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
TC27       9/18/2007 7:03:06 PM
FS,

I understand the Mn has a different doctrine as in speading its requirements acroos more cheaper hulls but seeing that this is not tha approach taken by the RN (who have the Falklands experience) and the USN (who have spent decades preparing for the backfire onslaught) you have to wonder if it is the best approach for AAW.

There is no doubt that the Type 45/Sampson is far better AAW package than a FREMM with Asters and APAR, you could argue that many FREMMS could fill the gap but the generally will have other things to do and will not be able to keep up the CDG in bad sea conditions. Also if you want to include the SAMS on your ASW FREMMS seem to forget the RNs Type 23s have the Seawolf system that is highly rated and is capable of defending nearby ships.

As I said if the PA2 is paid for then some FREMM hulls will go anyway...if the MN doesnt order the PA2 then this discussion is over.

 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       9/18/2007 8:04:51 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.
Type 42s cretin

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)
Well of you give those QE-2s their complement of Sparkies they have a very good air launched air defense element that is better than the Squall equipped port avion CdG that the MN has. Plus the Type 45 Darings willn be VERY capable area defense radar anmd EW/CM ships even if the ASTER is crap.
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).
LIES. One carrier with a mediocre fighter to defend it. ONE long range radar defense suite in the carrier and ONE area battle management system that can exploit the a fleetwide datalink and that one system as of now OBSOLETE by USN standards.  The two air defense ships are little better than FAILED expensive point defense frigates little better than the Australian AWDs will turn out to be-in fact worse because at least the Australian AWDs have missiles that'll work.  

Our LOW LEVEL area air defense is 3 time more powerfull!
LIE. As for low level defense point defense which is the real truth? If they rely on Crotale, because ASTER is a dud-the MN is DEAD.   
The British with Sea Wolf bad as it is would be equal or superior in point self defense.


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.
LIE. The reduced radar MER fitted provides even less point defense warning time and you still have the crap ASTER 9x0=0. Even you can work that math poseur1.  
In cost 9 FREMM LA=5 Horizon.
Who cares? FREMM is ASW oriented, not AAW. The FREMM as rated now will be akin to an OHP.  
In efficiency 2 Horizon+ FREMM LA=6 Horizon at high altitude and >10 Horizon/T45 at lowAltitude. (plus carriers)
LIE, See above for why. 
 

For actual details see the thread; "A Toast to the Charles de Gaulle wherein the crap that poseur1 expounds is dealt with in agonizing technical detail.
Herald 

 
Quote    Reply

Lawman       9/21/2007 3:13:04 PM
One thing well worth noting is that the UK will not simply be operating Type 23 frigates forever - there are moves afoot to replace them, its simply that priority has rightly been given to getting the carriers approved. Now that the carriers are relatively 'safe', the Navy will switch its priorities to getting new surface combattants. Also the RN's other ships do actually have datalinks, this is not some magic French invention, lots of people have such systems (in fact, the UK was very early in adopting such systems, firstly on the County class, then the Type 42s and Invincible class). The UK will hopefully have eight T-45s, and around sixteen frigates, all with Aster. This will be a very capable force, and frankly, it is likely to put a force of just two Horizons and a load of FREMMs to shame...
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       9/21/2007 4:05:09 PM
While an EF-35 seems rather a natural, for so many reasons, I don't see how it could compare to a dedicated AWACS craft with, among other thing, crew in the dozens and fuel in the dozens of tons.

What I would suggest - esp. given the British history of resourceful/desperate expedients - is an EC-130.  We have seen since the Forrestal that the C-130 can T/L without wires or cats at weights up to, IIRC, 130 kips.  I reckon?  the QE will have sufficient room.  And the C-130 airframe offers all one could ask in an EW/AWACS platform, esp. a naval one.

Have the Israelis mount conformal arrays, if you want an off-the-shelf solution, and sleep well.  The hardest part will be the folding rudder & wings, and maybe it's too long for the elevators and you have to fold/bolt-on the rear fuselage a la the 747 Dreamlifter.

But what you really need is my JSA.  However, this is low-risk and near-term.

 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       9/21/2007 4:20:05 PM
You are a liar if you claim you didn't mean equivalence between the two ships, as to proven combat capability in war, or a fool for trying to take me for a fool, by suggesting you didn't say it, when you did. Those are the two choices you've left yourself. Choose one.
 
Plain enough?
 
Herald


now...I gotta be crazy for 1) arguing with you 2) getting into August on this thread, but I think his explanation is credible.  Why?  Because he is a foreigner.  IMHO you gotta cut non-English speakers a little slack.  I think that "Like the Invincible, the CdG has a combat record" is a tolerable statement.

I am correct, yes, 5thGuards?  Are you an ethnic Russian, or a 'Stan, or Eastern Bloc, or what?
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       9/22/2007 12:46:14 AM

You are a liar if
you claim you didn't mean equivalence between the two ships, as to
proven combat capability in war, or a fool for trying to take me for a
fool, by suggesting you didn't say it, when you did. Those are the two
choices you've left yourself. Choose one.

 

Plain enough?

 

Herald


now...I gotta be crazy for 1) arguing with you 2) getting into August on this thread, but I think his explanation is credible.  Why?  Because he is a foreigner.  IMHO you gotta cut non-English speakers a little slack.  I think that "Like the Invincible, the CdG has a combat record" is a tolerable statement.

I am correct, yes, 5thGuards?  Are you an ethnic Russian, or a 'Stan, or Eastern Bloc, or what?


 
1. You have every right to stick up for what you can prove.
2.  A combat record yes, the CdG has one: an equivalent one like he implied to an Invincible? No, he know what he wrote.
3. If hew knew his stuff, he's listen.
 
Now the C-130 AWACs, I don't like that for two reasons. 
a. The C-130 masses too much for a QE-2. Remember that the reason the F-35 was put on a diet is that the CVF as planned couldn't handle her.
b. Where would you park a C-130? It deckfouls a Nimitz.
 
The only answer is to build a STOVL AWACs.
a. a helo.
b. a jumpjet.
 
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1335/1421421062_c15ddaf41a.jpg" width=500 border=0>
 
Build one or the other.
 
Herald
 
 
 
   
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       9/22/2007 1:40:47 AM

 

1. You have every right to stick up for what you can prove.

Oh hell, can't prove nuthin'.  I do know Russians and their grammar is a little funny, it comes across in their English esp. when imperfect.  I always make allowances for furriners 'cause their English is always better than my French...my Russian...my Cantonese or Mandarin...you get the point. 

2.  A combat record yes, the CdG has one: an equivalent one like he implied to an Invincible? No, he know what he wrote.

Well, when you called him on it, he backed down. 


3. If hew knew his stuff, he's listen.


Glug?    Would join you but it's Yom Kippur.

 

Now the C-130 AWACs, I don't like that for two reasons. 

a. The C-130 masses too much for a QE-2. Remember that the reason the F-35 was put on a diet is that the CVF as planned couldn't handle her.

Well that sux.  What will they do for COD?  No, really, that is lame.  Do you mean in VSTOL?  An F-35 masses nothing like a C-2.

b. Where would you park a C-130? It deckfouls a Nimitz.


Well, I said you would have to rework it.  E-2 is about 60'Lx80'W (folds). a Tomcat 64x38 (swept), an YF-23, which was talked about for navalization, 67'5" long.  F-111, 73' (I know, I know). So without knowing the dimensions of a CV elevator, I would guess 75x40 max?

A C-130 is about 97x132.  So, yes, problem.  (Also 38' high)

But I just saw a Dreamlister, a 747 used to ferry 787 fuselages.  The tail folds sideways

You would have to re-engineer the rear third of the a/c but then you would get it into about 65' long.  Everything would have to fold, or disassemble, and some of the rear third would also have to slope down to fit under the tail (or else you lift the wings a trice), to get it into the elevator.  I don't know what you're dealing with belowdecks so maybe no go at all. 

At least, though, folding wings would reduce parking space to the point where the deck was operable, no?
 

Now, my JSA is a notional multirole a/c, at a guess about 80% of the C-130, designed to be just exactly the biggest thing you could practicably squeeze onto a carrier.  Maybe a widebody C-123 type a/c.

You may have been so good as to have skimmed over a couple of threads I tried to start on the subject - all sank like a rock - but it would do all the many C-130 roles from tanker to ferret to gunship, plus AWACS/MMA/missileer/bomb truck (maybe for permissive environments, but OTOH it should match the envelope of an A-6 or loaded F/A-18 at high subsonic - at least it could strike tank and do other strike support). 

Modular everything, including powerplants (prop/jet), tailored to mission.  STOL of course like C-130 (though CATOBAR might extend envelope?) and, if possible, cheap LO.  I figure maybe 100-125 kips MTOW.  Doubtless it would never carry a Styker, so sorry - but maybe if you took it off skosh fuel and tanked it on launch like an SR-71?  Of course the volume might not be there...

Useful payload, range, performance.  I admit I hadn't thought of CVF.  But I figure lots of people could use it, the JCA is a little too small (though off-the-shelf).  Meanwhile it would be a hell of a force multiplier for a carrier.  Way facilitate your New Falklands scenario.

(Discuss?  Separate thread or here)

The only answer is to build a STOVL AWACs.

a. a helo.

b. a jumpjet.

 

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1335/1421421062_c15ddaf41a.jpg" border="0" height="417" width="500">

 

Build one or the other.

 

Herald

Don't get me wrong, I love this.  But while it might DO (certainly smarter than a helo), it would never be the equal of an E-2, I should think - just the laws of physics, it would seem. 

 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       9/22/2007 1:47:20 AM
Oh, Herald, a couple of quick hits on your New Falklands:

1)  MICA is inferior to AMRAAM, sure, but at least it must be better than AIM-7.  Perhaps against an iffy air force like the Argies, it would do?  I'm not aware they showed much class in ECM.  Worst to worst, like you said, they have to fire two.

2)  Give us your treatment of a US New Falklands?  Show 'em how it's done ;>

 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       9/22/2007 10:58:31 AM

Oh, Herald, a couple of quick hits on your New Falklands:

1)  MICA is inferior to AMRAAM, sure, but at least it must be better than AIM-7.  Perhaps against an iffy air force like the Argies, it would do?  I'm not aware they showed much class in ECM.  Worst to worst, like you said, they have to fire two.

2)  Give us your treatment of a US New Falklands?  Show 'em how it's done ;>


Falklands US Style.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1098/1422877915_34486f9142_o.gif" width=614 border=0>
 
1. Say nothing about the operation.
2. If  there is an Al Haig in the mix, or a Wesley Clark-shunt him off to count fur seals in Alaska.
3. Dispatch subs with orders to recon and patrol
4. Secretly lease Ascension and build a hurry up bomber base. Fly in an expeditionary air wing and airlift wing.
5. Send the amphibious ready unit at least brigade strength and a TWO carrier task force  
6. Time everything to the day.
a. Subs attack every Argentine naval unit at sea and MINE all Argentine harbors..
b. USAF raids every ARAF/ARNAV airbase in range of the Falklands.
c. USN establishes to the east beyond ARAF reach and CAPS Falklands.
d. Amphib group after ARAF and ARNAV wrecked lands on West Island. Build airbase and establish SAM defense.
e. Fly in fighters.
f. Pound East Island with air strikes.
g. Fly in 82nd to West Island.
h. Land at San Carlos and wipe the Argentinians out on East Island.
i. Invite the Argentineans to the unconditional surrender.
j. Replace the Argentinean junta that did this with a civilian government.
k. supply financial aid and legal advice to the new governement so that the guilty parties are speedily tried and hanged by the appropiate Argentinean civil courts.
l. Establish an air garrison in the Falklands.
m. Restrict the types and quantities of armaments that Argentina may hold to those just for legitimate self defense in the peace treaty negotiated after the war.
 
Herald   
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman       9/23/2007 6:08:03 PM
Herald: As much as I like your illustration of a 1982 US Falklands mission, there are a few faults and problems.
 
- The only real bomber the USAF had at the time would be the B-52, which would make a stealthy approach to the Argentine bases much harder. It's certainly not impossible, in fact, it would probably have worked, as long as there was no warning, but you and I both know that Murphys law will dictate that someone spots them coming!
 
- Ascension was a workable base at the time, so no need to send in much in the way of engineers. The problem is the very limited capacity of the base there, which is dictated by the island's geography, not the amount of base they chose to build. If you want to increase the size of base, you've got to increase the size of the island! It would probably hold two dozen large aircraft at most, and that is probably pushing it...
 
- I agree that going after all their surface units is the way to go, and indeed a lot of the naval side of your plan is how I would aim to do it, but I doubt it would be the walk in the park you seem to hope for. Remember Grenada? The problem at the time is the general rundown of the military, which took years to recover, and some bloody noses in Grenada and Panama. Even with a pair of CVs on station, or even three, you are still going to be vulnerable for a good few days. It is perhaps a better bet to try hitting them from the air, and make darned sure they're not in a fighting mood before you set foot on the islands. As it was, they had dug themselves in pretty well, and Brit forces took a lot of losses to odd machinegun nests and snipers. I would actually look at taking West Falkland, then clearing a nice big landing zone, and landing a few battalions of the 82nd, and then using either Marine helos, or Army helos brought in on carriers (e.g. use an extra CV to bring a hundred or so Army helos, in place of its own fighters - one of the older Midways would be a good bet). You then fly around the islands in Cobras, using IR gear to spot any hidden troop emplacements, and hitting them from the air. Once you are sure you've got rid of them, you fly the troops right up to their objective. It is actually what the UK should have done, had it had the helos available (it lacked proper gunships admittedly), but since a load were lost on Atlantic Conveyor, it wasn't possible.
 
- The idea of the airborne landing is not great though - the Argentines heavily mined the areas, and if you start dropping paratroops on nice large landing areas, then you will lose people to them. The islands were so heavily mined that the place is still too dangerous to go to quite a few places (and thats after twenty five years of having EOD clearing areas). Also, the terrain would be terrible for airborne landings - any heavy equipment would just sink into the mud, as the British forces found out! If an airborne landing had been possible, the UK would have easily been able to fly in a couple of battalions of troops, landing a few companies near each objective. As it was, it was recognised this was too dangerous!
 
 
 
As for the AEW question, the two best options, aside from CTOL conversion, are going to be EH-101 compound helicopters, which use a short wing to improve cruise endurance and altitude, or UAVs. The technology is now at the point where it should be possible to put a Searchwater 2000 style AEW radar on a Mariner UAV, and use that for the role. It would offer much better endurance, and offer significant advantages in cruising altitude. It is possible now to use very secure datalinks, especially where you have line of sight, but even where you don't have it.
 
Any large aircraft in the C-130 class is totally impractical for carrier operations, being simply too large. You need something in the same class as the Hawkeye, or more sensibly, just the Hawkeye! As for JSF derived AEW, I strongly disagree, since the airframe simply doesn't offer the balance of space (for avionics), crew (to operate the systems) and endurance necessary for the role. The F-35 is doubtful even for the dedicated SEAD role, a la Prowler or Growler, since the two seater option was canned, and are unlikely to be brought back, unless the USAF can be interested in it - the Marines are the only likely takers, and they don't have the money to go it alone.
 
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



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics