European naval balance - 1989 and 2009

[Jon K]

As the fall of the Berlin Wall approaches it's 20th anniversary I think it could be informative to compare the navies of 1989 with those of 2009. Here's my thoughts before making the tables: Very roughly, RN has been decimated, MN has stayed on the course, many Cold War littoral oriented navies have built up expeditionary capabilities (Norway, Denmark, Germany) and some countries have built up impressively (Spain, Greece Turkey.)

What do others think about this?

[Grim901]

As the fall of the Berlin Wall approaches it's 20th anniversary I think it could be informative to compare the navies of 1989 with those of 2009. Here's my thoughts before making the tables: Very roughly, RN has been decimated, MN has stayed on the course, many Cold War littoral oriented navies have built up expeditionary capabilities (Norway, Denmark, Germany) and some countries have built up impressively (Spain, Greece Turkey.)

What do others think about this?

The RN hasn't been completely decimated, but it has suffered significantly in some areas. The Amphibious capabilities means it is still one of the most powerful blue water navies around, I read somewhere they still have the best power projection capability after the USA. The escort force has taken the brunt of the cutbacks though.

[kato]

Germany hasn't so much built up expeditionary capabilities as concentrated assets (e.g. in logistics), while cutting the fleet ship numbers to about a third (if the NVA is accounted) or half (if only West Germany is considered).

West Germany 1989 -> 2009

15 destroyers and frigates -> 15 frigates (slight increase in tonnage)
40 FAC + 5 subchasers -> 10 FAC + 5 ASUW corvettes
24 SSK -> 11 SSK (tonnage identical)
54 MCMV -> 20 MCMV (inshore units cut)
22 LCU -> 2 LCU (unit cancelled, remainder as auxiliaries)
18 tenders, 2 tankers -> 2 AORs, 6 tenders, 2 tankers

[Jon K]

Germany hasn't so much built up expeditionary capabilities as concentrated assets (e.g. in logistics), while cutting the fleet ship numbers to about a third (if the NVA is accounted) or half (if only West Germany is considered).

On the other hand the current platforms are also much more capable than those of 1989.

Here's rough take on Spanish Navy in 1989 and 2009:

CV: 1 Principe de Asturias (1989 and 2009): 1989 air wing with AV8A, now with AV8B

Frigates: 1989: 5 Baleares FFG, 5 Gearing DD, 2 FFG-7, 2009: 4 Alvaro de Bazan AAW, 6 FFG-7

[MConrads]

Hi,

what I think is interesting is that the Bundesmarine would have also been severly cut even if the Cold War had continued. It was stated quiet openly in the late 80's that force numbers would have to drop by up to 50% in the boat and supply squadrons. The mayor problem for the German navy originated in the fact that most of their equipment was build at the same time and therefor also requiered replacement at the same time. There was also the fear that the navy would loose ground to the army and the air force in the coming budget fights. Both other branches would have needed large sums to finance their own replacement equipment at the same time.

I wonder what the situation would have been like in the other Nato navies.

Best regards.

Germany hasn't so much built up expeditionary capabilities as concentrated assets (e.g. in logistics), while cutting the fleet ship numbers to about a third (if the NVA is accounted) or half (if only West Germany is considered).

West Germany 1989 -> 2009

15 destroyers and frigates -> 15 frigates (slight increase in tonnage)
40 FAC + 5 subchasers -> 10 FAC + 5 ASUW corvettes
24 SSK -> 11 SSK (tonnage identical)
54 MCMV -> 20 MCMV (inshore units cut)
22 LCU -> 2 LCU (unit cancelled, remainder as auxiliaries)
18 tenders, 2 tankers -> 2 AORs, 6 tenders, 2 tankers

[kato]

Well, by the early to mid 80s, the major "reform" already started - with the ordering of modern multipurpose FFGs to replace both WW2-time destroyers and 50s "escort boats" (replacement completed 1990), the considerations of a replacement of the Hamburg class DDs with a modern multi-purpose destroyer (the later F123), the ordering of the new "unitary mine countermeasures hull" (considerably larger than the previous inshore units). What followed that was a simple replacement of the tenders on a 1-for-1 basis for the boat groups, and then some ten years later the retirement of the 60s frigate/destroyer tenders for modern AORs to give some blue-water capability.

A continuing Cold War might very likely have seen a cut of the FAC force in half in the 90s, getting rid of the cheap import Tiger class, but bringing the Albatros to Gepard standard (with RAM instead of the second 76mm); the SSKs would have been replaced over the next 15-20 years by something like the Type 211 TR1600 (cancelled in 1987), likely including a considerable cut in numbers (for three times the tonnage per boat). As auxiliaries go, perhaps the new A404 class would have been extended to 10 units, with no AORs built. The tankers were already in place. The frigates would have been exactly the same as today. The MCMV fleet - well, the two dozen inshore units would likely have remained, but not in their MCM role; instead as guard boats in the reserves, much like a good number of them were used in the 90s. The LCUs and LCMs... well, they would have been the big variable.

[riksavage]

The RN hasn't been completely decimated, but it has suffered significantly in some areas. The Amphibious capabilities means it is still one of the most powerful blue water navies around, I read somewhere they still have the best power projection capability after the USA. The escort force has taken the brunt of the cutbacks though.

Even with the 'doom and gloom' brigade bemoaning all the changes in RN, it will still remain the most potent naval force in Europe today and even more so once the carriers enter service. After all how may other European Navies will be able to field six modern destroyers (not frigates) with a theatre defense weapon system on a par with sea viper? How many other European navies will be able to field two 65K ton Carriers, 6-7 global reach SSN's capable of carrying a 38 missile/torpedo combination (certainly not the French - Barracuda carries only 18), and have the proven ability (Falklands, Sierra Leone, GWII) to both execute and support elements of, or an entire Marine Amphibious Ready Group half way around the world? When was the last time a European Navy undertook an exercise on the same scale as Exercise Taurus, certainly not the Russians, French, Germans or Italians!

Recommend you read the linked extremely comprehensive RN 'coast guard' broadsheet for 2009.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.15353

[Jon K]

Even with the 'doom and gloom' brigade bemoaning all the changes in RN, it will still remain the most potent naval force in Europe today and even more so once the carriers enter service.

Cold War RN was in a class of it's own in many respects and the RN still is, but the gap between other large European navies and RN isn't as large as it used to be, in this respect, 1989.

Let's take a look at RN and Marina Militaire

In 1990 (close enough to 1989) RN had 17 SSN's, 10 SSK's, 3 CV's, 14 DDG's and 35 FFG's.

Today RN has 8 SSN's, 2 CV's, 5 DDG's (Type 42), 13 FFG's (Type 23) and 4 FFG's (Type 22).

Italian Navy today has 2 CV's (With AMRAAM-capable AV-8B's), 4 DDG's (2 Horizont, 2 Durand de la Penne), 12 FFG's and 6 SSK's.

[riksavage]

Cold War RN was in a class of it's own in many respects and the RN still is, but the gap between other large European navies and RN isn't as large as it used to be, in this respect, 1989.

Let's take a look at RN and Marina Militaire

In 1990 (close enough to 1989) RN had 17 SSN's, 10 SSK's, 3 CV's, 14 DDG's and 35 FFG's.

Today RN has 8 SSN's, 2 CV's, 5 DDG's (Type 42), 13 FFG's (Type 23) and 4 FFG's (Type 22).

Italian Navy today has 2 CV's (With AMRAAM-capable AV-8B's), 4 DDG's (2 Horizont, 2 Durand de la Penne), 12 FFG's and 6 SSK's.

The cold war is over, Russia struggled to send a couple of major surface assets on extended deployments to South America, never mind trying to dominate the waves with a Carrier Battle Group. The RN is moving from an anti-submarine centric force to a more balanced fleet capable of projecting an amphibious ready group anywhere in the world. Yes it will shrink because whether you or I like it or not the UK is focused on sustaining a sizable land component in A-STAN for the immediate future.

Simply counting hulls is not an accurate way to judge a nations capability, particualry in power projection. I'm sorry, but give me 2 x 65K Ton carriers and six Darings equipped with sea-viper over 3 x 'Invisible's' and 12 T-42's any day of the week. Also how many Italian / Spanish / French hulls have a true modern area defence capability, two, three in each orbat? The RN will have six, which means at least two dedicated to protect the assigned active carrier? If the RN ends up reducing its SSN force from 10 to 7 in the future, so be it, but the capacity and reach of those 7 far exceeds their predecessors, and (bar the French) anything else in Europe now or in the immediate future.

With the extension of the T23/22's, which remain capable platforms for global patrol / presence duties, leaving a T45/23 mix to focus on area / ASW defence for the ARG, then I'm happy to wait for C2 & C3 assets in future. Yes numbers will be reduced, but the RN aren't facing the Russian Bear in it's own backyard anymore.

Nations have a nasty habit of planning to fight the last war, asymmetric warfare represents the 'here and now' and must be fought as a priority. Focusing on the ARG allows the UK to maintain an ability to stand-off without having to rely on friendly-forces, which means it can strike out at failed states / terrorist safe-havens.

[Jon K]

Simply counting hulls is not an accurate way to judge a nations capability, particualry in power projection. I'm sorry, but give me 2 x 65K Ton carriers and six Darings equipped with sea-viper over 3 x 'Invisible's' and 12 T-42's any day of the week. Also how many Italian / Spanish / French hulls have a true modern area defence capability, two, three in each orbat? The RN will have six, which means at least two dedicated to protect the assigned active carrier? If the RN ends up reducing its SSN force from 10 to 7 in the future, so be it, but the capacity and reach of those 7 far exceeds their predecessors, and (bar the French) anything else in Europe now or in the immediate future.

But we're not discussing capabilities that may or may not come in the future (remember the Strategic Defence Review of 1998) but what is available in reality. After all, CVF's should have arrived in 2012 and the 12 Type 45's should be in the pipeline alongside with 8 Astutes. All this in era of perhaps strongest economic growth of British history with a single party in charge for 12 years. British plans for future forces are similar to Finnish ones, they have not that much basis in reality, they're just propaganda. In similar ways the public documents contain some truths but they're hidden in a mountain of bullshit.

The point I was trying to make is not that RN isn't a good naval force, but the fact that it isn't in a class of it's own like it was during the Cold War. MN should be considered to be equal, and larger European navies are coming in not far from behind.

Yes, I'm aware that for exact analysis one should not simply count hulls. I'm not trying to make an exact analysis but rather to find out outlines, for this "counting the hulls" is somewhat enough.

As for projected AAW capabilities of ca. 2020 here's the rough outline:

RN: 6 Type 45, 48 VLS
Royal Danish Navy: 3 Patrolships, 40 VLS
Royal Netherlands Navy: 4 De Zeven Provincien, 40 VLS
Spanish Navy: 6 F-100, 48 VLS
German Navy: 3 Sachsen-class, 32 VLS

If we count ESSM mounts the situation further changes, I think it should be fair as ESSM has range close to older area air defense weapons.

[riksavage]

But we're not discussing capabilities that may or may not come in the future (remember the Strategic Defence Review of 1998) but what is available in reality. After all, CVF's should have arrived in 2012 and the 12 Type 45's should be in the pipeline alongside with 8 Astutes. All this in era of perhaps strongest economic growth of British history with a single party in charge for 12 years. British plans for future forces are similar to Finnish ones, they have not that much basis in reality, they're just propaganda. In similar ways the public documents contain some truths but they're hidden in a mountain of bullshit.

The point I was trying to make is not that RN isn't a good naval force, but the fact that it isn't in a class of it's own like it was during the Cold War. MN should be considered to be equal, and larger European navies are coming in not far from behind.

Yes, I'm aware that for exact analysis one should not simply count hulls. I'm not trying to make an exact analysis but rather to find out outlines, for this "counting the hulls" is somewhat enough.

As for projected AAW capabilities of ca. 2020 here's the rough outline:

RN: 6 Type 45, 48 VLS
Royal Danish Navy: 3 Patrolships, 40 VLS
Royal Netherlands Navy: 4 De Zeven Provincien, 40 VLS
Spanish Navy: 6 F-100, 48 VLS
German Navy: 3 Sachsen-class, 32 VLS

If we count ESSM mounts the situation further changes, I think it should be fair as ESSM has range close to older area air defense weapons.

OK, lets look at this argument slightly differently, by asking a series of simple questions about overall capability, namely how many European Navies will have the following by, say 2020:


Global Reach: Ability to operate anywhere in the world for extended periods without relying on a foreign power for support (a true blue-water capability)?

Power Projection: Ability to project and support power, does the fleet operate an indigenous expeditionary warfare capability?

AAW: Indigenous ability to defend itself against current and future AAW threats?

ASW: Indigenous ability to defend itself against current and future ASW threats?

MCM: Indigenous ability to defend itself against current and future Mine threats?

Strategic Impact: Indigenous ability to influence the strategic outcome of a conflict?


By 2020 there will only be two Navies in Europe able to tick points 1 - 6, those being the UK & France by virtue of the fact they have SSN/SSBN fleets. If we just look at points one to five, then we could possibly include Spain and Italy, however (correct me if I'm wrong), I've never heard of either of them conducting independent large-scale operations outside of the Mediterranean.

So if we take each European Navy in turn, how may would qualify (points 1 - 5) and why?

[Jon K]

OK, lets look at this argument slightly differently, by asking a series of simple questions about overall capability, namely how many European Navies will have the following by, say 2020:

Let's try, although current financial crisis will have drastic outcomes on military budgets. Surprisingly, it may even boost some countries procurement budget as procurement is often channeled to national shipyards etc. France, with surprise procurement, has been the prime example.

Global Reach: Ability to operate anywhere in the world for extended periods without relying on a foreign power for support (a true blue-water capability)?

Netherlands
Spain
France
UK

Power Projection: Ability to project and support power, does the fleet operate an indigenous expeditionary warfare capability?

Denmark (Very limited scale, but it's a small country)
Netherlands
France
Spain
Italy
UK

AAW: Indigenous ability to defend itself against current and future AAW threats?

Denmark
Germany
Netherlands
France
Spain
Italy*
UK*
(*may get boosted by JSF, if operational by then)

ASW: Indigenous ability to defend itself against current and future ASW threats?

Open seas:

France
UK
Netherlands
Germany

Littoral:

Germany
Denmark
Norway
Sweden

MCM: Indigenous ability to defend itself against current and future Mine threats?

Norway, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, France, Spain, Italy, UK, Sweden, Finland

Strategic Impact: Indigenous ability to influence the strategic outcome of a conflict?[/LIST]

This depends on the scale of the conflict, if we take nuclear strike as criteria the French Navy and Royal Navy both have it, although French strike capabilities are more extensive.

So if we take each Navy in turn, how may would qualify (points 1 - 5) and why?

Once again, I'm not contrasting the point that RN will probably be Europe's No 1 or No 2 navy in 2020.

On issue of the Italian and Spanish navies one must remember that for a very long time Mediterranean has been the focus of the conflict, so need of replenishment capabilities has been smaller. AFAIK, Spanish and Italian navies have quite strongly participated in Indian Ocean operations after 2001.

[ASFC]

Snipped

[Global Reach]

Netherlands
Spain
France
UK



Not the Netherlands-they would need friendly bases for their fighter cover, instead I would suggest the four Carrier nations could have global reach with out having to worry too much about friendly bases:

UK
France
Italy
Spain

Don't get me wrong, the Dutch have a really nice amphibious fleet, perfectly capable of power projection, but if they are going to protect it properly, they need air cover from a friendly local base. This could of course limit where they decide to operate this fleet (depending on what the Dutch Defence Chiefs think on this issue).

[Padfoot]

As the fall of the Berlin Wall approaches it's 20th anniversary I think it could be informative to compare the navies of 1989 with those of 2009. Here's my thoughts before making the tables: Very roughly, RN has been decimated, MN has stayed on the course, many Cold War littoral oriented navies have built up expeditionary capabilities (Norway, Denmark, Germany) and some countries have built up impressively (Spain, Greece Turkey.)

What do others think about this?


RN decimated?

Totally disagree.

The RN has gone/is going from a one trick pony, anti submarine force to a proper blue water navy. I can't see how the MN is equal, certainly not a decade from now.

Counting numbers is very misleading, in my opinion.

[kev 99]

RN decimated?
Counting numbers is very misleading, in my opinion.

Indeed:
SSNs: of the 17 RN possessed at the end of the Cold War many were in very poor condition and none capable of operating Tomahawks, those in service now are far more capable both in sensors and armament.
SSKs: No real desire or need for RN to operate them any more.
Frigates: Lots of vessels with almost no margin for improvement (Leanders and Type 21) and limited use post Red Banner sub fleet.

I'd agree that the Government has missed the opportunity to drastically improve the RN during a boom decade, retiring of the Sea Harriers and failing to get MARS moving are probably the most significant issues but the RN is still quite a distance ahead of the rest of Europe.

[Jon K]

The RN has gone/is going from a one trick pony, anti submarine force to a proper blue water navy. I can't see how the MN is equal, certainly not a decade from now.

In period 1989-2009 the RN has gone from ASW focused multi-mission force to a limited amphibious warfare support force. AFAIK, the only capacity gain between 1989-2009 has been addition of Tomahawk missiles. In the same period RN has lost it's carrier air superiority (Sea Harrier) and naval strike (Sea Harrier + Sea Eagle) capabilities.

In 1989 it would have been feasible that RN could have carried a limited war operation against an enemy which had air defense and airborne naval strike capabilities (like Argentina in 1982). In 2009 this is not feasible.

MN has a true carrier with real fighters flying from her complete with AEW which is not an emergency solution. It's aircraft have quite good range. Granted, MN does not have Tomahawks.

In 2020, if the carrier plans succeed, RN will have superior capabilities in some respects but with British tradition of sudden budget cuts it is no way certain.

[Jon K]

I'd agree that the Government has missed the opportunity to drastically improve the RN during a boom decade, retiring of the Sea Harriers and failing to get MARS moving are probably the most significant issues but the RN is still quite a distance ahead of the rest of Europe.

Well, if the cabinet has failed to improve RN in boom decade how do you think RN will manage in a depression decade?

[kev 99]

Well, if the cabinet has failed to improve RN in boom decade how do you think RN will manage in a depression decade?

That comparison would only be relevant if it were the same party in power in both decades, are evidence suggests that this won't be the case. Defense spending has long been a source of funds ready to be diverted to other social spending projects for the labour party.

In period 1989-2009 the RN has gone from ASW focused multi-mission force to a limited amphibious warfare support force. AFAIK, the only capacity gain between 1989-2009 has been addition of Tomahawk missiles. In the same period RN has lost it's carrier air superiority (Sea Harrier) and naval strike (Sea Harrier + Sea Eagle) capabilities.

The amphibious forces have gained significantly during those years, they are far better now than pre 90s.

The loss of Sea Harriers is a blow, lack of available fighters and AEW are the only area that MN currently surpasses RN in, in the next decade it will be rectified.

When you started this thread I immediately thought it was just another vehicle for you to have a bash at the RN, as it has progressed you've just proved me right.

[Jon K]

That comparison would only be relevant if it were the same party in power in both decades, are evidence suggests that this won't be the case. Defense spending has long been a source of funds ready to be diverted to other social spending projects for the labour party.

True, but AFAIK there's no voices in Conservative party calling for significantly increased military funding. During previous Conservative spell in office military spending fell, but that was because of the end of the Cold War.

The amphibious forces have gained significantly during those years, they are far better now than pre 90s.

That is true, although in 1989 there was the option of using one of the CV's as LPH. In European context one must also remember that all larger European navies have made significant build-ups in their amphibious capabilities.

Here's current tonnage count:

RN: 60 000 + 64 000 tons RFA
MN: 80 000 tons
Spanish Navy: 44 000 tons
Italian Navy: 24 000 tons

The loss of Sea Harriers is a blow, lack of available fighters and AEW are the only area that MN currently surpasses RN in, in the next decade it will be rectified.

AFAIK, there's no firm timeline or commitment for MASC program and the lack of catapults means that E-2 purchase is not possible for CVF. Post-2020 an UAV solution might be well possible, but considering current very long development periods the project should be well underway by now if an in-service date of 2019 would be target.

On the other hand, during these two decades Spanish, Italian and French navies have gained all-weather fighters to fly from their carriers (AV-8B+ and Rafale), and all have gained AEW aircraft. (SH-3 + Searchwater for Spanish Navy, EH-101 AEW for Italian Navy and E-2 for the French Navy).

Also the size of current FAA is similar to other small carrier navies. AFAIK, Naval Strike Wing has 18 GR7/GR9 Harriers. Spanish Navy has 17, Italian Navy 17. French Navy will have 60 Rafales.

When you started this thread I immediately thought it was just another vehicle for you to have a bash at the RN, as it has progressed you've just proved me right.

Certainly not, I have my deepest admiration for the professional officers, sailors and marines of RN. It is just that RN's relative position in world's naval rankings is slipping.

It's not just that RN has lost some capabilities (and gained some) but other navies have gained more during previous two decades. This is certainly not a loss for RN, as these navies are allies.

[kev 99]

Certainly not, I have my deepest admiration for the professional officers, sailors and marines of RN. It is just that RN's relative position in world's naval rankings is slipping.

For someone who has the 'deepest admiration' for the RN you seem to devote a lot of time comparing them unfavourably against other Navies, as witnessed by this thread and your posts on the RN thread.

[swerve]

T... In European context one must also remember that all larger European navies have made significant build-ups in their amphibious capabilities.

Here's current tonnage count:

RN: 60 000 + 64 000 tons RFA
MN: 80 000 tons
Spanish Navy: 44 000 tons
Italian Navy: 24 000 tons
...
You omitted the Dutch navy, which has two LPDs totalling ca 30000 tons.

[gvg]

28250 tons according to the Dutch MoD website.

[citizen578]

It's worth remembering that many other navies would consider some of the RN's more minor amphib assets to be warships in their own right. Plus you also have the assets belonging to the Royal Logisitcs Corp, some of which are very large, plus STUFT ships.

[Jon K]

It's worth remembering that many other navies would consider some of the RN's more minor amphib assets to be warships in their own right. Plus you also have the assets belonging to the Royal Logisitcs Corp, some of which are very large, plus STUFT ships.

Sure, but STUFT exists in virtually all countries and it's difficult to count. AFAIK, RLC operates just small landing craft sized assets which I've not counted for other navies.

About the future, the gap between RN and the rest is bound to be smaller. French and Spanish navies are building up new major units to increase tonnage (even when counting the withdrawals) but there's no program for tonnage increase in RN/RFA. All this is good for RN, as these countries are Britain's NATO allies.

[spsun100001]

The Royal Navy still remains a potent force although it is far short of where the Governments own recommendations from the Strategic Defence Review suggest it should be.

Instead of the recommended 30 escorts we will have 23 thanks mainly to building 6 AAW destroyers rather than the 12 promised. Instead of 10 SSN's we will have 7. Add to that the loss of the Sea Harrier, the gaping capability omissions from the Type 45 (Co-operative Engagement Capability, anti-ship missiles, an inner layer CIWS, anti-submaribe torpedoes and the Merlin helicopter) and delays to the service entry of the CV's and you have a Royal Navy sadly let down by its political masters and though still potent, well short of where it should be to satisfy the nations maritime defence needs.

As to the future for the Royal Navy, in my opinion it's in the balance.

If we bring the CV's into service without further delay, if we buy enough F35's to equip them, if we give them a proper AEW platform, if we ensure that the F35's have the full range of payload options, if we build at least 7 Astute SSN's and if we don't further shrink the surface fleeet then the RN would remain the premier maritime force in Europe and be a formidable instrument of force projection.

If we do one or more of further delaying the CV's (I'm pretty sure we won't cancel them as theY represent jobs in key constituencies which is the main purpose of the defence budget), equip them with a toy town AEW solution (like a helicopter), don't buy sufficient F35's but make do with ground attack only capable Harriers in small numbers, but the F35 but omit key capabilities (such as AMRAAM, Storm Shadow or an anti-ship ASM), do not order the further 3 Astute's or retire further escorts without replacement then the RN may become a paper tiger.

I think the outcome will be a mix of the things in these two scenarios but given the track record of the government to date, the cost of ongoing commitments in Afghanistan, the black hole that already exists between funding and procurement, the real terms shrinkage in the defence budget each year (when measured against defence equipment RPI rather than general RPI), the need to fund a Trident replacement and the economic doomsday scenario that is upon us I tend to believe more of the bad stuff will happen that the good stuff.

And just because I'm not a sunny optimist doesn't mean I don't support the Navy. My criticism's are of the politicians not of the service and the fact I take the time to write to them attests to the fact that I passionately care about the senior service.

[Alonso Quijano]

Hello everyone, I'm new here, excuse my English is very bad.

just wanted to say that before I read seemed that Spain has no capacity to anti-submarine warfare and if it does.
Spain 6 F-80 frigates which are dedicated to ASW in the future intends to manufacture the F-110 to replace the F-80 and we are also together with Lockheed Martin Corporation, manufacturers of the Norwegian F-300 dedicated to ASW .

Spain is also on the other hand has just dumped the water vessel of the new Strategic Projection (Juan Carlos I) which is capable of carrying 1200 foot soldiers, tanks, landing craft, while helicopters and Harrier aircraft.
will be a great support to the prince of asturias and significantly improve our ability to projection.
can also act as a hospital ship and can generate enough electricity to supply an entire village.
We bought 2 to Australia.

un saludo!