Posted on 05/11/2006 11:00:55 PM PDT by DTAD
SOUTHWEST ASIA: The French Navy Carrier Air Wing returned to the coalition fight last week, flying their first missions in support of Operation Enduring Freedom since November.
"Our main mission while we are here is to support troops on the ground and contribute to reconnaissance efforts as well," said Lt. Col. Gerard Brunel, commander of the French detachment at the Combined Air Operations Center. It is Central Command Air Forces policy not to disclose the specific location of its forward headquarters or the CAOC.
(Excerpt) Read more at defencetalk.com ...
damn, i was getting worried ...
Gosh, that's really swell. Things in Afghanistan must be safer than I thought.
Are they out of cheese already?
predictable anti-French snarkiness on this thread, and I'm sure others will be along shortly. But they are contributing, and that's the point that shoule be taken from this article.
Whatever differences we may have with their government and/or their culture, I've heard good things about French troops, intelligence agencies, and police, from people who have worked with them.
please elaborate on some highlights to an interested person
If anyone think the French forces are pu$$ies try going up against them. Just because the majority are, don't underestimate them.
Sorry about my poor English.
I don't have a whole lot of specifics, just that people I know in the military who have had occasion to train with them speak favorably of them. I do know that the French internal security apparatus has been very tough on Muslim exremists inside France, even moreso than we have in this country. They're able to hold suspects for questioning for quite a long time without charging them, for example.
reads more like poor soberness from here :)
To this day they don't understand you need a bargaining chip to talk your way out of a fight.
Maybe all them "muzlim youts" rioting a couple months ago made them reconsider?
I am talking about the individual soldiers like the ones I knew in Kosovo. Very professional and not a bunch I would want to go up against. Ditto for the Germans...just because their government sucks doesn't mean they are not a killing force.
did not mean to discredit those you served with. they are however , tools of their government. which are in fact tools against this country
The French military was bummed out that they had to sit out the Iraq war.
As a whole France used to be a brave country a very long time ago. I am sure there are a few that are brave in the country today and those would join the military.
they accidentally put a submarine engine in it?
epiphany has to renamed to maintain the 'purity' of the french language...
Their carrier has never successfully completed an operational deployment, IIRC. It's always had some problem that's forced it to return to port early. The French Naval Air Wing mentioned above is deployed separately from their carrier right now, since their carrier is still having problems and when last heard from was still at the shipwrights.
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2003127.asp
if your laughing at the sub engine mishap, they actually did it!
thanks for the link
So did we - U.S.S. Enterprise (CVN-65) is powered by eight submarine reactors. It wasn't a bad idea to use sub reactors, it was just a case of bad execution on the part of the French. "Ooops, we forgot to install some of the shielding, now our reactor crews glow in the dark."
hehe :) , i read somewhere their initial design could only do 8 knots max though...
I've worked with them. Joint American, French and German operation. It was like taking a poodle on a lion hunt.
No, actually. The reactors weren't the problem.
The ship has two major, currently unsolved problems. One, it has the spare propellers off of the smaller conventional carriers that France used to field. This reduces the top speed of the ship by quite a bit. Two, it has a bad case of rudder flutter at "higher" speeds, rendering it almost unsteerable and very unpleasant to inhabit.
The ship is currently limited to a top speed of 15 knots, IIRC.
it's funny either way :)
I think if we are to criticize the French when they chicken out, we should also praise them to whatever degree they agree to take part.
On the other hand, kudos to whoever added "accordions" to the keywords. That's pretty damn funny right there...
you know your sh** so it seems. these are 2006 stats for this carrier?
Last I'd heard, yeah. They haven't replaced the propellers in the intervening time, and I don't remember hearing that they'd figured out the rudder flutter problem. I suspect that they'd have to completely redesign the propeller and rudder system to fix the problem, and if they've started that process they're nowhere near production of parts. The list of screwups on that ship is nearly endless - from the defective reactor systems to the armored glass for the superstructure (which was discovered to be opaque after installation).
The crew calls it "the ship of the damned".
the crew might be right methinks
Some of the high (low?) points:
For every year in operation the ship has to spend four months in dock undergoing maintenance and repairs.
November 2000: a large segment of one of the 19-ton propellors breaks/falls off during exercises in the Bermuda Triangle. After limping back to port in Toulon, it is discovered that the manufacturer, Atlantic Industries, had gone bankrupt the previous year. Turns out the replacement screws all have the same defect. In order to put the carrier back in service, they cannibalized the Foch's backup screws.
Though the vessel has sufficient power to run 27 knots, it cannot exceed 15 knots because of severe rudder flutter that sets in above that speed. Reportedly at 27 knots the noise generated by the vibration in the stern reaches 100db, rendering the entire stern area of the ship uninhabitable.
As originally constructed, the flight deck was 30 meters too short to operate the E-2 aircraft they were going to carry on the ship.
After modifying the deck, it had to be repainted, because the paint turned out to be highly corrosive to the arrestor cables needed to land aircraft.
The reactor shielding was completely overhauled when it was discovered that the engine crews were being exposed to five times the allowable level of radiation. Note - expect lots of glowing submariners; the CdG reactors are the same as in their new SSBN class. And those don't have/can't have the upgraded shielding.
In 2000, a reactor test set a part of the ship on fire.
A toxic gas leak took out a sailor and an officer while the vessel was in port.
As originally delivered, the armored bridge windows were opaque, and none of the sensor systems actually worked. Electrical problems continue to plague the ship.
The ship has a much larger radar signature as well as sonar signature (it's apparently rather loud) than originally planned.
A mysterious fire in the builder's offices destroyed most of the information on the ship; there are *still* ongoing investigations regarding corruption and bribery (shades of Airbus).
They are already thinking about retiring it in favor of two conventional carriers to be built by the Brits; it was 11 years in the building, and has been 'in service' only since 2000.
There were whole generations lost in places like Verdun. It is really sad.
Forgot one - unlike US nuclear carriers, it cannot conduct simultaneous launch and recovery operations, because of the size of the deck and the placement of the catapaults. This means that if there's a catastrophic incident on landing, the entire deck is fouled and no airplanes can be launched until the deck is cleared.
US nuclear carriers can continue to launch aircraft even if the entire aft section of the flight deck is on fire. Likewise, a catapault failure or fire on the forward part of the flight deck does not affect landing operations.
Not to be snarky about the French, but can they keep the thing running reliably?
good info, thanks. the crew might be right methinks :)
The man who heads up that security apparatus, I've read, is really excellent and highly respected in the U.S.
Not even God could keep their carrier running reliably.
Excellent point. Chirac and his ilk are the problem. Not their troops. France's military has always had a leadership problem, mainly at the political level. Their forces are well respected by the US military folks I know.
I believe they created a whole separate anti-terrorism court and enforcement system. That system would never pass muster with our constitution, but within their system it works. Their counterterrorism police I believe are known as GIGN--not sure what it stands for, but they are supposed to be among the best in the world. I am sure our FBI could learn some lessons from them.
A decade or so ago, Jihadists were very active in Algeria and a lot of that spilled over into France. I believe there was a subway bomb there and a plot to blow up the Eiffel Tower. The French did a very effective job in breaking that up, but Chirac is in denial about the nature and source of the riots, mainly because he does not want to admit that he sqaundered the work of the anti-terrorism apparatus.
And, unfortunately, with aid from Al Qaeda, it now looks like the Jihadists are making a comeback of sorts in Algeria. I suspect the French will need the GIGN again sooner than later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.