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

usajoe 5thGuards 8/20/2007 7:35:33 PM

You can't even remotely compare the French and UK sub fleet to Russian fleet .
Ok the UK fleet is slightly comparable but for the French you have to be joking , thats too funny , care to explain how 6 Rubis class submarines ( BTW LESS CAPABLE than Akula ) are gonna sink a sub fleet of 60 submarines?

First of all the Russians do not have 60 Subs its 53, and i was talking about ssn's here is a list of russian sub fleet

SSN- 5 AKULA 1, 1 AKULA 2, 8 OSCAR 2, for total of 14 ssn in sevice of which some of this cant even be

confirmed to be in service case and point they are in bad shape.

Now they also have 16 conventional Kilo subs, which are not as big of threat as the AKULAS OR OSCARS.

And their SSBN are 1 Typhoon which is a test sub for the new SSBM, and 6 of Delta 3 and 4 subs for a total

of13.

The Brits have 7 Trafalgar class ssn, and 2 Swiftsure snn and coming soon are the 4 Astute ssn. which 4 of those

subs whith british crews are more dangerous than the 14 Russian subs and their crews. And the Brits have 4

Vanguard SSBN'S.

Now the French have less Capable subs than the Brits but as a Navy they have more offensive power than the

Russians with the only true Carrier in Europe with CDG which gives them invaluable Air Power at any where in

the world not just in range of their surface bomber force.

And I was not talking about senarios i was talking about the navy power projection aroud the world and yes

the British and French Navys are better trained led, more technologicly advanced than the Russians.

Here are the top 5 navys in the world

1USA

2UK

3FRA

4RUS

5JPN

Quote Reply

usajoe 5thGuards 8/20/2007 7:40:39 PM

First of all the Russians do not have 60 Subs its 43, and i was talking about ssn's here is a list of russian sub fleet

SSN- 5 AKULA 1, 1 AKULA 2, 8 OSCAR 2, for total of 14 ssn in sevice of which some of this cant even be

confirmed to be in service case and point they are in bad shape.

Now they also have 16 conventional Kilo subs, which are not as big of threat as the AKULAS OR OSCARS.

And their SSBN are 1 Typhoon which is a test sub for the new SSBM, and 6 of Delta 3 and 4 subs for a total

of13.

The Brits have 7 Trafalgar class ssn, and 2 Swiftsure snn and coming soon are the 4 Astute ssn. which 4 of those

subs whith british crews are more dangerous than the 14 Russian subs and their crews. And the Brits have 4

Vanguard SSBN'S.

Now the French have less Capable subs than the Brits but as a Navy they have more offensive power than the

Russians with the only true Carrier in Europe with CDG which gives them invaluable Air Power at any where in

the world not just in range of their surface bomber force.

And I was not talking about senarios i was talking about the navy power projection aroud the world and yes

the British and French Navys are better trained led, more technologicly advanced than the Russians.

Here are the top 5 navys in the world

1USA

2UK

3FRA

4RUS

5JPN

Quote Reply

usajoe 5thGuards 8/20/2007 7:44:11 PM

IT was 43 not 53 subs.

Quote Reply

5thGuards 8/20/2007 9:40:41 PM

First of all the Russians do not have 60 Subs its 53, and i was talking about ssn's here is a list of russian sub fleet

SSN- 5 AKULA 1, 1 AKULA 2, 8 OSCAR 2, for total of 14 ssn in sevice of which some of this cant even be

confirmed to be in service case and point they are in bad shape.

Now they also have 16 conventional Kilo subs, which are not as big of threat as the AKULAS OR OSCARS.

And their SSBN are 1 Typhoon which is a test sub for the new SSBM, and 6 of Delta 3 and 4 subs for a total

of13.

The Brits have 7 Trafalgar class ssn, and 2 Swiftsure snn and coming soon are the 4 Astute ssn. which 4 of those

subs whith british crews are more dangerous than the 14 Russian subs and their crews. And the Brits have 4

Vanguard SSBN'S.

Now the French have less Capable subs than the Brits but as a Navy they have more offensive power than the

Russians with the only true Carrier in Europe with CDG which gives them invaluable Air Power at any where in

the world not just in range of their surface bomber force.

And I was not talking about senarios i was talking about the navy power projection aroud the world and yes

the British and French Navys are better trained led, more technologicly advanced than the Russians.

Here are the top 5 navys in the world

1USA

2UK

3FRA

4RUS

5JPN

Your numbers are wrong

Russian Sub fleet consists of:

9 Akula ( capable of dismising the whole french sub fleet )
3 Sierra II
4 Victor III
1 Alfa
6 Oscar II
17 Kilo
1 Lada
10 Delta III and IV
1 Typhoon without amarment ( 2 in refiting and planed in back in service )
and soon Borei class SSBN and Severodinsk SSN ( which is said to be more advanced than any submarine )

So that sums it up to 41 attack subs and 11 SSBN.

Against 6 French less capable Rubis class subs , interesting huh?

Btw you said CDG can offer air support , so can Kuznetsov , and besides its MUCH larger than CDG and has a far better amarment , Kutznetsov is also a Cruiser besides beeing a Aircraft Carrier , comparing Charles De Gaulle to it is stupid.

And as I said before Backfires could sink the fleet in no time.

Quote Reply

5thGuards 8/20/2007 9:43:01 PM

Btw your counting 4 Astute class SSN that are not even in service yet , then count several Severodinsk subs that will come in service if you count " Not yet in service " submarines.

Here :

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. Construction of this class of vessels will probably begin in 2002-2004 at the Severodvinsk shipbuilding yard, and they will then enter service from 2006-2008. These submarines will probably be fitted with both strategic and cruise missiles with multiple nuclear warheads.

It features a significant cruise missile capability with eight vertical launch tubes for RKB-500 aft of the sail. The hull is made of low magnetic steel, with a spherical bow sonar.

Quote Reply

ArtyEngineer Herald 8/20/2007 10:07:51 PM

Russia is not Europe?

Anyway French navy has a slight advantage over UK navy atm , that 2 small carriers with harriers can not compare to the French De gaulle , sure it had some problems but now its fine with Rafales its a very strong projection and its well protected , French have the most advanced frigate in the world La Fayette while British Type 23 is not close in capability.
British Type 42 Destroyers are not exactly world class since they are not multipurpose they are good for Anti Air but weaker for everything else. Both have similar Sub fleet , so id say french have a slight advantage atm , but in the near future British will have a stronger navy no doubt about that.That is of course when the Astute SSN's , Type 45's and CVN's come in service.

1. The Laughitup is not the world's advanced frigate. It is a one hit and your sunk piece of junk. The best frigate at the moment is a MEKO: it depends on whose variant of Meko you want to call best..
2. The CdG has serious design faults.

3. The British sub fleet is arguably boat for boat despite some mechanical and design faults the finest on Earth.

4. The Type 42, long in the tooth, does what the Forbin, today, can not. Provide a legitimate area air defense escort.

5. The French port avions 2 is up in the air. The QE2s look like a done deal.

Herald

Herald,

The stateent about "Mechanical and Design Faults" caught my eye. Where do you think the Brit Naval Architects didnt quite get it right in their sub designs?

Arty

Quote Reply

Herald1234 8/20/2007 11:06:30 PM

3. The British sub fleet is arguably boat for boat despite some mechanical and design faults the finest on Earth.

4. The Type 42, long in the tooth, does what the Forbin, today, can not. Provide a legitimate area air defense escort.

5. The French port avions 2 is up in the air. The QE2s look like a done deal.

Herald

Herald,

The stateent about "Mechanical and Design Faults" caught my eye. Where do you think the Brit Naval Architects didnt quite get it right in their sub designs?

Arty

Cable runs and passthroughs from the history of the modern Ts, Ss and Us. The British may have also had an unintended sound fault in the Trafalgars. where the sail meets the strongback, but not to worry, that's NORMAL. You find it on trials and fix in it before acceptance.

The big British nuclear boat problem though was in the reactor coolant piping. Something went badly wrong there as the metal brittled far more rapidly than it should have.

Dangerous.This is no criticism.

This problem afflicts ALL nuclear navies to a greater or lesser degree. Ther British problem is that it set on unusually rapidly, requiring constant maintenece and careful checks far beyond what one should have to expect. If you watch it you can manage this brittling problem. Still worrisome to the British. The last thing you want is a fitting to fail on the submarine reactor plant submerged. That is the next most dangerous thing aboard a nuclear boat next to a fire.

Herald

Quote Reply

Herald1234 8/20/2007 11:29:09 PM

I don't care if the Etendards made 1000 bomb runs.

I would be interested to see your sources for your assertions. Most French air missions are flown out of Krygistan and are land based-namely the Mirage 2000s I mentioned.

Show the flag doesn't mean fighting for your life against enormous odds . You should really read

http://www.naval-history.net/NAVAL1982FALKLANDS.htm" border=0>

Falklands War

cretin, before you make any comments. That operation is fairly compared to a modern version of Guadalcanal in the miniature. By its standards, Grenada was a farce and French operations Cote d'Ivoire since it iccured don't even qualify as anything but farce.

I take nothing away from the professionalism of the French Marine, but they just weren't, aren't, and for the forseeable future, they lack the skill and the means, to mount a Falklands type of Operation.

It would have taken the USN a complete carrier task force, an MEU, and almost as much time as the RN did to mount the operation. It would run into the same buzzsaw, run similar risks, probably suffer fewer losses, but still have a naval fight on its hands that the French Marine couldn't handle.

That is FACT.

Herald

Quote Reply

5thGuards 8/21/2007 8:06:57 AM

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.

Quote Reply

usajoe 5thGuards 8/21/2007 8:17:57 AM

Btw you said CDG can offer air support , so can Kuznetsov , and besides its MUCH larger than CDG and has a far better amarment , Kutznetsov is also a Cruiser besides beeing a Aircraft Carrier , comparing Charles De Gaulle to it is stupid.

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!.

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