try using the deffective screws instead for the ship sea trials which led to the rather humiliating scene of the CdG towed back after only a few hours at sea.

 

Second political choice was the constant budget cuts that delayed the construction. A penny-wise, pound-foolish move as the slower workpace was much more expensive in the end, using the budget for two ships while building only one.

 

The only major design change has been the consequence of a decision to operate E2 planes instead of some helo-based AEW (like the UK) which led to the lengthening of the deck by a couple of feet in order to simplify operations (hte ship could operate E2 with the smaller deck but it would have to stop operations for sevral minutes moving planes around, not a very good idea in a warship).

 

As the first of a class and the first nuclear powered carrier built by a country, I tend to think French engineers did a decent job given the consequences of some political choices. It does not have the maturity of US designs but it's still better than most other nations have achieved (most gave up on CATOBAR and Russian carreirs are not exactly impressive).

 

Their GP bombs for example. (fuses) 

 

??? Even license-built mk bombs use French fuzes.

Chuckles de Gaulle:

 

If it's a lie, then tell us what fuze French bombs use now (2009) and how it is US-based. Be specific, please.