This guy posts "France global reach is world second now", but worries about Germany starting WW3.

 

I don't see any Germans posting stuff on or gloating over their global reach.

From another "Rafale" thread Source.

=================================================================

 

Follow up, you can chuck the rest of the nonsense he claimed as well.

 

The Chuckles cannot take on Brazil. Not with just 550 tonnes of ordnance stowage. .

 ===========================================================================

 

Make that FOUR times. Twice within an hour. That has got to be some kind of a record!

 

Herald

 

Herald, I'm fed up with your trolling since I can not qualify by an other word your miserable conduct

 

Indeed I wrote in my former message:

It is not 3000 sorties in a week but 3000 bombs delivered which is not the same since Rafale can carry a warload of 6 to 10 AASM in a single sortie.

I said 700 sorties.

Moreover carriers are be replenished at sea (UNREP) and it is a normal practice.US refueled their carriers up to each 3 days in fuel and amunitions and we have 4 polyvalent ships (oil+amunitions+other stuff)

If you want to bash me, do it on facts.

beyond the fact that Herald doesn't like FS, why is there any debate about this?  It's true, undeniably.  It's not relevant how much bunkerage or ammunition CdG carries....as the ONLY CVN not held by the USN, the CdG is the SECOND best attack force in the world, and the MN can provide AAW, ASuW escorts, as well as SSN's and Unrep support.

 

Herald, please stop fighting it's true....The CdG may ONLY hold 500 tonnes of ammunition, but that's 500 tons MORE than nay other nation can deliver via CVN, save the USN.

 

Bottom-Line: the French have the second best power projection force in the world, a CVBG and Amphibious warfare group...it may be far less than the USN's, but it exceeds anyone else's...Sorry India, PRC, and RN fans.  Though one poster made a good point that India and mayhap later the PRC will surpass France in a decade or so.

France has a respectable military that is able to defend it's territory and extend those protections in the naval environs independently for short distances (few thousand kilometers), for a short time (as long as their fuel and ammo bunkerages hold out). Good for France'. As has been demonstrated on these pages even an all out war with a hostile in the Mediterranean neighbor would severely tax their assetts and they have no experience in large scale projection since they lost Viet Nam & got run off of the Suez canal by more serious powers. Sending a few thousand Legionares to peace keeping duty (where the results can be seriously questioned...) does not compare true force projection of the Former Soviet Union or the current USA.

 

I hear their wine is good though....

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

Soviet Union have never projected power outside their immediate boundaries.

France have logistic relay bases in Africa, South america or Indian ocean,  and shipment to project its army by sea for heavy forces like everybody including USA does.

Russia and BRITAIN have more credible power projection credibility with their strike platforms. And MORE survivable un the face of an enemy like Brazil, JFKY. The two examples are actually patrolling with a viable threat presence. The CdG is a floating target with little to no onion to protect her aside from her own onboard planes and missiles. With Squall, MICA, and ASTER? ROTFLMAO. At least the Hawkeyes and Etandards work.

 

An aircraft carrier has to have bodyguards and it has to be able to DODGE. The Chuckles has and can do neither.

 

As for that presenter of falsehoods, no power projection means  when I say that, exactly that-no credible power projection. . The French have no serious fleet trains and NO serious airpower outside metro France. Cote D'Ivoire was about all they could handle a few years ago, and they didn't hanbdle it at all well. Its called  logistics. .

 

Herald

.  

 

 

Could France take back French Guiana today if it was seized by Venezuela or Brazil? As I recall the CDG is in dry dock getting an overhaul and upgrades. What will they project with? Of course they can use their nukes but that would mean Pakistan and Israel are "projecting powers". For the record, the Soviets had a pretty substantial naval logistical force before their fall. It was certainly larger than France's is now.

 

Again, no offense to France which has a good military mix and size for its strategic and tactical requirements but it is designed to protect, not project. Or at least, not project as a solo power but rather project in conjuction with the USA , UK,  & NATO support.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

"Could France take back French Guiana today if it was seized by Venezuela or Brazil?"
 Definitely yes

Bresil maritime facade is huge, we benefit of French antillas to base our air force, our navy, our navy aviation and our air force are stronger than Brasil so we would have strong air superiority, and we can takes islands to base our air force on (like USA in WW2 in Pacific).I don't see any big trouble to get Brasil out of french Guiana since our superiority is obvious

And Venezuela is a joke and in direct reach from French Antillas.No need to use CdG since french antillas are only 800 km away from Caracas.

 

"As I recall the CDG is in dry dock getting an overhaul and upgrades. What will they project with? "

And soon available again for 7 years.A second carrier is better, granted.

 

"Of course they can use their nukes but that would mean Pakistan and Israel are "projecting powers". "

None of them have a global reach either conventional and nuclear, and a secure second strike deterrent.Pakistan can not strike 2000 km away.Which means they can not use their nukes except in absolute defense, since they could be retaliation of global powers they are unable to reach.

Before using nukes it is better to attempt first conventional strikes, and wait to have a good reason to use nukes to get legitimity in doing so.

 

"For the record, the Soviets had a pretty substantial naval logistical force before their fall. It was certainly larger than France's is now. "

Yes, but no decent carrier, and no oversea bases.Soviet union was a superpower able to fight USA but unable to win conventionally oversea.We can stockpile on our overseas bases.

 

"Again, no offense to France which has a good military mix and size for its strategic and tactical requirements but it is designed to protect, not project. Or at least, not project as a solo power but rather project in conjuction with the USA , UK,  & NATO support. "

No it is designed to project also alone,  then in a coalition more likely for massive operations in conjuction with the USA , UK,  & NATO support.

We keep ability to go alone and to do independant alliances.

 

France strategy is an efficient 2% GDP low cost strategy which leverages our technical advantage on other nations (except USA), and geographical position , and considering other powers are quite weaks either Russia or China:

Means of pressure or intervention:

1: special forces including attack on its leadership, or by more classic military means on its leadership like air raids either by planes or cruise missiles

    In France, President has power to order alone attacks on foreign leadership or order secret attacks or open attacks

2: if ennemy try to get revenge: stronger reprisals by air leveraging our navy and air force on sea or ground

3: if a strong ennemy is a threat or escalate, try to undermine its power by weapons sales to its ennemies, to do alliances with its ennemies or countries threatened by it (recent exemple: UAE)

4: do direct military intervention with a local ally to deploy our air force and a french high tech army corps as a spearhead, or with navy, or build a military alliance (likely with UNO support to get legitimity) for a massive intervention where France bring its specific assets like space assets and take leadership, or to be second if USA are with us.

4: if an ennemy is too hard and jeopardize our direct interests and we are alone (no US support), either we scale up, mobilize and spend more even to world war like mobilisation scale using our indigenous production capability (but it takes time), or we use nukes to get fast results first on its leadership, then its military assets, then its industry.

We can do that as long we have a decent nuclear second strike ability, even to deter a third party like a super power (to avoid Suez crisis scenario where USSR entered the game), and without any dependancy to use it.It is why we keep 350 nukes.

 

The only debate is to know if we have enough in every case to deliver by our own, a sufficient air capability independantly of any local ally.

So second carrier question, amount of air power needed, SSN numbers...But they are the most costly systems.

Destroying few hundreds or even 3000 thousands targets from sea, maybe not be sufficient in all cases.

Maybe we would need 3 carriers and 10 000 cruise missiles.

 

UK has no decent navy projection anymore , nor Russia.

No Harriers with radar since (short range) Sea Harrier are retired.

Russia has no overseas bases, no decent carrier or training.

France has a real carrier with aircraft with long range ability and carrying E2C.With currently 128 Aster silos at least (CdG, Horizon), and soon more.

In two years we are able to field CdG with 3 Rafale squadron if necessary.

With all respect to your countrymen, you opinions are not supported by facts. I'd like to see a war-gamed scenario where France takes French Guiana back from a determined force, with the assetts you have on hand, including a carrier that does not work (today). Your view of Soviet capabilites is equally unsupported. They had the ability to take France out back in the day, since France was not NATO then they just could have been on their own eh?

 

We can agree to disagree on this.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

but he's STILL right Herald....Russia does NOT have "power projection."  It has nuclear weapons.  Sure pretty much any where in the Northern Hemisphere and much of the Southern could be DESTROYED by Russia, but that's not power projection.  That's just pure strike.  If a Russian Embassy is in trouble in Africa, or if A Russian partner has trouble with a neighbor Russia can threaten nuclear holocaust, but not much else.

 

In a similar situation, France, if the wind is blowing right, COULD produce a CVBG and an ARG.  France can project power and maintain it, second only to the US.  Herald La France DOES have escorts, AAW, and ASuW, and SSN's...you like to insult and deride the Lafayette's or any of a number of other French platforms, AND as compared to USN or RN platforms, they may be lacking, but as compared to almost any other navy, they dominate, technologically and tactically.  France would have medium range precision weapons, AEW coverage, conventional strike and missile strike capacity...a considerable ASW capacity, in the CVBG and the SSN's.

 

So though it IS the French and though it IS French Stratege, his/her point is correct...France has the second strongest power projection capacity to the USN.  France IS Global, the PRC is not, neither is Russia...Britain lacks the CVN, right now.  Once and IF the QE's come on-line and IF they come as CATOBAR's THEN Britain might move into No. 2....Right now, CdG allows France to field what, .6666667 CVN's, on average?  Two QE's will allow one CV for the RN, constantly, and two on a good day.  I'd take TWO Queen Elizabeth CATOBAR's-assuming Britain EVER builds them- to one CdG.  But right now that's "if money."  ONE DAY, mayhap, India and the PRC may outstrip France...one day, but not today.

 

Bottom-Line: no matter what your personal feeling for FS, is point is indisputable...(of course that's untrue, as Herald IS disputing them, but foolishly)

Hum... France has never been out of NATO, only to joint military command.

In cold war our commitment was to:

Fight and delay or destroy, 30 Russian armored and mechanized divisions (6000 tanks), using nukes directly on it, OR their supply line in Poland,  knowing that Germany and NATO would have destroy many Soviet divisions before.Then, threaten or do a nuclear first strike on key Soviet military assets inside Soviet territory if not succeeding.

 

With all respect to your countrymen, you opinions are not supported by facts. I'd like to see a war-gamed scenario where France takes French Guiana back from a determined force, with the assetts you have on hand, including a carrier that does not work (today).

Check numbers and quality of weapons of Brasil or Venezuela knowing that French Antillas are only 800 km away from Caracas so within normal radius of our fighters without refueling.

I do not discuss even Venezuela  which is a "promenade" for us.

 

French Guiana southern border with Brazil is only 1540 km away from Fort de France in Martinique so easily within reach of French aircrafts based in Martinique, a french island.

Moreover even most of Brazil is within reach of fighter based in our Dakar base.

Best fighters of Brazil are currently ...few French M2000C we know how to jam or render uneffective.

French air superiority is obvious considering Brazilian and French navy+air force.

Then add CdG and 36 rafales and 3E2C to those forces.

 

I think best strategy would be to take Fernando de Noronha island or even Abrolho islands or French islands outside french Guiana  by our naval amphibious force supported by CdG.

Then expand airfields to base our air force.

Then our air superiority would be total and enormous on whole coast of Guiana  and Brazil.We could take an harbor or a beachead and land wherever we want.

Remember US strategy in Pacific.Take island, base land air force, conquer the next key point.