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
5thGuards       8/22/2007 8:06:49 AM

Okay, ignoring all the hostility above, and not seeking to take sides, here is my position:

 

- The RN will have an advantage in terms of carriers and submarines in particular.

- Surface ship wise, the Lafayette leaves a lot to be desired, because although somewhat stealthy, she lacks any meaningful punch, with just the normal Exocets, and frankly, a pretty poor air defence missile. Crotale does not have the capability of Sea Wolf, which has proven itself in combat repeatedly, and has undergone real improvements.

- The RN's Type 23s may not be very stealthy, but they are excellent ASW platforms, and are better for this than any of the current French fleet.

- The RN does have hopes of replacing its final Type 22s, and all the Type 23s, it just can't push too hard for that until the carriers are under construction!

- The RN thus has an advantage in major categories, and at least parity in AAW and ASW capability.

 

Thus, the RN will have a modest, but noticeable advantage over the MN in 2017, as the original question asked.

 

Before that time, the answer is mixed:

 

- The RN currently lacks a proper fighter, since they have decided there is little urgenct need for it. If needed, they could probably have Harriers fielding radar pods and AMRAAMs relatively quickly, since there are reports that the RAF has actually tested the podded radar already. This was shown in flight aboard one of the RAF's test fleet of aircraft, and there are suggestions that more work has been done, though is on hold for now, since there is no urgency.

- The CDG is a heck of a nice carrier, despite being a little smaller than would be desired. It can carry good aircraft, and in reasonable numbers.

- The RN does have a major advantage in subs, since the MN's subs are far less capable, and there are less of them.

- The RN's ships do have better defences, with Phalanx or Goalkeeper on pretty much all of them, and Sea Wolf and Sea Dart on some.

- The MN has slightly newer escorts, but the RN does upgrade its ships too, and certainly for ASW the Type 23 will likely remain ahead for a good while yet! For AAW, yes, Sea Dart is getting long in the tooth, and is not as good as Aster, but it is still a heck of a good missile, with the proven ability to shoot down incoming missiles and even shells! It is better than the MN's AAW systems, with the exception of Aster, but since the RN and MN will both have Aster, that's will become a draw over time, though the Type 45's radar is rumoured to be somewhat better, though with a price tag to match!

 

 

As for Russia, yes, they have some theoretically powerful ships, but they do not have the training to take advantage of them. In addition, as already stated, poor manning can be the difference between life and death. The sub fleet is not in a good state, and simply having larger numbers does not offset this. Also, I certainly wouldn't count Oscar II class boats as SSNs, since they are basically the same sort of size as a ballistic missile sub. They can defend themselves, but would not be a good choice to go sub hunting! The Kuznetsov is not a formidable carrier, it may be a formidable cruiser, but it rarely puts to sea, and the pilots do not have much experience, and there are small numbers of fighters.

 

As with most of the supposed 'Russian threat', it is largely based on mothballed equipment, and propagandised capabilties. Trying to compare fleets one vs one doesn't make any sense, since it is hopelessly unrealistic. On paper, the Russian fleet may be huge, but Admiral Gorshkov would not be smiling if he saw the state of the Russian Navy today. It would take a good few years of massive reinvestment to bring the Russian Navy anywhere near its '80s capability.

 

As for new kit for Russia, there has been much talk, but not much action! New submarines may be built, but it is not likely to be in great numbers, and no amount of "it'll be the best submarine ever built, and the US Navy will wish it was theirs" propaganda will make them better subs. It is entirely probably that the new subs will be equivalent to late model Improved Los Angeles class, or possibly a little better, but I really doubt they will be as good as Virginia, Seawolf, Astute or Barracuda.   


I agree what your trying to say , but I was not the 1 claiming how French navy can beat Russian navy .
Im very we
 
Quote    Reply

5thGuards       8/22/2007 8:08:06 AM
Oh I forgot this for Lawman.


885 Severodvinsk class

This new attack submarine design is a further derivative of the Project 971 Akula.
This submarine is even more silent running than those of the Project 971 - Akula class; American experts consider it to be the most advanced nuclear-powered submarine in the world. There are three Severodvinsk class submarines under construction, and four more are planned. The latter four have the classification Severodvinsk-I. It is not known how the two submarine projects differ from one another.


 
Quote    Reply

usajoe       8/22/2007 9:13:53 AM
usajoe forced me because he claimed that French navy is superior to any navy except US.
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.
 
When did I say the French were 2nd best Navy I said
they were number 3 after the UK.
 
And why are we still talking about the French Navy vs Russian
Navy that is fantasy, iam am going to say one more time at the
present time and at list in the near future the French Navy will have
a more {Powerful Force Projection} in the world than the Russians,
not going head  to head in the middle of the Ocean. The french Navy could
participate in a conflict like the Falklands by themselves, the Russian can not.
Like I said before the Russian ever since the fall of the USSR have rarely gone
out to sea their Training is bad their morale is bad most of their equipment is in
bad shape, they cant even get enough ships together at one time make up a
respectable force to even threaten any country far away from their borders.
their Sub crews are just like their air force bonber crews hardley made any noise
since 1992, and just like their air force comrades are just starting to make noise
again after 15 years, most of the Russian Navy just like every other branch of their
military are conscripts, and their officers get paid almost nothing compared
to the West, most of the conscripts dont even want to be serving because they
are being treated like crap, their whole military not just the Navy is in very bad
shape, yes i know they are starting to address some of this problems, but some
thing like this you cant fix over night.
task force
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       8/22/2007 9:50:29 AM




















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.













I did not misunderstand you at all. You don't escape from what you wrote, period.
 








Herald








Don't act like a ass all the time.

I politely ask you to search for the statement where I have claimed that CDG has more combat experience than Invincible.

Cheers.





 



You can not say that 1 Carrier that is far more effective than another can not compare just because it is unreliable, you can't just choose and say CDG is useless because this and this and this has problems , thats bullcrap , compare the Carrier's true capability and tell me which is more effective ? If you say Invincible then you will disapoint me.




 




CDG proven itself in combat same as Invincible.





Don't act like a ass all the time.^1

I politely ask you to search for the statement where I have claimed that CDG has more combat experience than Invincible.

Cheers.







 




Satisfied?




You asked and I answered.

 
Quote    Reply

5thGuards       8/22/2007 11:13:23 AM

usajoe forced me because he claimed that French navy is superior to any navy except US.

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.

 

When did I say the French were 2nd best Navy I said

they were number 3 after the UK.

 

And why are we still talking about the French Navy vs Russian

Navy that is fantasy, iam am going to say one more time at the

present time and at list in the near future the French Navy will have

a more {Powerful Force Projection} in the world than the Russians,

not going head  to head in the middle of the Ocean. The french Navy could

participate in a conflict like the Falklands by themselves, the Russian can not.

Like I said before the Russian ever since the fall of the USSR have rarely gone

out to sea their Training is bad their morale is bad most of their equipment is in

bad shape, they cant even get enough ships together at one time make up a

respectable force to even threaten any country far away from their borders.

their Sub crews are just like their air force bonber crews hardley made any noise

since 1992, and just like their air force comrades are just starting to make noise

again after 15 years, most of the Russian Navy just like every other branch of their

military are conscripts, and their officers get paid almost nothing compared

to the West, most of the conscripts dont even want to be serving because they

are being treated like crap, their whole military not just the Navy is in very bad

shape, yes i know they are starting to address some of this problems, but some

thing like this you cant fix over night.

task force


 



What the hell is your problem dude , what the hell does few extra capable fighters on Charles de Gaulle which make French slightly more succesfull in projection air power over some country HAVE TO DO WITH HOW STRONG THEIR FLEET IS.
They cannot defeat the Russian fleet , if they would try they would be destroyed , how can you count them as beeing stronger than?
If a fleet is not capable of defeating another and it will lose that means its weaker what don't you understand here?
I have prooven all the facts up there read them again and if you wan't to question it then tell us how exactly the Franch navy is capable of winning , your imagining things , ships subs that french navy does not have.
Russian navy was not designed for power projection but for defending so that no navy can come close to shores.
And that little charles de gaulle that has a few extra aircraft which makes it slightly more succesfull theoreticaly to project power , but weaker other capability's doesn't mean nothing , if the fleet is incapable of defeating another fleet its weaker , period.
 
Quote    Reply

5thGuards       8/22/2007 11:20:54 AM
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 ?
Forgot that? I don't even count VDV because its not navy we are talking about navy here,
 so who can project power more ?
And BTW theoreticaly ( we are talking about navy here I know ) but Russia has long range strategic bombers that can offer many times more air support than any Charles de gaulle with a few multipurpose aircraft.
But yeah your right we are talking about navy's here , yet still , French has almost no Amphibious ships.


 
Quote    Reply

nominoe       8/22/2007 12:23:38 PM
France have assault ships ; the most recents in the world :

BPC "Mistral" and "Tonnerre" : 21 300 t Full displacement
h*tp://www.netmarine.net/bat/tcd/tonnerre/caracter.htm

Mistral has been used during the second lebanon war last summer and it's deployment was a full success. This ship is praised even by the US navy, as it is more cost effective than the  LPD 17 class :
h*tp://www.corlobe.tk/article5298.html

Furthermore, France have three more amphibious ships :
Foudre and Sirocco, both 12 000 t FD
Ouragan 8 500 t FD

that makes five, and a decent capability to project power (men, vehicles, MBTs, helos).

As for CDG vs Invincible, be serious... invincible class has been a great ship to defend islands (not to close from continent though) but is completely unable to conduct deep strikes, and to defend against threats. if CDG is only a target, invincible is a DEAD WHALE.

CDG has seen action, enduring freedom for example, and has proven to be a reliable battle group which has NO EQUIVALENT OUTSIDE OF THE US, be honest. Could the royal navy conduct strikes in afghanistan?

For you herald : "the Invincible is there on station  fighting or patrolling while the CdG is continuously laid up as a harbor queen and rarely risked in sustained operations."

You must be joking herald. Well, let's see what have done all these ships this year?

- CDG has conduct it's battle group to the indian ocean from february to july, and achieved combat missions over afghanistan from march to july. Same in 2006. same since 2002 in fact.
- Invincible is decomissioned since 2005
- Illustrious combat achievments these days :  h*tp://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.9774
- Ark royal combat records of the year : h*tp://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.9480


In 2017 royal navy will have two real carriers but currently RN lacks the capabilities of MN in term of carriers. If invincible were so good, RN would not build two CATOBAR.

The main strenght of RN these days is it's SSN submarine fleet (i won't include SSBN which is a special issue). And that's a pretty good thing, i wish  MN had  a better SSN fleet, i can't wait the barracuda!!
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Nominoe reply.    8/22/2007 12:39:52 PM
Where is the CdG right now?
 
Where is the Invincible right now?
 
Which ship has spent more time in dock, per 100 days at sea; laid up for repairs?
 
Which ship has proved more combat useful?
 
Entirely agree about the LPD-17, though. That ship as is has to be seriously reworked, before it is acceptable. Right now it is a TURKEY.
 
Herald. 
 
Quote    Reply

5thGuards       8/22/2007 1:17:01 PM
France have assault ships ; the most recents in the world :

BPC "Mistral" and "Tonnerre" : 21 300 t Full displacement
h*tp://www.netmarine.net/bat/tcd/tonnerre/caracter.htm

Mistral has been used during the second lebanon war last summer and it's deployment was a full success. This ship is praised even by the US navy, as it is more cost effective than the  LPD 17 class :
h*tp://www.corlobe.tk/article5298.html

Furthermore, France have three more amphibious ships :
Foudre and Sirocco, both 12 000 t FD
Ouragan 8 500 t FD

"that makes five, and a decent capability to project power (men, vehicles, MBTs, helos)."

True , yet Russian navy has 27 , interesting , including more men , vehicles , MBT's , Helos ( and Mi-26 can carry more equipment than any french helo ) , VDV , besides we are talking only navy projection here. ;) Allthough I don't mind all around projection.
Lets compare who has more
Amphibius ships = Russia
Men = Russia
Vehicles = Russia
MBT's = Russia
Helos = Russia
Transport Aircraft = Russia



As for CDG vs Invincible, be serious... invincible class has been a great ship to defend islands (not to close from continent though) but is completely unable to conduct deep strikes, and to defend against threats. if CDG is only a target, invincible is a DEAD WHALE.

CDG has seen action, enduring freedom for example, and has proven to be a reliable battle group which has NO EQUIVALENT OUTSIDE OF THE US, be honest. Could the royal navy conduct strikes in afghanistan?

For you herald : "the Invincible is there on station  fighting or patrolling while the CdG is continuously laid up as a harbor queen and rarely risked in sustained operations."

You must be joking herald. Well, let's see what have done all these ships this year?

- CDG has conduct it's battle group to the indian ocean from february to july, and achieved combat missions over afghanistan from march to july. Same in 2006. same since 2002 in fact.
- Invincible is decomissioned since 2005
- Illustrious combat achievments these days :  h*tp://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.9774
- Ark royal combat records of the year : h*tp://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.9480

Well yes , I do agree that CDG has more aircraft capable of deep strikes , Invincible has lots of combat experience though and its more reliable than CDG because of tehnical difficulties , but if im honest id much rather have CDG if I want to project air power anywhere , im not sure for what we are comparing them though?
Both are quite good , infact any carrier is pretty good.


In 2017 royal navy will have two real carriers but currently RN lacks the capabilities of MN in term of carriers. If invincible were so good, RN would not build two CATOBAR.

The main strenght of RN these days is it's SSN submarine fleet (i won't include SSBN which is a special issue). And that's a pretty good thing, i wish  MN had  a better SSN fleet, i can't wait the barracuda!!
 
I agree , the SSN fleet of RN is atm critical to make it a powerfull all around navy , the surface fleet is mostly for air cover , the SSN fleet is the basic to sink ships.

I think in a few years when CVN , Type 45's and Astute's come in service UK will once again be a very very powerfull navy and have more capability than France will , allthough France will be strong too as always.

 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       8/22/2007 1:22:40 PM
2. French does not have more advanced submarines than Russia that info is false.
 Rubis is ---> 1ST GENERATION
Viktor III ---> 2nd generation
Sierra & Alfa ---> 3rd generation
Akula ---> 4th generation
In fact our last generation SSBN is more advanced than Russian one.
 
On SSN, Rubis class do not exist anymore! We have only Amethyste class  for a decade and all former subs have been rebuilt to this much more silent class keeping only pressure hull and reactor and some equipement.
Amethyste class  is said to be similar to improved Victor 3 for noise and intermediate between  Sturgeon class and LA for noise except at low speed (under 10 knts) where .Amethyste class  is as silent as Los Angeles thank to its electric drive and natural convection cooled reactor at low regime.Of course Amethyste class  electronic is recent and its sonar are superior to those Russians especially the ULF towed one.
In exercise Amethyste class  had received good results (their crews are wery well trained) even vs LA or Trafalgar class often obtained first kill (especially vs overconfident US crews - LOL)..
If it can win vs LA or Trafalgar class, we can assume it can do better vs Akula class with less good sonar and training.
Amethyste will receive in the next years a new improvment program with new electronic, improvement in signature management and a new pump jet to make them still capable platform until 2021 for the last decommissioning.
British have only Trafalgar class better than Amethiste although the gap is not so big after errors British have done during refit and failed to preserve their initial discretion (according rumors).
Canadians were close to chose french Amethyste class  over Trafalgar class when they tested both when they were thinking to have nuclear subs in the nineties.

 
 
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