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
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...