Posted on 11/17/2015 5:25:03 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Let the EU and China keep the Hormouz Straight open.
Why announce it? Just do it.
If you let TCPL build the Keystone, you won’t need middle east oil. But I digress.
34 aircraft!? ROFL! That boat is so tiny.
Looks like they do not store aircraft in the hanger deck.
Nearly 30 years ago, USS Forrestall (CV-59), now razor blades, deployed to the Persian Gulf with nearly 90 planes aboard. Just sayin’. At least our good friends the French have the stones to DO SOMETHING now, as opposed to The Won.
Does it have a hanger deck?
Can any of those planes carry nukes?
They’re going the wrong way
They ought to be blockading Calais
Yes, it has a hangar deck. ;-)
Given PGMs and standoff weapons an airwing with 26 strike aircraft (the rest being support: E-2s and helos) is fairly potent. Remember that the key number isn’t actually raw number of aircraft, but rather how many sorties the carrier can generate during the course of operations. There’s a point of diminishing returns where having more aircraft aboard lowers the number of possible sorties.
They have sent a strong carrier strike group, with a larger than normal air wing.
The Rafaels and Super Etendards will soon send ISIS their messages.
I know Navy Reco personally. Great site and a good military journalist/reporter.
He is also French and is feeling this attack personally.
Go get some FRance!
The Etendards are ancient platforms - the Argies were flying them in the Falklands with some success against the Royal Navy.
I'd be curious to see what upgrades they've done to the aircraft...
Sure, US supercarriers used to deploy with 90-aircraft airwings.
But how many of those aircraft were maintenance hogs that spent a LOT of time in the hangar being fixed? I read somewhere that the F/A-18E/Fs have much lower maintence requirements than the F-14s did. The F-14 was a better all around plane in terms of performance, but had only something like 1/2 the sortie rate of the SuperBug.
IIRC it used to be that carrier squadrons took a plane or two each along on deployments as “hangar queens” that would sit in the hangar and be cannibalized for parts to keep the other ones flying. The F-14D in the Smithsonian (VF-31 Iraqi Freedom veteran, among other things) was just such a plane: it still has a campaign ribbon painted on it’s nose that reads “I Gave So Others Could Fly” ...
Big improvement to the SEMs has been PGM capability. Laser pods for self-designation. I don’t know whether they can deploy GPS guided weapony, most of the time they’re seen carrying GBU-12 class bombs.
The SEMs are good light attack bomb trucks. But they’re close to trapping out at this point.
In contrast an American carrier can recover 20-25 aircraft in a single reccovery sending them all out of the landing area, through dearming and then to the bow. In the daytime that is one aircraft every 35-45 seconds. At night, one per minute.
“But how many of those aircraft were maintenance hogs that spent a LOT of time in the hangar being fixed? I read somewhere that the F/A-18E/Fs have much lower maintence requirements than the F-14s did.”
Don’t tell me about ‘hangar queens’. Comparing yr 2000+ Hornets to mid 90’s Tomcats or Intruders is like comparing WWII Jeeps to Humvees. I was an Intruder Aviation Maintenance Officer. We went > 100 days deployed without going off-ship with a part requisition. Now Naval Aviation is whining about their Hornet E/Fs being worn out. Just get the job done, and stop bitching.
The readiness rates of all aircraft to down with age. The legacy hornet guys that made fun of Tomcat guys are now being made fun of by Super Hornet guys. I am sure Tomcat guys made fun of F-4 guys, who made fun of F-8 guys.
Both the Super Etendard and the Rafale can carry a nuclear-armed supersonic cruise missile.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.