Quote:
Originally Posted by Rufus Shinra
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. |
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.
Quote:
|
Were they deployed? I am aware of RN testing those systems on T-boats but I havent seen signs of their mass deployment.
|
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)
Quote:
|
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
|
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
