French and British Navys in 2017

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: French and British Navys in 2017
usajoe 8/20/2007 4:51:10 AM

Right now the british have a small edge as the top navy in europe, but 10 years from now the French second aircraft carrier to complement the nuclear Charles de Gaulle, Horizon Destroyers,Fremm multipurpose frigates,and the 1st Barracuda ssn will come into service along with the Rafales, and E-2C Hawkeyes. the British will have their 2 new Queen Elizabeth class carrieres,Type-45 Destroyers,Astute Class ssn, and the F-35 replacing the Harriers. So on paper bolth will have simmler capabilities, and size, the same as now but with more Global projection power,and the difference then as is now will be British naval tactics and training which i think is just a tad bit better, and that is what I think is going to keep them the number 1 navy in europe.

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEXT

Lawman 8/29/2007 4:47:35 PM

Not sure where you get that the Victory class is a follow on to the Formidable class. The Victory class are a bunch of corvettes, build by Germany in the '80s... They only displace around 600 tons, so would be completely incapable of carrying Sylver, hence Barak is the chosen system, since it is specifically designed for smaller boats. Barak is a point defence missile system, not really in the same class as the Aster. Now the Indians are working with the Israelis to produce a larger missile, Barak 2, which would be in the same sort of class as Aster, but this is still at the planning stage at the moment.

As for Rafale versus Rhino, the Rhino is less manouvreable, despite its high alpha capabilities. The Rafale, is more agile, and generally is rated as being pretty much on a par with the Typhoon, even the RAF admit that (though they do say the Typhoon has the edge...), whereas pretty much everyone admits the Rhino is no show-stopper. It could have been, that is the sad thing, since there were proposals to use more powerful (still F-414, but a later mod) engines, and thrust vectoring. Though the official line was that thrust vectoring was judged to add too much weight for it to be a major benefit, the truth is that there wasn't enough money. The Navy had to choose between the JHMCS or thrust vectoring, and they chose well... With the Rafale, the canards do give it some pretty nice capabilities, and for its size, it packs a good punch.

The Rhino currently is beginning to have an advantage, since its AESA is just now entering fleet service, though quite slowly, whereas the Rafale's AESA is not quite ready yet. I don't rate this as a massive problem for the Rafale, it just means the Rhino is a little further ahead program wise. As FS would say, the Rafale is getting better engines, and an AESA radar, they're just not quite ready yet. Lest we get Darth coming in here, I would readily admit that the Rhino's AESA does give it an edge, but only in one area, and I wouldn't want to pre-judge the outcome of a Rhino-Rafale face-off.

The Rafale's biggest weakness, as we both agree on (though for slightly different reasons), is in terms of its missiles. The MICA-IR is said to be a very useful weapon, since it combines the long range engines of a BVR missile, with the role of a shorter range one. This is pretty much the design brief for the ASRAAM, and why that missile has impressed so many people - longer burn time really does make a big difference. However, the Rafale is planned to get Meteor now, so things will even up, and depending on your position (I know yours, you know mine), Meteor will give Rafale an edge over Rhino for BVR (once AESA is fitted, which should be pretty soon).

Basically, Rhino is an overgrown Hornet, I do like it, and have never been a great Rafale fan, but I would give the Rafale the edge, and I have to say, it is a cleaner airframe.

5th Guards: Actually, you'll find that the EA-6B isn't retired at all, the EA-18G is the planned replacement, but is not in service yet. The EA-6B has a long future still remaining.

Quote Reply

5thGuards 8/29/2007 6:01:46 PM

I already said US has at the moment bigest navy in the world by far but still can not match combined NAVY forces of the world or to have dominance close to Russian shores no matter their carrier numbers.
There are two major things that Americans are overestimating (and thats logistic and efficiency of US systems)

1. US carriers can sustaine full combat operations for just 5 days before they need to be reloaded with suplies. ( Thats a major weaknes since US has no way to protect its logistic over whole Pacific or Atlantic ocean). Just imagine harasment by Tu-22M3 or Tu-160/95 over logistic ships heading to resupply carriers. ( and without munitions they are mearly siting ducks).

2. You say US can geather over 1000 Super Hornet fighters. thats one big LOL That fighter is a shame for US NAVY and stands no chance against any descent fighter. US navy will have 480 of it thrown out in 2012 and until then operates even older F/A-18 Hornet fighter. Now with service ceiling of 15 000m , g load of 7.6 and max dash speed of Mach 1.6 with the use of afterburner that fighter posses no real threat to any EU (Rafale/EF-2000) or Russian (Mig-29 Su-27xx) not to mention Mig-31 and would lose galantly any aieral engagement.

What do you think what are the chances or range of AIM-120 agaist target flying 10km above you ( crapy " Super Hornet" ) with max dash speed of Mach 2.83 (can if needed strech to Mach 3) and cruising speed of Mach 2.3 (ignorable range of AIM-120), but at the same time has manoevreble missiles with the range of 300km. LOL

US had big problems to catch even MIG-25 with cruise speed of Mach 1.8 and whole preparations had to be undertaken earlier in order to successfuly acomplish mission.

So sending swarms of crapy F/A-18E/F to engadge Russian or EU targets would make just excellent practice for their SAMs and fighters.

Having AWACS is meenengless since he has nothing to guide on targets except crapy "Super Hornets".

This so far is not gooing good and we have just began.

3. USN has also one BIG disadvantage because of crapy " Super Hornet " not mentioned earlier. That is its SMALL combat radius of only 600km. Now that crap has enought fuel to fly 600km (something more or less depending of the variant and drop tanks) and back ...... but how mutch fuel can it spare to engage in fight at its max combat radius with lets say Mig-29M2 or EF-2000 or Rafale or Gripen or Su-35 (not to mention Su-35BM).... and you do know what it means to has no fuel in air combat against any of this fighters........ CERTAIN DEATH .... so in order to have any chances to succed carriers will have to come even closer to Russian/EU shores..... thus risking mass antiship missile attack ...LOL

Now lets take into considaration Russians SAMs ( and excellent EU Aster SAM ) ... I think we would all agree that sky's protected by mighty S-300PMU2/S-400/Aster-15/30 Buk-M2 / Tor-M2 or Pantsyr S-1 and no US SUBsonic missiles would stand a chance to penetrate that kind of multilayer defences the more that Russian A-50M and MIG-31BM would provide extra eyes in the sky and extra missiles if needed. With " Super Hornets " G load of 7.6 what are his chances against Russians SAM ..... as I said practice DRONES.

Quote Reply

Herald1234 8/29/2007 6:02:05 PM

Herald

Still for a small rocket BARAK has 80% of the capacity MER of ASTER 15 and is very competitive to such solutions as RAM or MISTRAL for a gunboat.

I know the Victories are corvettes-which is why I said the BARAK is a small rocket and why it was comparable to MISTRAL and RAM in function even thiough its MER is 80% that of ASTER 15.

I have a lot of trouble with that analysis. Here's why;

1. The Rafale can outturn the Hornet and maybe outclimb her, but I've yet to see the numbers where the Rafale can outpoint her. Pointing is something that is very important to me, because given that you can keep your enemy in your front hemispheric no matter what he tries, you can hit him with kill your kill him dead A2A missiles. Climb and turn is nice, but if you are sensor myopic at a service ceiling and potential energy disadvantage and cursed with an inferior accelerating engine you are in serious trouble in the air battle.

Herald

Poseur1, like Dassault, promised France the moon for Rafale now going on 10 years. They won't have a working AESA until 2011 they promise, and by 2015 the way their track record runs. Since Rafale has nothing like th

Quote Reply

usajoe delusional guards 8/29/2007 9:40:19 PM

Here is all the times you made dumb statments and put words in my mouth!

I only wish they had more Astute class SSN's.
8 Astutes can destroy more us subs than those LA and Seawolf class..
so at first you say that they dont have enough than you say 8 are more powerful

than the 55 us subs.

care to explain how 6 Rubis class submarines ( BTW LESS CAPABLE than Akula ) are gonna sink a sub fleet of 60 submarines?
So that sums it up to 41 attack subs and 11 SSBN

so which one is it 60 or 52 dont just throw numbers out there!

Btw your counting 4 Astute class SSN that are not even in service yet

8 Astutes can destroy more us subs than those LA and Seawolf class..
so why are you counting them.

I don't like to compare country's capability's but usajoe forced me because he claimed that French navy is superior to any navy except US.

when have I said the French have the 2nd best Navy.

Oh BTW , 1 more thing , French navy has more power projection you said?
You think because 1 Carrier has a little more aircraft it has more power projection?
Power projection means to carry your troops on the battlefield too , when was the last time you counted how many Amphibious assault ships French navy has? And how many Russian fleet has

France 2 foundre class LPD each can carry 30MBT, 44 LT, 41 light vic, 54 TRM4000 trucks and 5 fuel

trucks and over 500 soldiers. 5 LTS which can carry 50 men and light vic. And the Mistral and Tonnerre

which are 21,300 ton AAS. The Russians have 1LSD and19 WW2 style LST's.

Amethyste is no class of submarine ! its a name for one of the RUBIS CLASS SSN

Arrr! wrong.

but a Kuznetsov aircraft carrier with 36 Su-33's

yah since when!

TOTAL MAJOR SHIPS IN SEVICE- 71 ( 85 ) - 28 ( 31 ) Surface Ships, 43 ( 54 ) SUBS.
So what is it 60 52 or 54 make up your mind!

9 Akula SSN , 1 Alfa SSN , 7 Sierra SSN ( I,II,II) , 4 Viktor III SSN.
Alfa's are not in service.

LOL usajoe you seriusly need to get in tackt with reallity , your claims that training and morale is most important in warfare is not true , they make a difference but not as much as you think

Training, tactics, leadership, Technology, morale, all are very important to outcome of a

battle, not just manpower and equipment.

puting words in my mouth!

Well first of all usajoe , French did not do this either , it was UK.
And this happened a while ago , at that time it was Soviet navy not Russian navy.
I wait for more elaboration from you and then il answer.
I was talking about now read before you write!

Russian SSBN can launch Missile anywhere they want and Russian Bulava SS-X-30 Missile is resistant against any tricks that uncle sam have including their THEL

What do you think the US SSBN's cant!

The USN is lagging in most areas of tehnology in navy after Europe / Russia anyway , so there is another point , US super carriers are good ships , but what else do they have better????
SSN's ? Astute is better , SSBN ? Borei is better , SSGN? no they dont have those , Anti ship missiles? Russian and European are better , Torpedos ? Russian and European are better.. Etc

OH this is a good one, the US has no SSGN's what do you call those 4 Ohio class SSG'S that we converted

from SSBN's, And claming the US Navys only good ships are its ACC that is a joke!

The USN is lagging in most areas of tehnology in navy after Europe / Russia anyway

that statment all joking aside is the most byast, retarded, dumb thing I have ever heard!

Having AWACS is meenengless since he has nothing to guide on targets except crapy "Super Hornets".

making another crazy statment!

Oh and sorry if I missed some!

Anyway look man stop acting like

Quote Reply

Lawman 8/30/2007 4:54:07 AM

Herald:

I know the Victories are corvettes-which is why I said the BARAK is a small rocket and why it was comparable to MISTRAL and RAM in function even thiough its MER is 80% that of ASTER 15.

But previously:

I found where the ASTER 15 Singapore bought as part of the Laughitup package. This may be purely technology restricted/limited as to type as the Laughitups came with the SYLVER VLS. The follow on Victorys will use the Israeli RAFAEL Barak missile. Interesting. If the Singaporese were enthralled with ASTER why did they order their German designed builds with Israeli rockets? Maybe a bribe as in the case of India? Still for a small rocket BARAK has 80% of the capacity MER of ASTER 15 and is very competitive to such solutions as RAM or MISTRAL for a gunboat.

You did rather seem to be saying that Singapore was buying the Victory class as a follow on to the Formidables, and that their opting for Barak was because they weren't enthralled with Aster. The German boats are twenty years old, and are way too small to be given Aster, so their choice of Aster doesn't really tell anything. Now if they had chosen to get new Meko frigates, and had still opted for Barak, that might be relevant, but their choice of Barak is dictated by their ships size.

Perhaps their choice of Barak shows they're not a fan of the RIM-116 RAM?

As for range of the missiles, Barak only goes out to around 10km, but Aster goes all the way out to around 30km, which is a pretty big difference actually. The '15' designator is just for identification, and nowadays bears no real relation to the actual range of the missiles. The same is true of Sea Sparrow versus ESSM, the Sea Sparrow has about a 19km range, and ESSM has a range of over 50km. Times change, so do missiles!

Herald

I have a lot of trouble with that analysis. Here's why;

I have a lot of trouble with your analysis, since you readily admit that the Rafale can out-turn and outclimb her, and they both have helmet mounted sights, so in WVR combat, I would say it is at worst a tie, and at best the Rafale has a clear advantage in WVR combat. For BVR, I have already said that the Rafale is lagging behind at the moment, but I wouldn't bet on this remaining the case in the longer term. Ultimately fighters are two things: at long range, they are a big truck to haul a powerful radar and some missiles, and at short range, they are to be as agile as possible. The Rhino has the advantage in the first category, but not in the second.

Also, I would question your 'inferior accelerating engine' line, as the thrust to weight ratios are pretty favourable. The Hornet is a bit heavier, but has a little more thrust, the Rafale is lighter, and has a little less thrust with the current engines, but they both work out pretty much the same on TWR.

If you are referring to the old problems that French military jet engines had, whereby they couldn't suddenly increase thrust (they'd flame out), that was fixed many years ago. The original M53 engine for the Mirage 2000 had that problem, but they ironed that out, certainly by the early '80s, if not late '70s. The M-88 has never had that problem.

As for all the issues about the Rafale's AESA radar, and all those capabilities, I am the wrong person to ask, I'm no expert on French radars. I doubt, however, that the French AESA set will be much different to the Typhoons one, since it is a cooperative

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 8/30/2007 6:51:50 AM

They also need to seriously look at putting some jamming gear onto Global Hawk, preferably something like a smaller version of the SOJ kit.

AFAIK. There are already proposals for this in the pipeline. They're variations of the BAMS 550 sensor suite that will be pulled from the P8 ASW/ISR sensor suite. Then there is the Boeing Sensorcraft. The biggie is that the americans are pre-transitional to conformal arrays - and that changes the ewarfare landscape considerably.

Quote Reply

5thGuards 8/30/2007 7:03:47 AM

Anyway look man stop acting like a spold little kid get your facts straght, dont put words in my mouth,

stop being as Hearld said a fanboy!

Interesting how nobody can quote my last post , maybe because you can't proove me wrong? So who is right now? Until you proove me wrong in my last post , im right lol.

Quote Reply

usajoe delusional guards 8/30/2007 7:43:57 AM

Interesting how nobody can quote my last post , maybe because you can't proove me wrong? So who is right now? Until you proove me wrong in my last post , im right lol.

Now tell me that does not sound like a 5 yeard old child,

there is not one person that agrees with you and

nobody quote you because no body cares about the

BS that you right this is the last time iam going to talk

about this Issue its over let it go every body knows the

facts. Now belive what you want whatever makes you

sleep better at night big baby!

Quote Reply

french stratege 8/30/2007 9:34:57 AM

Lawman, your post are actually good

Herald contempt for the french is sad

When I read US Marines are much tougher than french marines, I laugh.Actually it may be the reverse since we don't have the politically correct rules of US armed forces and liability problems to be suited by families in case of training accident, and our marines train really harder.

We practice amphibious landing including with the British or American so we have a quite good experience.

And we adapt quickly as showed Kolwezi operation or others. (not to mention Auzterlitz, la Marne or Verdun or Monte Cassino...)

That speaks volumes about the Royal Navy and the British armed forces in general.

Just check Kolwezi operation and see how we improvised to retake a town defended by 3000 rebels in 48 hours with few losses after a night drop of 500 paratroopers from France.

It speak volume about french forces.

Now on Crotale for example: Crotale VT1 is a quite good hypersonic missile.Not the former Crotale.

h*tp://www.army-technology.com/projects/crotale/

9. CROTALE is a disaster in that cluttered ground. Try ROLAND or RAPIER. Older systems but they work. Truck mounted NASAM is also a good choice.

Still Crotale NG VT1 won over NASAM and Rapier to equip Finland.LOL

Now our combined fleet would have today 160 medium range missiles (ASTER30/15/SM1) and ~800 short range mssiles (VT1 and Mistrals)

I would point out again that FAF Rafale could reach Falkland with several air refueling (5 KC135 tankers for 2 Rafale likely) from Ascension or Guyana.It is a 6300 km to 8000 km range but Rafale has a ferry range of more than 3000 km alone with 3*2500 l external tanks and 2 SCALP/Apache.

CAP:

Herald forgot that Rafale can be air refueled by SEM or Rafale (buddy refueling)

With two dozen Rafales our CAP and airdefense capacity is a magnitude better than British had in Falklands

8. You’ve just lost a HAWKEYE. Its too far forward for its bodyguards to cover it.[See above]

First E2C would be defended by Rafales and second, an E2C detecting an Argentine raid at 300 km have a lot of time to retreat and keep itself way from any threat.Do the math!

Indeed our air superiority capacity of CDG alone with two dozen of Rafale and 3E2C could match any air force with 100 fighters (a mix of older fighters and few SU30 or Mig 29) but without netcentric capability and AWACs.

How many bunker busters does France have? On bunker busters:

Actually we have much more than a thousand: the Matra BGL 1000 kg Arcole and AS30 L missile.

With Mistral and Tonnerre, you have a good helo facility, and a good troop facility, and Foudre and Siroco provide good vehicle, troop and logistics support

Actually we could provide 8 amphibious ship including 3 LPH (including Jeanne d'arc)

As I estimate it, I would say that the French would be pushing the limit of PGMs they have on hand. They don’t have that many in their national inventory-especially in cruise missiles and land attack missiles.

Frankly we have likely more than 10 000 PGM in holding including 600 Apache/SCALP (rest are BGL and AS30L) and AASM is on delivery.We have ordered sometime 2000 LBG per year.Moreover we can borrow BGL in NATO war stocks without US approval as British did for AM9L.

Interesting enough, the QUEEN ELIZABETHs with VSTOL SPARKIES could possibly flush out an eight /twelve if they have too in under an incredible 500 seconds. I wouldn’t want to be on the flight deck when the birds lofted though!

We can catapult a plane each 30 seconds.The deck

Quote Reply

5thGuards 8/30/2007 10:17:10 AM

There is only 1 reason why you don't proove me wrong usajoe.

Because you CAN'T.

I prooven you wrong and now that you can't prove me wrong the only thing you can do is cry and ignore my post , you just prooven how much you really know , you just prooven that you got served.
You are wrong and you can't proove it back , deep inside you know thats the truth , and if its not then I dare you to do it , why not?
Even a teenager would see the writing on the wall , that you are just ignoring and hidding because you know crap.
Every post in the past has been quote'd by another person , you have never prooven anyone wrong , ever , you know nothing.

Now in the next post if you don't proove me wrong , then you will proove to everybody that you don't know anything.
I already said I don't care , but until you can't until then im right and you know it , kiddy.

3rd time im telling you , proove me wrong , you said you know stuff about defence , come on , proove it , maybe I was wrong about you , proove me wrong and act like a adult , not like a kid that runs away from problems ..

Im waiting usajoe.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEXT