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

Angry Meko the best? 8/21/2007 9:00:51 AM

Interesting discussion. As an ex RN Officer of 8 years, I can make a few comments.

Type 23's are hated by Submariners as they can be extremely quiet. I had that from a French submariner. They are slow though, getting 27 knots is a challenge. They are very good sea keepers.

Type 42's are old, very old and Sea Dart is ageing. Like many radar's it has problems detecting anything over land. Sea Dart is also not very long ranged, but its awsome in the ASuW mode (grin).

UK Deathstars (carriers) are good at what they are designed to do but i'd rather have a larger vessel on my side. Air wings are usually 6 strong but can go as high as 12. Now whats become of those FA2's? Oh yes. Gone. Thanks to the politics. The FA2 was a great bit of kit thanks to Blue Vixen radar armed with AMRAAM and could go up against all but the best. The trouble with Harrier's though is they are not so good in the heat so payload is a problem.

Meko's the best? LOL. Imagine a triangle. On the corners are price, time and capability. Each bit of kit can be represented by a dot on that triangle. for example the F22 the dot is right up next to capabilty, which means it was expensive and took a long time. UK ships tend to be similar to this. Meko are right next to speed. They are quickly build, have off the shelf bits of kit and therefore compromise on quality.

So Meko's are nice and cheap, so smaller navies can buy quite a few of them.

I was a ASW officer primarily so know enough about the UK submarine fleet to know that it is formidible. The places T and S boats have been and the pictures they have taken would really annoy our Russian friends (grin). But then again I have no idea what pitctures the Russians have taken of us, so who knows?

regards

Quote Reply

TDidier 8/21/2007 1:21:59 PM

Quoting the TDidier

"But now, here comes the true world.

Invincible is an helicopter carrier cruiser able to carry 5 to 8 ground attack Harrier...

CdG is a medium sized aircraft carrier able to carry 35 aircrafts
and 5 Helos. Including Rafale (5/4.5 gen. fighter, not so bad at all
for a "clueless" patrolboat ;))"

Firstly this is a debate about the RN and French Navy in 2017, not today, however stooping to today.

I seem to recall seeing a lot more than 5 to 8 ground attack harriers on the Invincible class carriers, their designed to operate some 20 aircraft or 16-18 Harriers, although I reckons we could get more on board if we had more, and quoting numbers involved in recent exercises won't help you win your argument. Regarding the Charles de Galle, there were a lot of set backs during the construction which lead to delays and many of the problems that have been or are being rectified. Strategically the RN is in a far stronger position than the French Navy, remember the RN is the only Navy who's Nuclear Subs have sunk enemy ships on operations.

Now for my vision of 2017

By 2017 the RN will be operating some 6 maybe 8 First Class Air warfare destroyers capable of shooting down any Golf Ball's a French Admiral may lob in the Type 45's Direction. Secondly both the RN and French Navy will each be operating 2 Medium Sized Aircraft carriers. The 2 RN carriers should be able to operate upto 40 F35's (Pure 5th Generation Aircraft, with the UK buying some 130+ aircraft) from their decks as well as AEW support either from their decks or the flight deck of a supporting ship. The French Navy will be operating the CdG which as you've said will be able to operate some 35 Rafaeles and 5 Helicopters, so basically 32 Rafaeles and 2 Hawkeye's, If the French Navy get lucky they may find themselves operating a PA.2 essentially a modded QE class carrier, with similar capabilities to the RN. The RN will also by 2017 have some 6 operational Astutes, with probably one assigned to the carrier task group. The Royal Navy will also have about a Dozen Type 23 Frigates, operating the most advanced towed array sonar in the world (albeit designed in France, if memory serves). Ok whilst some equipment (mentioned above) for the Royal Navy may not become available by 2017, the ball will be rolling for the purchase of above equipment, and some of the above kit will have been delivered. My guess as to who's the stronger come 2017, we'll just have to wait and see how many delays come about, we can debate who's the stronger on paper until hell freezes over, the truth is in the pudding, but I see a Brighter Future for the Royal Navy.

Hi,

ht*p://www.naval-technology.com/projects/invincible/

Here it's quoted that the Invicible class is designed to carry up to 9 Harriers, then you are right, I was wrong with my 8, I'm a troll... ;)

For the rest I'm more or less ok with you. But maybe not over the incomparable edge that the Belgrano sunk would give to UK navy. They had an edge for a while over France due to the large number of small destroyer/large frigates and subs they opered in ocean but french navy enjoyed a better versatility due to her widest range of size and capacities (from cruisers to corvettes with real air-carriers).

Right now UK is downgrading quickly the numbers and is close to the french number (but a lot of vessels are right now monthballed and still have to be considered as quick reserve for the 5/3 next years).

In 2017, UK and France will simply have the same naval power.

Quote Reply

french stratege 8/21/2007 3:27:35 PM

The RN has always had the edge on the French Marine even when it was outnumbered.

It is false as anybody can check it

h*tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Naval_battles_involving_France

h*tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Minorca

h*tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_at_The_Lizard

h*tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Beachy_Head_%281690%29

etc...

UK had famous period of dominations and first with Trafalgar in the worst period of french navy where skills by destroyed by bad training and emigration of capable officers (and a large part of crews) who were royalists for the 1789-1815 period.More than 500 royalist french officers and saylor fought in Trafagar on British ships against the french.

But before and after France was close to UK quality for men and even in some period in global parity.

In 2017 UK will have probably the best navy.

But until its first carrier is operational AND equiped with operational F35 in 2015, France will have the most capable surface fleet since we have a real carrier, real BVR 4,5+ generation fighters and AWACS.

UK SSN fleet will stay the best since we should have only 2/3 Barracuda and 3/4 refited Amethystes vs 8 Astute and Trafalgar SSN.

Today training and quality are close.

However it is surface fleet which is doing projection, not SSN, and surface fleet is the most needed capability in those post cold war years.

So until 2015, France has the best navy but only because UK has diminished greatly its navy.

Quote Reply

french stratege 8/21/2007 3:36:47 PM

Falkland experience is gone and not relevant for today.

Officers who have done Falkland are retired as sea harriers to defend their fleet.

Today, UK fleet has no more combat experience than French.

War experience is relevant only in the few years following it and when equipement and men remain the same.

BTW British have shared with french their experience return.

Quote Reply

Herald1234 8/21/2007 3:38:50 PM

Herald don't put things in my mouth , I never claimed that CDG has more combat experience than Invincible , of course not , thats stupid. But you said that Invincible has combat experience but CDG does not and thats not true , but yes its true that the experience can not compare to Fakland wars.

You claimed that the CdG had comparable combat experience to an Invincible.

I just pointed out you don't know what you write again. I put nothing in your mouth. You put your foot there, all by yourself.

Herald

Quote Reply

Herald1234 8/21/2007 4:08:38 PM

Battle of Minorca a blip.; Seven years war. France lost the war overseas {Wolf versus Montcalm when the RN cut Canada off] and on the Continent when Fred the Great beat the French Army.

Battle of the Lizards; Prinz Eugen on land and the duke of Marlborough sound familaiar? A couple of French corsairs [bandits] named Forbin and Trouin ambushed a small British convoy and sank a few merchantmen. Hardly what I call a great victory in a naval war France lost.

Battle of Beachy Head was a great exercise in futility as the lucky Tourville failed to exploit. In the end after Torrington got the works, The Britsh massed forces, the English Channel returned to its proper condition and the French went on to gain NOTHING in the Nine Years War at sea and land.

You need to learn some history to go with your gallic [false] pride BW.

And you need to remember with whom you deal, poseur.

Herald

Louis XIV, that sunset king, would try again, inn the War of the Spanish Succession and would lose badly on land and sea.

That is the context and [in]significance of those “three” French victories.

Herald

Quote Reply

5thGuards 8/21/2007 5:44:16 PM

Ok look first of all CDG is a nuclear carrier and Kuznetsov is not, second the CDG has AWACS with
E-2C Hawkeyes and Kuznetsov doesnt, the 15 Rafale Ms and 17 Super Étendards are more powerful than the
12 SU-33 and 5 SU-25's that the Kuznestov has. And also CDG has top of the line electronics, better trained crew
members, and I will take the ASTER sam's over the SA-N-9 Gauntlet. The only thing that the Kuznetsov has over
the CDG is its larger has SS-N-19 Shipwreck ASM, and more Vodka on board not that the Russian will be drinking
on duty LOL!. Sirously I dont know what you'r talking about besides the US NIMITZ carries CDG is the most
Powerful carrier in the World!.

Joe I think you need to stop writing such foolish posts , alot of your posts are full of nonsense.
First of all you think that Kuznetsov would attack CDG , and even claim they would attack with Su-33's , you have no clue have you?
First of all Kuznetsov was made to protect Russian strategic subs.
Second of all they would not attack CDG with Kuznetsov but Oscar subs that would get within 600km range and shot shipwrecks and disapear in ocean.
Third of all even if you for some reason want to compare Kuznetsov and CDG without any other ships , allthough it was not design for that Kuznetsov could sink CDG with granits.

You claimed that the CdG had comparable combat experience to an Invincible.

I just pointed out you don't know what you write again. I put nothing in your mouth. You put your foot there, all by yourself.

Herald

Herald I think you missunderstood me I never claimed that CDG has more combat experience and I completly agree with you on that , but I was simply saying that it does have combat experience.

Cheers.

Quote Reply

usajoe 8/21/2007 7:12:59 PM

Joe I think you need to stop writing such foolish posts , alot of your posts are full of nonsense.
First of all you think that Kuznetsov would attack CDG , and even claim they would attack with Su-33's , you have no clue have you?
First of all Kuznetsov was made to protect Russian strategic subs.
Second of all they would not attack CDG with Kuznetsov but Oscar subs that would get within 600km range and shot shipwrecks and disapear in ocean.
Third of all even if you for some reason want to compare Kuznetsov and CDG without any other ships , allthough it was not design for that Kuznetsov could sink CDG with granits.

No you need to stop writing foolish posts, all I said was that the CDG is the only true carrier besides

the US NIMITZ carriers and has more power projection than the Kuznetsov. So stop trying to make

scenarios of how the CDG will be sunk, you are the only person i have ever heard say that the Kuznetsov

is more powerful than the CDG.

Quote Reply

usajoe 8/21/2007 7:33:57 PM

BW how many times in the last 15 years has that junk gone out to sea

case and point.

Quote Reply

5thGuards 8/21/2007 7:54:41 PM

1. CDG has many tehnical problems , or you don't know that?
2. Kuznetsov is atm at docks undergoing a modernization refit.
3. It is more powerfull that CDG , its a Cruiser ! that is also a carrier... The only thing CDG has over Kuznetsov is more aircraft which does not mean its stronger , Kuznetsov was designed for protecting strategic submarines and CDG is design to project air power , so which is stronger? Go figgure. Kuznetsov is heavly armed anti air , anti ship and anti sub. You started comparing them and said CDG is stronger not me and now im putting the facts in your face.
So in case you still don't understand CDG is intended for power projection and has more aircraft and is more usefull in that , but it has no chance going head on vs Kuznetsov because its suacide. Besides no Carrier will fight vs a Carrier and even claiming that makes you look uneducated.

I was not the 1 that started this bullcrap how Kuznetsov is weak and CDG is strong but now im putting you up for facts and I wonder what bullcrap you are going to reply now.

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