
February 26th, 2003, 09:23 PM
|
 |
Lieutenant Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: DC Burbs USA
Posts: 1,460
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Originally posted by Instar:
Thanks Oleg for the update on the Charles de Gualle -- I read a while back that the French suspected sabotage because of the massive delays and mishaps, anything come of that? EDIT: I just read that the CdG carries and operates 40 aircraft, making it about only 1/2 of a US carrier. It is a step up from British carriers (which are S/VTOL only), but that is really no match for a US battlegroup. Seeing that the French made their own carrier aircraft (other than the kickin E-2C), I think that they will have a few kinks to work out. When they get all of their Rafale M's into service, they should be pretty well off. The Etendard is too old.
You are missing the point though, Aloofi. I was discussing conventional warfare. A single nuke in a US city, well, the way nuclear warfare goes, the US would probably glass whatever countries that were involved. Even if you nuked 10 or more cities, the US would still have the capability and would more than likely find out who did it, and then obliterate the offending party.
|
In an American Carrier Battle Group, the air wings are moving from a defensive role into strike rolls. Even the F-14 has been fitted to operate in an air to ground role. Some carriers have no F-14 wings. The battle group is defended by the Aegis system. One Ticonderoga class cruiser is capable of eliminating the entire air forces of most countries. It is the Aegis system that allows the American Navy to project itself into areas normally dominated by land based aircraft. This electronics system when teamed with the Standard II surface to air missile makes the American carriers a viable strike force, and allows them to operate almost anywhere in the world. Also, these Groups are always accompanied by at least one Los Angles class attack sub. The French have built a small carrier, and feel that this is an indication that they are still a super power. But the fact is that it probably would not be able to live very long were it to be operated within range of land based aircraft. Also, I doubt that the French have the ability to protect it from submarines that would surely be sent against it.
While carriers allow a country to readily project force in to the far flung regions of the world, the task of protecting them can actually be greater than what they cost to deploy. England came to this conclusion before the Falklands war. Then when the miniscule Argentinean Air force was able to repeatedly strike major blows against the British fleet, it was decided that the carriers were not able to operate when relying on fleet units for air cover. The result is that the British will close the book on Fleet Air Operations. The French will also come to this conclusion. A carrier force that can not operate as a blue water navy is of little use, and will be a very expensive symbol of national pride.
Does anyone have a link to the makeup of the French carrier air wing? With only 40 aircraft, they would be rather limited in what they could do. I would think that they would need 2 airborne radars, at least 2 COD’s. And 4 rotary wings would be the minimum needed for ASW duties. That leaves 32 of which teeth to tanker would be 3 to 1 at best. So they would be able to put up a strike force of about 10 aircraft with a CAP of four fighters. That would leave 2 fighters over the carrier and 4 on deck alert, with 6 tankers and 4 in the hanger for repairs. If the tankers are DP and the fighters have a strike capability, then they might put 20 aircraft on target if the mechanical crews are really on the ball. In the real world, I think it would be more like 10 to 15.
__________________
Think about it
|