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       8/8/2009 5:35:06 PM
Foch carried:
 Capacité d'emport de carburéacteur (3000 m3) et de munitions (1300 t)
Foch 1 800 m3 fuel for airplanes
Cdg: 3 000 m3 fuel for airplanes
Ammunitions capability
Foch: 3 000 m3 and 1300 tons
Cdg : 4 900 m3 and 500 tons only? The true is that the 500 figure is only an official peace time capability with maximum security norm.Cdg can carry much more and of course, can be replenished at sea in war time. We can use half a dozen ship as oilers and ammunition replenishment.
 
CdG is far to be an harbor queen
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    You and Halsey are full of BULL.    8/9/2009 12:05:55 AM
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.  . 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    You and Halsey are full of BULL.    8/9/2009 12:16:47 AM
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
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       8/9/2009 12:29:17 AM
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. 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Agreed. Yet the JMSDF figures show me something   8/9/2009 2:08:22 AM

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. 

There was helo stop service and replenishment, as well as warship distilled water in that data. Something in those figures actually doesn't add up. Not for the number of ships publicly declared active. .
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       8/9/2009 8:12:07 AM
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.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       8/9/2009 4:57:08 PM
That's why when there is something big going down, the USN deploys more than one.
bearing in mind that current numbers on deployed wings to the carriers is only about 2/3rds of what they can carrry in wartime... then the numbers are going to be ugly for people doing the turn arounds....
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       8/9/2009 7:52:22 PM

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.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Blue Apple       8/10/2009 3:43:08 AM
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.
 
Proof? Given that the CdG has had on average one "long" (2 months or more) cruise every year in the 2001-2007 period in addition of smaller scale exercizes in the Mediterranean while the Kusnetsov struggles when it has to leave port for more than a couple of weeks, that's hard to believe.
 
The last cruise of the Kuznetsov was less than 3 months (Dec 5th 2008 to March 3rd 2009) and the Russians qualified it as a "very long cruise". One can wonder what they'd call the CdG 7 months cruise in the Indian Ocean back in 2002...
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Wrong Chuckles    8/10/2009 3:46:07 AM

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.
 

Proof? Given that the CdG has had on average one "long" (2 months or more) cruise every year in the 2001-2007 period in addition of smaller scale exercizes in the Mediterranean while the Kusnetsov struggles when it has to leave port for more than a couple of weeks, that's hard to believe.

 

The last cruise of the Kuznetsov was less than 3 months (Dec 5th 2008 to March 3rd 2009) and the Russians qualified it as a "very long cruise". One can wonder what they'd call the CdG 7 months cruise in the Indian Ocean back in 2002...



Look at that contract again.
 
Herald
 
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics