Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We acknowledge the major contribution of the Harrier Force to the Armed Forces and to the security of the UK. We regret that it has been removed from service. We acknowledge the many pieces of evidence that called for the reintroduction of the Harrier Force. However we agree with our witnesses who stated that it is too late to do so due to the cost, industry losing the relevant personnel and the pilots being redeployed. We call on the Government to ensure that the best deal possible is achieved in the disposal of the Harrier fleet and expect the Government to provide us with full details as soon as any agreement is reached. (Paragraph 120)
Last edited by Neartheend; 3rd Aug 2011 at 13:29.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We regret that it has been removed from service.
So on balance, may i suggest that they agree with the title of the thread.
Moving on as requested.
downsizer/The B Word/Neartheend
No need to gloat. Are they all being broken up? I thought the Americans were buying them as a spares source?
Neartheend
If the rumours are true, then Dr Fox and possibly other MOD Ministers are at least sympathetic. The First Sea Lord told the Commons' Defence Committee that the aspect of the SDSR that he would want to change more than anything else was the Harrier decision, both in terms of ongoing operations, other crises which may happen this decade, and in terms of losing a capability and having to plan how to rebuild it later this decade. CINCFLEET has publicly spoken of Ocean being used in a strike role with Apache, in place of CVS with Harrier. The role of hitting shore targets from a ship based aircraft still exists.
BomberH
Are you saying we should have four carriers or none? And no stepping stones to build that capability are allowed?
Ken
If this Libyan operation continues for a few more months, we will most likely be sending Illustrious to relieve Ocean. Will she need any greater level of escorting? Would carrying Harriers as well/instead of Apache increase the need for escorts? No, of course not. As for RFAs, my understanding is that tankers and other support ships on this mission are pooled by NATO, and refuel/resupply ships of whatever nationality as and when needed. Occasionally large warships can refuel smaller ones - Ocean recently refuelled the Minehunter Bangor off Libya.
Jimlad
You do explain the logic well. If the only deployments in the future would be carrier ones, then we would be supporting seventy odd aircraft and all the associated infrastructure just to deploy a small number at sea (particularly if we only have one carrier). I would be lying if I said I did not understand the logic.
BrakingStop
Thanks for again addressing some of the mythology that seems to have grown around Harrier post SDSR.
FODPlod
I don't think SDSR could foresee current events.
Neartheend (again)
So, the commitee agreed that the Harrier axe was a bad thing, but that reintroducing it under the previous arrangements would be too expensive (lots of aircraft and infrstucture), supporting personnel in industry moving on to other things, and pilots being redeployed (this is debatable, whilst the RAF pilots have moved to other types, RN jet jocks are another issue - with USN exchanges being difficult to set up).
A few pages ago someone suggested that the Prime Minister himself had enquired about restoring some Harriers and the carrier capability, only to be given a negative reply. Therefore I would raise my suggestion again.
It occurs to me that if we could supply a number (most/all of them) of our now stored Harrier GR9s to the US, and continue to offer the USMC a chance to carry out embarkations of a dozen or so Harriers, we may be able to purchase or lease a number of AV8B (AV8B+ if we're lucky) aircraft in a quid pro quo type arrangement. Hopefully any such deal would include some sort of Memorandum Of Understanding (like the agreements used to support Italian and Spanish Harriers) in order to prevent the UK to incur major support costs, but would offer the following advantages:
1. The UK would still be able to respond to crises in which carrier aviation is useful.
2. The RN would maintain the skills needed to run a carrier with jets on deck, and would maintain a cadre of both Pilots and Engineers to work with these aircraft, avoiding the need to start from scratch later on this decade.
3. If we could get AV8B+s then it would give the Navy a capability that it lost when the Sea Harrier was retired in 2006. We would therefore be in a far better position to provide air defence for a maritime task group, or to participate in policing a no fly zone.
4. We would no longer have to pay for storing retired aircraft, and the Government would be justified in portraying this as a step forward.
5. Our potential adversaries would have something to think about - prevention (deterrence) being better than cure.
6. The defence relationship with the US would be strengthened, as would the defence relationship with France as Illustrious would be able to relieve Charles De Gaulle in x months time.
No need to gloat. Are they all being broken up? I thought the Americans were buying them as a spares source?
Neartheend
If the rumours are true, then Dr Fox and possibly other MOD Ministers are at least sympathetic. The First Sea Lord told the Commons' Defence Committee that the aspect of the SDSR that he would want to change more than anything else was the Harrier decision, both in terms of ongoing operations, other crises which may happen this decade, and in terms of losing a capability and having to plan how to rebuild it later this decade. CINCFLEET has publicly spoken of Ocean being used in a strike role with Apache, in place of CVS with Harrier. The role of hitting shore targets from a ship based aircraft still exists.
BomberH
Are you saying we should have four carriers or none? And no stepping stones to build that capability are allowed?
Ken
If this Libyan operation continues for a few more months, we will most likely be sending Illustrious to relieve Ocean. Will she need any greater level of escorting? Would carrying Harriers as well/instead of Apache increase the need for escorts? No, of course not. As for RFAs, my understanding is that tankers and other support ships on this mission are pooled by NATO, and refuel/resupply ships of whatever nationality as and when needed. Occasionally large warships can refuel smaller ones - Ocean recently refuelled the Minehunter Bangor off Libya.
Jimlad
You do explain the logic well. If the only deployments in the future would be carrier ones, then we would be supporting seventy odd aircraft and all the associated infrastructure just to deploy a small number at sea (particularly if we only have one carrier). I would be lying if I said I did not understand the logic.
BrakingStop
Thanks for again addressing some of the mythology that seems to have grown around Harrier post SDSR.
FODPlod
I don't think SDSR could foresee current events.
Neartheend (again)
So, the commitee agreed that the Harrier axe was a bad thing, but that reintroducing it under the previous arrangements would be too expensive (lots of aircraft and infrstucture), supporting personnel in industry moving on to other things, and pilots being redeployed (this is debatable, whilst the RAF pilots have moved to other types, RN jet jocks are another issue - with USN exchanges being difficult to set up).
A few pages ago someone suggested that the Prime Minister himself had enquired about restoring some Harriers and the carrier capability, only to be given a negative reply. Therefore I would raise my suggestion again.
It occurs to me that if we could supply a number (most/all of them) of our now stored Harrier GR9s to the US, and continue to offer the USMC a chance to carry out embarkations of a dozen or so Harriers, we may be able to purchase or lease a number of AV8B (AV8B+ if we're lucky) aircraft in a quid pro quo type arrangement. Hopefully any such deal would include some sort of Memorandum Of Understanding (like the agreements used to support Italian and Spanish Harriers) in order to prevent the UK to incur major support costs, but would offer the following advantages:
1. The UK would still be able to respond to crises in which carrier aviation is useful.
2. The RN would maintain the skills needed to run a carrier with jets on deck, and would maintain a cadre of both Pilots and Engineers to work with these aircraft, avoiding the need to start from scratch later on this decade.
3. If we could get AV8B+s then it would give the Navy a capability that it lost when the Sea Harrier was retired in 2006. We would therefore be in a far better position to provide air defence for a maritime task group, or to participate in policing a no fly zone.
4. We would no longer have to pay for storing retired aircraft, and the Government would be justified in portraying this as a step forward.
5. Our potential adversaries would have something to think about - prevention (deterrence) being better than cure.
6. The defence relationship with the US would be strengthened, as would the defence relationship with France as Illustrious would be able to relieve Charles De Gaulle in x months time.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 5th Aug 2011 at 16:12.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
God, I'm bored!
WEBF - If rumours are true
Ps if you sell for spares the aircraft normally get broken down. It then costs less for transportation. Just a thought.
I wasn't gloating, just stating fact.
They are being dismantled/broken up because of considereable differences between the US harriers and ours. As such they only want certain things, not the frames in total.
They are being dismantled/broken up because of considereable differences between the US harriers and ours. As such they only want certain things, not the frames in total.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The decision to axe the Harrier can no longer be described as "bonkers" - it is now irreversible. The Harrier Fleet has ceased to exist as a viable asset and its support structure has been disbanded and Personnel dispersed to other duties.
Well it now seems that the departure of FS Charles De Gaulle from the Libyan theatre will be sooner than some thought.
France to withdraw Libya carrier by mid-August - Reuters
This will make NATO's job a lot harder - particularly in dealing with urgent targets. If only we had a carrier with jets (see my idea above), then the UK and France could rotate carriers...
In The Scotsman, Clive Fairweather hits the nail on the head:
The desperate state of the country's finances has not only led to a much-needed review of commitments versus resources, it has also resulted in rushed and even panicky decisions to save an immediate bob or two, which could have long-term detrimental effects on the nation's interests.
The sudden scrapping of the Harrier force is a prime example. No sooner had all the crews been dispersed than the Libyan crisis blew up and we needed ground-attack aircraft operating from off the coast. In the end, we had to resort to expensive Italian bases and more vulnerable Apache helicopters to complete what could be the mere opening phases of the mission. Nor is Italian political support guaranteed, especially if it turns out we are in for the long haul.
On which note a spat seems to have broken out between Italy and NATO.
France to withdraw Libya carrier by mid-August - Reuters
This will make NATO's job a lot harder - particularly in dealing with urgent targets. If only we had a carrier with jets (see my idea above), then the UK and France could rotate carriers...
In The Scotsman, Clive Fairweather hits the nail on the head:
The desperate state of the country's finances has not only led to a much-needed review of commitments versus resources, it has also resulted in rushed and even panicky decisions to save an immediate bob or two, which could have long-term detrimental effects on the nation's interests.
The sudden scrapping of the Harrier force is a prime example. No sooner had all the crews been dispersed than the Libyan crisis blew up and we needed ground-attack aircraft operating from off the coast. In the end, we had to resort to expensive Italian bases and more vulnerable Apache helicopters to complete what could be the mere opening phases of the mission. Nor is Italian political support guaranteed, especially if it turns out we are in for the long haul.
On which note a spat seems to have broken out between Italy and NATO.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 12th Oct 2012 at 21:01.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are we not based in Sigonella rather than Gioia? This would save a fortune on transit and Tanker costs. If space is tight, then move out some non operational aircraft.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are we not based in Sigonella rather than Gioia
I think Typhoon may have just been cleared F44, i am sure some one will no doubt come along shortly and confirm/deny. The happy stacker back in March seemed to think that it wasnt as issue as it could be 'made' into suitable fuel for the GR4 but it seems as yet, not been done.
The Harrier was very flexible in that it was cleared ALL aviation fuel types - just thought i'd throw that in for WE fanatic to cheer him up.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So….
It is moored off Corsica and the aircraft will relocate to Sicily. Doesn’t look like too much of a loss to me?
Lots of down days and had to stay close to a French Air Force base to maintain sortie rate.
Looks like Lusty can relax.
And WEBF, if the NATO effort is not seen to diminish after CdG departs will you let this thread finally go?
It is moored off Corsica and the aircraft will relocate to Sicily. Doesn’t look like too much of a loss to me?
Lots of down days and had to stay close to a French Air Force base to maintain sortie rate.
Looks like Lusty can relax.
And WEBF, if the NATO effort is not seen to diminish after CdG departs will you let this thread finally go?
So….
It is moored off Corsica and the aircraft will relocate to Sicily. Doesn’t look like too much of a loss to me?
Lots of down days and had to stay close to a French Air Force base to maintain sortie rate.
Looks like Lusty can relax.
And WEBF, if the NATO effort is not seen to diminish after CdG departs will you let this thread finally go?
It is moored off Corsica and the aircraft will relocate to Sicily. Doesn’t look like too much of a loss to me?
Lots of down days and had to stay close to a French Air Force base to maintain sortie rate.
Looks like Lusty can relax.
And WEBF, if the NATO effort is not seen to diminish after CdG departs will you let this thread finally go?
And people say Sharkey makes outrageous claims.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evidence
The French Defence Minister...good enough? From WEBF's quoted article:
"MARSEILLE, France Aug 4 (Reuters) - France will bring home its Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier from its Libyan mission next week for maintenance, Defence Minister Gerard Longuet told the regional daily Var-Matin.
France will move its Rafale fighter jets from the carrier, moored off the French Mediterranean island of Corsica, to NATO's base in Sicily for the time being. Longuet did not say if the Charles de Gaulle would be sent back after maintenance.
"We are in a situation of redeployment of our resources in order to support the NATO mission until the end," Longuet told Var-Matin in an interview published on Thursday.
The carrier, deployed since March in the NATO-led Libya operation and at sea for many months before that, will stay in operation until at least Aug. 10 and dock at the Mediterranean port of Toulon before Aug. 15 for technical checks and to rest its personnel.
Longuet, who spoke to the paper while visiting a naval base on the Mediterranean coast this week, said there would be no easing off of France's part in the military operation, where it has taken a driving role since the start.
"(Muammar) Gaddafi should not expect any respite," Longuet said. "France, which is behind a quarter of the sorties and a third of the air strikes, will keep up its effort."
France had said in June that it planned to withdraw the nuclear-powered carrier in the autumn. Some 20 aircraft have been based on the ship for sorties over Libya, including Rafales, Hawkeyes and attack helicopters."
JDW last week for number of down days - 19 so far, or approx 20%
FAF Base Solenzara is on Corsica and also supports Rafale ops.
Note the French Minister claims that overall France flies a quarter of all misions, since CdG only provides a propotion of these the claims of a quarter of all sorties from CdG is the statistic too far.
If your source claims that the CdG flies more than any other carrier in the region I will accept it, otherwise...Non.
"MARSEILLE, France Aug 4 (Reuters) - France will bring home its Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier from its Libyan mission next week for maintenance, Defence Minister Gerard Longuet told the regional daily Var-Matin.
France will move its Rafale fighter jets from the carrier, moored off the French Mediterranean island of Corsica, to NATO's base in Sicily for the time being. Longuet did not say if the Charles de Gaulle would be sent back after maintenance.
"We are in a situation of redeployment of our resources in order to support the NATO mission until the end," Longuet told Var-Matin in an interview published on Thursday.
The carrier, deployed since March in the NATO-led Libya operation and at sea for many months before that, will stay in operation until at least Aug. 10 and dock at the Mediterranean port of Toulon before Aug. 15 for technical checks and to rest its personnel.
Longuet, who spoke to the paper while visiting a naval base on the Mediterranean coast this week, said there would be no easing off of France's part in the military operation, where it has taken a driving role since the start.
"(Muammar) Gaddafi should not expect any respite," Longuet said. "France, which is behind a quarter of the sorties and a third of the air strikes, will keep up its effort."
France had said in June that it planned to withdraw the nuclear-powered carrier in the autumn. Some 20 aircraft have been based on the ship for sorties over Libya, including Rafales, Hawkeyes and attack helicopters."
JDW last week for number of down days - 19 so far, or approx 20%
FAF Base Solenzara is on Corsica and also supports Rafale ops.
Note the French Minister claims that overall France flies a quarter of all misions, since CdG only provides a propotion of these the claims of a quarter of all sorties from CdG is the statistic too far.
If your source claims that the CdG flies more than any other carrier in the region I will accept it, otherwise...Non.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Italy on £43 a day.
Libyan rebels strike key oil pipeline - Telegraph
Not bad for the height of the Summer season. So much for Sharkey's claims!
£15.6M for 12 months land based ops against the running cost of the carrier...more than enough left over to pay for some extra gas, I suspect.
So, if we now remove the distorted costs argument from the early media storm started by Sharkey, and the current effort can be sustained without the CdG, where does that leave this thread?
I thought the concrete trick in the article was rather neat as well.
Keep wriggling.
From the evidence you have quoted, CdG's strike aircraft have flown missions off the Libyan coast for 120 of the past 139 days (over 83%). The French have provided 30% of NATO strike missions so, by definition, a good proportion of these must have been flown from CdG, reported as able to fly two sorties per a/c per day owing to their proximity to the Libyan coast.
What land-based a/c have been able to match this? It sounds like the French will be looking for a shed-load more to replace CdG's contribution.
According to the article you have quoted, £15.6m is purely for hotel accommodation. Apart from the extra locally-purchased fuel requirement, what about the additional infrastructure, food, local allowances, transport (local and international, freight and pax), £70k per Typhoon flying hour for each 1,200 mile round trip between Gioia del Colle and the Libyan coast (at least £140,000 times how many 100 sorties?) as well as the astronomical number of extra tanker hours and their fuel?
To quote Hansard (link):
From your latest quoted article:
As these Apaches must be from the five embarked in HMS Ocean, think what extra capability a dozen or so Harriers could have brought to the party. 
From the evidence you have quoted, CdG's strike aircraft have flown missions off the Libyan coast for 120 of the past 139 days (over 83%). The French have provided 30% of NATO strike missions so, by definition, a good proportion of these must have been flown from CdG, reported as able to fly two sorties per a/c per day owing to their proximity to the Libyan coast.
What land-based a/c have been able to match this? It sounds like the French will be looking for a shed-load more to replace CdG's contribution.
£15.6M for 12 months land based ops against the running cost of the carrier...more than enough left over to pay for some extra gas, I suspect.
According to the article you have quoted, £15.6m is purely for hotel accommodation. Apart from the extra locally-purchased fuel requirement, what about the additional infrastructure, food, local allowances, transport (local and international, freight and pax), £70k per Typhoon flying hour for each 1,200 mile round trip between Gioia del Colle and the Libyan coast (at least £140,000 times how many 100 sorties?) as well as the astronomical number of extra tanker hours and their fuel?
To quote Hansard (link):
Mr Robathan: Savings from the withdrawal from service of HMS Ark Royal in December 2010 are estimated at £10 million in financial year 2011-12...
Major Gen Nick Pope, an MoD spokesman, said that Army Air Corp Appaches had been deployed "deep into" the Nufusa mountains to support the offensive. He also said Apaches had attacked Libyan forces at al Watiyah, on the Tunisian border 40 miles south of the coast.
He said: "Hellfire missiles and cannon fire accounted for one headquarters and twelve military vehicles, including at least one armed with a surface-to-air weapon system, with another four vehicles left seriously damaged.
He said: "Hellfire missiles and cannon fire accounted for one headquarters and twelve military vehicles, including at least one armed with a surface-to-air weapon system, with another four vehicles left seriously damaged.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
80% vs 83% - close enough, Try 100% from RAF land based aircraft.
“a good proportion…able to fly 2 sorties per day” – hardly factual or substantiated.
Costs of carrier projected for 2009-10 from Defence Accounts (p96):
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F10E9...mod_ra0910.pdf
£349M per annum ... so a bit more than 15.6M
The savings quoted in Hansard are for the first year and will be reduced by disposal costs and committal of contracts and personnel in first year and the retention of a single carrier (which hasn’t done anything yet)
There are no charges for use of the Italian base, and your continued use of full costs for a Typhoon hour means that you have to factor in the purchase price of the carrier and all her support infrastructure – expensive isn’t it?
Senior Soldier highlights Army efforts in current air and maritime op – shock horror!
But I admire your persistence.
“a good proportion…able to fly 2 sorties per day” – hardly factual or substantiated.
Costs of carrier projected for 2009-10 from Defence Accounts (p96):
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F10E9...mod_ra0910.pdf
£349M per annum ... so a bit more than 15.6M
The savings quoted in Hansard are for the first year and will be reduced by disposal costs and committal of contracts and personnel in first year and the retention of a single carrier (which hasn’t done anything yet)
There are no charges for use of the Italian base, and your continued use of full costs for a Typhoon hour means that you have to factor in the purchase price of the carrier and all her support infrastructure – expensive isn’t it?
Senior Soldier highlights Army efforts in current air and maritime op – shock horror!
But I admire your persistence.
Facts and substantiation
The CVS and Harriers were paid for long ago whereas the Typhoons...(link).
You asked for facts and substantiation regarding reports that CdG's a/c were able to perform two sorties per day:
According to the article you quoted:
Unless our US friend is lying, I make that two sorties per day for most aircraft.
The RAF has around 20 a/c based at Gioia del Colle. How does their sortie rate compare?
You asked for facts and substantiation regarding reports that CdG's a/c were able to perform two sorties per day:
ABOARD THE CHARLES DE GAULLE -- U.S. Navy Lt. Patrick Salmon is getting ready for another day at work, strapping himself into the cockpit of his strike jet and roaring off this French aircraft carrier for his daily attack mission against Moammar Gadhafi's ground forces...
Caldwell, who has worked on several U.S. carriers, said the similarities between the two navies outweigh the differences, and said the major distinction was the number of sorties he handles a day. "On U.S. carriers we trap about 160 aircraft a day at sea, but here it's just 35-40 a day," he said...
Caldwell, who has worked on several U.S. carriers, said the similarities between the two navies outweigh the differences, and said the major distinction was the number of sorties he handles a day. "On U.S. carriers we trap about 160 aircraft a day at sea, but here it's just 35-40 a day," he said...
...Some 20 aircraft have been based on the ship for sorties over Libya, including Rafales, Hawkeyes and attack helicopters."
The RAF has around 20 a/c based at Gioia del Colle. How does their sortie rate compare?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from the Wall Street Journal
"PARIS—The French navy will withdraw its aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle from Libyan seas on Aug. 10 for maintenance, though France will keep participating in airstrikes against Col. Moammar Gadhafi's forces using fighter jets that will take off from Sicily.
The Charles De Gaulle, which hosts six Rafale fighter jets and nine other aircraft, will head to her home harbor of Toulon on the French Mediterranean coast for regular maintenance, a French Defense Ministry official said Thursday. The maintenance will take place in the port over "several weeks," he added.
The French air force will take over the job using six other Rafale jets based at the Sigonella air base in Sicily, meaning France's military contribution the North Atlantic Treaty Organization campaign in Libya won't be affected by the carrier's withdrawal.
The French military carries out about 25% of the coalition's sorties in Libya and about 30% of the air strikes.
The Charles De Gaulle has been sailing off the Libyan coast since March 20, together with other French vessels and a helicopter carrier. Prior to her mission off the North African coast, the ship had patrolled the Indian Ocean off Eastern Africa as part of antipiracy surveillance.
Between both missions, the ship moored in Toulon for about a month.
France and other NATO member countries started bombing Libyan troops to protect civilians from repression after the United Nations Security Council authorized air strikes against troops loyal to Col. "
Seems that the carrier strike contribution can be easily coped with by the same number of land based aircraft
"PARIS—The French navy will withdraw its aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle from Libyan seas on Aug. 10 for maintenance, though France will keep participating in airstrikes against Col. Moammar Gadhafi's forces using fighter jets that will take off from Sicily.
The Charles De Gaulle, which hosts six Rafale fighter jets and nine other aircraft, will head to her home harbor of Toulon on the French Mediterranean coast for regular maintenance, a French Defense Ministry official said Thursday. The maintenance will take place in the port over "several weeks," he added.
The French air force will take over the job using six other Rafale jets based at the Sigonella air base in Sicily, meaning France's military contribution the North Atlantic Treaty Organization campaign in Libya won't be affected by the carrier's withdrawal.
The French military carries out about 25% of the coalition's sorties in Libya and about 30% of the air strikes.
The Charles De Gaulle has been sailing off the Libyan coast since March 20, together with other French vessels and a helicopter carrier. Prior to her mission off the North African coast, the ship had patrolled the Indian Ocean off Eastern Africa as part of antipiracy surveillance.
Between both missions, the ship moored in Toulon for about a month.
France and other NATO member countries started bombing Libyan troops to protect civilians from repression after the United Nations Security Council authorized air strikes against troops loyal to Col. "
Seems that the carrier strike contribution can be easily coped with by the same number of land based aircraft