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
benellim4       8/7/2009 6:12:14 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. "


 

 

Well you may be professional, but you're not A professional. You know how I can tell? Because you missed the important part of this story.
 
Let's start with the fact that she was never towed to port. She had a database error that caused her to lose propulsion for 2 hours and 45 minutes. Anthony DiGeogio also said that the reporter for GCN altered his statement. The Commanding Officer of the ship and the Atlantic Fleet also denied the report. In fact, if it had been towed back, I would have heard about it. A cruiser getting towed into port does not stay a secret on the world's largest naval base.
 
USS Yorktown was an experimental ship, Aegis cruiser or no. Yep, an experimental ship. We had so many Aegis cruiser that were better than CG-47 thru 51, that we decided to take one of them (eventually we took two of them) and installed experimental machinery controls on them. That same software allowed Yorktown to get underway with no one on the bridge and go to sea (a three hour transit from NAVSTA Norfolk to sea) with only inputs from a computer in the Commanding Officer's cabin. 
 

To put this in perspective, the CG-47 thru 51 flight of ships was less capable in air defense than the CG-52 (and on) and the DDG-51 class. She was still more capable in air defense than any other ship in the world at the time, and still we used it for experimentation. In fact, the USS YORKTOWN did not deploy, except to do counter-narcotics operations, until 2004. So for 8 years, 1996 when the "smart ship" system was installed, until 2004, we didn't even use it as an operational deployer.
 
A country that can take an air defense platform that is more capable than anything the world has, and can afford to install an experimental system in it and not deploy it, is simply amazing.
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       8/8/2009 2:56:58 AM
"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."
 
Oh there is no question that if you really want to pound something from the sea an aircraft carrier is the way to go. 
 
The problem is that with a single carrier France's capability is generally either way too much, or way too little. 
 
It is overkill for small scale police actions... a handful of harriers would be more than sufficient for that... but it is far too little to deal with a major flare-up somewhere.  
 
(Plus your bomb delivery numbers are incredibly optimistic. 70 strike sorties delivering 660 precision guided bombs? LOL ) 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       8/8/2009 3:28:04 AM
To put this in perspective, the CG-47 thru 51 flight of ships was less capable in air defense than the CG-52 (and on) and the DDG-51 class. 
the Block 1 Ticos were offered to RAN a few years back.  They were knocked back due to issues of age, and capability and the fact that they had basically ended up as mules.  They certainly weren't as capable as the later builds in class
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       8/8/2009 4:36:08 AM
Rufus
I wrote and corrected before my message, indeed I wrote:
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.
 
Standard load of a Rafale is 6 to 8 AASM.We have 2 pilots per Rafale and we can assume 2 to 3 sorties per day per pilots.
Limiting number of a carrier is due to its landing track and movement on the bridge.Normally CdG is scheduled for 100 sorties per days officially but with 3 squadrons we can assume a number up to 150 in a surge.US carriers have reached 200 sorties per days but they can sustain them more since they have more planes and pilots.
 
You wrote:
The problem is that with a single carrier France's capability is generally either way too much, or way too little. 
It is overkill for small scale police actions... a handful of harriers would be more than sufficient for that... but it is far too little to deal with a major flare-up somewhere.
An handfull of Harrier is good for a minor operation assuming no air decent air threat.They are also short range which means the carrier has to get close to the coast.
Rafale M is today a first class BVR air defense fighter with only really F22 better.
Rafale M can cope with any SU30 of the latest generation like only India have and easily dominate a standard export Mig 29 on a third world country.
Rafale M is buddy refueled and accept also any common stock of air force and navy weapons lile Mica, AASM, Laser guided bomb (soon) , SCALP, AM39 or nuclear hypersonic ASMP-A with 500 km range and 300 Kt.
Now we have 3 E2C which are force multipliers with datalink.
On ennemies:
Very few air forces have SU30 MKI equivalent in numbers, with AWACs to support them, and a decent number of air refuelers.Very few air forces can mount long range massive strikes with an hundred fighters with antiships missiles.Very few air forces have NATO level pilots with sufficient spares to sustain hing rate sorties numbers.
Now take also in account that France have ground air bases around the world on french territories to complement CdG
 
How much forces can cope with it outside NATO and get air superiority agaisnt CdG?
 
Russia have SSN in numbers so we would never risk CdG in northern Atlantic.But we don't need it to strike Russia.
CdG power alone excess any air force in central and south America including Brasil
CdG power alone excess any air force in Africa except Algeria and Egypt but we are in range for our ground based air force
In Mediterranean, CdG alone excess Syrian air force for air combat power assuming our ground based air force do the air to gorund job (Syria is far away and need 3 hours of flight with air refueling from Corsica)
 
In Indian Ocean CdG alone excess all countries in air superiority power including Iran and Pakistan, except Saudi Arabia and UAE (french allies), India , Singapore and Australia (french allies).
Against Iran and Pakistan we can ADD our ground based air force either based in Djibouti (with air refueling) or even UAE (with agreement of UAE) or even in Mayotte (while limited to very long range ground based Rafale strikes with SCALPS or on their coast.
Against Iran or Pakistan we can send of their inside capital city some SCALPS or ASMP or pound their coast with hundreds or thousands AASM, 100 or 200 miles inside.Their navies would be 100% destroyed.
 
In Pacific CdG power excess all countries in air superiority power  except South Korea, Japan, China, Taiwan.
Only China is seen as a potential threat to France (or North Korea we could hit easily by air or even nuke).
It would be mad to come close to Chinese coast.
However in blue sea well behind Taiwan France can expect to destroy any Chinese surface ship between Philippino and Japan, or to launch successfully SCALP on China 2000 km away, and we have 600 of them.If China have SSK in numbers, SSK are a threat only close to China.Chinese SSN could be a threat if they have more and better than France which is not the case.We can also threatened all their attempt to settle on Parcaels Islands or de
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    What is the ammo and fuel bunkerage on the Chuckles de Gaulle again?   8/8/2009 6:19:40 AM
3000 sorties per week huh? On a 28 aircraft tactical air wing and with an average of 4 tonnes of fuel and stores?
 
Lets convert some of that into usable units i.e. seconds. @ 605,000 seconds (week)/3000 (optempo total) sorties=  cat-shot every 201 seconds all around the clock.
 
Let me see, that is one catapult shot every 3 minutes and 21 seconds in lay English. Since we assume a maximum of 34 fixed wing ( Source. ) and a standard USN level of deck performance that whole group can get aloft in about  1200 seconds actual, and then fly to the target 3600 seconds and return at 1800 seconds actual, then rearm 1800 seconds and then sortie again., so the sortie cycle is actually about  2.3 hours for a maximum alpha  at optimum range. 
 
So in theory, the CdG could launch 340 sorties a day (10 complete cycles)........x 7=2380. 
 
Nope. No matter how hard I try, I cannot make 2380 be anything but less than 3000.
 
Lie one disposed. Lets try for that sustained tempo based on stores. An aircraft like the Etendard or the Sqyall will om average use about four tonnes of stores and load per sortie: so we have to have 9500 tonnes of fuel and ammunition aboard the Chuckles.
 
Only one problem.........
 
 
Munitions Storage

Specifications
Power Plant 2 Nuclear Power Plants;
Two propellers with 4 blades each, 80,000 ch (56,000 kW);
Electric power: 21,400 kW
Length, overall 262 meters
Flight Deck Width 65 meters
Total Height 75 meters
Displacement 35,500 tons
40,600 tons (full load)
Speed 27 knots
Aircraft 35-40
Aircraft Elevators 2
Catapults 2
Runway Floor Space 12,000 m²
Hangar Area Floor Space 4,600 m²
Crew Ship's Company: 1,950
Armament 2 Aster 15 missile systems (16 each)
2 Sadral systems (6 each)
8 Giat 20 F2
Combat Systems 2 Raccal-Decca
1 DRBJ 11 B
1 DRBV 26 D
1 DRBV 15 C
1 Arabel
1 Vampir DIBV 1 system
2 DIBC 2A (Vigy 105) systems

1 ARBR 21 radar detector
2 ARBB 33 jammers
4 Sagaie decoy-launchers
SLAT system
SAIGON system
SENIT 8 system
TACAN : VRBP-20A

Launch Rate 1 aircraft/30 seconds
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    What is the ammo and fuel bunkerage on the Chuckles de Gaulle again?   8/8/2009 6:23:42 AM
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. .
 
 
Quote    Reply

Das Kardinal       8/8/2009 12:28:27 PM
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.
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       8/8/2009 2:27:48 PM
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...
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    I dismiss FS   8/8/2009 2:49:59 PM

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

 
 
.    
 
 
Quote    Reply

FJV    Replenishing   8/8/2009 4:42:01 PM
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.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics