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

Herald1234 Answer to Poseur1. 9/9/2007 12:07:01 AM

Herald1234 Poseur 1, a question. 9/8/2007 10:46:16 PM

If the MN was so convinced that point defense was the correct solution for a surface ship SAM, WHY is the MN screaming for a better SAM than the crap ASTER and why are they trying to get more HAWKEYES?

More important, why is the MN itself fighting so hard for a CATOBAR PA-2 so that THEY CAN CATAPULT OFF HAWKEYES?

One more thing, OTH radars give you a smear track-even ship based ones. You need a fine discriminator to give you the doppler so that you can lead track and drop your missiles. HAWKEYE does that for you.

Look for the British to seriously search for a solution alternate to this capability as they go SVTOVL in the QE-2s. In real terms this alternate solution just requires a high altitude radar and a secure telemetry link. Blimps [aerostats], high altitude helos, or a STOVL AWACs are the only physical ship borne solutions from a SVTOVL carrier. Otherwise the solution is landbased AWACs.

Above comments of others [with the exception of HtJ], I generally agree. The one thing I think many have ignored is the ESM side of the EW battle. The enemy HAS to radiate, and that is bearing information you can exploit to predict threat axis and to even estimate your fine search areaa as you look to shoot him. That simplifies your defense if your enemy is incompetent. Foxing the defense, is what I preach is something the USN has to practice against event. THAT is the way a USN task force will be defeated if it can be defeated. If you feed false input into the search and track computer algorithms you will generate a false DATE solution that causes the defender to commit his resources to the wrong bearing and threat.

This comes down to what I think the USN was trying to teach the Indian Navy. The simulated attack on the Nimitz was an EW problem to teach the exchange Indian officers aboard her how NOT to manage the air/sea battle. So the USN ran a battle drill on them and the MSM misreported the lesson as a result. The MSM missed the INTENT of the lesson. The Nimitz was supposed to be sunk in the simulation; or the lesson wouldn't be learned. We are teaching the Indian Navy how to fight the PRCs shore based naval air.

In summary this entire news story and the speculations that the USN can't defend the fleet with its current model of air defense is a crockful. Plainly the commentators FS, and HtJ missed the point. I think the radar coverage discussion is a side issue to this exercise. But even on that side issue where FS doesn't realize that his own navy is now trying to build a USN type onion defense both against the flying and swimming threats I find the arguments incomplete and too focused on the hardware and not what the hardware is designed to DO.

Poseur1, who the hell do you think was worried about this type of naval war in 1944 and WHY?

I suggest you examine TERRIER, TALOS, and TYPHON as well as the seeds of the AEGIS [TANTALUS} and the BATTLE OF OKINAWA, Poseur1.

I also suggest you examine the Japanese tactics encountered that concerned the USN about how a future enemy would use his robot missiles against the fleet. The Russians learned the OKINAWA LESSON. Misdirection by false electronic signals and decoy flights to fool the radars, multiple approach axes, defensive numeric saturation. plus the low-high-low approach was the only way to defeat surface ship radar coverage. Of course Poseur1,

TBM-3W.

Quote Reply

Herald1234 Answer to Poseur1. 9/9/2007 12:07:38 AM

Herald1234 Poseur 1, a question. 9/8/2007 10:46:16 PM

More important, why is the MN itself fighting so hard for a CATOBAR PA-2 so that THEY CAN CATAPULT OFF HAWKEYES?

Poseur1, who the hell do you think was worried about this type of naval war in 1944 and WHY?

I suggest you examine TERRIER, TALOS, and TYPHON as well as the seeds of the AEGIS [TANTALUS} and the BATTLE OF OKINAWA, Poseur1.

TBM-3W.

Quote Reply

french stratege 9/9/2007 10:21:02 AM

As I said Hawkeye is the most valuable asset of a fleet for air defense.It is why we order a fourth one.

CdG is able to catapult E2F but we need a second carrier I agree.

Now the only navy which is screaming for a better SAM is US navy , not MN! LOL

Aster is good and certainly a better missile to counter supersonic seaskimming missiles.

We cancelled the ANF, our future sea skimming supersonic antiship missile on request of USA who wanted to avoid a new race in such missiles (and exports).It is why there is no official program in USA and France.

The reason is that such a missile would make obsolete US navy air defense assets relying on crappy SM2 missile.

More important, why is the MN itself fighting so hard for a CATOBAR PA-2 so that THEY CAN CATAPULT OFF HAWKEYES?

See above

Totally agree.

OTH radar fit the need of extended early warning equipement able to cope with low altitude and Low RCS threat.

To fire missiles , you need an accurate firecontrol.

Hwakeye give some capacities but you can see it is not the SPY1D which give the over the horizon capacity and it was the point.

Now a comment on French air defense.

In fact the FREMM LA version (land attack) is a cheap but capable air defense ship.It is not marketed in France as a air defense ship but it will be its role in a battlegroup.

FREMM LA has not the extended range early warning radar in the 400 km range like SPY or DRBJ11 or S1850M

but its Herakles radar can still detect aircraft at 250 km range and guide a dozen ASTER 15 or 30.

FREMM LA will have the Sylver A 70 able to fire Scalp and Aster 15 but also Aster 30.

At any time a FREMM LA will be able to have some ASTER30 in its VLS.

If MN do not put emphasis on AA role of FREMM LA is to avoid to have critics and cut in funding.

Indeed if politicians understand that FREMM LA can fill the AA ship role, it could be a danger for program numbers.

However once program is completed, we wil have 11 ships to do the AA role.Plus FREMM ASW capabilities.

Quite good.

FREMM LA will not have a fleet BMC capability and will rely on networking, but the goal is to have 6 ships to have this capability (carriers, Horizon , 2 FREMM AA)

Quote Reply

Herald1234 9/9/2007 9:02:28 PM

As I said Hawkeye is the most valuable asset of a fleet for air defense.It is why we order a fourth one.

You ordered a fourth one because you couldn't build one.

CdG is able to catapult E2F but we need a second carrier I agree.

Good luck with that. The PA-2 as suggested is mis-designed. its very likely it won't be funded.

Now the only navy which is screaming for a better SAM is US navy , not MN! LOL

Consult your own MN,poseur. They cried when ASTER 45, their chance to fix the mistakes in ASTER 15/30 was cancelled. What new SAM is the USN seeking? STANDARD SM-6? Twentieth iteration of the most successful family of rockets ever designed? ASTER doesn't work. STANDARD does.

Aster is good and certainly a better missile to counter supersonic seaskimming missiles.

ASTER can't handle any supersonic evader that doesn't have a readio beeper for it to guide in on during tests, It can barely handle one MACH 0.7 missile at all, it cannot handle handle MULTiPLE missiles because its radar is swamped when it sees more than more than four simultaneous DATE tracks. its signal processing from the fire control to the missile is time mismatched and the entire system is TOO SLOW.IN REFRESH. Not only that but the ASTER itrself cursed with a MICA seeker and MICA type antennas cannot telemetry update in a anything but a straight slant engagement. Anything requiring a radical vector shift and the damned rocket goes dumb, it misses its IPO arriving early ort late and it fails to see its target when its myopic seeker snaps on.

You cancelled ANF because MBDA couldn't get it to work right. There were also cost overruns. Have you ever heard of VANDAL, poseur1? US MACH 3 target missile designed off of TALOS to mimic SUNBURN and later ANF. STANDARD handled it easily.

So much for those LIES, poseur1.

The reason is that such a missile would make obsolete US navy air defense assets relying on crappy SM2 missile.

See above, cretin. The USN has exercised aginst MACH 3 missiles for DECADES and splashed them with everything from SM1 onwards. we've only gotten better, while you've yet to foield one SAM trhat can handle a supersonic seaskimnmer-EVER.

More important, why is the MN itself fighting so hard for a CATOBAR PA-2 so that THEY CAN CATAPULT OFF HAWKEYES?

See above

See below, poseur1.

Totally agree.

Well thank you for finally admitting what I told you five months ago, poseur1, when you claimed that the radars could track and range. It was I who told you that the radars were blob detectors with a vector arrow giving you a vague idea of possible bearing. You still don't understand why the OTH radars are myopic, but then, poseur1, you wouldn't understand the hint[ionosphere and longwave radiation]

OTH radar fit the need of extended early warning equipment able to cope with low altitude and Low RCS threat.

See above for why you are WRO

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 9/10/2007 9:23:16 AM

We cancelled the ANF, our future sea skimming supersonic antiship missile on request of USA who wanted to avoid a new race in such missiles (and exports). It is why there is no official program in USA and France.

Sorry, thats a tad wrong. Refer to Vandal and Sea Snake.

Quote Reply

french stratege 9/11/2007 12:51:10 PM

I hope that you don't confuse a target for training and a real antiship missile GF0012

SM2 is a crappy old missile unable to intercept a real top modern supersonic sea skimmer missile maneuvering at 15 g.

Not enough agility and G turn.

Only ASTER is qualified for that. It is why RN, Singapore bought it instead of SM2, and France developped it.

For your information

ht*p://www.softwar.net/kh31.html

In 1997 the U.S. Navy test fired four kerosene ramjet powered MA-31 missiles with a blistering Mach 2.7 performance at 30 feet over the sea. Three of the MA-31 target drones were test fired to verify performance - which according to the manufacturer was over 1700 miles an hour at sea level and over Mach 3.5 at altitude.

The fourth MA-31 drone was flown in a live fire exercise in which the Navy was reportedly unable to shoot it down. The Navy was so impressed with the MA-31 they have requested and obtained permission from the Clinton administration to purchase nine more of the hot cruise missiles...

Quote Reply

Herald1234 9/11/2007 2:40:53 PM

I hope that you don't confuse a target for training and a real antiship missile GF0012

SM2 is a crappy old missile unable to intercept a real top modern supersonic sea skimmer missile maneuvering at 15 g.

Not enough agility and G turn.

Only ASTER is qualified for that. It is why RN, Singapore bought it instead of SM2, and France developped it.

For your information

ht*p://www.softwar.net/kh31.html

The fourth MA-31 drone was flown in a live fire exercise in which the Navy was reportedly unable to shoot it down. The Navy was so impressed with the MA-31 they have requested and obtained permission from the Clinton administration to purchase nine more of the hot cruise missiles...

If you are going to lie, at least don't do it when you will be caught by someone who KNOWS.

Boeing's [McDonnell's] Russian cruise missile.

Boeing/Zvezda-Strela MA-31

After the Navy had cancelled the AQM-127 SLAT (Supersonic Low-Altitude Target) program in 1991, it used residual funding to continue low-key studies for alternative supersonic expendable low-altitude targets. In May 1995, McDonnell Douglas received a contract for an FCT (Foreign Comparative Testing) program, which would evaluate a version of the Russian Zveda-Strela Kh-31A missile as a target drone.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/ma-31-2.jpg" width=450>

Image: Boeing

MA-31

The Kh-31A is a high-speed active radar guided air-launched anti-ship missile known to the NATO as AS-17 Krypton. It is powered by an integrated solid-fueled rocket/ramjet propulsion system. After burnout of the rocket, the covers on the four ramjet intakes are jettisoned, and the empty rocket case serves as the ramjet's combustion chamber. The missile can reach speeds of Mach 3.1 at high-altitude and Mach 2.5 at sea level. The Kh-31A airframes for the target conversions are delivered by Zvezda-Strela to Boeing (formerly McDonnell Douglas) without warhead and other military equipment, and the American contractor then installs a tracking beacon, telemetry and flight termination systems. The target drone variant is designated as MA-31 and first flew in August 1996.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/ma-31.jpg" width=600>

Photo: Boeing/U.S. Navy

MA-31

The Navy's evaluation of a total of 13 MA-31s continued until 1998/99. A competitor of the MA-31 was the Honeywell (Allied Signal) Sea Snake, an advanced derivative of the old MQM-8G Vandal. In December 1999 Boeing won the competition and received a contract for a small batch of 34 MA-31 targets.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/ma-31-1.jpg" width=488>

Photo: Boeing/U.S. Navy

MA-31

However, the MA-31 was only an interim solution, because the drone lacked the range and flight path accuracy to fully satisfy the Navy's SSST (Supersonic Sea-Skimming Target) requirement for the simulation of a high-speed anti-ship missile. During the MA-31 evaluation, Boeing had demonstrated an improved variant (sometimes called MA-31PG; PG = "Precision Guidance") with a GPS-based navigation system and the resulting option for a precise flight path after a high-altitude (and therefore longer range) launch, but in the end this variant was not selected for production as the ultimate SSST. Inste

Quote Reply

TC27 9/18/2007 2:09:49 PM

FS, Wether you will admit it or not having only two dedicated modern AAW ships is plain stupid if you plan to have even one CVN let alone two.

Having Aster 15s on your CV is nice (but maybe not on a undersize CVN when you could be using the space for a larger and much more useful airwing) but it should be the icing on the cake not a mainstay of your fleets AAW capacity, likewise the FREMM AAW variant is a cost compromise and you know as well as I do that the MN wont get all it planned frigates if the PA2 has to be payed for.

Your right that the main threat is sea skimming missiles but you understimate how important the long range SAM componant of a fleets AD is...ideally your Rafales/F35s are getting anything first but if not then having another chance with a missile intercept before your CIWS and short range missiles kick in is incredably vital, also if the Aster 30 misses in theory you have another chance with the Aster 15 in effect doubling your chances of stopping that sunburn.

Remember the RN has plenty of experience in this matter, the Sea Dart while not being great against sea skimming threats at the point was very effective in so far as it forced the Argy bombers to stay low...and we all knowwhat happened to their bomb fuses,

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 9/18/2007 3:28:19 PM

I hope that you don't confuse a target for training and a real antiship missile GF0012

SM2 is a crappy old missile unable to intercept a real top modern supersonic sea skimmer missile maneuvering at 15 g.

Not enough agility and G turn.

Only ASTER is qualified for that. It is why RN, Singapore bought it instead of SM2, and France developped it.

Your previous bleat was about US capability and testing of high speed anti-shipping. I pointed out that they had two systems in place - in fact they had higher speed anti-shipping missiles in place some 15 years before France did. If you want to get really picky you could refer to the Talos tests that t-boned a ship in a sinkex.

as for your comment about the 31's, there is no need to tell me. I was ranting on the US board about 4 years ago about dragging the clinton administration through the mud for funding russian cruise missile development.

funny how Boeing had to fix the 31's and MD had to fix the Tu-144, Grumman rolled out the XF-29 before Sukhoi rolled out their FSW, and yet the americans are behind the game.

the USN was dealing with Mach 6 threats 25 years before the French decided to go modern.

There's no prizes for second when the rest of the girls at the dance are ugly.....

Quote Reply

french stratege 9/18/2007 6:31:42 PM

TC27

I wrote:

There is 3 capacity for air defense: BMC, long range radar and area air defense missiles.
In the british fleet T45 do those 3 capacities but other ship have none.
Thake our two fllet:
UK, 2 carrier with short range self defense, 6 T45, 13 type 23 with short range self defense
Total: 6 long range air radar, 6 BMC on T45, 6 area air defense missile which manage in real only their within horizon spot so they can defend low altitude 17 000 sqkm with 288 area defense missiles (and no AWACs)

France, 2 carrier with AREA MEDIUM range defense, 2 Horizon , 2 FREMM AA (with long range radar and BMC), ,8 FREMM ASW, 7 FREM LA with AREA MEDIUM range defense
Total: 6 long range air radar, 6 BMC on Horzion, FREMM AA, carrier, they can defend low altitude 50 000 sqkm with 736 area defense missiles (and 4 AWACs).
Our LOW LEVEL area air defense is 3 time more powerfull!

We will have still the same capacity than 6 Horizon for high altitude air defense but split in more numerous ships (but cheaper/unit) and achieving a better low level coverage thank to 9 FREMM LA.

In cost 9 FREMM LA=5 Horizon.

In efficiency 2 Horizon+ FREMM LA=6 Horizon at high altitude and >10 Horizon/T45 at lowAltitude. (plus carriers)

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