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
apoorexcuse       8/28/2007 8:35:47 PM

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..

In open sea USN can beat any navy , but I doubt it could beat those navy's combined.
And also they can not beat Europe navy near their shores , aswell as Russian navy.

How can you say this in the same breath, regardless of whether or not it is true?  The US is lagging, and all we have are super carriers?  And then, in the open sea the USN can beat anybody?  Really, what a complete lapse in basic logic.  Oh, and, we do have SSGN, and our SSBN's are working quite well.... 

Wow, thats incredible.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       8/28/2007 8:38:27 PM

 lets take Astute for example , no US sub can come close to it.

not wanting to disparage the effort of the cousins, but you do realise that the USN and NAVSEA were called in to assist in developing some critical elements of the Astute Class?  Its common knowledge within the UDT community.  It was also such a critical issue that it resulted in both the UK and US calling special Hearings within their respective countries hilighting the problems within the UK ship building sector. It even triggered an evaluation in Australia as to how not to let capability decline to the extent where the UK was seen as having lost core competencies. The promotion of building the next 2 carriers for the RN is also driven by the internal reports that they needed to maintain local build capability.  They do not want to replicate some of the hiccups of the Astutes.
 
as for some of your other comments, Soviet and Russian ASW has never been that flash - the worst acoustic footprint of any long range maritime penetration aircraft ever made belongs to the Tu-95 Bears (you can literally hear them coming when underwater). The French and UK have far superior ASW systems.  The RN is still regarded as the benchmark for ASW.
 
On another note, this nonsense about supersonic cruise missiles really needs addressing.  The USN and NATO fronted up against the Soviets with Mach5+ anti-shipping missiles, and crunched up that they might lose 20% at most on multi regiment maritime aircraft strikes (assuming multi regimented backfires and blackjacks), the post cold war assessment by the Russians came up with similar figures (Red Tide Rising, a series of interviews of Russian Naval Staff post cold war).
 
One other thing, up to 75% of russian north western ports and shipyards are still so contaminated that they are unusable due to safety issues (Belarus Foundation).  I assume you realise that this means that homeport issues are substantially reduced - and thus targetting is somewhat made easier.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Reply to cretin.   8/28/2007 8:40:11 PM












You need to STFU already , you are a retard , you don't know anything !
You DON'T KNOW WHAT SHIPS/SUBS RUSSIAN NAVY USES , NOT EVEN MENTIONING WHAT AMARMENT , you dont have 1 CLUE ABOUT ANY RUSSIAN MISSILE AND CAPABILITY'S , AND YOU ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE OF KNOWING WHAT DOCTRINE THEY USE.
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT SHIPS/SUBS UK , CHINA , INDIA , FRANCE AND THE REST USE , YOU DON'T KNOW ANY OF THE AMARMENT , ANY OF THE DOCTRINE ..

AND THEN YOU COME HERE AND CLAIM LIKE YOU KNOW SHIT , YOU DON'T KNOW 1 BIT , HOW CAN YOU CLAIM YOU KNOW A OUTCOME OF A BATTLE IF YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOUR UP AGAINST BOY!

You are a TIPICAL AMERICAN PATRIOT THAT HAS NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT OTHER COUNRY'S FAR LESS THAN KNOWING ABOUT THEM AND YOU CLAIM BULLCRAP YOU CAN'T BACK UP WITH ANYTHING.

1.FIRST YOU SAID THE NAVY'S ARE VASTLY OUTNUMBERED - WHICH I PROOVED WRONG BECAUSE ACTUALY IT IS US NAVY WHICH IS OUTNUMBERED , BY 3 TIMES....

2.YOU CLAIMED THAT US NAVY HAS SUPERIOR TRAINING AND SUPER HUMAN CAPABILITY THAT IS FAR MROE CAPABLE THAN ANY NAVY INCLUDING ROYAL NAVY, AT WHICH I LAUGH
LIKE HELL..

3. THEN I PROOVEN TO YOU HOW YOUR CARRIER GROUPS ARE VULNERABLE AND YOU HAVE NOT POINTED OUT A SINGLE SHREAD OF PROOF THAT IM WRONG , JUST CLAIMING AGAIN THAT THEY WOULD LOSE , ALL YOU KNOW IS 1 THING BOY :

CLAIM CLAIM CLAIM , NO BACKUP , NO OBJECTIVE OPINION , NOTHING...

YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING , STAY AWAY FROM THESE FORUMS...

TO DATE I STILL WAIT FOR MY REPLY ON WHAT I POSTED AND TOLD , AND IM PRETTY SURE YOU DON'T KNOW ANY ANSWER.



NOW , NOT LOSING 1000 WORDS FOR SUCH A BOY AS YOU , IL JUST POST 1 PICTURE THAT SPEAKS MORE THAN 1000 WORDS:

http://xs71.xs.to/pics/06104/KittyHawk.jpg">



Short answer; you were permitted and you weren't unescorted.

 

STOP being a fanboy.

 

Herald

 


 

 

Listen here  mentally challenged boy I know way more than you about defense, and the way you sound

everything else in life, now the next time you sound retarted  I am not going to even answer you you are

just going to get this 

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!     because that is what you do to a 5 year old kid when he

tries to have a smart conversation with adults.


CRETIN.
 
Herald

 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Going too far....   8/28/2007 8:42:53 PM
USN can beat Russian navy near their shore. Which i find ignorant and far from reality.<5th
 
The USN couldn't defeat the Russian Navy per-se. Because they would stay in port (smart move). If we wanted to destroy them we would have to strike them at their piers. Which we could do. Russia's SSN force might sortie and that would be interesting. Akula v. Seawolf or Virginia.
 
That would be the extent of the naval battles.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky

 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Lawman 2   8/28/2007 8:53:35 PM
Short aside for the moment.
 
The previous remark was to 5thGuards
 
Comment to USAJOE;
 
Let the evidence speak for itself
 
Now to address the latest massive missive from the esteemable LAWMAN
 
.

Lawman       8/28/2007 7:26:23 AM

Herald:

 

In referring to Ascension, I actually disagree that the French should be denied its use, since International Law doesn't actually dictate that Britain couldn't allow the French to use it. It would be right for the British to allow them to use it - otherwise the US would have real difficulty doing a lot of its work in the Mid East and Horn of Africa, since it relies on a British island (Diego) for Afghanistan and to a lesser extent Iraq, and a French island (Djibouti) for Horn of Africa ops. Since Ascension is a British island (technically its Portuguese, life leased to the Brits, and short term lent to the US... ), it would be only fair to allow the French use of it, since the French actually helped Quote    Reply


usajoe    every jealous hater   8/28/2007 9:35:56 PM
http://www.johnfry.com/Media/Valiant%20Shield-01.jpg" width=720 border=0>
 Reality!
 
Long arm of the law      be scared very scared
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe       8/28/2007 9:56:35 PM
Btw if you kids who are thinking about behaving badly look at picture above that's dady just chilling
so dont go piss him off or he will get up and give you a spanking!
 
Quote    Reply

5thGuards       8/29/2007 7:37:49 AM
usajoe you should stop writing here you nub , you don't know anything , id have at least some respect to you if you wrote something comprehensive and proove it , instead you just claim what you think without KNOWING ANYHING.

And not only are you claiming your making yourself look like a retard.

You claim that USN can beat Europe navy , or Russian navy near their shore because they have 1000 fighters from carriers , you don't even know your own navy , you probably think they have Raptors on carriers.
They have F/A 18 super hornets , and other aircraft are not fighters.

And hornets can't compare to Eurofighter / Rafale / Su-27 series ..

http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html

Even thats not the point , the shore will be protected by large anti air system cover , especialy the russian with S-300 - 400 , and Europe or Russian ships have GOOD anti air capability , look at Kirov , Slava , or Type 42..



Now for VULNERABILITY OF US CARRIER STRIKE GROUP

1.SIGINT (signal Intelligence)
Their Radar are Noisy..even with a crap called "Emission Management" you will still pick them by Kolchuga passive censor..or have GRU pick it for you

2.and of course anti Ship Missiles especially if launched from submarine like Oscars
How many hornets do you think they can launch in 19 minutes Time Before impact..from Granit Missiles

3.Space based Targeting system
oh this thing can provide better coverage than Tu-142 Bear F with Big Bulge Radar
Russian have Legenda and Glonass

That system can give INITIAL POSITION of the CSG..which oscar would feed to its granit pets which will pick the Target Itself ..
Granit,bazalt,Vulkan have ECM and ECCM system and Armor system to protect them from CIWS type weapon or exploding AA missiles


 
Quote    Reply

usajoe    delusional guards   8/29/2007 7:47:32 AM
usajoe you should stop writing here you nub , you don't know anything , id have at least some respect to you if you wrote something comprehensive and proove it , instead you just claim what you think without KNOWING ANYHING.

And not only are you claiming your making yourself look like a retard.

You claim that USN can beat Europe navy , or Russian navy near their shore because they have 1000 fighters from carriers , you don't even know your own navy , you probably think they have Raptors on carriers.
They have F/A 18 super hornets , and other aircraft are not fighters.

And hornets can't compare to Eurofighter / Rafale / Su-27 series ..

http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html

Even">link thats not the point , the shore will be protected by large anti air system cover , especialy the russian with S-300 - 400 , and Europe or Russian ships have GOOD anti air capability , look at Kirov , Slava , or Type 42..



Now for VULNERABILITY OF US CARRIER STRIKE GROUP

1.SIGINT (signal Intelligence)
Their Radar are Noisy..even with a crap called "Emission Management" you will still pick them by Kolchuga passive censor..or have GRU pick it for you

2.and of course anti Ship Missiles especially if launched from submarine like Oscars
How many hornets do you think they can launch in 19 minutes Time Before impact..from Granit Missiles

3.Space based Targeting system
oh this thing can provide better coverage than Tu-142 Bear F with Big Bulge Radar
Russian have Legenda and Glonass

That system can give INITIAL POSITION of the CSG..which oscar would feed to its granit pets which will pick the Target Itself ..
Granit,bazalt,Vulkan have ECM and ECCM system and Armor system to protect them from CIWS type weapon or exploding AA missiles


 
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman       8/29/2007 9:18:49 AM

Herald1234

Taking off from a neutral’s bomber base and using it inn war makes youn a co-belligerent. Right now Diego Garcia is US used because of Britain’s co-belligerent status. France is also a co-bellegerent in the misnamed war on terror. So the IL restriction holds.

 
I agree that it is debatable, but as I mentioned, they don't strictly need Ascension, it just makes things much easier. Also, they could certainly stage ships from there, since this would not be belligerent on the part of the UK.
 

Herald1234

 To sustain a single two ATL3 element you need TWO tankers deployed round trip from Guyana or France. To sustain a four flight you can still get away with four tankers but to launch a single strike equivalent a Bear four elements 24-32 missiles to smash the airbases on East and West Island you need to mass 12 ATL3s even with SCALP/APACHE. That is 12 tankers. France doesn’t have enough tankers. Remember the TU-95 and its derivatives are TRUE intercontinental strategic bombers that not only have substantial LACM capability [proven in test firings by the way for KH55 and the KLUB but also these turkeys have buddy refueled each other. An ALT3 doesn’tm even come close to reach, lift or hours in the air. The only Western aircraft that comes close is the B-52 which is designed to do the same original BEAR mission.  
This is sort of true, though not fully. You do need to launch twinned packages, lest a tanker fail (not as common nowadays, in the Falklands it happened because a lot of  the kit hadn't been used for years), so would launch a pair of tankers, and four ATL3s.
 
I think we also need to differentiate between whether we're talking about the initial strike phase, or my suggestion that you can actually get at least some maritime patrol coverage. If we're talking the strike role, then the ATL3s should only need to be topped up once, since (being MPAs) they've got good range anyway. For the MPA role, they need two refuellings, i.e. they fly most of the way down, take on a full fuel load from the tanker, then do a twelve hour patrol, then take on fuel again to fly home. If at any point they can't take on fuel, i.e. if the tankers hose and drogue unit fails, then they can do an emergency divert to somewhere like Brazil. This is a terrible option, since Brazil would impound the aircraft, and probably the crew for the duration of the conflict, but it is exactly what the UK had to do with one of its Vulcan bombers, and sure beats having the crew ditch the aircraft!
 
I agree with you that the Bear and the ATL3 are not in the same league, but I never suggested they were - you make do with what you have! The French, and pretty much everyone else, don't have long range bombers, so the closest you have are maritime patrol planes, given their naturally long range, combined with some weapons capability. In terms of payload, the ATL3 should be able to carry around four Scalp missiles, i.e. two externally, and two internally, the payload capacity is there. The other point is that Exocets or similar should not be discounted, since they do make adequate strike missiles, and can be carried six at a time (four externally, two internally). They may lack the big warhead and long range of a genuine cruise missile, but they are good enough for use on fixed targets, like buildings.
 
I am really not sure you're right about Klub, certainly there were reports floating around a couple of years ago about the Indians wanting to use it on their Tu-142s, but the same reports said that the air launched version simply wasn't ready yet. I think its another case of the Russians offering something that just isn't ready yet.
 

Herald1234

 

I don’t agree. Right now France

 
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