I think for the same reason which justify France order of battle, that British will turn themselves to a similar capability with some differences

They will try:

1)to remove or lower US maintenance and supply dependancy for nuclear, hence huge critics of Trident and huge increase of spending of UK on nuclear R&D

In order to be able like France, to use nuclear threat freely even USA does not agree and try to impose restrictions

2)To get 2 real carriers (plus 6 to 8 Astutes at minimum) to have a significant projection capability with long range aircrafts to be able to do retaliation everywhere.

 

There is a real convergence in capabilities between those two powers with similar GDP and population.

French armed  force future is quite bright for equipment even with a constant 2% GDP spending to respect NATO commitment and our needs.

Indeed we have already done a +20% increase of procurement (in the french definition) this year and per year for the next five years leveraging manpower economy on administration and support.

Procurement in french definition is :

R&D will be constant as infrastructure, nuclear weapons manufacturing will diminish until 2030 (when modernisation needs would arise again ) since our SSBN are brand new, as our missiles (M51, ASMP) and nukes and it doesn't need huge investment before 2035.

And after the already +20% increase of annual procurement between 2003 and 2008, from post cold war low between 1997 and 2002

 

In the coming years:

It means that we can have a further +20% increase of total procurement post 2015 without spending more on R&D and nuclear which would translate in a +100% increase in manufacturing of conventional weapons in our procurement budget since the low years between 1997 and 2002.

We would spend more in annual conventional procurement than during the cold war but with a reduced army in manpower likely of 250 000 personnels.

 

 

ht***tp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/ship.htm

 

 

France:   Total force projection capacity: 1,647 troops

2x Foudre, 467 troops each

1x Mistrel Class 460 troops

2x Ouragan Class (Small Amphib) 360 troops each

 

France's one aircraft carrier is not operational at this time

 

UK: Total force projection capacity: 2,500 Royal Marines

1x HMS Ocean Class, 800 Royal Marines

Note: HMS Ocean is Harrier capable in an emergency

1x HMS Albion, 710 Royal Marines

Note: HMS Albion is Harrier capable in an emergency

2x HMS Fearless Class, 1,000 Royal Marines (one of these may have been pulled off line)

Note: HMS Fearless Class are Harrier capable in an emergency

2x HMS Bay Class, 350 Royal Marines each, entering service 2006.

 

UK's one aircraft carrier HMS Invincible is operational.

 

 

What is France going to capture with 1,600 infantry? I don't define 1,600 troops as "independent global reach". 

Rocky

First projection capability is not necessarly due to amphibious capabilities.

You can bomb a country without invading it, or deploy heavy forces abroad without need of amphibious ships like it was done for centuries.

It is funny Rocky how you are biased when you compare British and french figures

you wrote:

LOL

 

Indeed those french capabilities figure are for long terme deployment and cruise in peace time.And you forgot a Mistral (2 build and 1 ordered more)

Surge infantry capability for war operations are different:

Indeed for exemple

The surge capability for a single operation of Mistral class is 900 men+150 men for command Etat major.Translate the following line:

450 passagers (900 pour une courte durée), 150 hommes d'un état-major embarqué

Rocky

just to give you an other example:

you wrote :

 

2x Ouragan Class (Small Amphib) 360 troops each

Let see the Ouragan class in Gulf war (you qualified small):

A single Ouragan has transported 1100 troops in a single rotation between Yanbu and Toulon so more than 2000 miles with part of their heavy equipement.

Le 25 mars, l'Ouragan ramène 1100 hommes de Daguet

25th March, Ouragan transport back 1100 men of Daguet division.

Notice in the text, that in the transport convoy you have also Chartres civilian ferries transporting 700 men of first  Spahis régiment and  Casanova ferries transporting 1200 men of 2nd régiment étrangers d'Infanterie of Nimes and 21ème régiment étranger of Fréjus.

 

Thank you for your reply. Lets examine what I demonstrated with my post. First, I used a neutral third party source (Global Security.org). I discovered what your navy says it can do with your ships. I used Britain as a competitor because it wouldn't embarrass you as much as some other forces ship counts would. I politely showed you that your nation has a somewhat limited ability to project conventional power. It can send some hundreds of troops into some coastal country, provided that country is within range of your fuel train's supply, or what you can buy locally. Ammo has to be brought from home so You'd need the ability to deliver fresh supplies into the combat theater. If you think that is easily supplied by civilian transport you have to explain how your fairly small navy is going to accomplish that with enemy subs, planes, and warships about. Your ability to sustain combat operations under these conditions, for more than a few weeks, is very questionable. This is because after you have transited with your one battle group, it becomes a one trick pony that has to go home and refit for weeks to months before attempting another sortie.

 

France has very little global reach. This is not to insult the fine men and women of the French military services. They simply aren't designed as globe trotters. Fact trumps you FS. Again. 

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

Rocky

Considering that our 4 Meuse (or Durance) class oilers can carry together 42 000 tons (one fourth each) fuel or kerozen, it should be enough to maintain a single battle group.

To block our maritime traffic protected by french ASW (9 first rank ASW frigates, 6 SSN, 28 ASW aircrafts all with recent sonars), a navy much be stronguer than French especially on SSN side.And I know only 3 navies which has good SSN capability and better than ours and 2 are allies: USA, UK, Russia.

And only Japanese navy has 18 good SSK which have fairly limited capabilities at long range.

From which navy should we fear something? Iranian? Pakistanese? Sudanese? LOL

Remember, we are never at more than 3000 miles from a french territory where supplies have been stockpiled.

I don't see much problem for France to project 30 000 men in Indian Ocean.

 

1. It's a violation of the Monroe Doctrine. If you think we are kidding about that, then you don't know what's going on in Washington right now with regard to the PRC bandits and South America. Uoi also don't know the arguments that asffected the ISG during the Falklands War. There was a strong pro-Argentina lobby (Haig) that actually wanted us to boot the British. France had and has NO special relationship to save her. And what makes you think WE would not want one of OUR allies to haver that space port?. Guyanna is not French "territory" Its a colony which as soon as it wants its independence, we wiill be glad to help. Another NASA spaceport.......

2. Its a hypothetical where Brazil invades? The only time the French were chased out of the New World was when they committed some of their usual outrages (Maxmillian in Mexico). Here we posit the usual outrage, like dumping political prisoners in Guyana, or trying their typical African adventurist interventionist crap in the New World by meddling in the Brazilian government.  

 

Done and done. 

 

Herald

 

.

 

As for beiing able to operate globally, if you actually read what I said, I said that the Russians can moint a presence in a selected battlespace, and the French cannot. 

 

Example;

 

French imperialism.... 

 

The French Marine better be very careful.........  The US is watching. So is INDIA.

 

LOL, an Herald provocation.

There is no Monroe doctrine concerning a french territory.

As french as USA can belong to USA (forgot Indians?)

 

Now to respond to your provocation, and if you dare to side Brasilians impeaching us to recover them by conventional means , we would use nuke and first against Brasil.

Indeed here a german analysis:

Scenario 3 covers the possibility of attack on France's overseas territories. It states that these territories are covered by nuclear deterrence without giving any details.

Will USA betray its NATO ally and die for Brasil in a nuclear escalation? I doubt.

I know perfectly that you would say USA would destroy french SSBN and I know you cannot even with Virginia or Seawolf.If we have a doubt that you could destroy them we would do alternate strategy including delivering our tech to any of USA ennemies.

We want this level of silence for our SSBN and we had spend in the last 15 years 18 billions $ to procure 4 new ones, to include an efficient deterrent even USA would attempt to destroy our SSBN in order to prevent us to use them against any country.

We are not Britain who is USA nuke dependant at leat for maintenance since they acknoweldge it officialy.

We are allies of USA but if USA dare to attack or help an attacker of french soil, we will be ennemies.

France has never hidden we would use nuke to recover a french soil wherever it is if conventional means are not enough.