You're welcome. Just discussion, not defending. I'm far from being an expert, just trying to apply common sense.Frenchie wrote:First of all, thank you for defending the French Navyabc123 wrote:Oh yes, definitly the French had their fair share of mistakes and stupid decisions. And yes, I agree that it would be better if they had built another CDG/PA2 and some other things you mentioned.Timmymagic wrote:I'm not sure we should be taking any lessons from the French on carrier aviation....look at the situation over the last 40-50 years, or hell even over 100...Until CdG arrived and actually got Rafale in numbers aboard it would have had its clock cleaned by a CVS with Sea Harrier onboard, same with the Foch and Clemenceau. The arrival of Rafale is the first time ever that the French Navy have managed to deploy a carrier with modern capability. Unfortunately for them the arrival of F-35 puts them miles behind the state of the art within 10 years of delivering that capability, same with their purchase of E-2C...and that's not that smart, neither is the purchase of 1 x CdG, cancellation of PA.2, ASW ability from CV's or escorts etc.abc123 wrote:would have done that ( and they know the best, the Freanch are stooopid ), because who needs that damn Harriers and carriers? RAF surely doesn't.
Besides at present the decision to kill Harrier and the CVL is looking like a risk that we actually got away with...gaps are never a good thing unless you get away with them.
But, the important thing is: I can't recall that they had ever gapped/cut entire capability, except maybe heavy helicopters after Frelon was retired.
I agree that sometimes their capabilities aren't top notch, but they are GOOD ENOUGH for their intended purpose. French Navy never had any serious intent to fight the Soviet Navy, so Clem and Foch ( with Crusaders and Etandards ) were good enough for: a) giving illusion of French grandeur and b) hitting colonials that can't fight back. Same thing with other stuff.
And meanwhile, with the exception of Crusader and Hawkeye, they were built in France, giving work to French workers, spending money mostly in France and having pretty sovereign capabilites. And that means a lot, at least to me.
I am not an expert like you, but we can not compare the two situations between France and the United Kingdom.
In first the main role of Sea Harrier is to provide air defense, although the air-to-air capabilities of the Super Etendard are quite limited, it has very high air-sea capabilities, and the Super Etendards are adapted to carry nuclear missiles, so to say that they were not capable of action against the USSR is a little exaggerated.
The Foch and the Clem were able to carry 15 Super-Etendard, 8 Crusader F-8P, 8 Breguet Alizé, 2 Super Frelon helicopters, they were old but between 1959 and 1997, they underwent many redesigns, ways to keep them performing.
Clem and Foch sailed all the oceans and totaled at the end of their career the sum of more than a million nautical miles each. They will have done 3000 days of sea, 80 000 hours of operation and will have made more than 70 000 catapultings each.
We only sell or destroy our ships as a last resort, when we have an alternative, and we upgrade our equipment as much as possible, that's our way of doing things.
Agreed with just one thing:
I didn't said that Etendards couldn't be used against USSR, but that conflict against them was never very high on French Navy list of priorities, like conflict with Russia also isn't for current French Armed Forces.