Follow up, you can chuck the rest of the nonsense he claimed as well.

 

The Chuckles cannot take on Brazil. Not with just 550 tonnes of ordnance stowage. .

 

Unless they use underway replenishment. Something the MN routinely does.

And nitpicking about the daily number of sorties doesn't change that FS is right : the CdG isn't much compared to a US CVN, but it's still better than none, which is what everyone else has. 

Dismissing the CdG as useless on the basis that it doesn't do as much as well as a Nimitz isn't a objective judgment.

The point here is that the numbers he is throwing out are just absurd.  They aren't even CLOSE to what is possible.

 

He starts his little scenario off by overloading his carrier by 50%.(because THAT wouldn't complicate maintenance, weapons handling, etc etc etc) 

 

Then has every single one of those planes operating continually, around the clock, all carrying far more than a realistic load.

 

(Not that they couldn't lift that much on a given flight, but that is almost always going to be far more munitions than they are going to be able to use in a single mission unless they are just carpet bombing something. Even if you were hitting each target with two weapons, hitting four distinct targets in a single mission is going to be extremely rare. If you are talking about a mission that required any amount of hunting for a target, such as DEAD, there is simply not a chance you will need or use 8 weapons in a single mission.)

 

This is just one more example of a fanboy with absolutely zero actual experience trying to lecture on a topic he doesn't understand. 

 

For a given strike could the CDG perhaps put 24 Rafales in the air with many of them carrying a heavy load?  Sure... could it repeat that strike several times over a 48 hour period?  Sure... (with some planning)

 

Could it keep doing that day and night for a week?  No @!#!ing way. 

 

Every single mission has to be planned.  Weapons have to be assembled and appropriately fused.  Planes have to be loaded.  Planes have to be shuffled around the deck and hanger.  Planes with maintenance issues will need to be repaired or replaced. (things ALWAYS break)  Air cover and aerial refueling has to be arranged.  The pilots have to be briefed on their targets.  SEAD has to be set up and coordinated.  S&R has to be set up and coordinated.

 

You would have to be regularly replenishing the carrier's stores of weapons and fuel underway, which is not a super fast process when you are talking about moving hundred and hundreds of munitions and tens of thousands of liters of fuel.

 

We aren't talking about delivering pizzas here. 

 

 

Why do you think even with its much larger carriers that are better suited to sustaining high op-tempos the US will always send at least 2 when they are expecting an actual fight?  There are a lot of limiting factors besides simply calculating how quickly the carrier can cycle its catapults.

 

Even operating from a high quality airfield the numbers he is throwing out aren't realistic. On a carrier?  laughable...

 

 

because he exaggerates beyond what is credible The Chuckles has spent most of her career as a harbor queen with little to show for her floating around except to bomb a few helicopters in a small African country that had no air-power to threaten her.  . .and then she broke down.

Power projection wise she is about equivalent to what the Kusnetsov is. The Russian carrier for all her design defects actually has more time at sea.

 

A US CV carries about 10,000 tonnes of fuel and stores for its air wing. This sounds like a lot until you recognize that in wartime such a carrier would replenish once a week low tempo at least and then maybe twice that if she surged.. Most US carriers carry about twice of what the Chuckles carries in the way of strike aircraft (rest are air defense and .ASW). So you can see that 2.5x bunkerage and ammo stowage doesn't go far.

 

Especially when it takes a whole day to replenish? 

 

Here is a snapshot for Somali pirate huntinmg operations (no carriers present-replenishment conducted by the Japanese for NATO forces afloat)

 

Source. 

 

Note the fuel? When the Japanese have to replenish your replenishment ship, something is WRONG. 

 

 

 

 

.    

 

Replenishing creates some additional problems in that you need an extra fleet or two to escort the supply ships for the carrier. That is on top of the fleet you need to protect the carrier itself. The US would also have this problem.

 

That and the fact that the assets you need to transfer the supply to the carrier cannot be used at that time for supporting flight missions. All those bombs and missiles have to be hauled aboard the carrier after all.

 

That is not to say that the French carriers would not be a very welcome and appreciated addition to any UN mission or multinational force.

 

 

 

Foch carried:

 Capacité d'emport de carburéacteur (3000 m3) et de munitions (1300 t)

link

The displacement figures don't lie. You can put more than 5000 tonnes upon that badly designed hull without making her air ops incapable or can't you even figure that little factoid out?.

Your magazines also only  hold so much, and you can drive a keel so deep into the water before you stuff up your usable aircraft handling work volume.  . 

And by the way... I used to think it would take four torpedoes to destroy the Chuckles. You better pray  that those links you provided us are full olf lies, because the design faults they indicate to me about the Chuckles show that one torpedo or two would be catastrophic.kills.

 

Herald

 

the issue is the avgas - not the fuel oil etc....  unless you've got proper provisioning the rest of the escorts are only providing heavy....

you've be surprised at how quickly that avgas is going to go oce the tempo goes up. 

All this technical mumbo-jumbo is great, but you're all missing the key limiter on sortie generation...the flight deck crew. How long do you expect those boys on the flight deck to work? Considering the CdG has fewer crewmen than a NIMITZ-class, my bet is that they don't have as many people working on the flight deck. Even a NIMITZ has to stop flight deck ops for a while to let those guys rest. Getting 110 sorties a day for 7 days a week isn't going to happen. That's why when there is something big going down, the USN deploys more than one.

That was the next item for discussion, before you beat me to it.

 

 

FMU-152 joint programmable or FMU-159 hard target

 

Ouch. Only the FMU-139 & FMU-143 have been procured by the French.

 

They're being replaced by the FBM 21 made by Junghans T2M (formely Thales TDA). But thanks for playing, "expert".

 

Power projection wise she is about equivalent to what the Kusnetsov is. The Russian carrier for all her design defects actually has more time at sea.

Look at that contract again.

 

Herald