Rafale or Hawkeye Detachments on USN Carriers?

F18 on CDG:

That’s the reason why I added the hint try to search with google. I currently have no direct link, but there were news articles about that.

Not to get me wrong no days or weeks long operations, but crew exchanges and Rafales and Hornets landed and start from each others carriers.

Some links:
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=28922
http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/hangar/2005/t200/t200.htm

Just use a search machine and typ in Rafale+USN carrier or something like that.

In none of the articles does it state that French or American make arresting or catapult take-off or landings from each others Carriers………..just touch and goes.:(

Would you like to elaborate…………..:o

Not to get me wrong no days or weeks long operations, but crew exchanges and Rafales and Hornets landed and start from each others carriers.

Some links:
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=28922
http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/hangar/2005/t200/t200.htm

Just use a search machine and typ in Rafale+USN carrier or something like that.

AFAIK Rafales were already flown from USN carriers.

Would you like to elaborate…………..:o

AFAIK Rafales were already flown from USN carriers.

Really, my point had nothing to do with French Pilots flying mission in Iraq or Afghanistan from USN Carriers. More to the point I was just wondering how French Naval Pilots could keep Carrier Qualified …

French carrier pilots currently train with the USN in any case, & do their original carrier qualification on the T-45***. Cheaper than maintaining their own carrier training system. I imagine they’ll maintain carrier qualifications as part of their routine USN training contract, do DACT as usual, & maybe step up pilot exchange a bit.

***You posted that yourself, a couple of years ago. 😀

I thought you were speaking about using Rafales to supplement overworked F18 squadrons.
Of course it would be very nice from the US navy to lend one of its supercarriers to assure the operational readiness of a french navy flotille without any operational benefit in exchange, but how probable is that? :diablo:
Now, taking a few french pilots in exchange would help. Would they be allowed to fight in Irak or Afghanistan? Not sure.

Really, my point had nothing to do with French Pilots flying mission in Iraq or Afghanistan from USN Carriers. More to the point I was just wondering how French Naval Pilots could keep Carrier Qualified and how the US could also benefit. While, for a number of reasons French Rafales and/or Hawkeyes may not be practical (i.e. logistics, support, cost, etc.) operating from US Carriers. Operating from US Base could very well. As they could do Carrier Quals during Carrier Work Ups before deployment and doing DACT or Joint Exercises with American Forces in between. Really, a good idea………..IMO.:D

I thought you were speaking about using Rafales to supplement overworked F18 squadrons.
Of course it would be very nice from the US navy to lend one of its supercarriers to assure the operational readiness of a french navy flotille without any operational benefit in exchange, but how probable is that? :diablo:
Now, taking a few french pilots in exchange would help. Would they be allowed to fight in Irak or Afghanistan? Not sure.

That is just silly …
Rafale can be easily supported from a summarily equipped base as proved by the deployement of 3 of armée de l’air Rafales to Afghanistan. Deploying a whole flotille (squadron ) for 6 months at sea with full readiness and support would require another level of logistical organization of course. You would have to remove the equivalent of a F18 squadron load in parts to make space available, then field adequate testbenches. Do you know that french electric equipment use 220V and US 110V ?
A carrier is a well equiped, independant and mobile airbase. A forward airfield relies on constant input of parts from mainland depots, be it for F18 or Rafale.

I am not disageeing only stating that they could operate from landbases. While doing Carrier Quals and other Missions (i.e. DACT, Exercises, etc.) in between.

I stated they could operate from landbases on the East Coast of the US. Then fly out to do Carrier Quals. Yet, it doesn’t sounds like the Rafale can be easily support from a well equipped base let alone a foward one………….no wonder they haven’t won any expoert sales.:eek:

That is just silly …
Rafale can be easily supported from a summarily equipped base as proved by the deployement of 3 of armée de l’air Rafales to Afghanistan. Deploying a whole flotille (squadron ) for 6 months at sea with full readiness and support would require another level of logistical organization of course. You would have to remove the equivalent of a F18 squadron load in parts to make space available, then field adequate testbenches. Do you know that french electric equipment use 220V and US 110V ?
A carrier is a well equiped, independant and mobile airbase. A forward airfield relies on constant input of parts from mainland depots, be it for F18 or Rafale.

I stated they could operate from landbases on the East Coast of the US. Then fly out to do Carrier Quals. Yet, it doesn’t sounds like the Rafale can be easily support from a well equipped base let alone a foward one………….no wonder they haven’t won any expoert sales.:eek:

You’re right, and it’s a good link!
X:D

What do the members think of a small detachment of Rafales and/or Hawkeyes operating from a US Carrier?

I don’t think it would be possible, political, technical or confidentiality reasons asides, but for practical reasons:
for one cruise the CDG embarks 1 million aircraft parts of 36,000 different types (from complete motor or wing to screws and tools), several specific, diagnoctic stations, workbenches and testbenches for electronic parts, engines, weapons. For the Rafale, 2 specific testbenches for electronic (one for F1, one for the F2 standard) are necessary, plus one for the engines. That requires a lot of organization and space, obviously you need to know where things are, that also means you can’t change the operational environment easily and getting people used to that environment takes time.
I don’t see how they could make all of that available in an US carrier for one or two cruises. Would probably not be worth it.

Here’s a link, sorry only available in french:
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=104000

Spot on , however because the mission of a carrier is fairly fixed and targets [if any]known beforehand the ROE should be able to be worked out fairly easily if all parties wanted the system to work. . However if the Naval Rafale is only capable of A2A at this point then it would be only used for CAP & wouldnt get into trouble in the current environment.All the ROE problems would only come into play if the carrier were on Gulf Duties, tooling around the Mediteranean, Atlantic or Pacific Oceans would be really only busy training cruises, but still I think the idea has merit & as you mentioned there are other issues needed to be worked .out.

Remember, we are only talking about a few aircraft. Further, I doubt they would send them on a Carrier bound for say Iraq. Another idea they could be landbased on the US East Coast and just do Carrier Quals like any other US Squadron working up for deployment. As a matter of fact NAS Jacksonville would be perfect. As the Rafale could fly to Key West for DACT or operate with the many other USN/USMC/USAF Based in the Southeastern United States. (Oceana NAS, Cherry Point MCAS, Eglin AFB, Tyndall AFB, etc. etc.):D

The biggest issues are the rules of engagement, the chains of command, the myriad small differences in procedures that get people killed so fast its not funny, the language issues, the subtle but imprtant differences in flight deck operations and such that will make it a nightmare.

Nothing that cannot be worked out, but it would take a lot of time, effort and goodwill on all sides.

Unicorn

Spot on , however because the mission of a carrier is fairly fixed and targets [if any]known beforehand the ROE should be able to be worked out fairly easily if all parties wanted the system to work. . However if the Naval Rafale is only capable of A2A at this point then it would be only used for CAP & wouldnt get into trouble in the current environment.All the ROE problems would only come into play if the carrier were on Gulf Duties, tooling around the Mediteranean, Atlantic or Pacific Oceans would be really only busy training cruises, but still I think the idea has merit & as you mentioned there are other issues needed to be worked .out.

The biggest issues are the rules of engagement, the chains of command, the myriad small differences in procedures that get people killed so fast its not funny, the language issues, the subtle but imprtant differences in flight deck operations and such that will make it a nightmare.

Nothing that cannot be worked out, but it would take a lot of time, effort and goodwill on all sides.

Unicorn

When I suggested Oz pilots giving US pilots a rest I was not thinking of using RAAF Hornets, no mate, I was thinking of our pilots greedily logging up hours & burning up fuel in USN Super Hornets, good training for when our own SHs arrive. Ah well ,there goes the concerned ally theory . Seriously I think the E2s would work out OK but I think the FN only has a small number [9] Rafales F1 in carrier operation, they have no A2G capability, I could stand to be corrected on this.The Super Etendard would be a waste of time. It would be a great experience for the French pilots but would probably diminish the US Carriers grunt. Still I think your idea has merit. Storage and movement of weapons would have to be sorted out as the FN planes have a different weapon fit to USN planes. In fact the non Nato/US weapons fit & its “different’ Human Machine Interface” cockpit, different to all its current competitors until the JSF comes on line, have been a big factor in its failure to get an export sale according to some OZ Forum “experts”.Anyhow thats another story.

French carrier CDG will enter 18 month refit.
May be French Rafale fighters will use US carriers for “touch and go”, but I don’t think that any deployment is scheduled. E2C should operate more easily.
SEM will probably not use MB Nae Sao Paulo’s deck, because this ship is always anchored in Rio de Janeiro Naval Base, and never put to sea, because a major problem with one of her catapult, still out of order.
X07

I don’t know…the Hawkeyes maybe but I doubt the Rafale, the SEM are close to the end of their life but a trip out on the Sao Paulo is possible.

The Charles de Gualle isn’t due her refit and refuel period until 2014 which is when PA2 is meant to enter service. If PA2 is delayed I think the FN will switch to land based deck qualification training and continue to rotate a reduced number of pilots into the training stream in America. That way retain a number of pilots carrier qualified with the T45C and Rafale. I don’t think the USN or the Pentagon will turn down taking a number of FN pilots on an exchange basis especially with the Hawkeye squadrons and whilst it might be sensative having French exchange pilots in the Super Hornet there is no reason why they couldn’t be placed with the F/A18C/D squadrons. Anyway the older Hornet is in the same weight class as the Rafale.

It wouldn’t be practical for the French to place whole squadrons with the USN as it would cause problems with manning their own Rafale.

While, it may not be a true refit I do believe the Charles de Gaulle is going in for extented maintenance and will be out of service for sometime. As for a whole squadron of Rafales. I don’t thing it would be necessary? Why not just a small detachment of say 3-6 aircraft. You could even rotate the pilots…..:D