LMP737
Topic Author
Posts: 4853
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Wed Jul 25, 2007 1:20 am

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 >
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
PADSpot
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:31 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:15 am

... 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 ...)
 
sphealey
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:39 am

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:24 am

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
 
zanl188
Posts: 3447
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:35 am

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 avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:05 am

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.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:05 am

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.
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4303
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:12 am

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 avatar
vzlet
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:34 am

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:25 am



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
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:45 am

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 avatar
STT757
Posts: 13222
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:58 am

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
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:11 am

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
 
PADSpot
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:31 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:46 pm

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11006
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:07 am

Why is the CDG in dry dock? Isn't she only about 1-2 yeras old ( since commissioning)?
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:11 am

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.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:17 am

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.
 
britjap
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:47 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:04 pm

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





 
britjap
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:47 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:16 pm

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

http://defensenews.com/story.php?F=2889709&C=america
 
LMP737
Topic Author
Posts: 4853
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:10 am

Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
vzlet
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:34 am

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:18 am

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
 
bigjku
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:09 am

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.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:14 am

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.
 
DeltaGuy
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:25 am

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:39 am

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
"The cockpit, what is it?" "It's the little room in the front of the plane where the pilot sits, but that's not importan
 
bigjku
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:42 am

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.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:17 am

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.
 
LMP737
Topic Author
Posts: 4853
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:21 am

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.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
LMP737
Topic Author
Posts: 4853
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Sun May 25, 2008 4:01 pm

Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Sun May 25, 2008 4:44 pm



Quoting BigJKU (Reply 19):
The French Navy deserved something better than a overly poltiticized piece of junk with submarine reactors taking the place of a proper powerplant.

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 been faster and cheaper, and likely a sister ship with it, as GDB indicated.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 22):
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.

'Junk' ? Where does that come from ? I do have some experience with the French submarine program based on our own (aborted) nuclear sub effort in the 80s.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Mon May 26, 2008 1:18 am



Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 26):
IIRC, the Big E uses submarine reactors. Eight of them I believe. Hardly a lemon.

It uses eight, but I've never heard that they're sub reactors. Got a source?
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 3725
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Mon May 26, 2008 9:41 am



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

Pretty late answer, but the Rafale's nose undercarriage has a special feature that absorbs the initial acceleration burst given by the cat by compressing, and at the end of the run, it releases that pressure and propels the nose upwards to help give the aircraft its nose up attitude for takeoff. Since it uses Delta wings, it needs LOADS of AOA (thus pitch) to create enough lift at these 'low' speeds, hence that specially designed feature.

The land based version of the aircraft doesn't have it.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
LMP737
Topic Author
Posts: 4853
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Mon May 26, 2008 3:33 pm



Quoting Francoflier (Reply 28):
Pretty late answer, but the Rafale's nose undercarriage has a special feature that absorbs the initial acceleration burst given by the cat by compressing, and at the end of the run, it releases that pressure and propels the nose upwards to help give the aircraft its nose up attitude for takeoff. Since it uses Delta wings, it needs LOADS of AOA (thus pitch) to create enough lift at these 'low' speeds, hence that specially designed feature.

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 would extend giving the aircraft a pitch up moment.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
flynavy
Posts: 2177
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 1:48 am

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Mon May 26, 2008 6:58 pm



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 27):
It uses eight, but I've never heard that they're sub reactors. Got a source?

She indeed does have eight reactors. Nuclear technology progressed significantly in the 1970s. When the Nimitz class ships were introduced they used only two reactors. Big "E" is starting to get a little long in the tooth for sure, but - from personal experience - hardly what I would call a "...piece of junk..." as previously mentioned.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=200&ct=4
Change is: one airline, six continents!
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Mon May 26, 2008 7:28 pm

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.
 
YANQUI67
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:57 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Mon May 26, 2008 8:52 pm

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. They never actually landed. The S-2s scared the living yak out of us. They were sputtering and backfiring with thick black smoke while over the round down. We thought for sure something bad was going to happen. I believe the year was 1990 when this happened.
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Mon May 26, 2008 9:41 pm



Quoting Flynavy (Reply 30):
Quoting Checksixx (Reply 27):
It uses eight, but I've never heard that they're sub reactors. Got a source?

She indeed does have eight reactors.

Yes, I'm aware...please re-read my post.
 
flynavy
Posts: 2177
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 1:48 am

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Mon May 26, 2008 10:18 pm



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 33):
Yes, I'm aware...please re-read my post.

I was just adding my two cents to the thread.  bigthumbsup 
Change is: one airline, six continents!
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Mon May 26, 2008 11:25 pm



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 27):
Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 26):
IIRC, the Big E uses submarine reactors. Eight of them I believe. Hardly a lemon.

It uses eight, but I've never heard that they're sub reactors. Got a source?

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 Enterprise are an 'above-water' version of the S2W reactor used in Nautilus. But maybe the old head is getting a little foggy. Turned 57 yesterday. Almost ready for the glue factory.

Nimitz and her sisters use a pair of A4W reactors, btw.

Likely the Ford-class carriers will use a newer-technology powerplant.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Tue May 27, 2008 1:11 am

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.
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 3725
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Tue May 27, 2008 7:08 am



Quoting LMP737 (Reply 29):
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 would extend giving the aircraft a pitch up moment.

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 (thus can't act as efficient elevators during T/O) and the delta wing needs more pitch to provide enough lift. Apparently the canards can't lift the nose high enough at these speeds.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Wed May 28, 2008 8:09 am



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 36):
Everything I can find says they are C1W reactors in the Big E.

The reactor designation system used by the USN is somewhat confusing. The first letter is related to the application (A=Carrier, S=Submarine, C=Cruiser, D=Destroyer), the third the manufacturer (G=GE, W=Westinghouse, etc.), and the number in the middle the core design. So the S1G and an S1W have basically nothing in common since they're from different manufacturers, nor do common first letters necessarily mean anything.

The S2W is a 14K SHP submarine reactor, while the A2W is a 35K SHP aircraft carrier reactor.

Note that a 2.5X difference in power output basically means a completely different reactor core design down to the last bolt - reactor designs fundamentally do not scale more than 10-20% in either direction. And usually it’s much less than that - more typically a few percent (although you can go down in an artificial way by never running the core above a certain output level - which does allow you to improve fuel life and reduce the external machinery sizes).

That's one practical issue with nuclear ships - unless your willing to spend a serious amount of money on a new reactor design, you're pretty much stuck with a certain amount of power, and you get to design your ship around that, rather than sizing the power plant to the ship (which is relatively easy for conventional power plants). IOW, you’d have trouble building a carrier with 350K SHP - you could use two A4Ws and have 280K SHP like a Nimitz, or perhaps put in three A4Ws, and get 420K SHP. You can't grow (or shrink) the A4W design enough to hit the target, so you're either stuck with those numbers or designing a new reactor.

The A1W (the prototype for the A2W) was a fair modification of the C1W, which was the 40kshp reactor designed for the Long Beach (which used two).

So there's a family relation between the Long Beach's C1Ws and the Enterprise's A2Ws, but none at all with the Nautilus' S2W. But they all did come from Westinghouse.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:07 am

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 personnel will maintain and handle their own aircraft. Maintainers, armorers, deck crew, etc will be detached along with flight crew. The deployment is expected to last five days and is aimed at helping to keep French Naval Aviators and crew proficient during the Charles De Gaulle refit.

I for one am glad to see it. The French are the only other Navy beside the USN that has true blue water carrier capability and it makes sense to be able to work with them.
 
flynavy
Posts: 2177
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 1:48 am

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Mon Jun 02, 2008 6:55 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 39):
I for one am glad to see it.

 checkmark  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 together.
Change is: one airline, six continents!
 
seachaz
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:35 am

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Tue Jun 03, 2008 8:14 pm

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 French have a "meatball" too? What about differences in # of wires and spacing (though US went from 4 to 3 with the Reagan and Bush)? Size and angle of the angled deck?
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:15 am



Quoting Yanqui67 (Reply 32):
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. They never actually landed.

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.

The reason is that they use bridles for the cats, and that system has been long retired in US service. I am pretty sure that the USN doesn't have any on board ship anymore.

Quoting Rwessel (Reply 38):
The reactor designation system used by the USN is somewhat confusing. The first letter is related to the application (A=Carrier, S=Submarine, C=Cruiser, D=Destroyer), the third the manufacturer (G=GE, W=Westinghouse, etc.), and the number in the middle the core design. So the S1G and an S1W have basically nothing in common since they're from different manufacturers, nor do common first letters necessarily mean anything

I was wondering what happened to the guy that came up with the US. Navy aircraft designation system prior to WWII went.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Wed Jun 04, 2008 7:57 am



Quoting L-188 (Reply 42):
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.

The reason is that they use bridles for the cats, and that system has been long retired in US service. I am pretty sure that the USN doesn't have any on board ship anymore.

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 when you have that sort of joint exercise would probably not be a big deal. Although given that there are (I think) no longer any bridle catchers on any carriers other then the Enterprise, they'll all be single use.
 
747400sp
Posts: 3850
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:10 pm

The Truman had Rafale M train with them for a day. This was after they left France on there way home.
 
LMP737
Topic Author
Posts: 4853
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:18 am

Quoting Alien (Reply 39):
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 personnel will maintain and handle their own aircraft. Maintainers, armorers, deck crew, etc will be detached along with flight crew. The deployment is expected to last five days and is aimed at helping to keep French Naval Aviators and crew proficient during the Charles De Gaulle refit.

I for one am glad to see it. The French are the only other Navy beside the USN that has true blue water carrier capability and it makes sense to be able to work with them.

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 would think they would use USN ABE's. My guess is that's who they were using on their recent CQ's on the Enterprise and Truman.

Another thing I'm wondering is if they are going to bring their own food. US Navy chow is probably a bit different from what they are used to.  

[Edited 2008-06-04 18:27:36]
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Beaucaire
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:48 am

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:03 pm

Speaking about Rafale-the UAE are close to purchase the French fighter and will replace their Mirages with the latest Rafale versions..
Please respect animals - don't eat them...
 
LMP737
Topic Author
Posts: 4853
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise

Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:30 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 39):
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 personnel will maintain and handle their own aircraft. Maintainers, armorers, deck crew, etc will be detached along with flight crew. The deployment is expected to last five days and is aimed at helping to keep French Naval Aviators and crew proficient during the Charles De Gaulle refit.

I for one am glad to see it. The French are the only other Navy beside the USN that has true blue water carrier capability and it makes sense to be able to work with them.

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 hooking an EA-6B up to the cats.

< http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=38585 >
Never take financial advice from co-workers.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests