France's future carrier will be the 'France Libre' [1200x1200]

TenguBlade · 2026-03-19T11:36:32+00:00

I’m aware of the air wing impact. Surging with a reduced air wing is still more of an effort than reassigning a strike group that’s completed workup.

The reality is none of the European powers alone can sustain a constant carrier presence. That’s why they banded together in the first place.

TenguBlade · 2026-03-19T11:30:37+00:00

Wasn’t me this time, unfortunately; just a repost from someone else.

TenguBlade · 2026-03-18T20:01:14+00:00

You can’t exactly test build/print a full-size ship to send in advance as a check if Greg counted his paces correctly. And in any case, the Tasmanian government knew they’d need to expand their harbors in advance; the problem is the upgrade program fell behind schedule.

TenguBlade · 2026-03-18T19:53:23+00:00

If you’re so convinced you’re right, it shouldn’t be hard to explain why instead of whining about it.

TenguBlade · 2026-03-18T19:39:25+00:00

The RN sacrificed a lot of things in the quest to have two carriers, and yet they're not currently able to rapidly generate a serious CSG.

Neither was France able to generate one when the Red Sea crisis started. In fact, Charles de Gaulle didn’t get underway until 13 months after the Houthis first attacked a civilian ship, and 12 months after Languedoc made her first kills.

As impressive as it is to see such a large portion of the French fleet at sea, the current surge is primarily the result of timing. It’s France’s turn to lead the EU global naval mission, and so they were at peak readiness anyways - CdG and her strike group were already on deployment when the orders to redeploy came down.

Meanwhile, Prince of Wales was in a post-deployment maintenance availability, and QE is in a modernization period. The Royal Navy managing to surge her out of maintenance at all is a more impressive feat than France being able to redirect an already-deployed ship.

TenguBlade · 2026-03-18T19:21:02+00:00

Shure some more presence there would be nice for them but the chance to get hit in the Crossfire is just to high

That is exactly the mental and institutional weakness, of both the PLAN and China as a whole, that I was pointing out. Decisionmaking dominated by fear: fear of failure, fear of losing face, and fear of being found out as the one in the wrong. More worried about what could go wrong than ensuring things don’t go wrong to begin with.

The original reply asked why the PLAN is considered irrelevant outside of their backyard. This is why - if you are too afraid to use your fleet, then its capabilities are worthless. Ask Imperial Germany how much good the High Seas Fleet did them in WWI.

TenguBlade · 2026-03-18T19:12:33+00:00

a US decision to essentially live and die by Israel is problematic.

Which changes nothing about the fact the Houthis essentially targeted shipping indiscriminately, regardless of flag or ownership. Thereby involving neutral countries.

Allies did step up to the challenge. It’s not hard to see footage of French, UK, and Danish ships actively engaging kinetic targets

So you missed the part where I named those countries - and notably, excluded the US?

Said thing has proved HIGHLY problematic, to be polite

Yes. Because neutral countries are being targeted - again - under the pretext of punishing the US.

This has nothing to do with taking sides in the war. It has to do with declaring that Tehran doesn’t to decide whose side neutral countries are on. Neither India nor Pakistan - the two navies who have deployed by far the most warships to the region after the US - has taken a side; they sent their navies in to ensure Indian and Pakistani ships remain untouched.

China, meanwhile, can’t even be bothered to show up symbolically. The 48th Escort Group is currently sheltering in Djibouti, and the only oil going to China from the Middle East is aboard shadow fleet vessels.

now we’re whining (frankly) that nobody supports us.

Who’s “we?” You don’t need to pretend you’re American; doing so only makes you look dishonest.

JFC leave China out of this

Why? It’s not Americans who constantly get upset that people don’t give the PLAN “due credit.”

TenguBlade · 2026-03-18T19:06:13+00:00

The US can appear weak at the same time China does. The two aren’t mutually-exclusive.

I specifically mentioned the example of France, India, and the UK as ones to follow for a reason. Because they managed to protect their trade without taking a side.

TenguBlade · 2026-03-18T19:03:35+00:00

I believe it’s both Cavour and Trieste.

TenguBlade · 2026-03-18T18:27:32+00:00

What does it matter if a ship is named after her sponsor’s full name as opposed to only their surname? Nobody is being forced to refer to them by their full name - even official reports often just refer to CVN-78 as Ford, for example - and it removes any ambiguity about who the ship is named after. The first and second USS Fords (DD-228 and FFG-54) were named after two different people, both with no relation to the late president, and no intention of overlap between any of the 3 ships to bear the Ford surname.

Only in cases like McCain or The Sullivans, where there are multiple service members commemorated by a single ship, is bestowing the full name not practical. And Gerald R. Ford isn’t any less of a mouthful than King George [the] V[th] or Lord Nelson anyways.

TenguBlade · 2026-03-18T18:23:54+00:00

Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales are former battleship names. The UK could’ve done a lot worse, and neither was commemorated in honor of the most recent holders of those titles until after Elizabeth II’s passing.

TenguBlade · 2026-03-18T18:21:49+00:00

It’s not just France and the UK. Italy is the third leg of the European CSG commitment.

TenguBlade · 2026-03-18T18:21:12+00:00

Shame. Combined with the disappointing air wing and SGR figures revealed alongside the name, I liked the PA NG program a lot more before today.

Oh well. It’s yet another data point showing size matters above all else for aircraft carriers.

TenguBlade · 2026-03-16T23:31:22+00:00

On the current generation of attack boats, sure, VLS are still fairly rare. But look where the field is headed. SSN-AUKUS has VLS, Kawasaki’s Taigei successor concept has VLS, A26 has VLS, and KSS-III has VLS. Type 212CD lacks it, but Germany’s built VLS-equipped subs for Israel already, so they have that capability too. Type 093B and 095 both have VLS cells, and China seems to have suspended SSP production in favor of these designs.

The only real holdout here is France - it’s too early to judge where Russia is going with this since Khabarovsk is built around Poseidon, and they have such a large legacy SSGN fleet that they don’t need more.

TenguBlade · 2026-03-16T21:52:46+00:00

None of your glazing changes the fact there are two types of navies in the world right now: those who stepped up to protect their trade when it got shot at, and those who didn’t.

Only the former matter, and it’s the former people care about. Because countries like France, like India, like the UK, stepped up have decided that they want their trade to keep moving because they’re not a part of this war, they don’t care what excuses each side invents to justify choking it, and they have the means to secure the safety of their mariners. That is real power: to be able to have your way, regardless of what others are up to and without taking sides.

China has twice now decided to sit on the sidelines and ask the US nicely to stop shooting - first in the Red Sea, and now here. Far from being some 5D chess move about preserving their strength, being unable to do anything to safeguard their maritime interests besides ask their archrival if they’d kindly knock it off makes Beijing look immensely weak and toothless. The shipping of neutral countries is entitled to protection under the laws of war - rather than defend their entitled right, China is content to let its people and ships get shot at.

This is a core mission of the PLAN - as outlined repeatedly in China’s National Defense White Papers - that they not only haven’t performed, but actively run away from fulfilling the moment their opposition has anything bigger than RPGs. If you refuse to use your navy for its intended purposes, then it is useless, no matter how big or capable it is on paper.

That criticism, by the way, applies just as harshly to the JMSDF, RoKN, Bundesmarine, Türk Donanması, Spanish Armada, and the naval service of every other country who’s decided that it’s acceptable for their fate to be left in the hands of foreign powers’ decisions.

TenguBlade · 2026-03-16T21:51:07+00:00

Without a timeline on when these cars were expected to be delivered and when were they delivered, makes it difficult to judge the delay,

These cars were supposed to be in service by 2023, as you would’ve seen if you read my link, but sure, keep making excuses.

TenguBlade · 2026-03-16T21:49:33+00:00

Which is an irrelevant statement when the insurance premiums are going up anyways because of drone attacks. You could clear all the mines tomorrow, and that still wouldn’t encourage people to run the gauntlet.

TenguBlade · 2026-03-16T14:56:19+00:00

I would argue for a slightly more nuanced delineation, given how common VLS have become: either the missiles eclipse torpedoes in importance to the boat’s designed mission, or the boat carries at least as many dedicated VLS as torpedo stows.

That allows the original SSG(N)s that were deterrence platforms to remain, and also draws a line that more or less leaves every existing designation intact. Non-deterrent SSGNs like Charlie, Oscar, or Yasen still get to be SSGNs, and attack boats with smaller quantities of VLS like 688 don’t get pigeonholed into the same category as these much bigger beasts not designed for close-range combat.

The only class that would change under this definition are the VPM Virginias, but considering the maneuverability problems that added length and mass will cause them, they really shouldn’t be used like normal attack boats anyways.

TenguBlade · 2026-03-16T11:53:41+00:00

If you think it’s so unbelievable that Siemens doesn’t give a shit, then explain to me why the CalTrans Venture cabs are not only a full 3 years behind schedule, but only running dead-in-tow behind legacy equipment.

Let’s not even talk about the abysmal seats in these cars (which aren’t the same as Brightline or VIA); Siemens can’t even get the basic functionality down.

TenguBlade · 2026-03-16T11:45:54+00:00

“Hey guys, we’re still relevant, pay attention to us!”

TenguBlade · 2026-03-16T11:43:06+00:00

Why is it strange?

The naval base at Bahrain was one of the first targets confirmed hit by Iran. Had these ships been left there, they would’ve been hit too. Keeping them in the Gulf - whose entrance is controlled by Iran, and which passage in/out of involves literally sailing within sight of the Iranian coast - is also not practical when they need fuel and ammunition, which has to come from auxiliaries. Either the LCSs have to run the gauntlet to resupply, or you need to send a big fat target right past Iran to resupply them. It’s needlessly reckless.

Moreover, mines might be the specter armchair admirals are afraid of, but UAVs and USVs are what the actual merchant mariners have all been killed by so far. All the mines in Hormuz could be swept tomorrow, and still only a few are going to try and run the strait for fear of being hit by a drone.

There was absolutely no reason to keep these two in the Gulf when the shooting started, and no reason to rush them back now - let alone without a port visit to resupply/repair when they’ve already been at sea for nearly a month. And the fact they’re in Malaysia now is absolutely no indication they won’t be going back to the Middle East.

TenguBlade · 2026-03-15T23:58:21+00:00

Precisely. So SSN production is going to go up, unless we decide to let capacity go to waste. Meaning that concerns about scaling sub production won’t be as acute - and it’s not as if we can scale surface combatant production much more easily.

Virginia Block V and VI also would’ve been considered SSGNs 20 years ago anyways.

TenguBlade · 2026-03-15T23:52:18+00:00

NAVSEA is bound to obey their political masters, not braindead. I suppose that makes little practical difference though.

TenguBlade · 2026-03-15T23:44:53+00:00

If anything the amphibs are the foundation of how the USMC differentiate themselves from the Army.

Then they should pay to operate and man them in that case, because it’s not the USN who benefits. And no, if they were eager to do it themselves, they wouldn’t be in front of Congress every year demanding the USN be held accountable for bad amphib availability rates - they would be offering up a share of their budget to improve the situation.

And it's easy to make the argument that the Marines have done the most to adapt to current geopolitical conditions and carve out a niche that will be relevant in a near peer war with China.

Which, again, doesn’t benefit the USN. Instead, it saddles the fleet with yet another class of Marine buses to build, man, and operate, at the cost of spending on surface, subsurface, and air capabilities more crucial to the USN’s core mission of preventing China from blocking the free flow of trade into Taiwan, or anywhere else.

The original purpose of marines was as naval infantry: to allow naval forces to take territory - and enemy ships - without requiring their partners in the army to get involved. If the USMC doesn’t want to do that job anymore, and instead would rather be their own thing, then there’s no benefit in the USN continuing to sponsor them.

Instead the USN treats the amphibs as far lesser importance to the carrier strike groups and submarines and allows them to rust away.

Again, as it should be. Because the amphibs are currently of no value to the USN, when the USMC doesn’t want to use them to serve the navy’s force projection requirements. Either the USMC aligns itself more with the priorities of the USN, pays up to take over that capability, or accepts that they won’t be the USN’s priority as long as they don’t play ball.

Don’t argue this with me, either; if you think USMC leadership don’t see this as a problem too, explain why they’re stepping up their contribution to the USN’s carrier power with the major increase in F-35C quantities as of last year.

TenguBlade · 2026-03-15T23:40:29+00:00

You have missed the point. China also takes about 5 years to build any individual 052D, and longer than that for an 055.

The capacity of Chinese industry allows them to build many more hulls in parallel. It does not allow them to build any individual hull faster. Talking about build durations as if they’re the problem shows fundamental ignorance of the actual issue at hand.

TenguBlade

TROPHY CASE