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
french stratege       8/6/2009 3:18:01 PM
Read SLBM at the end of course.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       8/6/2009 3:32:33 PM
CDG aircraft carrier had minor problems but which brought some troubles:
-Reactors are not very powerful since we use derivative of SSBN K15.
It was a choice because developing a specific one would have been costly.Still she makes 27knts
We could have put 3 reactors if the hull would have been large enough to reach 32 knts.Not permitted since our military construction dock of DCNS in Brest did not allowed ship bigger than 40 000 tons and lenght above 270 meters.Moreover it would have add 1 billion euros to the ship.
 
-However it leads to a risky and sophisticated design for properlers for maximum power efficiency, which have been broken.
This because of post cold war insufficient fundings: subcontractor had financial problems due to lack of french military orders, and hiden to DGA (which manage contracts) its failure in producing all properlers at right quality level.Solved.
 
- we had an other problem which was the 5 REM cumulated annual radiation level which was the norm for nuclear warships during several decades including in USA.CdG reactors meet this spec.
However EU civilian norm evolved toward very low level of 1 REM cumulated annual radiation level.We wanted to meet this very severe norm for poltical reasons when deployed in harbours abroad without Greenpeace or other demonstrations, however it added a lot of weight to nuclear reactors shielding.
 
-Bridge was too short
Since it was not envisionned initially to buy E2C.Margin for maneouvering E2C safely at night need 3 meters.
Spec was added too late.
 
Moreover due to lack of funding, CDG building took 10 years instead of 6 initially,  which led to management problems when program responsible go to retirement in the middle or leaved.
CdG was a bad advertising.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       8/6/2009 4:00:37 PM
"CDG aircraft carrier had minor problems but which brought some troubles"
 
If what the CDG had were minor problems what would be a major problem?
 
Hitting an island and sinking?
 
Honestly now... the CDG has was a disaster of a program and a perfect example of why so few navies even attempt to build a true aircraft carrier.   You have spent billions and billions of euros to gain the ability to transport a token force of Rafales by sea, roughly one year in two.
 
 
If your leadership had it all to do over again they would kill the CDG in a heartbeat and use the money to fund equipment that might actually prove useful.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       8/6/2009 4:32:15 PM
Rufus
Still CdG carrier costed only 3,3 Billions euros R&D included.Not so bad.A 20% overcost.
 
Properler systems are solved and she will be available 60 to 80 % of the time if needed.
And if not available for operation, then we would use air force from oversea territories or wait CDG operationnal.
 
I would not call a token force of a war force in near future of 3 squadron of 36 Rafale F2/F3 (i.e best polyvalent fighter currently operational outside USA) which can be buddy refueled, with 2 or 3 EC2 F in support  (2 squadrons on board in peace time, 3 in war time with security restrictions removed)
With Scalp (or ASMP-A nuclear missile) and buddy refuelment, CdG can hit a target more than 2400 km away.
Few nations could detect it 2400 km away their coast and try to sink it.
Even Chineses would have problems.We could hit Shanghai or Beijing by risking it in Pacific in case.
 
With 1850 Mica, 600 Scalp and 3000 AASM in a common armée de l'air and Navy common stockpile in a next futur.
We can do today air raids against any nation in the world except USA, and it is a much more powerful force than British carrier force they had in Falkland (20 short range subsonic Harriers, non BVR missiles, no early warning) .
Who can do that except USA and France ?
 
Which air force has more than 50 SU30 or equivalent with AWACs in support, to counter its air threat?
If few nations has carrier, it is mainly because you need to develop a potent navalized air fighter to put on.
And you need also nukes to protect your country first, and to be largely independant from use restrictions.
 
However, we need a second carrier, I agree.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       8/6/2009 4:41:04 PM
Think Rufus that we could attempt to blockade China or India naval traffic with it by staying far away from their coast much behind Taiwan or Philipino.
And chineses SSN are much too noisy to cope with its battle group (and our SSN) in deep blue sea  waters, India has only one SSN not operational.
SSK even silent have difficulties to sink such ship far away their coast.
Only USA, Russia and UK can cope with our CdG battle group thank to their carrier and SSN power.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       8/6/2009 4:42:02 PM
much behind Taiwan or Philipino in the case of China of course.
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1       8/6/2009 6:50:06 PM
We can do today air raids against any nation in the world except USA
 
LOL! you can do what? you are joking right? explain to me how three dozen Rafales are going to do air raids against the Russian, Chinese, Indian mainland.http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emdgust.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" />
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       8/6/2009 8:30:16 PM
Russia, India or China are large countries and an aircraft carrier moves 1200 km a day.
Russia has too much modern SSN to risk CdG against them for us,  and BTW we need only air refuelers to strike some targets in Kola peninsula or Saint Pertersburg area.I defy them to do the reverse with their few Blackjacks and SU considering their availability and deployed tech.
India has no operational SSN but some rather decent SU30 MKI but maybe 50 operationals at any times.
 
Chineses has several hundreds (old) SU27/SU30 but as any air force, they are maybe 60% available at any time and spread in distant air bases covering all Chinese coast.
Considering their numbers of modern fighters, I do not see them able to counter a 18 Rafales low level strike with stealthy 400 km Scalp (or ASMP-A) on all their coast without regrouping their best fighters.And considering actual Rafale RCS and ECM I do not feel we should have a big attrition ratio.
Remember we can decide when and where we strike.We have initiative.
 
So it would allow us to strike elsewhere.If you calculate buddy air refueling from an other Rafale M (saying 3 tons per hour consumption for a Rafale in Hi cruise part flight), you would notice that Rafale M can go up to 2000 km in a Hi-Lo-Hi missions and launch a 400 km Scalp. 400 km away from the coast or 200 km away if we strike 200 km inside.
They can not counter few dozen hits on their territory in a week.
And they can not reply on french territory in any way in a non-nuke response (except with few dozen nukes from their ICBM but we can hit them with 300 in reward).
We can do 1942 like Doolittle like raid against them.And during several days.
Enough to destroy few good military assets or buildings in Shanghai or Beijing and humiliated them since they can not retaliate.
 
Now if we are much behind Taiwan or Phillipino, Chineses can try to use only their few poor and noisy SSN to strike CdG.We can mobilize up to 5 better SSN plus a dozen frigates to protect CdG.
(In next 10 years we can add submarines Scalps from our subs to do surprise attacks).
Any chinese surface ship in a 2000 km radius either military or civilian can be striked.
I doubt that any shipping companies would try to take the risk to export Chinese goods and pay high price insurances.
 
Technology rules.It is not the same game than trying to strike many time China in mainland, and destroy their whole ground and air forces, or to defend Taiwan which need to be close, like US would try in order to defend Taiwan.
We just can hit few targets in China while US are able to strike thousands of them in mainland China.
But we can still hit hundred of naval target between Korea and Japan and humiliate them and disturb their economy.
CdG 1000 km behind Taiwan can hit naval targets from South korea to Vietnam.All maritime facade of China.Check it on a map.
It is not a very big capability I conceed, but China would go amok if we destroy some key chinese assets or interrupt trade and oil imports, while they could do nothing to retaliate.
France does not spend a lot of defense, seems not impressive at first glance by numbers, but still is better than Chinese (or India) in a direct confrontation.See geography and capabilities.We have few, they have none.
Cdg is not as impressive than a US carrier, but we are the only one nation to have those capability outside USA.
Even part time.
Now I want a second carrier.ASAP.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1       8/6/2009 11:52:32 PM
 
Russia, India or China are large countries and an aircraft carrier moves 1200 km a day.
Russia has too much modern SSN to risk CdG against them for us,  and BTW we need only air refuelers to strike some targets in Kola peninsula or Saint Pertersburg area.I defy them to do the reverse with their few Blackjacks and SU considering their availability and deployed tech.
 
LOL! Strike some targets in Kola peninsula or Saint Pertersburg area. are you just pulling this BS out of your A## ? How in the hell are a couple of dozen Rafales going to get threw the hundreds of  S-300,/400, SAMS, SU27, MIG-31 ASF's to bomb Saint Petersburg.  First of all the Russian Blackjacks, and Backfires along with their nuclear and disel subs wont even let the CDG come any where close to lunch its SCALP Cruise missiles.
 
Second, the Russians can track the Rafale long before it will even get close to lunch, and they will be ready to intercept them before they even come that close.
 
India has no operational SSN but some rather decent SU30 MKI but maybe 50 operationals at any times.
 
The same goes for India, how in the hell are a hand full of Rafales going to penetrate hundreds of modern sams and jets to successfully take out important targets in India?
 
Chineses has several hundreds (old) SU27/SU30 but as any air force, they are maybe 60% available at any time and spread in distant air bases covering all Chinese coast.
 
No they don't. Stop making up things. they have about 300-350 modern fighters right now, consisting of about 200+ modern 4.5 gen. SU-30MKK and J-11, and 100+ J-10 fighters, and another 300-400 second rate ASF's in the older Sukhoi 27 and J-8. They also have hundreds of third rate fighters like the J-7.

Considering their numbers of modern fighters, I do not see them able to counter a 18 Rafales

See above and also add in hundreds of modern sam systems like the S-300.

low level strike with stealthy 400 km Scalp (or ASMP-A) on all their coast without regrouping their best fighters.And considering actual Rafale RCS and ECM I do not feel we should have a big attrition ratio.
 
How about evey single one of those 18 Rafale gets blown out of the sky in no time. The French Pilots should thank their lucky stars you are not in charge.
 
Remember we can decide when and where we strike.We have initiative.
 
LOL! 
 
So it would allow us to strike elsewhere.If you calculate buddy air refueling from an other Rafale M (saying 3 tons per hour consumption for a Rafale in Hi cruise part flight), you would notice that Rafale M can go up to 2000 km in a Hi-Lo-Hi missions and launch a 400 km Scalp. 400 km away from the coast or 200 km away if we strike 200 km inside.
They can not counter few dozen hits on their territory in a week.
 
Yes they can, see above!

And they can not reply on french territory in any way in a non-nuke response (except with few dozen nukes from t
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       8/7/2009 1:48:21 AM
You think you can blockade India or China with a single aircraft carrier?
 
LOL
 
What else do I really need to say in response to that?
 
 
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. 
 
Ship or submarine launched cruise missiles would offer the same capability at a tiny fraction of the cost.  
 

 

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics