Aircraft Carriers III

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Reagan-stennis-01.jpg

USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) and USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) performed dual carrier flight operations on the occasion and demonstrated their skills in operating multiple carrier strike groups in close proximity. The strike groups conducted air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, long range strikes, coordinated maneuvers and other exercises.
 
inside my recent rant from Sep 1, 2016
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/aircraft-carriers-iii.t7304/page-110#post-413135
there're several points also mentioned in Commentary: Another Carrier Review Is A Waste of Time – At This Time
There is no question that completion of the new aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) is late. That it was going to be late is not a surprise. That a number of technical challenges remain to be resolved is a matter of frustration for several thousand US Navy, government and industry employees – not to mention nearly 900 members of the ship’s crew who have been living aboard the almost-so-close-but-not-quite-yet finished carrier since August of last year.

That this stage in the Ford’s construction would be difficult was forecast a number of years ago. There are so many new technologies in the ship – a new and far more powerful electrical installation, a new primary radar system, new and previously untried technologies to launch and recover aircraft, and much more – that the Navy originally recommended a tired approach, phasing in new systems across three ships. That scheme was approved by the Pentagon in 2000.

But in 2002, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld overrode the Navy’s plan, frustrated by what he saw as a Pentagon mired in time-consuming and expensive evolutionary development. Under the banner of transformation, he ordered Adm. Vern Clark, chief of naval operations, to bring forward as many technologies as remotely possible into the first new ship, CVN 78, later named by Congress after President Ford. As has often been reported, the Navy reluctantly complied.

While many inside the Navy had their doubts about the wisdom of trying so much on the first ship, everyone – including the Pentagon’s procurement process and most importantly, Congress – approved the plan for what would become the most expensive warship ever built. As such, the project escaped no one’s oversight, and from the beginning dozens of reports from the Government Accountability Office, the Pentagon’s Director of Operations, Test and Evaluation, the Congressional Budget Office, and many more in and outside government routinely warned of the risks inherent in the ship’s timely completion. These warnings virtually repeated the Navy’s concerns of the late 1990s and early 2000s. And every year Congress has held hearings where it warns and scolds the Navy that there is too much risk involved.

Now in the fall of 2016, more than 11 years after the first steel was cut for the ship, what many have long feared is partly coming true, even as most of the technical challenges have been met. As of June 2015, the Navy was aiming at taking the ship to sea for acceptance trials in February 2016 with delivery in March 2016 – that’s why it was thought to be okay to begin to move the crew aboard in August 2015. But by Sept. 2015 delivery slipped again to May of this year. All the announced dates have come and gone, to the point where the Navy no longer is announcing a date, but refers instead to a goal.

Among the publicly-revealed issues holding up delivery are delays in proving the new advanced arresting gear system to retrieve aircraft, and component issues with the main turbine generators.

The Navy is concerned enough about the arresting gear that chief of naval operations Adm. John Richardson has directed a study examining whether the Enterprise (CVN 80), third ship of the class, should be redesigned with traditional arresting gear. It’s too late, officials say, to make design changes in the second ship, John F. Kennedy (CVN 79), which already is under construction. But numerous Navy officials are on record as saying the entire program will be examined to see what changes could and should be made in subsequent ships – if those changes haven’t already been made.

But now, as those in the carrier program are focusing on getting the Ford to sea before the end of the year and working to avoid significant cost growth, Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s top acquisition official, wants to conduct another independent review to assess the risks of the carrier’s design.

“With the benefit of hindsight, it was clearly premature to include so many unproven technologies in the Gerald R. Ford,” he wrote non-presciently to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus Aug. 23. “What we have to determine now is whether it is best to stay the course or adjust our plans.”

The latest independent review team has 60 days to complete its work, meaning yet another report which can reliably be predicted to present conclusions remarkably consistent with forecasts at least 14 years old will presented in late October, about two weeks before the presidential election.

Kendall’s latest review has outraged senior Navy officials, who argue there are no surprises here, that deep technical reviews are already in progress or planned, and that nothing will be gained from diverting program officials and engineers from working to complete the ship to answering more questions.

In this case, the Navy is right. There is no need at this time for another review. There is no time for a 60-day review to help get the Ford to sea sooner or influence next year’s budget or the next ship design.

Not only that, but in four months a new administration will be establishing itself in Washington. There will be a new national security team and likely a new defense secretary. Like all new managers, new executives, and new administrations, the new team is highly likely to order their own review with their own personal stamp – if nothing else it’s a proven way to make it clear a new boss is in town -- and the aircraft carrier won’t escape scrutiny. The new team is not likely to be handed a report from an incumbent or outgoing official and take it from there.

Whatever noble intentions might lay behind it, Mr. Kendall’s latest review is a waste of effort.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Charles de Gaulle deployed, again, soon and CAW size with an excellent blogger size for War time.
He say the siez of the CAW matching with 2 Flotillas each with 13 Rafale

And different watchers say possible 26 Rafale for the next deployment, to see.

For last deployment mission Arromanches 2 : 18 Rafale + 8 Sup Etendard + 2 E-2C + 4 helos : 34

A next time i look for logistic how long the CAW can be deployed without replenishment in a port.


New heavy configuration for carrier battle group

The corridors of noise surrounding the new projection of the naval group (GAn) suggest a new and unique format. It could see 26 fighters on board (in addition to two airborne early warning aircraft (E-2C Hawkeye) and servitude helicopters (CSAR, SAR) which will all Rafale M.

The GAn (Battle Group) in itself does not benefit from such details, to our knowledge. Only the participation of the German frigate Augsburg (F122) is announced (it was already present in the French system from December 2015 to March 2016). Given the previous deployments of the French aircraft carrier, there is a safe bet that a Frigate Air Defense (FDA) and Frigate Anti-Submarine (MDTF) will join the group, not to mention the presence of a submarine Nuclear Attack (SNA), but also a Command and Supply ship (BCR).

The onboard Air Group (EAG) goes one step further compared to the previous configuration (also counting Modernised Super Etendard: Mission Arromanches 2). The aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and hence all the battle group, will bother to try this configuration "all Burst (M)" before the next overhaul of the boat.

This format would be the second highest on record (Mission Chammal 2) since the entry into Charles de Gaulle service (2001, already 15 years of operations in the sea).

Following a series of discussions, readings and re-readings, it was claimed that the aircraft carrier carried a maximum configuration of 24 machines. However, a senior naval officer stated that this limit could be increased to 30 fighters, in addition to Hawkeye and helicopters.

In fact, the PA 75 Brittany and Provence - who will become the R91 and R92 Charles de Gaulle Richelieu - see the GAE designed around the F / A-18 Hornet without Hawkeye. The number of hunters is then stopped at 35 units. The introduction of the air lookout aircraft E-2C Hawkeye and the passage of F / A-18 Hornet Navy Rafale M sees not hold 35 or 32 Rafale but a maximum configuration of GAE to 24 hunters.

This number is exceeded at least once in 2016. It takes into account not only the design of aeronautical facilities aboard the aircraft carrier but also the regeneration capacity of the potential fleet of carrier-based fighters.

Only two fleets are operational Rafale M ie chronologically 12F (beginner conversion in 2001, declared operational in 2004) and 11F (began his conversion in 2010, is still operating the same year). The 17F abandons its summer 2016 Super Etendard Modernized to turn on Rafale M.

Of the 48 Rafale ordered for the Maritime Force of Naval Aviation (FMAN), 4 were lost in accidents, including one fatal. The Rafale M47 and M48 must be received by 2020 assuming 2021.En nine Rafale M F1 sent to retrofit all returned. And even then, we need to remove two or three Rafale M made available to the squadron of Rafale Air-Marine transformation 2/92.

The Navy has a maximum of 42 Rafale which 39 or 40 that must share three fleets. Is a hypothetical distribution of about 13 machines per unit. When two fleets are operations on the aircraft carrier, the third regenerates its potential men and machinery in France.

Parenthetically, it is logical that the General Staff of the Navy demand over the next LPM strengthening the number of Rafale M in order to maintain three fleets and therefore the ability to last with a single aircraft carrier. It is difficult to imagine, in the design of the means currently required missions, to be satisfied with three fleets without their theoretical staffing and whose slightest loss hampers their potential, reserve fault.
A second aircraft carrier does not necessarily imply a higher number of Rafale since in practice the French Naval Air permanence is no consensus as an aircraft carrier permanently at sea but always available.

So that the declared limit or corrected orally between 24 and 30 machines on the aircraft carrier mainly depends on the number of machines that can be aligned by two fleets, ie a maximum, always hypothetical and subject to the actual distribution per unit, 28 Rafale M.

It is possible to burden the regenerative capacity of the third fleet, and thus sacrificing the ability to last for three units, to bring to "about 30 Rafale M" GAE.

Should we assume that the maximum limited Rafale M can operate on the Charles de Gaulle is more than 28, 30, 32 or 35? In this case, the aircraft carrier has not benefited from its overhaul facilities therefore have not yet been adapted to the "all Burst (M)". Without this optimization of space, it is difficult to know the upper limit with two E-2C Hawkeye (Royal can not hope to implement the third at sea, still down for maintenance).

These discussions could appear as Byzantine, however, they serve the French carrier positioning in Europe and the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales (32 carrier-based fighters) and against other carriers and aircraft carriers in the world. An upper limit between 28 and 35 Rafale M (for a theoretical limit of 40 aircraft) can help to position France before other foreign dishes bridges (less advanced hunters), which changes the strategic perception vis-à-vis a region where the GAn could intervene, that is to say the balance of power.

Meanwhile, the GAE trains to take, again, the sea and perform the operations requested by the President of the Republic in November off the coast of Syria and Iraq, for the third consecutive passing in one year (a boat very helpful when it is not in IPER / recast). The number of Rafale B, C and M of the area will reach 38 with those of the Air Force in Jordan and IMFEAU.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
inside my recent rant from Sep 1, 2016
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/aircraft-carriers-iii.t7304/page-110#post-413135
there're several points also mentioned in Commentary: Another Carrier Review Is A Waste of Time – At This Time

source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yep, Frankie and Michael are seeing who can be the top "Pentagon" "gunslinger", "Killer Kendall" or "Mad Mikey", they are politicians, killing time and money by having a review "Pop" out 2 weeks before an election, they are trying to be Mrs. Clinton's Hatchet Men, and showing her they are "budget axers". I'd say they are both "running for SEC DEF", but it won't matter, Trump is gonna Win! LOL
 
Yep, Frankie and Michael are seeing who can be the top "Pentagon" "gunslinger", "Killer Kendall" or "Mad Mikey", they are politicians, killing time and money by having a review "Pop" out 2 weeks before an election, they are trying to be Mrs. Clinton's Hatchet Men, and showing her they are "budget axers". I'd say they are both "running for SEC DEF", but it won't matter, Trump is gonna Win! LOL
requires editing LOL
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Yep, Frankie and Michael are seeing who can be the top "Pentagon" "gunslinger", "Killer Kendall" or "Mad Mikey", they are politicians, killing time and money by having a review "Pop" out 2 weeks before an election, they are trying to be Mrs. Clinton's Hatchet Men, and showing her they are "budget axers". I'd say they are both "running for SEC DEF", but it won't matter, Trump is gonna Win! LOL
Brat you need a Charles de Gaulle :)
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
Looks as if development of JS Kaga is doing fine.
Here is a vid showing her going out to open sea to under go her first test run. She will go under various tests such as top speed run, crash stop test, maneuverability test and so on before handing it over to JMSDF.

 
Top