[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by UglyMowgli

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!"

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.

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)

Yes i was thinking that my mistake on that part

It'll be also quite interesting to see what tactics will be developed 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.

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.

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

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.

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. ;-)

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.

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. ;-)

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.