A consortium led by CNN MCO with Thales and CS Group has started modernising the French Navy’s three amphibious helicopter carriers with a new inertial navigation system intended to improve resilience in contested electronic environments.
The work is part of the Navy’s maintenance and modernisation effort managed by the Fleet Support Service. According to the release, installation of the upgraded system on the first ship, Mistral, has been completed during its maintenance period in Toulon.
The broader programme covers the PHA class vessels Mistral, Tonnerre and Dixmude, as well as in service support for the replenishment ship Somme. CNN MCO’s contract, awarded in 2022, includes more than forty modernisation studies and has already produced about fifty upgrades across the three vessels.
The project addresses obsolescence in critical navigation systems by replacing older equipment with Thales’ TopAxyz units. Thales describes these inertial systems as operating on internally controlled data from onboard sensors without reliance on external signals. The company presents this as an advantage in environments where radionavigation systems may be jammed or spoofed. Florent Chauvancy of Thales said “we’re proud to play a part in providing resilient navigation solutions for France’s naval vessels as a prerequisite for ensuring freedom of action by armed forces at sea.”
CS Group is responsible for integrating the Thales units into a complete navigation suite that it provides to the Navy. The company’s role includes integrating navigation sensors, distributing data securely and ensuring cyber resilience. Frédéric Dussart of CS Group said the partnership underscores the value of domestic expertise and supports what he called coherent integration of the navigation chain.
CNN MCO is handling engineering, installation and testing. The company said it has devoted nearly 1,500 hours of engineering work to retrofit studies so far. Deputy Director Céline Barazer was quoted saying “this programme confirms CNN MCO’s ability to carry out complex upgrades in shipboard environments.”
The release states that installation across the three carriers will follow their routine maintenance timetables through 2027, with Dixmude and Tonnerre scheduled after Mistral. CNN MCO and the Fleet Support Service plan to coordinate installation windows to maintain operational availability at sea.
The RN Should have purchased the 2 that was denied to Russia and later sold to Egypt. That would have solved the current lack of assault ships for the Royal Marines.
Can you imagine the outcry form the Unions?, plus it would set a precedent that we only order British made warships.
Bae had an Ocean replacement design years ago. An order should have been placed.
But we did not have a lack of assault ships..as well as two 80,000 ton carriers we had two perfectly good 20,000 ton assault ships.. with a good decade of life left in each.. we did not need anything else until the idiots Simply did not recruit the crews needed to deploy them and then sold them for pocket change..
We did not hit a crisis of shipbuilding we hit a crisis of in year budget stupidity that cost us half a billion pounds of capital ship investment.
We should get three of something similar for MRSS, make sure it’s a through deck design for more future versatility.
This is why I think MRSS needs to be split.. essentially MRSS is replacing 6 ships 2 20,000 ton ships and 4 15-16,000 ton ships.. there is no way the RN can run 6 20,000+ ships.. personally I think it needs to go for 2 large deck classic amphibious vessels ( if they were really cleaver they would build them to take fixed wing drones and even a F35b flight), something similar to Trieste and then 4 10-15,000 ton littoral combatants.
You’re assuming we even get 6 ships
MRSS is not helicopter focused, not like we have decent marine Helos anyway
When you look at the French navy and Italian navy amphibious capabilities you can really see where the RNs capabilities have declined.. and amphibious capability is one of those areas.. it’s easy to blame the government but a lot of what the government does is guided by the executive agencies ( army, navy and airforce ) as executive agencies are not passive recipients of instructions ( although they like to allow the public to think they are). So you do have to wonder if this is in part to due to inter service fuckwittery that the UK seems to be very very good at.. the RAF not pushing hard for maritime patrol aircraft, diverting from F35b, no organic airborne anti ship missiles shows a lack of engagement in maritime power from the boys in blue.. the complete lack of any movement on medium lift helicopters and the dropping of focused fixed wing tactical transports shows a lack of willingness to support the army.. the RN dumping its amphibious capability shows a lack of willingness to get involved in anything to do with the land and the armies reciprocated utter unwillingness to train any of its battalions in amphibious operations shows a complete lack of contemplating the sea.
Is it any wonder we have the idiocy of losing our amphibious vessels.. after all it was the navies choice to crew or not crew Bulwark.
More important ships to crew than Bulwark
Just an interesting thought experiment what would we do if china decided it was having the Falklands? And was going to dumped a couple of brigades of heavy amphibious combined arms brigades on the island… not something that would happen now.. but in a decade when china wanted a bridgehead into the Antarctic and a secure south Atlantic bastion.. after all who would come and help ?
It’s an interesting question. In 10 years time, China will have at least two perhaps three CATOBAR carriers, along with a very sizeable amphibious force, not to mention a load of Type 54 frigates and Type 55 destroyers, along with a number of the Type 95 SSNs. On paper, by that stage they “should” be on par with the USN. One question would be, would they get support from Argentina, or will Argentina turn their backs on them, for daring to take the Malvinas away from them? Without Argentina’s support, they will be very isolated logistically, I doubt Chile will support them. The USA will be apoplectic if China takes the Falklands, as that would give China a significant chunk of Antarctica. But as importantly, it means USN carriers that are too big to go through the Panama canal, may have to change their route to the Pacific. Plus it means the PLAN could/would try to interfere with their passage if they continued to use the Southern Passage. So I’d say there would be a good chance for the USA to support the UK in reclaiming the islands?
The major issue for the UK, is lack of mass, compared to the War in 1982, then the RN had a significantly larger fleet, where less than half was deployed to the Falklands. Today we would have to pull everything available to conduct such a mission. In that time frame, will we have any serious amphibious capabilities? Will we actually have MRSS, as there would be nothing else to use? However, unlike Argentina in 1982, China would have significantly better offensive and defensive capabilities. They’d likely put satellites over the island, to give them both communications with their homeland, but also to observe the South Atlantic Ocean. Which when backed up with anti-ship ballistic missiles, will give a wide area of maritime denial around the islands. Next up, China has a “Hawkeye” copy, the KJ600, with likely similar/nearish capabilities. If the Type 003/004 carrier/s stay in the vicinity. This will give the Chinese a fixed airwing of 40 aircraft for the Type 003, whereas the Type 004 could have upward of 60. Made up with J15T, J15DTs and J35s. Which is not counting fixed wing drone aircraft. Giving the PLAN a sizeable and pretty capable air wing. Not forgetting that the PLAN would definitely deploy a number of the latest Type 095 SSNs, North and East of the Falklands lying in wait for a task group.
In ten years time, where will the RN be? The T23s will have likely all been retired due to unrecoverable wear and tear, leaving us with perhaps 3 to 4 T26s and 5 T31 frigates. At least one T26 will have to stay behind, to do the TAPS requirement for the CASD. But if both classes have Mk41, will they be armed with TLAM or Stratus? All the T45s will have been through their PiP and possibly their Sea Viper Evolution, Dragonfire is also probably fitted. Will the ship still have NSM, or will they have Stratus-LO/RS? All the Astute SSNs will be in service. Will there be a AUKUS-SSN in trials? If the 1SL has his way, we may have a few T92 and T93s to bolster the numbers. The other major issue is the RFA, again considerably smaller than it was in 1982, will their be enough ships/crew to support a major task group going south. Will we have an anti-satellite capability? As something will need to be done with the Chinese surveillance satellites in particular.
I would like to think we will have more F35Bs by that time, perhaps enough to put both carriers to sea. But what will they be armed with, will Spear-3 or a longer ranged stand-off weapon be integrated, what about Meteor? If all three issues are sorted, then the F35 will be a very capable and potent aircraft. Will the carriers have a better AEW platform, as this will be crucial against PLAN aircraft, especially the J35. Similarly will the F35 have a loyal wingman type drone by this stage? A problem I foresee are the amphibious helicopters. Will they be equally split between the carriers or will one carrier predominantly operate them? Mixing amphibious ops with combat air is not a good idea, as both interfere with each other, when it comes to deck space and requirements. But then if you put all the fixed wing on one carrier and rotary on the other. If one gets taken out, you have lost a significant and perhaps irreversible capability.
In a missile based war, logistics is a key factor. How deep is your magazine depth, can you replace used assets quickly? The operation in and around the Red Sea have shown how quickly a ship can expend its missiles. But also the lengths that ships have to go to to get their magazines replenished. For the PLAN, they will need to make sure they take sufficient quantities of missiles, so they can be replenished. Otherwise they will quickly run out and have to wait for replenishment from China. Unless they get support from Argentina to forward base materiel, I’d imagine them running out fairly quickly. For the UK, it will be no different, but I suspect countries such as Brazil would support our cause, at least logistically. Allowing our ships to dock for replenishment, especially if supported by the USA.
One thing that would count in our favour, is perhaps the weather. The Hermes and Invincible managed to maintain over 90% air operations, in some of the worst weather and seas encountered. It has been speculated, that a CATOBAR carrier would be down to less than 50%. With a ski ramp and vertical landing recovery, the F35Bs, can operate from a carrier in far worse weather than traditional carrier based fixed wing aircraft. If China has control of the islands and MPA, which is likely been heavily damaged. How quickly they repair the runway will depend on whether their jets remain on the carrier/s, which will affect availability.
For this scenario, the UK trying to reclaim the islands on its own, it will be outgunned. Only with direct US involvement would there be any chance of recovery. We simply don’t have the mass to fight an attritional war against the PLAN, nor the dedicated amphibious capabilities to get a large number of troops and equipment on to a beach. Additionally in 10 years time will the RFA be in a better position to support such a venture? Though I’d like to think we’d manage to get a few SF on to the islands, to observe and cause merry hell when needed.
Nice thought experiment, probably not a short term win.
Hello? The French maintaining and keeping Amphibious ships we hear from all quarters are obsolete.
Well well!
all quarters within your country, outside no one thinks these are obsolete