French navy now bigger than British

[Jon_in_london]

The requirement for a large navy is driven by the need to be able to project force over a long distance. Given that airpower seems to be the way to achieve that these days and that most scuffles would appear to be at our front door globally speaking you could argue that the preservation of a large navy is purely a matter of national prestige.

Is this a good multi-billion £ investment if it's just a matter of maintaining a country's ego ?

Spend the money on planes and missiles instead - or perhaps maybe welfare, education and the Health Service.

Or maybe reduce my taxes

Well I was being a bit sarcastic in my first post on this thread.
The purpose of having a very large Royal Navy was to protect our empire. Now that the empire is no longer, there is no longer a need to have such a vast navy.

However, the navy we have at the moment is not vast. It is way smaller than the US's and probably smaller than China, Russia and even India's. And we are still an island nation with around 90% of all our imports (upon which we depend) arriving by sea. I would therefore argue that it is still important to maintian a significant fleet of frigates and destroyers.

In addition, the aircraft carrier remains the only method for projecting credible military power to any part of the globe. You simply cant do that with only aircraft flying from the UK.
Missiles are good for fighting wars with, but you need destroyers or submarines to launch 'em.

While it may be nice to say "there isnt any real threat of someone invading the UK in the forseeable future" so lets spend the money on housing and education etc... instead. However, bear in mind this is exactly what people were saying in 1914, round about same time Archduke Ferdinand got his second ar!sehole.

 

[richardm]

Was that industry profitable though?

Yeah. Well, kind of Globally, shipping suffered badly from the oil crisis in the 1970s, with demand for new ships collapsing as a result. Some governments chose to subsidise their shipyards to help them weather the storm; this was done in Britain too in the mid 70s when British Shipbuilding was formed to bring all the shipyards under a subsidised wing. Until the 80s, when the Thatcher government re-privatised them and they started going to the wall instead. (Even under subsidy the number of yards and workers was falling, to be fair).

Point is, that once the British shipyards could produce everything from the keel to the taps in the cabin. Now the shipping slump has finished, and lovely new boats are being built everywhere else, but there is almost nobody left in Britain to profit from the upturn.

[Finish with full chorus of Land of Hope and Glory]

 

[richardm]

Missiles are good for fighting wars with, but you need destroyers or submarines to launch 'em.

Yes indeed. And just look what happened to the RAF (and, indeed, the British aircraft industry) because some governmental big-wig reckoned that manned aircraft would be made obsolete by missiles. Tsk.

(And that was a Labour government too, God help us)

 

[Doubt]

Let me see if I understand this.

A new British carrier is on order, but the French are going to build it? Have you read anything about the current French carrier? The flight deck is too short for the planes and the reactor is under powered for the size of the ship. Oh well. At least if it does not work, you will know who to blame for it.

I am curious as to which company will build it. Alstom, who built the Queen Mary 2, is an interesting company. In addition to ship construction they build propulsion systems used by the US navy. They also supply industrial automation to my company.

FYI, shore based aircraft are a potentially bigger threat to a navy than an aircraft carrier. Large aircraft can carry many anti ship missiles anywhere on the planet thanks to in-flight refueling. For example, one B-52 can carry 20 harpoon anti-ship missiles. A dozen B-52’s can deliver a greater number of harpoons than all of the 85+ aircraft on a US carrier put together. The Russians are also have a history of putting large, fast moving anti ship missiles on old planes.

Unfortunately, Britain gave up its large bombers a long time ago.

 

[richardm]

Unfortunately, Britain gave up its large bombers a long time ago.

Indeed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this was because at one point it was held that the only role of a large bomber was to deliver a nuclear warhead - something eventually deemed better done by a missile launched from a submarine.

Since then the world has found some great new uses for heavy bombers, but too late for us.

 

[Jon_in_london]

A new British carrier is on order, but the French are going to build it? Have you read anything about the current French carrier? The flight deck is too short for the planes and the reactor is under powered for the size of the ship. Oh well. At least if it does not work, you will know who to blame for it.

Yes its on order, it is a French design (Thales) but to be built by BAe.

Worringly, the aircraft its supposed to be carrying doesnt yet exist, so far as I know.

 

[Ed]

Damnit! How are we going to keep the froggies flithy hands off our massive far-flung overseas empire now?!

What do the French want a navy for anyway? Since being sunk by the RN at Trafalgar, the only thing the French navy has done is to get sunk at Mers-el-Kébir by the er..... the RN!

{they are still a bit sore about that one, cant think why}

Didn't they sink their own Navy at Brest?

 

[richardm]

Didn't they sink their own Navy at Brest?

Saves time and effort

 

[Jon_in_london]

FYI, shore based aircraft are a potentially bigger threat to a navy than an aircraft carrier. Large aircraft can carry many anti ship missiles anywhere on the planet thanks to in-flight refueling. For example, one B-52 can carry 20 harpoon anti-ship missiles. A dozen B-52’s can deliver a greater number of harpoons than all of the 85+ aircraft on a US carrier put together. The Russians are also have a history of putting large, fast moving anti ship missiles on old planes.

True but a dozen B-52s are easily shot down by a carrier-based fighter wing long before they can even think about a harpoon strike. Something like a Tornado with an antishipping missile is more likely to get through but its not really practical for a tornado squadron from Norfolk to carry out strikes against a fleet operating in the middle of the pacific.

Also large bombers are horrendously expensive.

 

[Flo]

Didn't they sink their own Navy at Brest?

No, Toulon. Uncle Gaston never recovered ...

Brest is where our latest carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, recently had some problems at launching (propellers and a lot of other minor nuisances like too short landing strips, etc.).

Which makes me think that if we (the French) had had the chance to build boats for the British, our superiority on the waves would (at last) be established over Perfid Albion. Damn that rag, The Sun

 

[egslim]

The trouble with decreasing military spending is that it has long term effects. Low rank military personel can be trained in something like a year, but you also need a sufficiëntly large core of experienced people for an army to be effective.
Then there is weapons development. To design a modern fighter, ship or tank takes at least 10 years.
This means that it is only safe to start cutting costs on defence when it is certain you won't be having any serious war for at least 10 years. Of course, with a weaker military the chance of being attacked increases...

Since mostpoiticians are primarily concerned with their reëlection within 4 years, they usually aren't interested in longer terms...

 

[Doubt]

True but a dozen B-52s are easily shot down by a carrier-based fighter wing long before they can even think about a harpoon strike. Something like a Tornado with an antishipping missile is more likely to get through but its not really practical for a tornado squadron from Norfolk to carry out strikes against a fleet operating in the middle of the pacific.

Also large bombers are horrendously expensive.

Not quite that simple. Harpoons have a range of around 67 miles. In order to intercept the planes, you have to have a very good early warning system. Also the escort ships need to be spread out to deal with other threats such as subs.

In the case of the US, the early warning system is the E2C Hawkeye. Even though it is a conversion of an old sub hunter, it costs as much as a frigate. Each carrier has 4 of them to ensure round the clock coverage. Take into account the other planes and ships needed to support a carrier battle group and those old bombers start looking cheap by comparison.

Scenario for an unescorted attack:

(The following is typical of results found via wargaming with navel miniatures using the rules from the game “Harpoon”).

Have the bombers approach from several different directions at low altitude and attack the escorts. That will give them more stand off range. Even if you have a good early warning system you won’t know what is coming before the B-52’s are 300 miles out. That gives the carrier about ½ an hour to respond before the bombers launch. The French carriers hold around 40 planes. Normally only about 12 will be fighters. Not all 12 will be ready and available in time for such an attack. If “round the clock” combat air patrol is to be maintained, only about 4 will be in the air at any one time.

On a good day for the carrier, 4 working fighters will get 8 out of 12 bombers. The remaining 4 planes launch 80 anti-ship missiles. If the good luck continues for the defender, 120 anti aircraft missiles will be used knock down the incoming strike. About the only way to coordinate that defense is with something like the US agies (spelling?) system, which is also hugely expensive. If all goes well, all the escorts survive, the carrier was not yet targeted, but the escorts magazines are empty.

About 12 hours later, another group bombers show up and finish the job. The escorts are either still running around with empty magazines or are unavailable because they are being replenished.

On a very bad day, the sea is too messy to launch and recover aircraft. The Bombers fly in at several thousand feet and launch at their leisure.

Other options involve using diversions and jamming aircraft. One diversion is to send in one sub to launch a few anti-ship versions of the tomahawk cruise missiles first to draw off the fighters before the bombers close in on the target. Escort fighters are also an option with in flight refueling, but the fighter pilots would be a bit tired if the flight is long.

This scenario is much more fun with Russian planes. Their missiles from the ‘80s have a range of 250 miles and move at mach 3. In most cases, they only carry one per plane, but the early warning response time is very, very short.

 

[Skeptic]

Considering the experience with WWII, the headline would be more accurate if it said "future German Navy now bigger than Britian's".

 

[DaChew]

Why is it that all of you anti-French Navy people only focus on the defeats and never mention the victories?
The sinking of GreenPeace's Rainbow Warrior is easily France's greatest naval victory of the 20th century. Not only was it a decisive and completely one-sided battle, it was totally hilarious. I mean, come on. GreenPeace tries to disrupt France's nuclear bomb tests by purposing sailing into the test area so they blow the bottom out of the Rainbow Warrior using (snicker) French Frogmen? How can anyone not remember that?