French Navy Replaces British Royal Navy As 1st West European Navy

[Grand Danois]

Sea Harriers : It has retired its Sea Harriers but still has GR9 Harriers that are more capable than Sea Harriers in all but beyond visual range air defence.

But is also means there effectively is no fleet defender. Blue Vixen + AIM120A means a lot more protection than the GR9 can offer.

However, let's not make mistakes when comparing FREMM frigates with older Type 23 frigates. FREMM are 140-m 5700-t multi-purpose large frigates capable of launching 32 VL-SAM up to 30km, or just as many land-attack missiles 350km away, without forgetting full ASW equipment and 2 medium-to-heavy helicopters. T23 UK frigates have 10-km range VL Seawolf SAM missiles and 8 130-km harpoon SSMs and ASW equipment with 2 smaller helos. No match whatsoever even from a radar equipment standpoint, FREMM having EMPAR planar array AEGIS-type radars.

I know I will seem pedantic now.

The FREMM will be EITHER the land attack version OR the ASW version. Not both at the same time. Two of the 17 FREMMs ordered by France will be converted to the AAW role to replace the two cancelled Horizons. [EDIT]: The French are toying with the idea of either converting two FREMMs when the 2nd carrier comes around or do two newbuilds.

The Scalp Navale (naval variant of Scalp EG) is supposed to have a range of 1200km.

Cheers

 

[Mercenary]

Royal Navy's Superiority

The French may have more 'hulls' in the water than the Brits, but electronics and weaponary the British Navy is superior.

The French Navy's Destroyers, and Frigates are still armed with the much shorter range Exocet anti-ship missile (40-miles) compared to the Royal Navy fielding the 80+ mile Harpoon ASM.

The French have more purpose built 'stealth' designed warships but they are poorly armed. The Lafayette class for instance was specifically designed from the hull up for stealth whereas the Royal Navy's Type 23 Duke class Frigates are built only with moderate stealth in the upper structures around the bridge.

However the French stealth Frigates have a very limited number of SAM's (just one 8-cell VLS for Aster 15) and those short range Exocets, the latter of which has been around for twenty some years now. The Royal Navy's Duke class Frigates are each armed with a 32-cell VLS for Sea Wolf SAM. A modern Western Navy has to field Warships to defend against saturation missile attacks. Eight SAM's don't cut it...period.

The French have a tradition of not buying foreign weapons and electronics if they can help it. For instance, the French A.F.'s strategic nuclear weapon capable MIRAGE 2000N's don't use GPS for navigation because they don't want to rely on another nation (U.S.A.). Source - WORLD AIR POWER JOURNAL - (Ask and I'll provide what issue - on my shelf here)

Another example is the French Navy Warships are notarmed with a GUN Close In Weapon's System which is odd to say the least, but also dumb for a modern warship in this time. The Sadral Sextuple launcher for Mistal SAM is pretty common but it can't take the place of a much more versatile GUN CIWS like the Royal Navy's useage of 30mm GoalKeeper or 20mm Phalanx.

Finally the British Navy is reputed to be Thee best manned Submarines in the world today, yes man for man they beat the USN.

The British are more experienced and probably train more for Sea Warfare scenerio's than the French Navy do.

 

[nuke_em]

if we come on the subject of an aircraft carrieer france is the only nation that has a nuclear powered aircraft carrier after the United States,
from wikipedia:
She will remain the largest and most powerful European aircraft carrier at least until the introduction of the United Kingdom's future carriers or any upgrade of the Russian Kuznetsov, and is the world's only non-American nuclear carrier.
CHARLES DE GAULLE
But number play a great role here the Royal navy has many more aircraft carriers than the frebch navy does so its range and capabilities are much superior of that of the french. For years the royal navy has ruled the seas of the whole world and with it sophistication i still will. Britain still relies on its navy more than anything else.

 

[contedicavour]

The Charles de Gaulle

Indeed, France is the only country (besides the US) with a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, but does that make much difference ?
Even if the CVN does not need to replenish fuel and can continue to sail for years, its seamen, its aircrafts, its escorts cannot. So I don't think the nuclear propulsion should be taken into account when comparing aircraft carriers.
Let's look at the aircrafts available aboard. The De Gaulle can carry 40 Rafale or Super Etendard jets and a few support helicopters. For the moment the French Navy only has 1 squadron (approx 12 planes) of Rafale with air-to-air capability only. The Super Etendard are old sub-sonic planes that are very good at attacking enemy ships with poor AAW and CIWS, but that are obsolete when it comes to attacking highly defended ships or land targets.
Even when the De Gaulle will have its full complement of Rafales (60 in all will be produced, if money if found, for the 2 carriers the French Navy is supposed to have), it will be a powerful carrier but still only half as much as a US carrier (80 F-18E/F) and only slightly more so than an Ark Royal (if it still had its Sea Harriers).

cheers

 

[KAPITAIN]

Whats more if the french navy doesnt keep paying back her debt to the shipyard for it, then the shipyard can claim it back and even seel it on.

Before you all say its not possible, take a look at what happend with the submarines gepard and i think it was tula, they were snatched back from the company that refitted them, because the government didnt pay its bills.

As for more hulls in the water, yes the french navy does have more hulls but it doesnt train as often, nor deploy as much, so they lack that area and weapons electronics too.

 

[mark22w]

if we come on the subject of an aircraft carrieer france is the only nation that has a nuclear powered aircraft carrier after the United States...

Interesting to note the French Navy isn't looking at a second nuclear powered carrier which speaks volumes.. and that was true before they elected to consider the British CVF platform

 

[Big-E]

Interesting to note the French Navy isn't looking at a second nuclear powered carrier which speaks volumes.. and that was true before they elected to consider the British CVF platform

I don't see what the point of having 1 nuclear carrier is anyway. She spends more time in refit than deployment thus negating the whole point of being nuclear.

 

[mark22w]

Agreed. To be fair France never intended to deploy a single carrier, and after it's bitter experience with CDG it's second (much delayed) carrier looks to non nuclear power. Interesting to speculate how long it is intended to keep CDG in service when the anglo/french CVF's are targeted for '50 years' service... Any takers for a low mileage nuclear carrier?

 

[overlander]

british defence policy is not clear

not to mention the reductions in the submarine force, britain had 12 ssn swiftsure and trafalgar classes, now it has only 8 or 9 and reducing numbers, i don,t see very clear that britain built and maintain operationally 2 medium-big size 60000 tons carriers when now in 2006 is only maintaining 1 operational (hms invincible decommissioned is in reserve until 2010, hms ark royal is in long refit and only hms illustrious is currently operational) so if they now are able to maintain only one carrier with a crew of 1100 and 20 fighters and helicopters could someone to explain how the royal navy will be able to maintain totally operational 2 cvf,s of 60000 tonnes and 40 fighters and helicopters ??? , a crew of 1500 each, i will believe when i see them saling operationally together, i think that britain will built only ONE cvf, british politicians has defence in the botton of its priorities, both conservative and labour parties, as demostrated in the heavy reductions that the british armed forces have suffered from the sixties, by far if you see in overall numbers and capacities the british have had the bigget reductions in defence numbers in the 3 services compared with france and usa, only russia after collapse of soviet union suffered heaviest cuts that the uk.

 

[KAPITAIN]

Britian must build two the contracts states they must build two or face penalties, so they have to build two no matter what.

As for the submarines, the traffies will be here for a few years and theres 6 planned astutes so that would bring the numbers back to around 13 SSNs also on plans are the vangaurd replacements.

As for todays fleet its rather a mess.

 

[contedicavour]

the future of the British armed forces...

I guess the UK needs another experience of the kind of the Falklands in 1982 to remind them of the role of a powerful navy. To be fair, the last conflicts were all land or air-focused (both Iraq wars, Bosnia and Serbia, not to mention Afghanistan). On a more positive note , 2006 Royal Navy is in a much better shape than 1982 Royal Navy, especially as far as the Marine contingent is concerned.

cheers

 

[mark22w]

Sadly there seems little appreciation that the deployment of UK land forces to the middle east and it's supply thereafter is primarily a maritime effort.

The decision to remove HMS Invincible to reserve doesn't mean it has been made into razor blades just yet; but it is now a war reserve asset. HMS Ark Royal is undertaking a refit to bring it up to a similar 'strike carrier' role as HMS Illustrious - both will soldier on until replaced by the TWO new carriers.

@overlander - IMHO finding an extra 300 crew per ship is not a real issue, and hardly a show stopper when you think of savings in other the types being replaced e.g. the T42 at 290-300 personnel by the T45 with 190-235...

 

[KAPITAIN]

Also take into consideration that just one single type 45 is as powerful as 8 type 42's so even though we will have just 8 of these new destroyers it would be the same as having 64 type 42s.

Also the carriers carry more air craft and more capible aircraft at that, so again it realy does put us as one of the most powerfullest navys on earth.

The american burkes are not even as powerful as the type 45's but thier role is similar.

By 2015 france hasnt realy got any changes on its books, so you will more than likely be seeing the same ships hanging around from the 70's.

Id place bets that india will more than likely buy Charlles de Gaulle eventualy because the french wont be able to maintain or run it for much longer if this buget issue keeps up.
Failing that the shipyard that built it will snatch it back which its more than entitled to do.

Our type 23's are very good submarine hunters thier main role, one type 23 twined with a type 45 would be a strong oponent to any navy, as we saw in the falklands, if it was not for the ship handeling of dumb captains we could have saved alot of ships.

one ship that was twinned with coventry acctualy had lock on an incoming aircraft, but coventry got in the way and was sunk, if it wasnt for that, then that attacking plane would have been destroyed.

the type 909 radar system still remains a very effective radar system, infact the type 909 can guide just about any missile.


Exocet again is a nice missile its anglo french it can be fired from our ships the broadswords that is and with adaptions it can be fitted to type 23's and type 42's, and can also be can launched from our SSN / SSBN subamarines, we also have in place air craft that can also deliver this weapons, but we prefer the longer range harpoons.

 

[Big-E]

The american burkes are not even as powerful as the type 45's

If your going to say this you better back it up with some evidence.:cop

 

[KAPITAIN]

Well the burkes tole is mainly anti surface warfare it carrys a large bank of TASM / TLAM which is its secondary role.

"Arleigh Burke vessels are being fitted with the Evolved Seasparrow Missile (ESSM), developed by Raytheon. ESSM is an advanced ship self-defence missile for use against anti-ship missiles. In July 2002, the first ESSM sea launch was carried out by Flight IIA vessel, USS Shoup. The missile was launched from the Mk 41 VLS and the Aegis AN/SPY-1D radar successfully guided the missile to destroy the target. ESSM passed US Navy Operational Testing & Evaluation (OPEVAL) in September 2003 and entered full rate production in March 2004."

So it only has Anti ship and land attack role as its main area of operation, the burkes are powerful infact i quite like them they do look dam sexy, but the AAW is for defence only unlike the type 45 which is built for a primary role of AAW this is what i was meaning i think i got it confuse again.

Source http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/burke/

 

[Grand Danois]

The Type 45 will probably outperform the Burke in the AAW aspect as a stand-alone system comparison. This is due to its specifications and assumes the Type 45 gets the Aster30. The Burke primarily uses the SM-2 for area air defence.

However, the US doctrine of a systems of systems approach stresses the use of offboard sensors, CEC and battlespace management. This means that a platform like the E2C Hawkeye becomes part of the equation and makes it far more efficient than the hardware of the ship alone suggests.

There are also differences wrt propulsion and much more. All in all a comparison perhaps deserving of a seperate thread.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Well the burkes tole is mainly anti surface warfare it carrys a large bank of TASM / TLAM which is its secondary role.

"Arleigh Burke vessels are being fitted with the Evolved Seasparrow Missile (ESSM), developed by Raytheon. ESSM is an advanced ship self-defence missile for use against anti-ship missiles. In July 2002, the first ESSM sea launch was carried out by Flight IIA vessel, USS Shoup. The missile was launched from the Mk 41 VLS and the Aegis AN/SPY-1D radar successfully guided the missile to destroy the target. ESSM passed US Navy Operational Testing & Evaluation (OPEVAL) in September 2003 and entered full rate production in March 2004."

So it only has Anti ship and land attack role as its main area of operation, the burkes are powerful infact i quite like them they do look dam sexy, but the AAW is for defence only unlike the type 45 which is built for a primary role of AAW this is what i was meaning i think i got it confuse again.

Source http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/burke/

I don't think that's right, the Burke's also carry the SM-2 and will carry the SM-3, they are true multipurpose, the ESSM is for close protection. The Tomahawk is also carried. I think there are 96 VLS tubes in a IIa, and the load can be mixed and matched to a mission.

 

[Big-E]

I don't think that's right, the Burke's also carry the SM-2 and will carry the SM-3, they are true multipurpose, the ESSM is for close protection. The Tomahawk is also carried. I think there are 96 VLS tubes in a IIa, and the load can be mixed and matched to a mission.

Not only are you right but these folks seem to forget that the Standard missile can be used as an anti-ship weapon as well. SM-2 has much greater range than the Aster 30. The new ESSM has greater range the the Aster 15. The SM-3 can shoot down ballistic missles. If she wants she can load 96 TLAMS and TSSMs The flight IIA has a bigger gun. 45 can only carry one helicpoter, IIA can carry two. The 45 only has a 48 cell VLS, how can you even compare that to 96? The 45 shouldn't even be classified as a destroyer but as a frigate. They are in two different classes.

 

[Grand Danois]

Not only are you right but these folks seem to forget that the Standard missile can be used as an anti-ship weapon as well. SM-2 has much greater range than the Aster 30. The new ESSM has greater range the the Aster 15. The SM-3 can shoot down ballistic missles. If she wants she can load 96 TLAMS and TSSMs The flight IIA has a bigger gun. 45 can only carry one helicpoter, IIA can carry two. The 45 only has a 48 cell VLS, how can you even compare that to 96? The 45 shouldn't even be classified as a destroyer but as a frigate. They are in two different classes.

You're saying "folks," so I guess it was meant for me too. If you take a look at my post you'll se I'm adressing the AAW mission and not the multimission capability which we happen to agree on . So nothing was forgotten. it was left out on purpose as it was irrelevant to the matter at hand.

The RN uses the term "Destroyer" to describe the inherent mission (AAW) ship, not the properties of the ship.

Cheers

 

[Big-E]

You're saying "folks," so I guess it was meant for me too. If you take a look at my post you'll se I'm adressing the AAW mission and not the multimission capability which we happen to agree on . So nothing was forgotten. it was left out on purpose as it was irrelevant to the matter at hand.

The RN uses the term "Destroyer" to describe the inherent mission (AAW) ship, not the properties of the ship.

Cheers

This whole convo was brought on by the statement 45s are more powerful than ABs. This means in every aspect of firepower and capabilities. You said that 45s can beat the ABs in AAW as a stand alone system. I disagree, the Aster 30 has nowhere near the range of the SM-2. I have seen them engage targets at over 80nm, not km. Does PAAM system have better range than the SPY-2 radar, I doubt it since it since the HPD S/C band is used for detecting ballistic missiles. The PAAMS uses D band which is a good all around system but not as powerful.