PADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1667 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9237 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 ...)
Sphealey From United States, joined May 2005, 272 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9241 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.
ZANL188 From United States, joined Oct 2006, 1142 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9237 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 U.S. F-8 had been the mainstay fighter of French Naval Aviation for many years, so yes the arresting & catapult systems were compatible....
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
N328KF From United States, joined May 2004, 5221 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9227 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
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 9931 posts, RR: 69 Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9227 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.
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 2377 posts, RR: 17 Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9221 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?
STT757 From United States, joined Mar 2000, 9757 posts, RR: 39 Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 9027 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.
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 6193 posts, RR: 15 Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 9020 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.
PADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1667 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 8835 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.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 9931 posts, RR: 69 Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days ago) and read 8657 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.
BigJKU From United States, joined Feb 2007, 474 posts, RR: 3 Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7558 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.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 9931 posts, RR: 69 Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7507 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined May 2002, 3492 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1667 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 9931 posts, 
From Japan, joined Aug 2006, 126 posts,