Marine Britannique

[Neowens]

faites gaffe aux Exocets et aux Super Etendard argentins...

[pascal]

@Néo

Les pauvres n'ont pas évolué depuis 82

[g4lly]

@Néo

Les pauvres n'ont pas évolué depuis 82

Mais si mais si il sont passé a la démocratie... :lol:

[Fusilier]

Mais si mais si il sont passé a la démocratie... :lol:

Qui les Britanniques? =D

[jeanmi]

Le gouvernement britannique a réduit de 1,5 milliards de livres le budget de défense durant les 3 prochaines années, en dépit de l'augmentation décidée en juillet. En fait, le budget britannique de la défense a un déficit de 2 milliards cette année et en aura un de 5 milliards les 3 suivantes.

De la sorte, le programme des deux CVF sera postposé de deux ans, les bâtiments devant dès lors entrer en service en 2016 et 2018.

Mais d'autres programmes pourraient également être touchés, le Trésor britannique demandant l'abandon de la modernisation de la dernière tranche de 88 Tornado, la réduction des commandes en F-35 (138 sont pour l'heure plannifiés), le décommissionnement de 4 frégates Type 22 et celui d'une Type 23. La Royal Navy ne disposera dès lors plus que de 20 bâtiments d'escorte.

http://athena-et-moi.blogspot.com/

[Invité Rob]

This is a fucking joke, right? How often do you intend to repost this rumour? It has been posted now 5 times in this thread alone, and another 3-4 times in other threads. Funnily the poster "Jeanmi" posted the same rumour twice in this thread, excatly as he/she posted the Astute pump failure twice in this thread. Also quite funny that this "news" doesn't even say that it is based on a newspaper article, but just represents it as fact! Outrageously ridiculous journalism.

I am looking forward to you reposting this a third time and a fourth time, please repost it as often as needed, I do not want to hinder you in satisfying your hatred for everything British.  :lol:

[Neuron]

No Rob, that's not a fucking joke ( textuellement "une putain de blague" en français)

It's an official news, sorry Rob, Jeanmi is not against the Royal Navy...

La Grande Bretagne n'a pas une economie plus importante que celle de la France, des choix budgétaires devaient donc s'imposer...

so... Welcome on board of the new Royal (Macro cephalic) Navy  :lol:

[pascal]

Nous sommes tous dans le même bateau au niveau des contraintes budgétaires...

C'est d'une logique tellement évidente !

Faire la guerre coute très cher surtout quand on la fait depuis 5 ans. Alors arrêtons avec la méthode coué du "tout va très bien madame le marquise".

[Philippe Top-Force]

To Rob, il ne faut pas s'insurger contre l'apposition du message de Jean-mi, Jean-Michel n'y est pour rien, il nous relaye juste une information émanant d'un blog de Joseph Henrotin.

C'est cela le partage d'information, un échange de récit lu par ici ou par là. Chacun y contribue.

Il a crû bien faire en nous faisant partager ce nouveau sujet lancé par JH.  ;)

Tu as le droit Rob de dire que ce ne sont que de simples rumeurs, mais il te suffit d'aller répondre directement en Anglais à Joseph Henrotin sur son blog athena & moi. Tu auras peut-être les explications que tu recherches.  =)

http://www.air-defense.net/Forum_AD/index.php?topic=8799.0 Blog de JH

Tu peux le faire aussi sur ce forum par l'intermédiaire de 2 fils de discussion, Joseph H est présent parmi nous en tant que membre de ce forum. Voir la rubrique médias.

Il est sympathique et nous réponds sans détour.

http://www.air-defense.net/Forum_AD/index.php?topic=8208.0

http://www.air-defense.net/Forum_AD/index.php?topic=4905.0

Pour ton information personnelle Rob, JH est le rédacteur en chef adjoint du magazine mensuel Défense Sécurité Internationale DSI, ainsi que le rédacteur en chef de la revue Technologies & Armement. Il est en phase de soutenance de sa thèse.

Maintenant, ce qui est drôle lors de la sortie du fil de discussion sur : FREMM 8 ou 10, tu n'étais pas inactif à participer à cette rumeur. Tu doutais que la France puisse se doter de plus de 8 frégates, on peut alors te rétorquer que tu contribues à propager une fausse rumeur.

D'ailleurs, j'ai aussi noté que dans le thread : Afghanistan, tu t'es permis de faire des réflexions totalement déplacées sans vraiment à chercher et à comprendre les attributions de forces françaises en A-Stan données par le commandement combiné OTAN dont la France ne fait pas partie, critiquer la participation française de nos forces sans vraiment savoir pourquoi les américains ont demandé (décidé) aux français de se positionner dans la capitale alors que les forces britanniques, canadiennes, autraliennes ou danoises sont dans le sud au combat, ne contribue pas non plus à une pleine alliance coopérative. Si on connait pas les tenants et aboutissants, on finit par s'invectiver.

Nos OMLT sont présents en nombre. Nos forces aériennes délivrent de l'armement tous les jours au profit des troupes au sol, et s'il faut redéployer des forces spéciales et des compagnies de combat, la France saura être à la hauteur, elle n'a jamais failli ni laissé tomber ses amis alliés à commencer par les Britanniques.

Pour en revenir à la Royal Navy.

Dans le T&A n°9, on y parle des SNA/SSN britanniques, son évolution et ses programmes.

Dans le T&A n°7, on relate la volonté de communalité avec les CVF UK.

 

[Invité Rob]

No Rob, that's not a fucking joke ( textuellement "une putain de blague" en français)

It's an official news, sorry Rob, Jeanmi is not against the Royal Navy...

No it's not, it's a rumour spread by the Times and posted not once, not twice, not three times, not four times but five times in this thread, in addition to several postings in other threads. And whilst the first article mentioned that it was a rumour some here have now managed to post blogs that clearly are extremly shoddy journalism just taking the content of the Times and presenting it as fact. Ridiculous. Also, quite funny "Jeanmi" managed to post the pump failure of Astute twice. Taking all the "official news" posted here by French posters the Royal Navy doesn't exist anymore.

Maintenant, ce qui est drôle lors de la sortie du fil de discussion sur : FREMM 8 ou 10, tu n'étais pas inactif à participer à cette rumeur. Tu doutais que la France puisse se doter de plus de 8 frégates, on peut alors te rétorquer que tu contribues à propager une fausse rumeur.

Tu es drole. J'ai poste deux fois en ce fils de discussion, la premiere fois j'ai defendu le Royal Navy contre un rumeur faux (que un LPD est en reserve, qui est clairement faux), l'autre fois j'ai seulement poser une question. Je n'ai pas poster la meme article cinq fois (comme les posters francais ici). Je n'ai pas poster des nouvelles mauvaises (Astute pump failure) deux fois comme Jeanmi. Je ne suis pas contre poster des rumeurs, je suis contre poster la meme rumeur cinq fois et presenter un rumeur comme la veritie.

D'ailleurs, j'ai aussi noté que dans le thread : Afghanistan, tu t'es permis de faire des réflexions totalement déplacées sans vraiment à chercher et à comprendre les attributions de forces françaises en A-Stan données par le commandement combiné OTAN dont la France ne fait pas partie, critiquer la participation française de nos forces sans vraiment savoir pourquoi les américains ont demandé (décidé) aux français de se positionner dans la capitale alors que les forces britanniques, canadiennes, autraliennes ou danoises sont dans le sud au combat, ne contribue pas non plus à une pleine alliance coopérative. Si on connait pas les tenants et aboutissants, on finit par s'invectiver.

LOL. Oui, NATO ne veux pas plus de soldats en le sud. Oui, les 2000 soldats francais sont assez. Oui, les autres pays adorent de faire la lutte en le sud. Oui, NATO n'a pas demande de chaque membres plus de soldats. Oui, bien sur tout est bien.

And why are my comments "deplaced"? Don't you want to hear that a lot of people in the UK and US consider France a let down in this regard? Well, too bad, you not wanting to hear it won't change that the image of France is suffering under the disappointing French participation in Afghanistan. It is funny how you defend a French posters right to post the same article/rumour five times within about a week in this thread but attack me for my personal opinion. I don't dislike France (been there (Nice/Marseille) on several occasions and quite liked it), but I will verbally critizise any NATO country that is not pulling it's weight whilst our lads are doing the hard work.

[Tancrède]

Sorry old boy, but this time you just overstepped: it's easy to answer the part of other people's argumentation that suits you. It's another kind of job to answer the whole argumentation, which would be the only honest way to debate.

Things you don't want to see (I'll write it in English so that misunderstanding won't be -I hope- an excuse):

- Jeanmi and Philippe quoted Joseph Henrotin who is a bit of a professional in this area. Maybe you could at least wonder (and maybe try to see) that his sources may be quite a little better than yours. Maybe some kids here take pleasure in bashing other western countries's forces, but it's not the case for most of us; whenever the RN and/or the MN have less ships, all of us are paying the price (more orders from the US, lesser overall influence and less grip on our futures which are, whether we like it or not, more and more linked).

- On the ground of objectivity and/or goodwill towards the neighbour, you also should admit you're not really in position to claim an absence of bias: if we listen to you, England will receive the totality of its targeted equipements and systems, mostly on time, with a 100% reliability and all the options possible, whether France will receive at best half of hers, and with degraded capabilities. I never chatted with you on this forum (a bit on the WAFF if you're the same Rob), but I've read many of your posts and frankly your last one was a bit shocking. Every post is not an agression (it's not the WAFF, and the Chinese and Iranian dudes are not here) and you don't have to "defend" the RN: I've heard it was quite able to do that.

- You didn't try to see and understand how the deployments in A Stan works and yet you're almost accusing other countries of cowardice. First, England CHOOSE to wage war in A stan; whether other go or not shouldn't be of its concern if its resolve is that strong. Nobody forced the UK to commit there, and France never said it would send a 10 000 strong expeditionnary corps. In case you don't remember, french ground and air troops are under NATO's command and go WHERE THEY ARE BLOODY TOLD TO GO. Only the SF are deployed in the south and directly placed under NATO's command by the head of state. Moreover, 2008 will see reinforcements in Rafales and 2000s, some Tiger helos, maybe more Caracals (that have proven, in 6 months, to be the most available and efficient copters on the theater of operations) and a redeployment of SF groups (which I strongly disapprove of). And the CdG will return there as soon as it's out of its ITER, before the end of the year. The "our lads are doing the hard work" line is bit overplayed now; some of our people also died over there

- By the way, excuse us for having other places to be than A stan: Côte d'Ivoire (where the girls are hot and the guns getting hotter), Kosovo (where the mess is coming back big time), Lebanon (that is currently risking to blow up against and end in civil war), Centrafrique and Tchad (where the interior and border problems are now linked with islamist terrorism and the Sudanese case, and are hitting a whole different scale -maybe we'll have to play with the yellow commie man there), and probably this time-wasting-but-conscience-cleaning Darfur. And those are only the big deployments.

Also, forgive us for having a life aside from England's interests. Forgive us for not putting Astan as high in our priorities than you do. You have your mess, we have ours. Now NATO is asking for more troops after telling us on and on that the US SF, along with the US Air Force and with the backing of only a few other SFs, would do the job in no time. Well too bad, but we have also to many other places to go, and too few soldiers to send.

Sorry if I'm a bit agressive, but re-read your post; cause, as I've said, it's not only condescendant, but it's really insulting and with very little ground.

[Invité Rob]

- Jeanmi and Philippe quoted Joseph Henrotin who is a bit of a professional in this area. Maybe you could at least wonder (and maybe try to see) that his sources may be quite a little better than yours. Maybe some kids here take pleasure in bashing other western countries's forces, but it's not the case for most of us; whenever the RN and/or the MN have less ships, all of us are paying the price (more orders from the US, lesser overall influence and less grip on our futures which are, whether we like it or not, more and more linked).

I'm sorry, but if you can't see that "Joseph Henrotin" just translated the Times article, then that is sad. And of course not even giving his source, but presenting the whole thing as fact, that is very dishonest. I love it how some French have a go at Jon Lake etc... for posting stuff about Eurofighter, but of course the other way around it must be a totally different case.  Also quite funny, your "expert" wrote Tranche 3 of Tornados.  :lol:

- On the ground of objectivity and/or goodwill towards the neighbour, you also should admit you're not really in position to claim an absence of bias: if we listen to you, England will receive the totality of its targeted equipements and systems, mostly on time, with a 100% reliability and all the options possible, whether France will receive at best half of hers, and with degraded capabilities.

Come up with quotes by me instead of letting your bias attack me. When did I post the same negative rumour about France five times within a week? When did I post the same negative rumour in several threads? I do not mind posting something negative about the UK. You guys can do that, but what I do mind is posting things again and again just to annoy me and play some childish game. You can't tell me it is normal for this forum that a rumour gets reposted all in all 8 or so times.

I have said again and again that Astute 8 and T45 7&8 are not secure. I have said that MARS will probably not be built in the UK, I posted the Eurofighter crash landing on this very forum. Of course I am biased, but not as you try to point it out. I rarely post about French stuff. Do I post every few hours in the Rafale thread and talk about possible cuts to the programme? Nope and that is quite contrary to the Eurofighter discussion here. Do I post in the MN thread and post rumours of cuts? Nope, not that I remember. Did I post the rumour (Defense News reported this a day or two ago) of 40000 civilian and military job cuts in France? No. The "FREMM 8 ou 10" thread is a good example, I made two posts, one pointing out that it is untrue that a UK LPD is in reserve and another asking if France will reorder the Maroccan FREMM which is totally legitimate, how often have French posters asked about UK orders of Eurofighters going to Saudi? A dozen times? More often?

What I do do is post news (Bulgarian Defence Minister saying they are postponing the Gowinds), rumours (sometimes, but imo by far not as often and agressviley as some have done in this thread) and post my opinion.

As for the WAFF, I will not let myself be pushed in some Anti-France corner, whenever someone there posts utter shit about France I am one of the first to post and say that that is utter bias and rubbish. See the recent "gay Sarkozy" thread.

- You didn't try to see and understand how the deployments in A Stan works and yet you're almost accusing other countries of cowardice. First, England CHOOSE to wage war in A stan; whether other go or not shouldn't be of its concern if its resolve is that strong. Nobody forced the UK to commit there, and France never said it would send a 10 000 strong expeditionnary corps.

France supported the NATO mission there. If some posters here say France shouldn't send more troops because it isn't in their interest then that makes me extremly angry because it is such a business type approach to something that should be a very easy decision. You guys can take any decision you like, but do not expect me, and many others, to appreciate such a decision.

In case you don't remember, french ground and air troops are under NATO's command and go WHERE THEY ARE BLOODY TOLD TO GO.

So, why is NATO calling for more troops in the South? Why not send more? NATO has expressed a need for more troops and Sarkozy clearly thought France was one of the countries addressed, just recently he said he might send another 130 soldiers. Just NATO needs another 13000 troops. I'm not saying all of those need to be French, but I find the French attitude of considering themselves a European defence leader and at the same time shying away from taking on more responsibility in a mission, that is to a large degree European, hypocritical. As for "they will go where they are told to", that is actually incorrect, every country has it's own ROE, for example the Germans aren't allowed into the South, apparently it's too dangerous. I don't know the French ROE so I won't comment on those.

Only the SF are deployed in the south and directly placed under NATO's command by the head of state. Moreover, 2008 will see reinforcements in Rafales and 2000s, some Tiger helos, maybe more Caracals (that have proven, in 6 months, to be the most available and efficient copters on the theater of operations) and a redeployment of SF groups (which I strongly disapprove of). And the CdG will return there as soon as it's out of its ITER, before the end of the year. The "our lads are doing the hard work" line is bit overplayed now; some of our people also died over there

And evey bit is appreciated, but what will win the war is not 200 or so special forces but thousands of boots on the ground. That is why the UK has 8000 troops in Afghanistan (mainly in the south), Canada and the Netherlands each another 2000 or so in the south and the US just increased their troops by 3000+.

As for casualties, it is very clear who is doing the brunt of the work in Afghanistan. And whilst I do not want to use casualties as an indicator of "work" done or something similar, it has to be said with most NATO armies similarly well trained and equipped, casualties are a bit of an indicator.

USA 480

UK 86

Canada 77

Germany 25

Spain 23

Netherlands 14

France 12

- By the way, excuse us for having other places to be than A stan: Côte d'Ivoire (where the girls are hot and the guns getting hotter), Kosovo (where the mess is coming back big time), Lebanon (that is currently risking to blow up against and end in civil war), Centrafrique and Tchad (where the interior and border problems are now linked with islamist terrorism and the Sudanese case, and are hitting a whole different scale -maybe we'll have to play with the yellow commie man there), and probably this time-wasting-but-conscience-cleaning Darfur. And those are only the big deployments.

And other countries don't have similar commitments? The UK is in Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq, Siera Leone, Liberia, etc... . Germany is in Lebanon, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc... and still provdes ca. 1400 troops more on the ground in Afghanistan. France, if it wanted to, could easily increase the number of soldiers deployed. The smaller British army can deploy more troops than the French army is currently deploying. So clearly France could send more troops, but as said, it doesn't have the political will to do so and that is sad because it damages NATO and it damages European relations. By the way France is not the only country that is in this situation, Italy imo also does too little.

Also, forgive us for having a life aside from England's interests. Forgive us for not putting Astan as high in our priorities than you do. You have your mess, we have ours. Now NATO is asking for more troops after telling us on and on that the US SF, along with the US Air Force and with the backing of only a few other SFs, would do the job in no time. Well too bad, but we have also to many other places to go, and too few soldiers to send.

A very easy way out, just blame the USA. Has France patented this already? Seriously, France supported the NATO mission in Afghanistan, if you didn't want to be in you should have voted accordingly in the NATO conference that decided in favour of Afghanistan. If you really think Afghanistan is not in France's interest (it seems you guys only think in these terms, instead of loyalty etc...) then I can't help you.

[Invité Rob]

Peut-etre des posters pouvent poster sur Afghanistan en la fils de discussion "Afghanistan", merci.

[jeanmi]

HMS Astute : les réparations des turbo-alternateurs sont terminées

http://www.corlobe.tk/article7216.html

rob  pleins de sources concordent, il y aura certainement une baisse de votre budget . Maintenant libre a toi de ne pas y croire mais je pense que les journaliste sont mieux informés que toi .(il n'y a pas de fumée sans feu)

[Redac DSI]

Good morning Gents, JH at the keyboard.

To answer Rob, I've effectively read this story 3 to 4 times. But as a researcher my first job is not to take into account what non-specialized journalists wrote. So I took my telephone to call some British MPs and some RN friends to have some food for tought. They gave me not only food but also wine : the result is on line. I'm terribly sorry for the RN, it's not a pleasure to write that kind of news. But one of my next books will examine the evolution of naval strategy, so I naturally keep an eye on what is going on the other side of the Channel.

Bye for now,

JH

   

[jeanmi]

et en français çà donne quoi ?

[g4lly]

et en français çà donne quoi ?

Good morning Gents, JH at the keyboard.

Bon dimanche Messieurs, JH au clavier

To answer Rob, I've effectively read this story 3 to 4 times. But as a researcher my first job is not to take into account

Pour répondre à Robert, j'ai effectivement lu cette histoire 3 ou 4 fois. Mais comme chercheur, mon principal travail est de ne pas prendre en compte

what non-specialized journalists wrote. So I took my telephone to call some British MPs and some RN friends to have

ce que la presse non-spécialisé écrit. Donc j'ai pris mon téléphone et appelé en Angleterre et aussi quelques amis Français pour avoir

some food for tought. They gave me not only food but also wine : the result is on line. I'm terribly sorry for the RN, it's

Quelques chose a me mettre sous la dent. Ils ne m'ont pas seulement donné a mangé mais aussi a boire : Le résultat est publié en ligne. Je suis terriblement désolé pour la Royal Navy,

not a pleasure to write that kind of news. But one of my next books will examine the evolution of naval strategy, so I naturally keep an eye on what is going on the other side of the Channel.

Ce n'est pas avec plaisir que j'écris ce genre de nouvelle. Mais un de mes prochains livres examinera l'évolution de la stratégie navale, donc je garde naturellement un œil sur ce qui se passe de l'autre coté de la manche.

Bye for now,

JH

[Philippe Top-Force]

et en français çà donne quoi ?

Pour apporter de l'eau au moulin de G4lly et sans trahir la confidentialité du message personnel que vient de me transmettre Joseph Henrotin.

J'espère que JH ne m'en tiendra pas rigueur, j'assume ma responsabilité de vous apposer mon MP. ;)

"Je suis désolé mais si le Times m'a mis la puce à l'oreille, j'ai fait confirmer par des parlementaires et des off' RN et, malheureusement, ça tient la route. L'Irak a bousillé nombre de leurs projets plus sûrement que n'importe quel missile."

Bon dimanche,

Philippe

[pascal]

Le poids financier des OPEX avec pour csq la dispo opérationnelle des appareils et les menaces sur les programmes anglais sont expliqués en long en large et en travers et presque pas à demi-mots dans le magazine anglais Air Forces Monthly depuis le printemps au moins pour le volet RAF... :-\ =(

Mais à chaque fois qu'on fait part de ces infos nous faisons de l'anti roastbeef primaire...

Attendons le discours du Trône...

[jeanmi]

merçi g4lly pour la traduction  ;)

[SpongeBob]

Voilà pour rendre justice à la RN.

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=RCjuT9tyDNI&feature=related

[P4]

Si la RN communique en off sur l' impact financier des conflits Irakien et Afghan c'est au trésor que tous se joue.

Et les choses vont encore empirer si le trésor(banque d'Angleterre) assume seul le sauvetage de la banque "Northen Rock"(25 milliards de£), de notre coté on a la chance de pouvoir vendre les bijoux de familles pour combler les brèches.

[Invité Orca]

Je crois que cette info est à prendre avec des pincettes.

Brown avait annoncé une hausse du budget lors de sa prise de pouvoir et on ne peut pas vraiment dire qu'il était ignorant de la situation financière du RU.

[pascal]

Certes mais concernant les CVF Gordon Brown a joué l'effet d'annonce auprès des chantiers écossais garantissant du travail à des sites industriels de sa région d'origine...

[P4]

Aie, Aie, Aie.

Une chambre froide défectueuse provoque le retour d’un porte-avions britannique.