Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Silverbolt

Rafale M will operate in USS Eisenhower

Recommended Posts

:blink: very Strange... but interesting

Evidence of the warming in Franco-American relations in recent months and will of the President Nicolas Sarkozy that France reconnect their place in NATO, is that the Rafale M (F2), the squad 12F, based in Landivisiau, operate in carrier aviation nuclear CVN USS "Eisenhower, next spring (autumn in the southern hemisphere).

 

For France, in addition to its ongoing participation in exercises of the NRF (NATO Response Force), created at the meeting in Prague in November 2002, is to ensure its contribution to NATO operations, and offset the absence of carrier aviation "Charles-de-Gaulle", currently in PGM (General Program for Maintenance Inspection - IPER-pour Entretien Périodique) until the winter of 2008 (summer 2008/2009).

 

This possibility had been drawn by the Chief-of-Staff of the Marine Nationale, Admiral Alain Oudot de Dainville, it even a naval aviator, in the sequence of the short board held on 23 July last, when two Rafale M operated for a day in port - aircraft USS "Enterprise" (CVN-65), which crossed the Mediterranean Sea near the region of Cannes.

 

With the ready support of the American ambassador in Paris Craig Stapleton, this initiative will enable pilots of the naval Rafale aviation maintain their qualifications and operate under real conditions at sea, participating at the same time the operational missions of the "Carrier Air Wing Seven" (CAW -7), in the Mediterranean Sea. While moving 70,000 tons (against 44,000 tonnes of the "Charles-de-Gaulle), the USS" Eisenhower (CVN-69) employs exactly the same kind of catapulta of American design (C13), "train sauteur" but with from a distance longer race to catapultagem.

 

It is not known yet if the E-2C Hawkeye's squad 4F, Lann - Bihoué, part of this operation. A total of ten Rafales M, the Marine Nationale, in principle, will be integrated to the CAW-7, with its pilots and mechanics will probably replace a squad of F/A-18 Americans, which will be landed when the carrier aviation aportar in the region of Naples.

 

Currently in preparation for its next mission in the Mediterranean Sea, the "Ike" agrupará the CAW-7 four squads of F/A-18C/E Hornet and Super Hornet (the VF-143, VFA-83, 103 and 131) , a squad of EA-6B Prowler (VAQ-140) and a squad of E-2C Hawkeye (VAW-125) - the "Tigertails".

 

The Tigertails should participate for the first time in the exercise "Tiger Meet 2008" which should happen in the base of Landivisiau, France, in June 2008.

 

i used a internet translate from this Brazilian site:http://www.defesanet.com.br/france/rafale_cvn.htm

 

lets watch what will happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been F/A-18s landing on the Charlie and Rafales and Etendards on US Carriers before but...wierd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about the reconnecting with NATO bit as French military aircraft are regular visitors to the UK & very often tank from RAF aircraft too.

Still it's good that the Marine get to keep their carquals whilst they don't have an operational carrier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a reference to a more formal integration, like pre-1962. Of course they've worked alongside NATO in the intervening years, but they never took orders from NATO or conversely had someone inside giving orders to non-French.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a USN article on that earlier this year, with some (maybe the same, wasn't looking specifically for that shot now). But I got a really awesome shot of a Rafale touching and going on a carrier (think it was the Enterprise, not sure though) so this is just official I guess.

 

Screw it, it's the Holiday season! :smile:

post-5735-1198162103_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it surely is curious that the first 5th-gen fighter to fly from american carriers isn't made in the U.S.... :rofl:

 

Sorry, just had to point that out since the U.S. is always so "cutting-edge" on everything... or supposedly... :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it surely is curious that the first 5th-gen fighter to fly from american carriers isn't made in the U.S.... :rofl:

 

Sorry, just had to point that out since the U.S. is always so "cutting-edge" on everything... or supposedly... :wink:

 

Who needs "5th" generation when the US "4th" generation is just as advanced.

 

Case in Point the only "6th" generation plane -

post-30532-1198661037_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the Rafale is considered more a 4.5th generation design (like the Typhoon, Gripen, , Super Hornet, late F-16 and Su-27; a 4th generation design integrating some 5th generation parts and thinking) than a 5th one.

 

In fact, the only real 5th generation design in service is the F-22.

 

No need to go and invent a 6th generation or try to compare early F-16 to Rafale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the Rafale more maneuverable than the Super Hornet due to Canards? And forget about the rest, I was stating something about planes flying from US Navy CARRIERS - so don't mix up the rest when it don't belong to the discussion... (AFAIK there will be no Navy F-22s anyway, and the rest of the planes you mentioned weren't meant to be flown from carriers either, except for the Super Hornet and navalized version of the Su-27. The JSF would be the only plane you'd be able to point out as 5th-gen fighter, but it's a little... "meagre" compared to even the Super Bug...) :yes:

Edited by TX3RN0BILL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rafale is smaller than the Super Bug, it's more in the legacy Bug class. That's why I think almost every pic I've seen of one in operation has had 3 massive fuel tanks underneath. Just like we're facing with our planes, the Rafale was built under a Cold War design philosophy. In modern ops it's being forced to do things differently from the way the designers conceived it.

 

Of course, there are some odd configs for planes out there. You'll have older planes upgraded with newer avionics than the newer planes have! There are F-15s that are 20 yrs old with better radars than 5 yr old Super Hornets.

 

I believe "stealth" is listed as a requirement for a "5th gen" fighter, but how MUCH stealth isn't specified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To qualify as a real 5th generation fighter you usually have to have :

- Stealth included in the design from the start (F-22, F-35), not added to the design to be stealth-ish/stealthier (Typhoon, late F-16, late Su-27, Rafale, Gripen).

- Fusion of sensors informations.

- Advanced phase array radars.

- Super-cruise for fighters or high thrust to weight ratio for fighter-bombers.

- High AoA manoeuvrability.

- Ability to perform air-to-air and air-to-ground missions during the same flight.

 

A Rafale has roughly the same range (around 1800km) as a Mirage 2000 which is just fine for France's needs but is indeed sometimes a little short in joint operations abroad.

It has a supposedly better combat radius than the F/A-18C, supposedly slightly better thrust-to-weight ratio, acceleration, ceiling, top speed and climb rate (on paper that is), a little more manoeuvrability due to an airframe about a decade more recent, canards, more refined FbW, a lower wing-loading.

The electronics are also more recent and even though outdated by the time the plane reached production, they are more easily upgradable than the Hornet's.

Due to the initial requirements the Rafale (it was designed from the start to be multi-mission, but adding stealth was an afterthought, as was the notion of super-cruise (possible on paper with some versions of the engines, not used actually and not included yet in planned updates, the focus seeming mostly on increasing fuel efficiency)) suffered less from changing missions than from lack of funding and political support and what should have been a revolutionary plane ahead of its concurrent ended up being a nearly obsolete plane entering service 10 years late and costing way too much (sometime french defence programs are reminiscent of japanese ones).

The real handicap of the Rafale compared to the F/A-18C is that while able to carry more weight, it can do so with less space and pylons available, meaning that when the Rafale needs to take more fuel, it has to sacrifice ordnance, something less prone to happen with the Hornet.

 

From what you can see on paper and from some pilot's report, we could guess that in A2A the Rafale is a better fighter than both the Hornet and Super Hornet but in A2G both Hornets are superior to the Rafale; when it comes to electronics the Rafale is ahead of the older Hornets, but behind the Super Hornet and newer ones, mostly in the radar area and considering stealth, the Rafale is probably closer to the Super Hornet.

 

Compared to the F-35 now, on paper the F-35 looks way ahead in terms of stealth, range, electronics, slightly better in terms of payloads (even better using SDB) but probably worse when it comes to pure performance and dogfighting ability (even though the F-35 will probably be a less demanding plane to fly which might make a large difference), but stealth would/should be a large advantage for the F-35, and the F-35 would probably operate with air cover or after air superiority has been gained, while the Rafale is destined to be used as the unique type used by the French Air Force and Navy.

 

We can't afford to work on AND order a true 5th generation plane anyway, we're working on combat drones instead (and envision having Rafales acting as command posts for wings of 5th generation combat drones (think X-45/X-47)).

 

Anyway, enough fruitless comparisons, what is sure is that the Rafale represents a jump in capability and versatility from the various types used before (Super-Etendard and Crusader for the Navy, mostly Mirage 2000, Jaguar and Mirage F.1 for the Air Force).

 

And one thing for sure, there soon will be happy US Navy personnel taking photos and working with an exotic bird.

 

P.S. :

Completely off-topic, is it only my impression or is there really nobody to love the F-35 ?

Israel and European partners seems to border on despising the thing but going along as they have no choice and can't afford a home-grown alternative, the Navy doesn't seem thrilled about it, the Air Force sounds like it would happily scrap the whole thing and get more Raptors instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I mentioned before, it's a compromise. Naturally everyone wishes they had something designed just for them.

I think in the USAF and USN and certainly the USMC's case, it's not that they want it so much as they need it because there are no alternatives other than keeping old designs in production, and in the USMC's case that's not even an option! Legacy Bugs and Harriers are out of production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I mentioned before, it's a compromise. Naturally everyone wishes they had something designed just for them.

I think in the USAF and USN and certainly the USMC's case, it's not that they want it so much as they need it because there are no alternatives other than keeping old designs in production, and in the USMC's case that's not even an option! Legacy Bugs and Harriers are out of production.

 

 

Here goes my vote for Julhelm's Kestrel to go into production! :ok:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone that doesnt want the JSF is stupid, its an awesome airplane. Friends of mine who are officers have messed with it and said its a dream compared to the Harrier and Hornets. I dont see why someone WOULDNT want to have this in their inventory of aircraft personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how a person from Portugal is ragging on the USN...not trying to start a flame-post, but really dude...maybe if you were from China with them kicking out new designs like every month, but really...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like how a person from Portugal is ragging on the USN...not trying to start a flame-post, but really dude...maybe if you were from China with them kicking out new designs like every month, but really...

 

Well, I don't think where I'm from should have any effect on what oppinions I should have or be able to state, but for the record, I consider myself a european, as does the Rafale... :wink: And I wasn't "ragging" anything, just wondering about the good old US of A... Since it's the USA who decides in the end, not the USN, which I bet would prefer something better... But I won't say another word...

Edited by TX3RN0BILL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry...it is a very sore subject with many of us...the current state or lack of aviation advancement...it would be nice if at least we could say "hey, we dont have any new airplanes, but look at our super cool highways"...nope.

 

When was the last time we fielded a new helicopter? The future president is going to be riding around in a Euro...sorry Portuguese in your line of thinking...Marine One...because we are beyond stagnant in helicopter development...the Comanche was finally canceled after like 100 years in development.

 

And for the Love of all that's Holy lately whenever we do try something new; ie, V-22 every mutt comes along and says it costs too much and will never work...no freakin wonder the Wright Brothers did everything in secret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sikorsky S-92 competed for the Pres Helo contract, it just came out 2nd. That doesn't mean it's crap.

 

OTOH, the fact that the Kiowa is being replaced by another Bell Jet Ranger variant DOES indicate stagnation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh...and CSAR-X...a frakkin Chinook? Its 50 years old man! And given the US hatred for buying foreign (OK, I know the Harrier and B-57 were British...that makes two...) and considering the political signal of the president's own ride being a foreign design tells me something I dont want to hear.

 

I think he should have gone for a Bell X-15 or V-22...man...if I were President...screw that...the Blue Angles would drive me around...they are so cool...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..