Ruby submarines are more than 30 years old. Even if they are not the best performing SSNs today, I'll remind you that this is one ot them which, during a NATO exercise, virtually sank a US aircraft carrier and its escort. Contrary to what you seem to insinuate, the French know how to make excellent submarines that export well (Scorpene and Barracuda in particular, cf. Australian contract) and have just launched a new generation of SSN that has nothing to envy to US submarines.

Granted that the Rubis is 30+ years old however we have boats in the UK of similar vintage and the US has older boats, to date I’ve been on 4 688’s 2 trafalgars 1 Rubis and many others around our NATO countries.

I was an observer to a logistics exercise on the Rubis back in 2017 she did not perform as expected but there was admittedly several reasons for that which was beyond her crews control, however that aside she still failed to meet NATO standard.

A good friend of mine who worked for over 22 years on submarines undertook a FOST on-board the Perle he was a sonar and acoustic specialist, he noted the submarines capability left a lot to be desired

The Scorpene submarines are a good boat and the reason they are an export success is due in part to the price tag and it was simply pretty much for this reason the Australian government signed up theirs own press now states the government regrets that decision.

The new suffren which is being tested has a big gap in its capabilities something the USN and UK explored back in the 80’s that’s non acoustic detection the French opted out of a collaboration with the RN and USN and thus lacks that technology
Suffren also lacks long range land attack capability and focuses more on close encounters using Exocet and torpedos.

While Exocet is a good missile in today’s theatres it is vulnerable and now easily intercept able

Amethyst class are still the smallest SSN in the world, small mean less crew, less equipment so they can't be compared to the mighty UK or US SSN.



And never expect a Brit to say something good about French Navy :)

"It was late in the evening when Clancy decided to take advantage of the amazing array of experience around the dinner table – five British submarine officers and one American – by outlining his ideas for a new book. As Littlejohns relates, some aspects caused horror.

‘According to Clancy, chapter one of the new book sees the Soviet cruiser Kirov sunk by a French SSN. Six brother submariners are aghast and speak as one against this preposterous idea. They even suggest that if the French boat gets the glory then no Brit will buy the book. In 1986, Clancy’s next huge bestseller, Red Storm Rising, is published, in which a Norwegian diesel boat sinks the Kirov. Join the dots!"

What. Just FYI, the Suffren can fire land-attack cruise missiles (MdCN - EDIT: you might have been thinking about the Rubis/Amethyste boats, which are indeed limited to torpedo/Exocet/mine warfare). As for detection, it's not particularly lacking from what I've seen, except for one thing, which is an internal towed array (the French tend to fix theirs directly to the hull after departure and cannot get it back inside the boat afterwards). It'll be also quite interesting to see what tactics will be developped against the F-21/Black Shark torpedoes: a fully electric silent torpedo with greater range than the ADCAP can be quite a problem for opponents.

In any case, the French submarine doctrine is a bit different from the British or US, in that SSBN have the priority in technology and funding, which is why the Triomphant class is massively more advanced and upgraded than the Rubis and was built before the Suffren. Underestimating Frog tech is something you only do long enough to regret, as the RN experienced: after all, we know that a British SSBN couldn't notice a French one (and vice-versa) in spitting range until the funniest knock-knock joke ever happened. ;-)

First off I'm not against the French per say but i do have my apprehensions about them, i have worked with them, i have seen and used their kit, i have been on their submarines and ships many times over the years, its not personal its just they lack in key areas.

Secondly you cannot state smaller boat means a smaller crew the Rubis which is the smallest SSN in the world (i have been on the Rubis) has a crew of 70 men roughly, while the much larger Russian Akulas (Project 971) have a crew of just 53-60 men.

The Rubis lacks a lot of capability and is technically obsolete (it was 10 years ago) the Suffren brings the level back up however again it isn't even touching the top tier navies like it should or could.

Suffren while has anti submarine and anti ship capability it relies heavily on acoustic acquisition of a target vessel, we have moved on since then in fact we moved on back in the 80's, both the USN and RN have sensors and systems in place for non acoustic acquisition, the RN had this in the 80's and offered to collaborate with the Marine Nationale on its development, the French declined.

As for you will never hear a Brit say anything good about the French navy, that's not true i do think they got one platform right in a way, despite its cost over runs and also its lack of size the fact the Marine National stuck with a CATOBAR carrier has to be applauded it is something i hoped the UK would do with the new QE but they didn't and this i see as a missed opportunity.

Yes i was thinking that my mistake on that part

I cannot comment on specifics or give specific details, but i can say the F21 has a long way to go before it out ranges a MK48 ADCAP MOD-7, however its roughly en par with Spearfish current block 2.

They do have a different doctrine based upon the French foreign policy but ultimately the strategy and operations remain similar to the UK and USN, they do operate a CSG and ARG within their fleet and have the escorts to do deploy a single CSG /ARG or a mixed CSAG.

The main countries that build SSN and SSBN such as Russia, China, UK, USA all cross over so you will find the same systems in a 688 as you will in the Ohio, and you will find the same systems in a Vanguard as you will in a Trafalgar (I have been on the 688 Trafalgar and Vanguards but not Ohio's) this technology cross over saves money, is easier to maintain, easier to upgrade, as well as a plethora of other reasons.

France spends a lot only on its SSBN fleet and that because it uses a 3 sub fleet system, it has to focus its spending in 3 areas not just 2, they still deploy SSK's as force multipliers the RN and USN do not this free's up money to invest in high end SSN's catch is you don't get many for your money.

The French SSBN and British SSBN knock for knock has many factors to it, while the French do have very good SSBN's there's a reason for it, a lot of technology is shared between the UK USA and France, and the defense industries are co owned il explain that part in my next bit, but operationally the French have a very good boat and one that is en par to Vanguard and id say superior to the Ohio.

French technology comes about from a multitude of sources and its due in no small part to the co operation of working with other European and American partners, point in case here is the MBDA Exocet if you look up the B in that acronym you find it stands for BAe Systems.

Of course you refer to the 1982 conflict with Argentina when your citing your comment and at that specific period the Exocet was made by aérospatiale of which there's limited British involvement with the missile except with the guidance and navigation systems which they build under licence from Marconi.

What that taught us in 82 was the missile was great but it had several weaknesses, for a start it was too short range the current Harpoon flew much longer distances, its warhead couldn't sink a ship (none of the ships they hit sank from the missile hit and yes that includes Sheffield she was scuttled 3 days later as was Atlantic conveyor)

There were several reasons why the Exocet did all the Damage.

1) Sheffield was hit while making a satellite call and couldn't have her RADAR's on while doing so.

2) The cost cutting in the UK defense budget bought a low end AAW DDG instead of the high end type 82.

3) The type 42 had no point defense weapons, or weapons capable of engaging short range (this is why we coupled a type 22 with type 42 later on)

4) The conveyor was hit after two vessels (i forget which two) successfully decoyed the missile and conveyor couldn't put up any form of defense by herself

5) The USS Stark incident showed that using low end systems doesn't work against these missiles, two hits on stark she didn't sink or even mission kill, but the crew were not at war and didn't consider themselves targets either.

Moving on forward to today the French rely heavily on the short range sub sonic Exocet currently the UK and USA are now moving away from subsonic anti ship missiles, now were seeing the development of LRASM for example a supersonic long range anti ship missile.

Exocet in today's theaters against a high end AAW ASuW platform such as a Burke, Type 45, Horizon class would have a very tough time getting through if it could at all, so would the launching platform especially it if was an air asset doing the launching, having worked with the Type 45 program since 2012 and been to see what they can do Exocet and any air platform wishing to do harm were dead long before it ever came into range and that's at sea level.

Now whats the follow on from this? well now were starting to realize the way forward is high end supersonic / hypersonic long range missiles the type of missiles the Russians have been deploying against us since the 1960's, and it is them we are taking the lead from slightly, while they are taking some lead from us too.

Take a look at the difference in size between the P700 and P800 missiles the Russians are going the same way were going.

There is a project right now in France working with the UK to develop a missile of similar capabilities so lets watch this space.

Sorry, but what.


France hasn't used SSK for decades, FYI. One of its private companies designs some, but that's all, the military budget hasn't spend money on developping these for more than 50 years (the last French SSK class, Agosta, was commissionned in the Seventies). If you're curious, the Royal Navy built SSK after the French stopped doing so (the Upholder class was commissionned in the Eighties).
Maybe, though from what I've seen, it appears the new batteries have higher energy density than the Otto fuel used in the ADCAP, which is quite interesting, particularly as batteries allow much better modulation of the speed.
When it comes to strategic deterrence, though, France has a pretty clear doctrine of not getting anything foreign for the tech. Coopertion, yes, but the tech itself has to be national (the division of MBDA doing the M51 is quite separated from the rest, IIRC, or how nuclear-capable jets are ITAR-free).


I honestly and wholeheartedly mean no disrespect as you appear to have travelled more and met a lot more people related to the Silent Service than I did, but it seems that the French arm could be a blind spot. As another poster reminded, there is a bit of a Cold War legacy of friendly (or not so friendly, depending on the people) institutional Francophobia among NATO partners (and, TBH, from anyone who met the wonderful, friendly and highly agreeable de Gaulle, a man who never, ever, eveeeeeer pissed any ally of his) which might create some bias when it comes to the perceived effectiveness of things.


This report from RAND is about aviation rather than boats, but it is pretty interesting in that it highlights the differences in mindset for military procurement and how there can be a large discrepancy between funding and results in some cases (explaining in hindsight why the Typhoon, with much more funding, got such a ranking with the Swiss evaluation): https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R1148.html


Though I'm not going to pretend the Rubis/Amethyste are anywhere close to a LA, for example. Their main advantage was to exist, which is already something quite useful in itself.

Were they deployed? I am aware of RN testing those systems on T-boats but I havent seen signs of their mass deployement.

As to the Baracuda class SSN - it seems to be a minimalistic SSN to me. And while it does have some stand off capability - does it have trully long range AShMs (>300km), LAMs (>2000km)? Or the means to cue and guide them onto targets?

What I do find strange about Baracuda is the use of the cylindrical bow.

The USN and RN boats don't have very long range AShM, the TASM was retired some time ago and LRASM doesn't have, AFAIK, a sub-launched version (the sub-launched Harpoon goes 140 km, IIRC). As for the range of the LAM, yes, MdCN's lower than the most recent TLAM's (the US currently makes better disposable turbojets). In terms of off-board communication, they seem to be roughly equivalent to other NATO SSN.


They're smaller, so they carry less weapons (but then, the French doctrine isn't about fighting massive naval wars, being able to whack on the head anyone who looks at overseas territories is enough, as well as being a credible threat for larger navies), but they seem highly optimized for coastal warfare, in good part due to their hybrid propulsion system (which the US tried a few decades ago, abandonned due to low efficiency with the tech then and appear to plan for their next SSBN class), small size and the dedicated equipment (dry dock shelter, for example). Won't be the most armed or fastest oceanic boat, but still stealthy and armed enough to not be overlooked, and potentially terrifying in coastal waters.



PS: so many acronyms... X_X

So this is what i mean by a three 3 sub fleet system; they have designs for SSK SSN and SSBN, yes i'm aware they have re introduced this and its not a bad reason, while i fully accept they will not use SSK's in their own fleet it does initially swallow a lot of the defense budget initially, but that's more for R&D than anything else, which means they have to cut the R&D budget on the SSN's.
However i support their reasons in this because it does make a good export product which over time will recoup the investment made initially but that's over the longer term. (France seems to be playing long term game while RN is short term

The Upholders you mention were meant to replace the Oberons but doctrine change the end of the cold war and budget cuts meant that of the 12 planned only 4 were built and they themselves had short lives ending up with Canada, SSK's do not currently have a place in the RN Doctrine and we decided to pour in the money which would have been spent on R&D in developing these boats plus all other added costs into a single SSN program.

In terms of private companies gaining R&D funding through a defense budget to develop platforms is what happens, so DCNS would not have developed the Scorpene 100% off its own back using its own funding simply because it doesn't have the financial means to do so, what they tend to do and BAe / LM / Boeing does this a lot as well, is to approach the defense ministers and they end up getting allocated a % of the defense budget for R&D on the understanding any breakthrough technology or useful technology can be bought at a cheaper rate in the future, and also any sales of hardware or software a % of that sale goes back to the budget, almost like a bank loan if you will.

A lot of French tech is home grown but a lot of french contractors are part owned by other foreign contractors so the flow of foreign items too and fro is common place.
The missiles are completely french designed and built but i'm talking component parts ie the non sensitive stuff.

Yes i guess there is a lot of Francophobia, to be totally honest i loathed working with them, however they do have some good assets its just their mindset and they don't pay bills.
Yes they are deployed, whats more they have been deployed on every boat since the 80's the first such boat to use the tech was a Swiftsure class HMS Spartan i believe (i may be wrong but i'm certain it was a S boat)

The USN will actually reintroduced TASM back into the fleet in 2021 with the block V the LRASM is in testing and likely will go for sub launched trials around 2023.

The RN currently does not deploy any AShM we do not currently deploy Harpoon in the submarine fleet (we can and also Exocet if required but we don't).


Just a FYI i may sometimes not be clear on my point and i may jump from era to era without realizing it, so if your confused just let me know i will try and straighten it out :haha:

Is there something I can read on this?

As this is the first time I see anyone mentioning mass deployement of such systems.

I'm not sure it swallows that much of the SSN budget, if only because the development and procurement cycles for submarines are longer in France than in UK or US, so the SSN gets the experience from the SSK. When you consider both the size and the hybrid propulsion system of the Suffren, for example, it's quite clear it benefitted a lot from the Scorpene know-how, and vice-versa for the Barracuda Shortfin.

Unlike most if not all other countries, our SSK and SSN are roughly the same size (hell, Rubis had a smaller displacement than Surcouf...), which makes a lot of the work for one usable in the other. Which, of course, also means that our SSN are less effective oceanic fleet units compared to dedicated ones (I was astonished at the small size of the SSBN I visited, it 's barely longer than a US SSN).

It might not be the same way exactly here. For example, DCNS built the demonstrator for the Gowind stealth corvette on its own money and even allowed the MN to have a go at it even though they weren't interested in buying it, knowing there would be a number of foreign customers for such a class. The MN loved having a lease on an advanced patrol ship for free, DCNS got to say their ship was sailor-tested and approved, and ended up selling almost two dozen to foreign customers.

I don't know how the budget goes for the SSK R&D, but it could be similar.
Our mindset is very, very different from the Anglo one, for sure. The social status and the role of the engineer are pretty different compared to UK or US, and then there's how wit and sarcasm are perceived (it's an art here, open jousts being a wonderful sport the same way as the British art of understatement is deeply appreciated on your side of the pond and how both fly above US' head like a SR-71 or even offend them in our case despite how friendly it is from our POV), or the relation to the law (in the US, the written text is absolute, definitive and the point of all attentions, while in France, it's a lot more fluid, with the intent being above the letter a lot more often, as well as interpersonal relationships going above the text itself, all the way to Constitutional debates - the way we consider our Constitution would give aneurysm to most law scholars in the US).
Heh, not that sure about the validity of very long range subsonic AShM. It requires uninterrupted communications for one hour or so, which is asking a lot from the opponent.

Is Perseus dead by the way?

Perseus was just a theoretical research aimed to define the needs for the UK/French FC/ASW missile joint program.
UK want a stealth missile and French a fast one (between Mach 5 to Mach +7).

The FC/ASW final specs should be defined Q2/2020.

Some interesting points raised, when it comes to France R&D my knowledge is limited i specialize in logistics and supply.

I can see the SSK and SSN were built in parallel a lot of the stuff that goes into all the European projects gets moved around by people like me, its a massive cycle and its the same for UK projects, for example the steel that went into the QE mainly came from Germany, it was formed in the UK hence the capability to claim UK steel.

If the SSN and SSK are run parallel then yes i can see that being a merit to the budget, if it is as simple as switching a reactor for diesel engines then yeah i see that.

I have done a part of FOST on the Rubis class they do have a lot of short comings they failed my section of FOST but we did kind of expect that because we were trailing something new and it didn't work (not the crew or boats fault)

The only french SSBN ive been on is in Cherbourg the Le Redoubtable i have not been on the current ones.

The lease thing with the Gowind that is something similar to what BAe did with some OPVs its a good way to do it but it comes with issues.

I have no idea about the French constitution or laws tbh most countries laws are mind ####s including the UK

I have my apprehensions about TASM as well but right now thats about the best option for long range AShM problem being is as you pointed out its subsonic and has a lot of idiosyncrasies it can easily be intercepted by an opponent so is it any good? like harpoon i think their day has long gone.

Think i covered all your points :haha:

It's not exactly a switch, except maybe for the Barracuda Shortfin sold to Australia, which is extremely close to the Suffren, but from what I understand from the Suffren's propulsion system, SSK tech is quite influential in it.

Téméraire was surprisingly confortable in the accomodations I saw, and I appreciated visiting it after seeing Wolf's Call, looking at what was correct and what wasn't. Let's just say that Wolf's Call was as incorrect on the SSBN's CIC as it was correct on the SSN's CIC. I mean, the production crew got to board a Rubis, take pictures inside the CIC and after security filtered which ones they could keep, they litterally rebuilt a 1:1 mock-up of the Rubis' CIC for shooting the scenes, but then, you probably guessed it, having been onboard a Rubis. The Triomphant's CIC is quite different from the one shown in the movie, though some other scenes inside it are closer to reality.
I started studying our legal system a bit last year, and I found it fascinating to compare how the people relate to law and government in various countries. It tells a lot about the national mindsets.
Yeah, TASM is cheap and simple, so it does allow a submarine to have a shipkilling capability on cooperative targets at long ranges, which is good, I'll admit. I just wish we went through with the ANF back in the Nineties, a conventional anti-ship variant of the 500 km - Mach 3 ASMP-A. Legend says that the US pressured us a bit to cancel the program, not wanting to see that kind of missile being sold to tinpot dictators of all kind, and offered to sell us the three Hawkeye we have for CdG as a carrot for that.


ASMP-A is pretty damn expensive, but if we could get an AShM variant out of it, perhaps with reduced performance compared to its nuclear brother, it might make for a superb shipkiller. But then, we get in the "what if" field. *goes back to his voxel SSBN in From The Depths to get his dose of "what if"*

Yep! Thanks!