Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise  
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 19197 times:

Since the Charles De Gaulle is in drydock for the time being the French Navy is using the USS Enterprise to keep the skills of it's pilots sharp.

< http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=48615 >

< http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=48613 >

< http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=48614 >

< http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=48612 >

47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 19164 times:

... I didn't know French and American hook and catapult arresting systems were compatible? And AFAIK this kind of compatibility was not used utilized ever before, because I cannot remember foreign airplanes aboard an American carrier before (apart from Harriers ...)

User currently offlineSphealey From United States of America, joined May 2005, 378 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 19166 times:

The third picture includes this information in the caption: "The two French Rafales are the first French aircraft to land and launch on an American carrier in six years". So this would not be the first time.

sPh


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3589 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 19162 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 1):
... I didn't know French and American hook and catapult arresting systems were compatible? And AFAIK this kind of compatibility was not used utilized ever before, because I cannot remember foreign airplanes aboard an American carrier before (apart from Harriers ...)

The U.S. F-8 had been the mainstay fighter of French Naval Aviation for many years, so yes the arresting & catapult systems were compatible....


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ian Kirby



I believe the Super Etendard has been cross decked to U.S. carriers on a number of occasions... The French did the catapult and arresting gear systems testing for the naval Rafael on the U.S. Navys test rig at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 19153 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 1):
I didn't know French and American hook and catapult arresting systems were compatible? And AFAIK this kind of compatibility was not used utilized ever before, because I cannot remember foreign airplanes aboard an American carrier before (apart from Harriers ...)

Yep, and Hornets have been on Charles de Gaulle (and probably Foch and Clemenceau as well) on previous occasions. The E-2C Hawkeye flies off of CdG.

The Anglo-French CVF carriers have provision for EMALS, which is the catapult system from CVN-78. The Brits are not installing it initially, but the French will.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13252 posts, RR: 77
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 19152 times:

I think US supplied catapults are used as well, certainly, prospective French Navy fast jet pilots do a lot of their specialist carrier training with the USN.

User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3763 posts, RR: 29
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 19146 times:

Maybe a very hypothetical question, but which is the better plane then? Super Hornet or Rafale? The SH certainly might be the better attack plane, but what about air to air?

User currently offlineVzlet From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 839 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 19139 times:



That's a pretty high pitch angle considering that there's no visible nose-up control surface delection.



"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 19057 times:

Quoting Vzlet (Reply 7):
That's a pretty high pitch angle considering that there's no visible nose-up control surface delection.

I'm guessing this was actually a touch and go.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 18952 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 1):
... I didn't know French and American hook and catapult arresting systems were compatible? And AFAIK this kind of compatibility was not used utilized ever before, because I cannot remember foreign airplanes aboard an American carrier before (apart from Harriers ...)

The French came here to New Jersey's Lakehurst Naval Air Enginering Station to develop their technology to deploy on the Charles De Gaulle and their Raphaels. Lakehurst NAES is responsible for developing, manufacturing and servicing everything involved in Carrier technology from manufacturing the arresting cables and catapults to deck equipment and even fire fighting equipment. Lakehurst employees regularly travel to US and French Carriers while deployed to help with issues that arise from operations.

If you watch these videos you will see what Lakehurst NAES doees, including videos of French Rafales shooting off Lakehurst's test runway catapults.

http://www.lakehurst.navy.mil/nlweb/...avy_Lakehurst-broadband-medium.asx

http://www.lakehurst.navy.mil/nlweb/...deo/industry01/launchfile-high.asx

More about Lakehurst's support of French Naval Aviation:

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=3766

Lakehurst NAES:

http://www.lakehurst.navy.mil/nlweb/



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7966 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 18947 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 6):
Maybe a very hypothetical question, but which is the better plane then? Super Hornet or Rafale?

A Rafale pilot said the Hornets were more difficult to defeat than F-14. So the Rafale seems to be slightly superior. I don't give too much on those quotes, though.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 6):
The SH certainly might be the better attack plane,...

What makes you so sure? The wingload speaks for the Rafale.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 18760 times:

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 3):
The U.S. F-8 had been the mainstay fighter of French Naval Aviation for many years, so yes the arresting & catapult systems were compatible....

now that you say it ... and they still have Hawkeyes. I should have switched my brain on before posting.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 9):

Thanks for the videos. Very informative indeed. I only knew Lakehurst from the Hindenburg disaster in the 1930s ...

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 10):

They are almost impossible to compare for a variety of reasons.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12179 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 18630 times:

Why is the CDG in dry dock? Isn't she only about 1-2 yeras old ( since commissioning)?

User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 18628 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
Why is the CDG in dry dock? Isn't she only about 1-2 yeras old ( since commissioning)?

When isn't it in dry dock? Bent propellers, under-length deck, reactor problems, all sorts of goofy issues have kept that thing as a drydock queen.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13252 posts, RR: 77
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 18582 times:

Actually, CDG is over 6 years into it's service. It has done at least two operational deployments in this period too.
It seems most of the well reported glitches have been fixed, it was hindered by changes in design, disputes over what yard to build it in, (which effectively limited it's length) as well as being the first nuclear surface ship France built, and budget issues meant the propulsion was two modified submarine reactors.

That said, CDG is a very potent asset, which will improve as more developed batches of Rafales join the French Navy to replace remaining modernised Super Etendards.


User currently offlineBritJap From Japan, joined Aug 2006, 280 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 18436 times:

This may be a little off topic but I just found these videos.
Pretty interesting!! This looks very recent, when did this happen exactly??







User currently offlineBritJap From Japan, joined Aug 2006, 280 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 18433 times:

Heres the story for the above......

http://defensenews.com/story.php?F=2889709&C=america


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 18268 times:

Here are some pics of USN ops off the Charles De Gaulle.


< http://www.netmarine.net/aero/aeronefs/hawkeye/photo01.htm >

< http://www.netmarine.net/bat/porteavi/cdg/photo61.htm >


User currently offlineVzlet From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 839 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 21 hours ago) and read 17523 times:

The French Navy has video of the Enterprise ops available.


"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 20 hours ago) and read 17483 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 14):
Actually, CDG is over 6 years into it's service. It has done at least two operational deployments in this period too. It seems most of the well reported glitches have been fixed, it was hindered by changes in design, disputes over what yard to build it in, (which effectively limited it's length) as well as being the first nuclear surface ship France built, and budget issues meant the propulsion was two modified submarine reactors.

The thing has been a complete farce from the get go. The reactors are under-powered for the job. The props fell off the thing at one point and older props had to be fixed. The deck is too short and the ship and even when they get the propellers replaced the thing is still pretty slow for a carrier.

The French Navy deserved something better than a overly poltiticized piece of junk with submarine reactors taking the place of a proper powerplant.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13252 posts, RR: 77
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 19 hours ago) and read 17432 times:

Then explain how CDG has done successful operational deployments, including contributing to US led operations in Afghanistan?
(AAR supported Strike aircraft).
I'm sure any troops on the ground did not mind who was supporting them, including US ones, even if much of the US public is either apathetic, has no knowledge of this, or is just plain ungrateful of this support, which was risking the lives of French aviators in the face of a national insult campaign from the nation they were supporting.

The 'too short' flight deck, was only in potentially very rare conditions with the E-2C's, fixed by some small flightdeck extensions, costing the price of a little more steel.
The props did not fall off, but needed replacing, which was done.

It had a badly managed build, in a then declining budgetary environment, was the first French nuke powered surface ship, however they do not have a monopoly on poor early careers of complex warships, as the USN is finding with the San Antonio class LPD's, the first one being a real lemon.
Then managing to have massive cost overruns on a new class of small, relatively simple LCS ships, suspended as costs rose so much they'd be coming out of the yard costing as much as an Arleigh Burke missile destroyer if things carried on.


User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 months 19 hours ago) and read 17414 times:

I wonder what those Rafales look like to the LSO's waving them aboard the boat...something you don't see everyday.

"Rafale Ball", now there's a new one.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 months 17 hours ago) and read 17367 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
Then explain how CDG has done successful operational deployments, including contributing to US led operations in Afghanistan?
(AAR supported Strike aircraft).
I'm sure any troops on the ground did not mind who was supporting them, including US ones, even if much of the US public is either apathetic, has no knowledge of this, or is just plain ungrateful of this support, which was risking the lives of French aviators in the face of a national insult campaign from the nation they were supporting.

Good lord, I never said the thing did not work but for the price they are paying they have something that basically has had a troubled nuclear plant from day one and is not as fast as it should be.

How did the UK get through the Falklands? They made due with what they had. CDG is good enough to get the job done but it has some major flaws for something that cost as much as it did. Pointing that out it was probably a mistake to use nuclear reactors based on the junk they put into their subs does not mean the thing cannot deploy.

There are more than a few botched naval procurment programs around the world. Not sure what they have to do with this discussion. Saying a program that took well over a decade to go from planning to completion and ended up resulting in a pretty sub-obtimal design is not really a product of nationalistic ignorance as you imply. It is simply an accurate assessment of what the French got for their money. They paid billions for a ship that is not as fast as it should be because its reactors are underpowered designs that were not any good when they were on French submarines in the first place.

Systems integration problems is one thing, but the very heart of the CDG was flawed from the outset as some stupid means of cost cutting and a sense of national pride. It would have been far simpler and much more effective to equip the ship with convetional engines of some sort. They could have gotten the proper speed and saved far more money. But because this was a national prestige project it had to be a nuclear powered ship. But because they did not want to spend enough money they got a nuclear ship that is slower than the conventional warship it is replacing.

There is no reason for the cost that the CDG could not have been a cheaper and more capable ship with convetional engines except for national pride. If that is the case they should have at least been done right. Projects go awry all the time in all fields. Certainly the USN has had issues. Primarily those issues come about from trying to do too much with a ship and pushing development too hard. That excuse is at least passable to me. The idea of ending up with a multi-billion dollar ship that has serious operational deficiencies due to misplaced national pride is just not acceptable.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13252 posts, RR: 77
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 17115 times:

I do actually agree with the thrust of your argument! (Really!)
France was to build a nuclear powered helicopter carrier in the 70's, but the project was delayed, before finally cancelled in 1981.
Therein was the root of some of CDG's propulsion problems, had they got the experience with a less ambitious ship first, probably CDG would have turned out better.

I do not know the reasons for nuke propulsion for CDG, save for obvious ones, like less need of Auxiliary support, more space for fuel and stores.
I agree they built 2 perfectly serviceable small carriers in the early 60's, but there was a 30 year gap before another carrier, that could not have helped.
This is something the USN does not suffer from.

Certainly the RN never considered nuke propulsion with either the abortive CVA-01, or the current CVF.
And they were ahead of the curve in sub propulsion.
(Had CVA-01 been built, that would have the post WW2 'lemon', not CDG!)
But then, the RN had, and relatively still has, a more substantial auxiliary fleet for support.

France does, I agree, do 'prestige' projects, and they nearly always get them right, like the TGV trains, which had a very real economic benefit, that recent bridge across a huge gorge as well.
I understood the political/industrial machinations around CDG as a factor, I agree they should have designed a purpose built reactor, however, this project really got going as post Cold War budgets shrank.
It is not as of France does not have very substantial nuclear ability, over 70% of their electricity is nuclear generated.
(Making their security of supply the best in Europe probably).

As it turned out, a conventional CDG, (with probably a sister ship by now too), would have turned out cheaper, even with a couple more AOR style support ships included.
For all that though, CDG is maturing into a very potent asset.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 17019 times:

Quoting Vzlet (Reply 18):
The French Navy has video of the Enterprise ops available.

I noticed the two final checkers on the E-2 launch, one American and one French.

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 21):
I wonder what those Rafales look like to the LSO's waving them aboard the boat...something you don't see everyday.

"Rafale Ball", now there's a new one.

What I'm curious about is how they set the catapults.


25 Post contains links LMP737 : Just a quick update. French Navy Rafale M were recently operating off the USS Harry Truman. < http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=59175 > < http://
26 Connies4ever : IIRC, the Big E uses submarine reactors. Eight of them I believe. Hardly a lemon. But for sure CDG as a conventional-powered fleet carrier would have
27 Checksixx : It uses eight, but I've never heard that they're sub reactors. Got a source?
28 Francoflier : Pretty late answer, but the Rafale's nose undercarriage has a special feature that absorbs the initial acceleration burst given by the cat by compres
29 LMP737 : Kind of like the F-14. However the nose strut on the F-14 was compressed in order to hook up to the cats. At the end of the stroke the nose strut wou
30 Post contains links Flynavy : She indeed does have eight reactors. Nuclear technology progressed significantly in the 1970s. When the Nimitz class ships were introduced they used
31 GDB : I'd say that over 46 years service for Enterprise , is pretty impressive, also given it was a pioneering ship and one of a kind.
32 Yanqui67 : To add to this thread, while I was on the USS Enterprise we had the Argentinian Navy do touch and gos with their Super Etendards and the S-2 Trackers.
33 Checksixx : Yes, I'm aware...please re-read my post.
34 Flynavy : I was just adding my two cents to the thread.
35 Connies4ever : I looked for a reference for that and I have to admit I can't locate one -- but I'll keep trying. I am under the impression that the A2W reactors in
36 Checksixx : Everything I can find says they are C1W reactors in the Big E. Either way, its got eight so they must be fairly small reactors.
37 Francoflier : Yes, something similar. The Rafale needs much more of a boost, I believe, since its ailerons/elevators/flaps are used downward to give it more lift (
38 Rwessel : The reactor designation system used by the USN is somewhat confusing. The first letter is related to the application (A=Carrier, S=Submarine, C=Cruis
39 Alien : Six Rafales and two French E-2s will operate off the Roosevelt this August during JTFEX 08-2. They will be self contained units in that French personn
40 Flynavy : As am I. The French get so much riff raff from the general public here in the States. It's always nice to see the USN and the French forces working t
41 SEAchaz : So from a landing stand point how different is the CDG vs US CVNs? I'm assuming the approach systems/ILS are very similar if not the same. Do the Fren
42 L-188 : If those two types had landed they would have had to be craned off....maybe not the S-2. Lightened up it might manage a full deck unassisted take-off
43 Rwessel : Well, you don't really need anything except the bridle itself, so having a few on board for emergency use, or specifically putting a few on board whe
44 747400sp : The Truman had Rafale M train with them for a day. This was after they left France on there way home.
45 Post contains images LMP737 : I wonder if they are going to have their own personel hook up their aircraft to the cats. Since the catapult systems on USN and FN are the same I wou
46 Beaucaire : Speaking about Rafale-the UAE are close to purchase the French fighter and will replace their Mirages with the latest Rafale versions..
47 Post contains links LMP737 : Here's a link regarding this operation. If you do a search there are more photos. I noticed one where a USN ABE along with his French counterpart hoo
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
USS Enterprise: How Much Longer? posted Thu Feb 17 2005 16:12:21 by FlagshipAZ
Enterprise And CVW-1 Deploy posted Wed Jul 11 2007 04:48:35 by Flynavy
First Refuelling Ground Test On The A310 Arbs posted Thu Jul 5 2007 13:22:12 by WINGS
Cargo/Military L-1011 At SAN On 6-30-07? posted Sun Jul 1 2007 02:46:17 by Smitty747
Eurofighter And Austria Agree On Order Reduction posted Wed Jun 27 2007 16:17:47 by PADSpot
Airshowbuzz.com ...To See Latest On P38 posted Mon Jun 25 2007 17:07:21 by Ferrypilot
Did I See A VC10 At ABQ On Thurs? posted Mon Jun 18 2007 19:19:41 by VC10er
Gordon Brown In Iraq On BAe 146. posted Mon Jun 11 2007 23:50:03 by Gilesdavies
Strange Engine Choices On Military Aircraft posted Wed Jun 6 2007 23:28:04 by A342
Reverse Thrust On A Fighter Jet posted Tue May 29 2007 15:15:03 by 777
USS Enterprise CVN-65 Strike Group Deployed posted Fri May 5 2006 01:12:28 by 747400sp
USS Enterprise: How Much Longer? posted Thu Feb 17 2005 16:12:21 by FlagshipAZ
French Navy Rafales To Deploy On USS Roosevelt posted Sat Dec 15 2007 15:32:46 by RC135U
Rafale For UAE? posted Thu Jun 5 2008 15:17:43 by JPRM1
Bad Trouble On The ISS, The Loo Is OTS posted Tue May 27 2008 19:19:56 by L-188
Different Intake Shapes On T-38... posted Wed May 21 2008 13:06:56 by Ulfinator
Whats On Borad AirForce1? posted Sat May 17 2008 09:37:17 by AAH732UAL
PBS Docu USS Nimitz posted Tue Apr 29 2008 07:28:12 by Venus6971
Long Range Visual ID System On F-14 posted Wed Apr 23 2008 11:02:29 by CaptOveur
Coolest Paint Job Ever On A F-117 posted Mon Apr 21 2008 23:09:35 by HaveBlue

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format