What's new

French Navy Plans To Dominate Above, On and Below the Seas

Aepsilons

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
May 29, 2014
Messages
24,960
Reaction score
118
Country
Japan
Location
United States
bilde




PARIS — Despite a fiscal downturn, France is seeking to continue sailing a blue water Navy able to project maritime power on the waves, silently below and by striking from the air.
Budget constraints have led the French Navy to “make choices,” but by 2025, the service will have all the capabilities needed to complete a full range of missions, from defense to security, from high to low intensity, but in a “slightly smaller format,” said Navy spokesman Capt. Didier Piaton.

After the US, France has the second-largest exclusive economic zone, with some 11 million kilometers of seas to police in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans, and in the Mediterranean Sea.

The Navy will lose 664 posts in 2015 out of a total 36,000 sailors and after closing down some 500 positions this year. That planned job loss is part of the total 7,500 job cuts next year in the armed forces, Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said.

The naval job cuts stem from the decommissioning of five vessels, the Siroco transport ship, Meuse oil tanker and three patrol vessels, and the closing of the small Adour base on the Atlantic coast and an office in Strasbourg, eastern France.

The service has focused its activities in two large bases, Brest in the north and Toulon in the south of France. The most important naval programs include:

■The FREMM multimission warship program. The Navy plans to decide in 2016 on a possible redesign for ships nine, 10 and 11, due for delivery after 2020, two industry executives said.

The three new vessels could be “an intermediate size,” between the 6,000-ton FREMM and a 2,500-ton corvette, the executives said. The ships could be similar to the Lafayette frigate, being lighter and less heavily armed than the FREMM.

The planned seventh and eighth FREMM ships will be air defense versions, for delivery between 2020 and 2022.

Warship builder DCNS is due to deliver the first six anti-submarine warfare (ASW) vessels by 2019, having delivered the first-of-class Aquitaine in 2012.

A second ship, Normandie, will be the first to be armed with a naval version of the MBDA cruise missile. The vessel is due for delivery by the end of this year, with the long-range weapon fitted in 2015, providing a “new strategic capability,” Piaton said.

First assessments of the ASW FREMM and a new Caiman helicopter, the maritime version of the NH90, are “very promising,” he said. A light MU90 torpedo and sonar buoys are in the last stages of military trials and will add to the initial ASW capability.

A full ASW suite for the NH90 could be operational this year, but much depends on whether industry respects the commitments on delivering the equipment, Piaton said.

The FREMM was designed with a concept of “optimized crewing,” based on a highly automated ship. This will require a change in work practice, organization and maintenance.

The Navy is due to receive 11 FREMMs, with nine in the ASW and two in air defense version.

■Undersea power. The planned acquisition of six Barracuda nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarines will replace the Rubis-class attack subs, which would be 35 years old when retired.

The Barracudas will be able to carry cruise missiles and special operations forces. The subs will also have advanced acoustic stealth, sharing the technology developed for the Triomphant class of ballistic missile boats, he said.

Studies have begun for a future generation of SSBN ballistic missile submarines and building is expected to start in the middle of the next decade. The design is far from complete, but it is clear the size and weight will be close to the second-generation Triomphant-class submarines, to limit program cost.

The four Triomphant boats are the submarine element of the ocean-going nuclear deterrent, while the Charles de Gaulle carrier carries the Dassault Rafale fighter jet, the airborne platform.

The subs are armed with the M51 ballistic missile, and from 2015 the M51.2 version is due to enter service, delivering greater range. A test fire of the M51 weapon from the Vigilant submarine failed in May last year, with the missile destroyed in flight.

■Safeguarding sovereignty. The Navy is coming to the end of a three-year lease for the Adroit, a prototype offshore patrol vessel (OPV) funded and built by DCNS. The company hopes talks will lead to a one-year extension, a DCNS spokesman has said.

The Adroit is helping the service draft specifications for a future program for multimission OPVs, project name Batsimar. The vessels are seen as key for maintaining sovereignty over distant territories, such as the exclusive economic zone off French Guiana that sits on offshore oil.

The multimission OPVs are expected to enter service around 2024, seven years later than planned. The boats will replace a fleet of some 15 vessels of the P400, Aviso 69 and fisheries protection boats.

Officials at the Direction Générale de l’Armament (DGA) are consulting with industry to acquire eight ocean supply vessels, referred to as bâtiments de soutien et d’assistance hauturiers (BSAH), a spokesman for the procurement office said. The DGA opened talks this year after a plan to lease the vessels under a public-private partnership failed.

Next year, DGA hopes to order the first two BSAH ships for delivery in 2017.

DCNS and civil shipbuilder Piriou said in January they had won a contract for three multimission, ocean-going vessels with an option for a fourth.

■Rotary power. Naval helicopters will be armed with a new anti-ship missile, known as anti-navire leger, a program in cooperation with the UK under the Lancaster House bilateral treaty. The British version is the future anti-surface guided weapon (heavy).

The missile will allow helicopter pilots to hit small, fast and highly maneuverable boats in a complex coastal environment or in dense shipping traffic. The British and French navies show strong similarity in format, missions, nuclear capability and joint projects.

■Joint efforts. British and French navies are also engaged in binational programs such as the future anti-mine system. The system would be part of the cooperative Maritime Mine Counter Measure program, as announced at the Jan. 31 Anglo-French summit.

A defense agreement reached at the summit was “a £10 million [US $16 million] contract for the development of underwater vehicles capable of finding and neutralizing seabed mines,” the British government said.

■Power projection. And finally, the defense and security white paper set three Mistral projection and command ships to meet the operational contract. ■


French Navy Plans To Dominate Above, On and Below the Seas | Defense News | defensenews.com
 
A lot of fancy words who actually hide the ugly truth which plagues European defence procurement,which is this:

but in a “slightly smaller format,” said Navy spokesman Capt. Didier Piaton.

That planned job loss is part of the total 7,500 job cuts next year in the armed forces, Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said.

Shame on all European countries for their Defence approach,shame on them,from the powers like the UK,France,Germany,to the smaller states (who actually have managed to only have glorified police forces,instead of real armies).The politicians are the first morons to blame,as in their endless quest to give the voting masses more and welfare have utterly made a mockery of the Armed Forces of their countries,but i also blame the military men for not speaking out and pointing to the ever dwindling capabilities of our Armies.For instance,recently,a pilot in our Air Force stated that as long as "we can assure Air policing(the Air Force is for air policing,air f##ing policing instead of defending the country's skies ??) duties for our skies we are well within NATO standards and that the third hand F16's we bought are latest technology fighters that we can be proud of"-what a dellusional a$$ licker ,they would say anything for their salaries and military pensions.:suicide2:
 
A lot of fancy words who actually hide the ugly truth which plagues European defence procurement,which is this:





Shame on all European countries for their Defence approach,shame on them,from the powers like the UK,France,Germany,to the smaller states (who actually have managed to only have glorified police forces,instead of real armies).The politicians are the first morons to blame,as in their endless quest to give the voting masses more and welfare have utterly made a mockery of the Armed Forces of their countries,but i also blame the military men for not speaking out and pointing to the ever dwindling capabilities of our Armies.For instance,recently,a pilot in our Air Force stated that as long as "we can assure Air policing duties for our skies we are well within NATO standards and that the third hand F16's we bought are latest technology fighters that we can be proud of"-what a dellusional a$$ licker ,they would say anything for their salaries and military pensions.:suicide2:

Europe , in general, is edging towards a qualitative yet smaller compact force, whilst the rest of the world is edging towards quantitative + qualitative measures. I have hope for Europe and the Greater European Union, an entity that is home to almost 500 million citizens. More should be done to address exigencies in the East.
 
Europe , in general, is edging towards a qualitative yet smaller compact force, whilst the rest of the world is edging towards quantitative + qualitative measures. I have hope for Europe and the Greater European Union, an entity that is home to almost 500 million citizens. More should be done to address exigencies in the East.


This "quality" business starts to reek of excuses for further cuts.Quality as quality but how can an army of 100.000 ,with some 225 modern tanks cope in a sustained war against a much more numerically foe and where a few days/weeks of heavy fighting can really decimate your very few "quality toys".You can easily run out of those few tanks or fighters in a high intensity conflict.

Every defence paper is the same,look at France for example :in 2007 they stated a need for 225 modern fighters for their Air Force and Navy.In the 2010 White Paper,surprise,surprise !....due to some "indepth analysis" they concluded they needed only 180 ! Yeah,sure,embezzling money to send them for the politicos votes,that's what's really happenning not decisions based on the realities of the Armed Forces.
 
French navy has 3 LHD Mistral class and a CVN. That makes the most powerful projection forces after USN.
 
This "quality" business starts to reek of excuses for further cuts.Quality as quality but how can an army of 100.000 ,with some 225 modern tanks cope in a sustained war against a much more numerically foe and where a few days/weeks of heavy fighting can really decimate your very few "quality toys".You can easily run out of those few tanks or fighters in a high intensity conflict.

Every defence paper is the same,look at France for example :in 2007 they stated a need for 225 modern fighters for their Air Force and Navy.In the 2010 White Paper,surprise,surprise !....due to some "indepth analysis" they concluded they needed only 180 ! Yeah,sure,embezzling money to send them for the politicos votes,that's what's really happenning not decisions based on the realities of the Armed Forces.

The original policy of containment in regards to the Russian Federation has seen a backfire vis-a-vis the Ukrainian Crisis of 2013-2014. The crisis has been a blessing and a curse. A curse because it has shown to the European Union establishment of the need to address the rise of Russia, and the latter's inability to cooperate in regards to democratic overtones. A blessing because it is the very social issue that was needed to re-energize the militaries of Europe in addressing instance of unilateral provocations. We have seen the coordination of the Nordic Battle Group and their plans to address and meet head on instance of military threats in Greater Scandinavia. We have also seen the re-emergence of the Visegrad Group (Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia), and specifically the Visegrad Battle Group in an effort to meet threats to the stability and peace of Central and Eastern Europe.

I believe that future developments will lead to the realization of a more coordinated 'European Army'.
 
This "quality" business starts to reek of excuses for further cuts.Quality as quality but how can an army of 100.000 ,with some 225 modern tanks cope in a sustained war against a much more numerically foe and where a few days/weeks of heavy fighting can really decimate your very few "quality toys".You can easily run out of those few tanks or fighters in a high intensity conflict.

Every defence paper is the same,look at France for example :in 2007 they stated a need for 225 modern fighters for their Air Force and Navy.In the 2010 White Paper,surprise,surprise !....due to some "indepth analysis" they concluded they needed only 180 ! Yeah,sure,embezzling money to send them for the politicos votes,that's what's really happenning not decisions based on the realities of the Armed Forces.

I can understand how you feel but with globilisation inevitable. Rise of China competitive business with massive undercutting. Its inevitable these EU countries are preparing the future of lesser military budget when their economic becomes stagnant. Greece is a fine example of stomach what she can't afford.

The original policy of containment in regards to the Russian Federation has seen a backfire vis-a-vis the Ukrainian Crisis of 2013-2014. The crisis has been a blessing and a curse. A curse because it has shown to the European Union establishment of the need to address the rise of Russia, and the latter's inability to cooperate in regards to democratic overtones. A blessing because it is the very social issue that was needed to re-energize the militaries of Europe in addressing instance of unilateral provocations. We have seen the coordination of the Nordic Battle Group and their plans to address and meet head on instance of military threats in Greater Scandinavia. We have also seen the re-emergence of the Visegrad Group (Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia), and specifically the Visegrad Battle Group in an effort to meet threats to the stability and peace of Central and Eastern Europe.

I believe that future developments will lead to the realization of a more coordinated 'European Army'.

The Russia threat is overstated. Russian is just trying to protect what she owed. Do you really believe Russia wanted to swallow Western europe countries? I feel ISIS threat to Europe is more real than Russia. In fact, its more like western threating Russia interest, more like western countries trying to invade Russia.
 
The Russia threat is overstated. Russian is just trying to protect what she owed. Do you really believe Russia wanted to swallow Western europe countries? I feel ISIS threat to Europe is more real than Russia.

The issue regarding Russia serves as the catalyst for European re-energization of their respective military forces. The rise of ISIS/ ISIL is another reason why European Armed Forces have to remain their guard. As always, a nation should and must always be ready for any assymetrical military exigency than be literally "caught with one's pants down".
 
The issue regarding Russia serves as the catalyst for European re-energization of their respective military forces. The rise of ISIS/ ISIL is another reason why European Armed Forces have to remain their guard. As always, a nation should and must always be ready for any assymetrical military exigency than be literally "caught with one's pants down".

Its good to revamp their armed forces but Western countries need to choose their alliance properly. I seriously believe siding with Ukraine new government is a bad idea. Let me show you an example.

Azov_neo_nazi.jpg


These are the Ukarine forces battling the Russian and most of them are radical neo nazi who Russia has long accused of. Of cos the west would not care as long as they goes against Putin. But I strongly believe their radical believe and action are bigger threat than Russia.

Libya is a fine example. Gadaffi is not the most welcome libya leader for the west but at least he is not as radical as al qaeda. The rebel rising up against him are made up mostly of those terrorist who will do the west no good as proven now. The western needs to open their eyes bigger and see who is a bigger threat. Do not just support the the sake of your ex foes. There is no major threat to western europe, the only real threat is the west chosing the wrong partner.
 
I want to insert a ww2 french joke but wont.:coffee:

That's really sad to compare the french army of ww2 and 2014.
We always were good fighters,the politicians were always scums.
(Also,do you want me to talk about your "great victories" against India ? :lol: )

The 21st Century French Navy,


nl51a34d17.jpg



d35.jpg

The last ship is british. :P
Also,in the 1st pic,2 are French,2 Italian. :P
 
That's really sad to compare the french army of ww2 and 2014.
We always were good fighters,the politicians were always scums.
(Also,do you want me to talk about your "great victories" against India ? :lol: )



The last ship is british. :P
Also,in the 1st pic,2 are French,2 Italian. :P

hahaha, see how popular the French Horizon Class' design is !

And people dare questioned the French Military. ;)

 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom