What's new

France planning to build and DOMINATE EU Army, Nato claims as nation neglects duties

What do you mean by that ? Polish/Romanian restaurants opened because there's a need for that.I eat regurlarly at a Romanian one.Thast doesn't mean that a Brit like Eastern European food he can't be served ? There are muslim halal restaurants,Indian ones,Sri lankan,Italian ,Turkish restyaurants.Why would EE ones be an exception ?
i said shops not restraunts. infact theres no eastern european restraunts in about a 15 radius from my house. they love chicken and donner. i am NOT saying they should not be any eastern european restraunts they have the right to have one no problem. im talking specifically retail shoips selling food. they food they sell is the food you can buy as tesco aldi morrisons asda etc.... ok heres an example a 15 min walk from my house there a corner shop selling normal house hold stuff and food specifically for south asains and eastern european food, guess who runs that shop?.... nope your wrong an irainian. you have halal chicken and pork in the same shop, sure it is split up by a piece of plastic and its packaged/sealed. why cant eastern europeans do that ? they go to the same schools as everybody else. live on the same street but seperate them selfs. that alone makes me cautious of them.

Long term like Germany...I am really curious?
think,
here's a clue you are where we were in the 60's/70's,
note im not comparing germany to us.
 
.
Remember him foaming at the mouth when France won the Australian sub bid ? Nothing to see here,he's butthurt with France because you don't allow women to walk around in tents.Best to ignore these stupid rants.

http://thediplomat.com/2016/05/the-...ason-australia-picked-the-shortfin-barracuda/

"That may have been an area where DCNS had a particularly appealing offering. The French Navy’s incoming Barracuda-class submarines are nuclear attack subs (SSN). The Shortfin variant on offer for the Australian Navy will see a conversion of the propulsion system to a conventional diesel electric bid. Of course, should an SSN become politically viable for Australian needs in the future, converting the Shortfin Barracuda‘s propulsion system back would be viable. With the diesel-electric Soryu and Type 216, this is option is effectively closed off without significant research and development."

Australia is massive and really should be getting nuclear SSNs in order to be able to properly patrol it's huge coastline and the surrounding oceans. The shortfin Barrcuda that France is supplying to Australia has nuclear propulsion already built into it's design, and since the first types wont come into service till 2030 the decision can easily be made to convert them to nuclear. With the German and Japanese designs, this would be much harder as the original subs are designed with diesel engines in mind and also neither country has experience in sub nuclear propulsion either.

@Vauban
 
.
http://thediplomat.com/2016/05/the-...ason-australia-picked-the-shortfin-barracuda/

"That may have been an area where DCNS had a particularly appealing offering. The French Navy’s incoming Barracuda-class submarines are nuclear attack subs (SSN). The Shortfin variant on offer for the Australian Navy will see a conversion of the propulsion system to a conventional diesel electric bid. Of course, should an SSN become politically viable for Australian needs in the future, converting the Shortfin Barracuda‘s propulsion system back would be viable. With the diesel-electric Soryu and Type 216, this is option is effectively closed off without significant research and development."

Australia is massive and really should be getting nuclear SSNs in order to be able to properly patrol it's huge coastline and the surrounding oceans. The shortfin Barrcuda that France is supplying to Australia has nuclear propulsion already built into it's design, and since the first types wont come into service till 2030 the decision can easily be made to convert them to nuclear. With the German and Japanese designs, this would be much harder as the original subs are designed with diesel engines in mind and also neither country has experience in sub nuclear propulsion either.

@Vauban


And yet you've listed Japan above France....
 
.
http://thediplomat.com/2016/05/the-...ason-australia-picked-the-shortfin-barracuda/

"That may have been an area where DCNS had a particularly appealing offering. The French Navy’s incoming Barracuda-class submarines are nuclear attack subs (SSN). The Shortfin variant on offer for the Australian Navy will see a conversion of the propulsion system to a conventional diesel electric bid. Of course, should an SSN become politically viable for Australian needs in the future, converting the Shortfin Barracuda‘s propulsion system back would be viable. With the diesel-electric Soryu and Type 216, this is option is effectively closed off without significant research and development."

Australia is massive and really should be getting nuclear SSNs in order to be able to properly patrol it's huge coastline and the surrounding oceans. The shortfin Barrcuda that France is supplying to Australia has nuclear propulsion already built into it's design, and since the first types wont come into service till 2030 the decision can easily be made to convert them to nuclear. With the German and Japanese designs, this would be much harder as the original subs are designed with diesel engines in mind and also neither country has experience in sub nuclear propulsion either.

@Vauban

Of course it was one of the reason why the Aussies chose ours. But take a look at this. @flamer84

The sound of silence — why Germany lost its subs bid


It was the smallest of sounds, too soft for human ears but deemed loud enough to potentially doom an Australian submarine.

Two weeks ago, behind closed doors in a shipyard in the German port of Kiel, the secrets behind Australia’s $150 billion submarine decision were finally revealed. It was a moment that left the Germans stunned. They were told for the first time that they had lost the bid because their proposed Australian submarine had an “unacceptable’’ level of “radiated noise’’.

In the world of submarines, noise equals potential detection and death, but when the Germans pressed the Australian officials in the room that day to explain further they were rebuffed. That information was classified, the Australians told them.

In a short and testy exchange, the truth became clear — France had won the largest defence contract in the nation’s history because it had best achieved the sound of silence. As a spying platform against China, and in the case of war, the proposed French submarine was seen to be more stealthy than those proposed by Germany or Japan.

But this is a $150bn judgment call — the construction phase is worth $50bn, with the sustainability of the submarines running to an extra $100bn over the life of the vessels — that the Germans fiercely contest, at least in private. It is also one that threatens to undermine relations with Berlin in the same way as the rejection of Japan’s bid has harmed Canberra’s ties with Tokyo.

The confidential debriefing for the failed German submarine bid took place inauspiciously on Friday the 13th this month, inside the historic Kiel shipyards.

Five Australian defence officials, led by the director-general of the Future Submarine Program Commodore Mike Houghton, stood in front of 11 senior representatives of German shipbuilder TKMS and representatives from the German ministries of defence, economic affairs and the foreign office. The presence of the government officials reflected what Germany had invested in the bid, up to and including lobbying by Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The Australian delegation, which one German observer described as “sheepish in their body language’’, handed out a document marked “PROTECTED — Sensitive”, summarising the reasons for its decision.

At the same time, on the other side of the world, the head of the Future Submarine Program, Rear Admiral Greg Sammut, was leading an Australian delegation on May 12 and 13 around various ministries in Tokyo, including the Ministry of Defence, to tell Japan why its bid failed.

Stealth issues also played a key role in Japan’s defeat.

If the Australian officials in Kiel hoped the Germans would be a passive audience, they were quite mistaken.

Led by TKMS deputy chief executive Dieter Rottsieper, the Germans doggedly questioned every key assumption the Australians had made. The Australian delegation began the two-hour debrief by assuring the Germans that the decision to reject their bid was not swayed by politics, the media or other factors. It was based entirely on the need to choose a regionally superior submarine that could be sustained through its life in Australia.

But, they said, the truth was that despite Germany putting forth an excellent plan for the local defence industry to sustain the boats, the submarine itself was not good enough.

The Germans were told that the “critical issue’’ was that their submarine was too noisy.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...d/news-story/4b3d69b49a8371e9837ed59e4f0faac2
 
Last edited:
.
And yet you've listed Japan above France....


Are French cars as good as Japanese cars?
Where the two countries have no constraints on the respective technologies, Japan wins hands down.

Airbus would be nothing without engines supplied by UK.
 
.
Are French cars as good as Japanese cars?
Where the two countries have no constraints on the respective technologies, Japan wins hands down.

Airbus would be nothing without engines supplied by UK.


You can't have an opinion on what Airbus would be without UK engines because the conglomerate was structured for UK engines as part of the work load.Barring in mind that France can supply jet engines for fighter jets or other planes from Dassault,your assumption is pretty hollow.Basing your info on cars but disregarding fighter jets,nuclear propulsion,helicopter tech is pretty thin,to say the least....
 
. .
think,
here's a clue you are where we were in the 60's/70's,
note im not comparing germany to us.
I did not get much sleep tonight ans I am really tired, not the best moment to think...could you be a little bit more specific, please?
 
. . .
You can't have an opinion on what Airbus would be without UK engines because the conglomerate was structured for UK engines as part of the work load.Barring in mind that France can supply jet engines for fighter jets or other planes from Dassault,your assumption is pretty hollow.Basing your info on cars but disregarding fighter jets,nuclear propulsion,helicopter tech is pretty thin,to say the least....

The first country in the world to put into service an AESA radar in a fighter was Japan on their F-2 fighter.

Japan also manufactures it's own ASW aircraft called the P-1. Apart from some weapons, everything else like engines and radar is designed by the Japanese.

An unleashed Japan would have better military technology across the board than France within a generation.
 
. . .
Nope - Japan has twice the GDP of France and is already preparing for when it is finally able to develop military
technology without hindrance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_X-2_Shinshin

Everything, including engines, are all indigenous.


That's just a prototype,in fact,not even that,but a tech demonstrator, while France has engines for decades and there's nothing that could coroborate your inferior tech rant.
 
.
That's just a prototype,in fact,not even that,but a tech demonstrator, while France has engines for decades and there's nothing that could coroborate your inferior tech rant.


Ok, let us compare UK and French military engine tech as you think France is as good as UK in this area:

EJ-2000(UK): T/W ratio = 9.3:1
M-88(France): T/W ratio = 8.5:1

See the French engine is a lot less powerful per unit of weight than the UK one.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom