Yuku free message boards

PK wrote:

---

It is very interesting to have so many units east of Suez, but this "fleet" needs ports and bases. The French have Djibouti and Réunion. Something closer to the Horn of Africa seems useful. Would Socotra be viable? Or would Aden be better?

The one thing the French don't need more of is bases in the Indian Ocean. Djibouti is less than 250km from Aden and about 850km from the Horn of Africa. That translates into steaming times measured in hours. Perhaps you're confusing with somewhere else? Any benefits from adding another base in the region would be lost because of the infrastructure costs , force dispersion and the loss of Djibouti's "accomodating" political environment. Even Reunion is only about 4 days steaming away - about the same as between Gibraltar and Suez - and now there's also Abu Dhabi...

If the French have any money to spare, then the Ponant operation made it clear that it should first be spent on helicopters and large, cheap power projection platforms (read mini-BPC or Bay class). Then, any extra money should be spent on the 2nd carrier, frigates and SSNs. If after ALL THAT they can still afford to splurge on a new base, then the best choice would be Singapore, because of close military ties and frequent port calls.

hulahoop7 wrote:

---

I think they are restricted to 24 rather than the planned 36.

The CdG's true airgroup capacity is a real mystery. It's been stated as high as 40 aircraft and as low as 24 Rafales. Similarly, the hangar capacity has been stated as high as 20-25 aircraft and as low as 16 Rafales, which implies as many as 15 aircraft on deck, or as few as 8 Rafales. So what gives? Here's a couple of options:

1) The high end numbers are based on Super Etendards, which have a much smaller deck spotting factor than Rafales
--> Personally, I don't buy this, because A) the CdG was designed around the Rafale from the beginning, and B) Clemenceau could operate 40 Super Etendard sized aircraft despite being 35% smaller (total aviation space 16,600m2 on CDG vs 12,100m2 on Clemenceau). Using Clemenceau's numbers, one would expect CdG to operate a 50+ plane airgroup of Super Etendard-sized aircraft.

2) French engineers messed up, just like they did for the CdG's nuclear propulsion and angled-deck length.
--> According to some sources, CdG turned out to be a bit "tight". However, I don't buy this either, because unlike the other two cases, the requirements (Rafale size and maintenance footprint) shouldn't have changed between the mid-80s and now.

3) For budgetary/operational reasons, the French have decided to keep CdG less crowded than Clemenceau. That's my hunch (not a huge one though). Much like the RN on CVF, they can't afford more than 24 Rafales on board in peacetime. So they use the extra real estate to store spares and ensure optimal maintenance. If the budgetary/operational constraints changed, I'm sure they could operate more aircraft, much like Clemenceau or USN practice.

The truth is though, that no one will know until 2015 at least. The reason is that a lot of the hangar space is taken up by spares required to maintain two fleets of fighters, one of which is worn down and the other still immature. When they retire the Super Etendards, they might well realize that they suddenly have enough hangar space to fit 20 aircraft instead of the current low estimate of 16... Who knows? And by my own rough estimate there's enough deck parking for 14 Rafales while still allowing use of both catapults and the landing area. That implies a total capacity of about 32 Rafales + a couple of Hawkeyes and helos, which is what I'd be willing to wager on.