The French

Archibald

Banned
How so? The weapons systems on the 2000C are hardly state-of-the-art. Of course the F3 would perform worse at close range manoeuvring, but that's not everything. The 2000-5 I could see performing well against the F3, but not the earlier ones.

The RAF had to learn to use the F3 well because of their deficiencies, employing pairs teamed up with AWACs.





Why do you assume it'd be a carrier vs carrier? Of course the C de G would come off best against an RN mini-carrier with only GRs, 1 vs 1 and in open ocean.

A submarine would be used to sink the carrier



The French SSNs are pretty crap in some ways compared to British and American contemporaries: unsurprisingly, because the Rubis/Amethyst are their first of class, getting on for 30 years old as it is, somewhat noisy and rather small.

Their SSBNs are, paradoxically, their best attack subs (assuming no nukes = SSBNs in their secondary post-MAD dispositions).

totally biased...

Of course It won't be carrier vs carrier. Better for the brits so... :)

Good luck for a sub atempting to sunk the CDG :rolleyes:


About the 2000s, Super-530F are as good as the Sparrow-copy (can't remember the name) arming the Tornado.
2000s totally outperform the Tornado F3 (they climb and accelerate much, much better). The only way for a Tornado F3 to escape a 2000 is to dive at full speed.

France also have AWACS by the way. Thus the "advantage" you mention for the Tornado is negated.

I agree GB has the edge in bombing capability. That's the real strength of the tornado fleet...
 
A good old fashioned neither side can conquer the other so we just glare at each other from a distance type scenario.
 
totally biased...

About the French subs? They have a certain reputation in naval circles, as being a little bit noisy compared to US/UK equivalents, as well as being a bit too small for what's required of them.

Moreover, given that a lot of French submarine experience was gained in operating conventional subs in the Med during the Cold War, given their relatively late introduction they never really had the chance to get the skills British and American SSN crews did against the Soviets.

It's not an unfounded criticism. They're the first of class of French SSN, a national effort. Experience gained with both SSBNs and SSNs has led to the vast improvement in the latest class of French missile boats.


Good luck for a sub atempting to sunk the CDG :rolleyes:

Oh, come on. There are submarines and targets. The advantage always lies with the submarine, unless it's handled stupidly. And the RN doesn't tend to handle it's submarines stupidly.

Look at the ASW resources of the French Navy at the moment. They'd have a great problem countering a highly skilled crew in a decent SSN, especially outside of reach of landbased aviation. So would the RN surface ASW forces, and the RN has the Type 23, which is pretty much weighted towards Cold War era asw operations, to say nothing of the USN.

And you don't need to sink a carrier to put it out of operation - in fact, it's quite good to have it floating whilst idamaged because it ties up other ships.


About the 2000s, Super-530F are as good as the Sparrow-copy (can't remember the name) arming the Tornado.
2000s totally outperform the Tornado F3 (they climb and accelerate much, much better). The only way for a Tornado F3 to escape a 2000 is to dive at full speed.

(Some?) Tornado F3s now carry AMRAAM and ASRAAM/Sidewinder, due to the late arrival of the EF2000.

They weren't designed to engage fighter planes, but Soviet strike aircraft and reconaissance, so of course the Mirage would have the advantage in certain areas. However, if they fight within their parameters of best performance - BVR combat, especially guided by AWACs, for the F3s, although the FAF have very good ECM etc - they can do rather well (although if might result in glancing combat since neither pilots would want to surrender their advantages): when - and generally only when! - fighting within its advantages it has defeated USAF F15Cs. So I'd suggest at the very least equivalence between the two, although probably at a significantly greater disadvantage against the 2000-5.


But this is all rather silly and I feel unclean now.
 
Last edited:
Another thing that's important to remember is experience. I'd say that with duties in Iraq, Afghanistan and the rest of the world, the British Armed Forces seem to have more experience in war at the moment than the French military, especially the Royal Marines and British Army.
 
Top