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

[overlander]

after the recent cuts of the british ministry of defence (alias ministry of cuts), the french navy has clearly replaced royal navy as the most powerful navy in western europe, here some examples.

ROYAL NAVY- paid off in reserve of carrier hms invincible, withdrawal of the sea harriers, reductions in escrots numbers from 35 in 1996 to 25 in 2006, only one carrier hms illustrious in active service, delays in construction of astute class submarines, reductions from planned 12 type 45 new destroyers to only 6, delays and uncertain future of construction of new cvf carriers from planned in service date of 2012- 2015 to now 2016 as a minimum and maybe only one will be now built, hms queen elizabeth, delays in the project studies of replacements for type 22 and 23, etc


FRENCH NAVY- NEW POWERFUL MISTRAL CLASS LHD,S MISTRAL AND TONNERRE BEING ACCEPTED IN ONE YEAR, ORDERS OF AT LEAST NEW 17 NEW ESCORTS, strong commitments to build the second carrier, orders of more rafale fighters for the charles de gaulle carrier, future orders of new auxiliary ships, etc.

with all these comparisons it,s obvious that the royal navy is no longer the most polerful navy in europe but the problem is that if britis mod follows this way in another 10 years the british navy will be in the same scale of power as the italian and spanish navies, certainly if things not chenge drastically in 10 yeras it will be a second division navy

[Grand Danois]

ROYAL NAVY- paid off in reserve of carrier hms invincible, withdrawal of the sea harriers, reductions in escrots numbers from 35 in 1996 to 25 in 2006, only one carrier hms illustrious in active service, delays in construction of astute class submarines, reductions from planned 12 type 45 new destroyers to only 6, delays and uncertain future of construction of new cvf carriers from planned in service date of 2012- 2015 to now 2016 as a minimum and maybe only one will be now built, hms queen elizabeth, delays in the project studies of replacements for type 22 and 23, etc

I would say the French Navy's equivalent to the RN Type 45 is the Horizons and not the FREMM's. The French Navy will only receive 2 Horizons vs the 6 Type 45's for RN.

And the French commitment to a second carrier has turned into a CVF derivative. So it looks as if the UK and France will build their carriers as a joint programme.

But IMV there certainly is a gap in aviation wrt the Sea Harriers.

FRENCH NAVY- NEW POWERFUL MISTRAL CLASS LHD,S MISTRAL AND TONNERRE BEING ACCEPTED IN ONE YEAR, ORDERS OF AT LEAST NEW 17 NEW ESCORTS, strong commitments to build the second carrier, orders of more rafale fighters for the charles de gaulle carrier, future orders of new auxiliary ships, etc.

The RN also has the HMS Ocean and the under construction RFA Bays.

with all these comparisons it,s obvious that the royal navy is no longer the most polerful navy in europe but the problem is that if britis mod follows this way in another 10 years the british navy will be in the same scale of power as the italian and spanish navies, certainly if things not chenge drastically in 10 yeras it will be a second division navy

I don't think having a bigger navy than France is an objective for the RN.

Cheers

:cool:

[Oliver Ra]

The unfortunate thing is that the escort units and the A/A Sea Harriers have taken a hit in numbers to pay for the new aircraft carriers,which when finally authorised will be a massive upgrade in capability.

The amphibious units have never been stronger, the only thing that has had any money spent on, though their Air Lift Capabitity is a factor + the lack of second LPH.

The Navy has taken major budget hits from the army & air force from operations in Iraq & Afganistan!!

Short term hits for hopfully long term gains.

[Big-E]

I think that the French navy has been stronger than the RN for some time. 3 ski jump carriers for Harriers was no match for the fixed wing carriers of the French fleet. Now that they are down to one it is no contest. If the UK doesn't go ahead and build three new carriers and the projected 12 45 type destoyers, they will be reduced to a 3rd tier navy as India and China take her place (hate to see that happen).

[mark22w]

FRENCH NAVY- NEW POWERFUL MISTRAL CLASS LHD,S MISTRAL AND TONNERRE BEING ACCEPTED IN ONE YEAR, ORDERS OF AT LEAST NEW 17 NEW ESCORTS, strong commitments to build the second carrier, orders of more rafale fighters for the charles de gaulle carrier, future orders of new auxiliary ships, etc.


Not sure how the new Mistral LHDs are 'powerful' yet no mention for the RN of two not so old LPDs (HM ships Albion and Bulwark); one LPH HMS Ocean; four LSDs of the Bay class; and, six RoRo ships all in the amphib role?

As to the carriers I think we've been here before. The RN CVF (two still planned) is now the preferred option for France for its second carrer - and a more capable carrier than CDG...

To be honest I don't think numbers alone decide which is more powerful than the next however having said that share concerns with others over escort numbers. I think it fair to say the RN remains the benchmark for a number of nations and don't fear it slipping as far down league tables as you suggest. IMHO of course. The RN is enduring some painful cuts but it should be in far better shape in five to ten years, as will the French Navy... Nothing to match either in Western Europe...

[XEROX]

Looking at future developments, the royal navy can regard itself as powerful naval force. The future submarine fleet will consist of Astute class boats, said to be very similar with U.S Virginia class submarines, France hasn’t got anything close, the future fleet arm will consist of stealthy F/A-35, superior to the Rafale.

[Big-E]

Looking at future developments, the royal navy can regard itself as powerful naval force. The future submarine fleet will consist of Astute class boats, said to be very similar with U.S Virginia class submarines, France hasn’t got anything close, the future fleet arm will consist of stealthy F/A-35, superior to the Rafale.

I thought the UK was considering dropping out of the JSF program. If the US doesn't waive the technology upgrades transfer they are going to drop out of the program due to over budget costs. This will leave a big question mark on who has the best naval fighter.

[XEROX]

I thought the UK was considering dropping out of the JSF program. If the US doesn't waive the technology upgrades transfer they are going to drop out of the program due to over budget costs. This will leave a big question mark on who has the best naval fighter.

Personally i think its a ploy to get the best possible deal for Britain, We wanted the source codes, i read somewhere that the top brass wanted some stealth tech as well.

I dont think costs much of an issue

[mark22w]

I thought the UK was considering dropping out of the JSF program. If the US doesn't waive the technology upgrades transfer they are going to drop out of the program due to over budget costs. This will leave a big question mark on who has the best naval fighter.

Not sure there is a real alternative in terms of a carrier based aircraft as a navalised Typhoon isn't going to fly - interesting to speculate if the Rafale could be an option. France takes a UK carrier design, the RN a French fighter..? Unlikely I guess.

Truth be told it sounds like old fashioned haggling to me as the UK investment in this programme (JSF) is significant. 2Bn is a lot of money in any ones book.

[Big-E]

Not sure there is a real alternative in terms of a carrier based aircraft as a navalised Typhoon isn't going to fly - interesting to speculate if the Rafale could be an option. France takes a UK carrier design, the RN a French fighter..? Unlikely I guess.

Truth be told it sounds like old fashioned haggling to me as the UK investment in this programme (JSF) is significant. 2Bn is a lot of money in any ones book.

Yeah, 2B is a huge investment. I couldn't believe that the UK would do away with a 5th Generation fighter with that much invested over who does the software upgrades. I had to see the press release to believe it.

[mark22w]

Yeah, 2B is a huge investment. I couldn't believe that the UK would do away with a 5th Generation fighter with that much invested over who does the software upgrades. I had to see the press release to believe it.

2B without access might be viewed as questionable at the very least... I'd rather see the RN with the CTOL version with capabilty to cross deck aircraft with the USN, but that's a seperate issue ;)

[Oliver Ra]

It really depends on how we define powerful,

The French navy at the moment has more in number of escorts but compare say a Type 22 Batch 3 Class Frigate to a La Fayette Class Frigates size, sensors, armarments, Helicopters etc The Royal Navy unit wins hands down.

The French Navy new class FREMM frigates is a 17 ship 5,500 ton class built with the Italian Navy, is where the French Navy has more escort on paper than the Royal Navy.

The Class is a mix of Land Attack/Special forces/UAV Launch and Anti Sumarine working in the Litteriol Warfare enviroment.

More a Corvette with a heavy punch than the Type 23 frigate Class which has multi capabilities and per ton traditionaly is a destroyer size!!

The Horizon Class/Type 45 which in both Fleets has dropped in numbers
France to 2 & the U.K To 8/6 both Classes are about the same in capability.

Though the mid to later units of the Type 45 are likley to have Tomahawk Land attack cabability,Harpoon Anti Ship missiles, point defence capability.

French units frigates/corvettes are larger in number but pound for pound compared to the british units they are weaker in most areas and are less multi faceted.

[mark22w]

It really depends on how we define powerful,

The French navy at the moment has more in number of escorts but compare say a Type 22 Batch 3 Class Frigate to a La Fayette Class Frigates size, sensors, armarments, Helicopters etc The Royal Navy unit wins hands down.

The French Navy new class FREMM frigates is a 17 ship 5,500 ton class built with the Italian Navy, is where the French Navy has more escort on paper than the Royal Navy.

The Class is a mix of Land Attack/Special forces/UAV Launch and Anti Sumarine working in the Litteriol Warfare enviroment.

More a Corvette with a heavy punch than the Type 23 frigate Class which has multi capabilities and per ton traditionaly is a destroyer size!!

The Horizon Class/Type 45 which in both Fleets has dropped in numbers
France to 2 & the U.K To 8/6 both Classes are about the same in capability.

Though the mid to later units of the Type 45 are likley to have Tomahawk Land attack cabability,Harpoon Anti Ship missiles, point defence capability.

French units frigates/corvettes are larger in number but pound for pound compared to the british units they are weaker in most areas and are less multi faceted.

Agreed. Hope you are right on Land attack for the T45's..

[Oliver Ra]

2B without access might be viewed as questionable at the very least... I'd rather see the RN with the CTOL version with capabilty to cross deck aircraft with the USN, but that's a seperate issue ;)

Completly Agree

Having to pay that kind of money with out source codes to adapt new weapons systems is maddness.

As a Level one partner you would expect consultation and some independance

As Australia,Norway and the other Partner nations all seem to be getting on the band wagon now, there will be more pressure.

But for the U.k I think this might become the straw that breaks the camels back as there was no consultation on the cancelation of the second engine.

[rebellious]

I think that the French navy has been stronger than the RN for some time. 3 ski jump carriers for Harriers was no match for the fixed wing carriers of the French fleet. Now that they are down to one it is no contest. If the UK doesn't go ahead and build three new carriers and the projected 12 45 type destoyers, they will be reduced to a 3rd tier navy as India and China take her place (hate to see that happen).

why would you hate to see that happen?

[Big-E]

why would you hate to see that happen?

I am a Naval Historian who has great respect for the long and distinguished history of the Royal Navy. From naval exercises I have seen while on board the Big-E they are a capable fleet. I was excited when they announced plans to build three carriers. Now it looks like this won't happen. I don't think an island nation whose very existence depends on control of the seas can do without a powerful fleet. It just means the US will have to pick up more slack on the international stage.

[mark22w]

I was excited when they announced plans to build three carriers. Now it looks like this won't happen..

As I understand it the plan is still to procure two CVF's (HM Ships Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales) but never three. Yes, procurement takes an inordinate period of time in the UK but as with the T45s and even the first Astute class SSN it finally gets there... I believe the French decision to share in funding this current phase is positive and the result will be three similar 65,000T carriers albeit 2 x RN and 1 x French Navy.

I hope by the end of this year we will finally know for sure. :hitwall

[KAPITAIN]

In a nut shell, the french navy do not deploy thier ships or submarines like the british, not only that thier ships are quite obsolete in comparision to the british (not including lafayette).

French navy is still paying for the charlles de gaulle air craft carrier fiasco there was ment to be two but only one was made, not only that there is no longer any rent money coming in from the carriers lent out to brazil.

Most of the ships the d'estine de overs cassard and what not were built mid 70's early 80's and are showing thier age (saw quite a few of them a while back).

The french navy has very few submarines far fewer than britian and also they dont deploy as much, france may have a slightly bigger navy but i wouldnt doubt that britian could take it on, and now we have the type 45's coming into play its going to be mayhem if they ever did try (we all know they wont this is off wall ok)

France has a good strong navy yes but in all i think they should scrap 90% of it and start again.

[harryriedl]

france has always had more numbers than the uk almost from th the nepoliconic era onwards they have had more numbers with traditianal less capabilitly and arn't reffited as afton. the uk has more tonage than france [not such mind]

[contedicavour]

Dear all,

no, the Royal Navy remains more powerful than any other in Europe.
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.
SSNs : The UK still has approx 10 and 8 when Astutes will all be operational. These are larger and better equipped than the Rubis or future Barracuda designs.
Escorts : 25 destroyers and frigates for the UK, 19 for France.

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.

cheers

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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... :confused:

[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?:confused: 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?:confused: 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.

[Grand Danois]

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.

The reason I pointed out that the force of the Type 45 is primarily as an AAW destroyer was precisly because of the misconception that it was a multimission destroyer.

This is also why I compared on basis of the relevant mission.

The threat to ships today is coordinated attacks of sea skimming cruise missiles. They are masked by the curvature of the Earth.

Radar
SAMPSON is the MFR radar used for Type 45. It is E/F not D. S-1850 volume search is S [EDIT: That's a D in NATO terminology]. Should be optimal vs LO, but that of course depends on tuning of target.

SAMPSON is placed higher up on a sensor mast. Better line of sight and can engage sea skimming cruise missiles further away.

SAMPSON is an AESA. This means lower false alarm rates, better clutter rejection, reinterrogation of suspect return. Good vs LO.

As for range of radars, S-1850 does TBMD too. This means exoatmospheric. Was tested in February with SM-3.

Missiles
As shown, range of missile matters not if limited by detection range of radar.

Aster most likely to have best maneuverability. PIF PAF.

Ripple fire. Good vs massed missile attacks.

IIRC PAAMS can engage more targets at the same time. Good vs massed missile attacks.

Highly balanced and specced, the Type 45 is... ;)

Cheers

:)

[contedicavour]

Sorry Big-E but from what I've seen on all publications Aster 30 is perfectly comparable with the SM-2 (may be not the SM-2 III however) in terms of range. Besides, once your missile can shoot down a plane 100km away, you're very unlikely to use it to its full range until the target has been perfectly identified. Think of what happened to the USS Vincennes when it shot down an Iranian civilian airliner by mistake in the '90s.

On the subject of who has the better destroyer... the Burkes are pure AAW ships or can launch Tomahawks but if somebody else targets them after the launch. Most Burkes (Flight I) doesn't even have a hangar for helos. T45 DDGs are already more multifunctional, but due to budget reasons ASW is reduced to the minimum. I'm not even sure T45 will have SSMs at all. If one looks for a fully multifunctional though primarily AAW destroyer, the best answer is probably the Horizons of France and Italy. Here's why :
> 48 VLS for Aster 30
> space for another 32 VLS to be istalled if needed
> still 8 good launchers (not VLS) for Teseo-3 SSMs (200+ km range) on the
Italian ships, or for Milas ASW missiles
> strong ASW capabilities, including VDS sonar and the milas ASW missiles
> huge hangar for 2 NH-90 medium helos, and normally the heavy EH-101
can be carried aboard as well for long-range AEW, ASUW or ASW.
Last but not least, for those still looking at sizes, we're talking 152 metre-long 7,800 ton ships, i.e. comparable to the Burkes and closer to 1970s cruisers than to a frigate.

cheers

[contedicavour]

Let's not exaggerate either on how short French Naval budgets are... even suggesting that the De Gaulle could be sold to India or anybody else is crazy once you know the French even a bit...
The De Gaulle is a matter of national pride, almost a symbol of the nation, and for all its faults it is the core of the Navy. In France they'd rather cut non defense spending or increase taxes than ever consider relinquishing the status a CVN brings to the country.
True, there will be only 2 Horizon DDGs, however let's not forget the 4 SSBNs which are shining new, the 6 SSNs to be replaced by 6 Barracuda (vs 8 for the UK's Astute), 4 LPD/LPH of generous size, and the fact that France is replacing almost one-to-one small & obsolete "avisos" such as the A69 class with 140-m 5600-ton multimission frigates... definitively not negligeable.
This doesn't change my point of view that the Royal Navy remains number one, but let's not downgrading the French one just yet !!! :mad:

cheers

[Big-E]

Sorry Big-E but from what I've seen on all publications Aster 30 is perfectly comparable with the SM-2 (may be not the SM-2 III however) in terms of range. Besides, once your missile can shoot down a plane 100km away, you're very unlikely to use it to its full range until the target has been perfectly identified. Think of what happened to the USS Vincennes when it shot down an Iranian civilian airliner by mistake in the '90s.
Most Burkes (Flight I) doesn't even have a hangar for helos

I meant SM-2 III, I also meant flight IIA, not the older versions. Most of the first flight have undergone upgrades to their hanger decks however. The Vincennes incident can be arrributed to the poor readability of the sensor information. If you have ever seen the CIC of new AEGIS ships this would not happen again.



the Burkes are pure AAW ships or can launch Tomahawks but if somebody else targets them after the launch..T45 DDGs are already more multifunctional, but due to budget reasons ASW is reduced to the minimum. I'm not even sure T45 will have SSMs at all.


The Burke IIAs are not pure AAW ships. They also have extensive ASW and strike capabilties. More so than the 45s for sure. With 45s budget restraints this makes it even more so. The US has the budget to run any VLS package they want, any time they want.

I'm not sure what your implying in the bold print. Are you saying launching TASSMs or TLAMs are vulnerable to being shot down? If so it's not exactly easy to detect a launched Tomahawk.

[contedicavour]

Hello Big E, what I meant in my post above is that - AFAIK - Burkes are splendid destroyers, but their potential is mostly AAW. If they embark Tomahawk missiles, those can be adequately guided and targeted only if the destroyer acts within a system including satellites, AWACS, other ships closer to the target.
I'll try to make myself clearer : Burkes alone are mostly only superb AAW platforms. Burkes within carrier battle groups become multi-role.
Again, to the best of my undestanding, T45s (and Horizons even more) are supposed to be at full potential even when acting alone, AAW, ASW, ASUW, since on this side of the Atlantic we can't take for granted the availability of our much fewer aircraft carrier & battle groups to be around.
As "standalones" Horizon DDGs and T45s are much better multi-role destroyers than Burkes. At least, that's my opinion based on reading naval affairs magazines.

cheers

[Big-E]

Hello Big E, what I meant in my post above is that - AFAIK - Burkes are splendid destroyers, but their potential is mostly AAW. If they embark Tomahawk missiles, those can be adequately guided and targeted only if the destroyer acts within a system including satellites, AWACS, other ships closer to the target.
I'll try to make myself clearer : Burkes alone are mostly only superb AAW platforms. Burkes within carrier battle groups become multi-role.
Again, to the best of my undestanding, T45s (and Horizons even more) are supposed to be at full potential even when acting alone, AAW, ASW, ASUW, since on this side of the Atlantic we can't take for granted the availability of our much fewer aircraft carrier & battle groups to be around.
As "standalones" Horizon DDGs and T45s are much better multi-role destroyers than Burkes. At least, that's my opinion based on reading naval affairs magazines.

cheers

You make the point that they are only superb when they are supported by a CGB or other aircraft but I have seen a two ship AB Flight/IIA SAG perform beautifully in multi-roles with no support. Using their Sea Hawks to extend line of sight give them the ability to ID and engage targets far BVR. Any fighters that try to intercept the helos have a good chance of coming into the AEGIS bubble being shot down before they can engage. Tasking orders for any target within the region can be hit with TASSMs or TLAMs using satellite reconassaince without airsupport. They have plenty of ASW capability, towed array and bow mounted sonars. 2 Sea Hawks. DDG 96 and later ships are receiving the updated 5”/62 cal Mk 45 Mod 4 gun, with the capability to fire guided shells to 63 nm ranges. I think the new ABs can handle themselves pretty well. IMO it fills the roles of AAW, ASW and ASUW better than the 45s. If you can compare 45s capabilities to these systems and show they are better please do b/c I have never seen them in action. I'm not saying I couldn't be wrong but I'm still waiting for the evidence.:D

[contedicavour]

Thks for the experience you shared in your post, Big-E.
Very interesting.

On my side, I haven't myself seen yet anything on the T45 since the 1st isn't operational yet (although you can go to the Royal Navy internet site, they have a video simulating the T45 capabilities).

I have however seen close to La Spezia (one of the 2 major Italian Navy bases) the new Andrea Doria Horizon-class DDG in sea trials. I have posted some pictures in the gallery. The equipment is comparable to the Burke flight IIA you described (AAW with Aster-30 and Aster-15, 48 VLS extendable to 64 if needed, EMPAR planar array and Alenia long-range air search radar, 8 tubes to launch Teseo Mk3 200-km SSMs or MILAS which are ASROC-type ASW missiles, 3 76/62 super-rapido guns with guided CIWS ammunition, and 2 medium-to-heavy NH-90 or EH-101 helos).

Let's wait a couple of years to have T45 and Horizon classes fully operational so that we'll be able to jointly operate with Burke DDGs and then we'll be able to compare ;)

Cheers :)

[KAPITAIN]

When Britain pulled out didnt anyone stop to notice that the type 45 has a remarkable resemblance to the horizon ships?

[Big-E]

When Britain pulled out didnt anyone stop to notice that the type 45 has a remarkable resemblance to the horizon ships?

Well duhhhhhhh, considering they both are based on PAAMS.:dunce