No. They were barely able to operate modified Crusaders, which were considerably lighter than the Phantom. They only had 170' catapults. The Essex and Midway class carriers, which were barely capable of operating the type had catapults which were significantly longer, 225'. So without major refits, the Phantom was just too much planeGiven that the Clemenceau class were longer then the RN Audacious class (which operated modified F4K Phantoms) is it possible for the French navy to have applied modifications to their Carriers (and their Phantoms as well) to launch and recover Phantoms?
What about the Audacious class Carriers? How different were their BS5 catapults (in terms of length) compared to the French ones. Also could the French refit their carriers?No. They were barely able to operate modified Crusaders, which were considerably lighter than the Phantom. They only had 170' catapults. The Essex and Midway class carriers, which were barely capable of operating the type had catapults which were significantly longer, 225'. So without major refits, the Phantom was just too much plane
From what i can find, the bow catapult had a 151' power stroke, while the waist catapult had a 199' power stroke. And I would assume that they couldrefit them, but it's not just the catapults. It's how much weight can the deck support, how big the lift is, how much weight the lift can handle, how much weight the arresting gear can stop. So any refit to allow them to operate Phantoms would quickly reach the "major rebuild" stage and I'm not sure how willing the French would be to pay for that.What about the Audacious class Carriers? How different were their BS5 catapults (in terms of length) compared to the French ones. Also could the French refit their carriers?
Who says the Phantoms have to be carrier-based?
What about the Audacious class Carriers? How different were their BS5 catapults (in terms of length) compared to the French ones. Also could the French refit their carriers?
The only reason the French would buy a non French aircraft would be because they have nothing available to fill the need. Carrier based high performance fighter is about the only type that the French could not source from a French manufacturer.Who says the Phantoms have to be carrier-based?
What would be the French equivalent of the Phantom, anyway?The only reason the French would buy a non French aircraft would be because they have nothing available to fill the need. Carrier based high performance fighter is about the only type that the French could not source from a French manufacturer.
Mirage IV, F2/3 or G.
The French may be chauvanistic but they are not crazy. They would not want to operate something the size and wing platform of the Mirage IV off of a carrier. The F2/3 is a remote possibility. The G is better. It has variable sweep wings. The reason why the French have bought American for carrier aviation has been because American produced planes were cheaper.
What would be the French equivalent of the Phantom, anyway?
The French equivalent of the F-4 Phantom II would be the Breguet Br.1120 Sirocco. The Sirocco was to be a Mach 2.2 carrier capable fighter-bomber for the Marine Nationale.
While the B1120 Sirocco is a supersonic carrier fighter it is not in the class of the Phantom, it is more akin to a small Crusader in terms of capability.