Use  our intelligence services  to ....recruit nationals of both countries  to  fly airlines  into the pentagon.........

 

Sit  back and Watch .....

 

Seriously Through....

 

Shopping list:

 

Transport Planes ( A400M/C-5 /C-17)

 LHDs

CVNs

SSGNs

Bushmaster IMVs

Attack helicopters

Recruit  20000 more  Special Operations Forces

UAVs

IFVs (CV90-  all types)

SPG

MLRS

Chinooks

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is an unrealistic scenario. Europe doesn't have the logistics support infrastructure to do this "un-aided" nor do they have a unified foriegn policy strong enough to bridge the various political divides. Just look at how hard it is for the United States which is a single government. Finally, and probably the biggest thing is the EU would have to admit Turkey into the EU and not on favorable terms.

 

 

-DA

Iraq war do not need new capacities for EU as troops were deployed in Kuwait with a progressive scale up.

EU had no problem to field similar forces in the Gulf using also sealift (but in a more extent than USA).

 

Afghanistan is more difficult since it depend on land access and Pakistan attitude.

The problem is  Pakistan attitude since EU has not the possibility to wage a full scale war to make Pakistan bow unless we use nukes or Indian help.Our conventional possibilities are restricted to bombing from Djibouti and maybe Oman with Oman governement agreement.Or to get India or China involved.

However it would have maybe be probable to get Pakistan neutrality at least.

EU would have to get China or Russian support for that probably as EU would have to rely only on air bases in central asia.

Once air bases are established, EU has no much problems to wage war in  Afghanistan.

However it would be more easier to get a positive Russian or China attitude as EU is less a threat for them than USA.

 

Then the problem is supply chain.

EU lack of strategic air lift compare to USA.

EU can field 200 tactical air transport (C130/C160) but they have to restrict to an air bridge of 2000 to 4000 km long maximum.

So no direct airlift from Europe.

So probably EU forces have to rely on a land part of supply chain by rail and road.

Economical help (or threats) would have secure central asia countries and also Caucasian countries.

Indeed those countries have rivalry problems and EU could always threaten a recalcitrant country that it would help its rivals by giving them economical help and large supply of weapons.

Maybe Russia would have allowed to use its rail network making things much more easy.

If not, EU force supply chain have to go via Caucase then Caspian sea, then central asian countries after getting agreement.

The main bulk in weight from such a supply chain is kerozen and fuel.But they are the same than what civilian use and I don't see any central asian country to deprive its neighbor of such supplies.

For the rest (troops, equipement and ammunitions), EU can still put a 8000 tons per day airlift but on 4000 km max and without heavy armor (but it was not necessary for Afghanistan).

 

The main weaknesses of Europe are lacking of strategic airlift and air tankers, lack of naval power (carriers and SSN) then nukes and space segment in a less extent.

But for such scenarii today EU capacities are sufficient even more strategic airlift and carrier would be better.

It is why EU countries put more emphasys on that today (A400, UK/french carrier).

 

 

 

Several things FS,

1. With regard to the logistics side, there is no way the EU could project the necessary number of troops from Europe to Kuwait and then sustain them through the invasion and subsequent occupation independently. NONE

You are ridiculous Darth.Simply ridiculous.

We have plenty of sealift for such an operation without naval threat.USA used more than 90% sealift for this operation.

2. Europe would have needed many more troops than the USA did to conduct the operations. The EU lacks some of the force multipliers and integration that enables the US to do the things it does. Little minor things like stealth aircraft, cruise missiles, JDAMs and c4ISR means ect. available to the United States to conduct operations of this magnitude.

Stealth aircraft? For what?

We have also plenty of cruise missiles.And our C4ISR is all right.Iraqi army was such a joke that nothing more is needed.

Frankly, France could have done Iraqi war ALONE.So with UK and Germany is quite easy.

 

FS, WTF are you talking about? Read what I said moron. Do you know what sustain means or do you think those sealift ships can sail all the way to Baghdad? You are utterly clueless on logistics. You have consistently proven this and every credible poster on this site has told you at one point or another.

 

ISR. Do you really think the EU can put the kind of persistent ISR asset density over a country this size?  

 

And you need stealth aircraft so that you dont lose expensive aircraft and pilots. Bombs in a subway blew Spain right out of the War!!! Do you really want to see how the EU would react to public beheadings of captured pilots in an unpopular war? Also the EU didn't have nearly the amount of cruise missiles that the US used in 2003. And since the EU doesnt have a tangible GPS guided weapons capability, it would take many more sorties for an EU based airforce to have the kind of "shock and awe" the USA did.

 

 

You need to think before you post.

 

 

-DA

To be realistic, the EU would never have stumbled into the Iraq War with an argument like "they have WMD",  and not at all with such a hostile Population.  

 

Second, with a little diplomacy and good will, I think its quite realistic to get Turkey in the boat, making all that fuss about logistics irrelevant.  There is no doubt Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Netherlands, Spain, Turkey would have crushed Iraq without Problem.

 

------------------------------------------

 

The setting would be differend from the start, because it is not realistic to apply the US "reasons" and strategic situation  for War to Europe.

My oh my how easily we forget history. The EU(nations that choose to contribute forces) DID USE THE SAME WMD ARGUEMENT. The Coalition settled on that as the public face of the war. I can quote Chirac, Putin and just about any other leader you like saying THE SAME THING President Bush said.

Also, you are demonstrating a misunderstanding of Logistics. Assuming Turkey allowed you to use their land to stage forces. Something they refused BTW. You still need to sustain your invasion force!!!!!!!! Think Think Think!!!

 

 

-DA

You still need to sustain your invasion force!!!!!!!! Think Think Think!!!

What a joke!

As I said it, France could have done it ALONE if it was a major issue for us.

You completly dismiss others.You are not qualified to discuss.

Yes we don't have JDAM, but we have laser bombs (and Iraq is clear weather) and also french M2000N/D has a very accurate navigation system to deliver conventional bombs (unguided ) with a ECP not so far than those of a JDAM.

We have also system you don't have like the BONUS shell and a better SP artillery (not M109)

 

It would have been also full shock and awe.I think even it would have been faster as we don't whine when we have 100 KIA.Our toops are still able to assault a position with limited losses without requiring a B52 carpet bombing.LOL.

 

And the stealth aircraft argument is bullsh@t.We don't need to have stealth aircraft like F117 or B2 which had only delivered few bombs in GW1/2.A cruise missile do the same for cheaper.And frankly risks were very low in Iraq.No decent air defense, no air threat...

And our aircraft have their own ECM internal protection suits unless US ones.

(the first rational application on stealth is the F22 and F35 with affordable stealth and for AtoA mainly)

Maybe we have lost a dozen aircraft more.Not a big issue.

 

 

We have more stomach than US public opinion to bear losses in Europe it seems.In France, there is never peaceniks demonstrations agaisnt war or whining about losses whatever in WW1, Morrocco, WW2, Indochina, Algeria...because we think that dying on the battlefield (field of honour as we say in France) if necessary, is the duty of a soldier and an honour whatever a draftee or a professional.

In Algeria war any soldier captured whatever a draftee or a professional, was savagely tortured and behaded.No demonstration in streets in France for that.

 

We had 150 draftees who died in Bosnia for USELESS peacekeeping and nobody complain in France even their families.

When I see how you complain for 3500 KIA in Iraq which is frankly nothing especially when you compare to US population...

The drama about KIA in USA and the yellow ribbon circus is incomprehensible in France.

Losses are not an issue in France, Germany or even UK.

If they behead or torture our soldiers, or violate rules of war, we simply blind our eyes and ears when our army is doing legitimate reprisals.We don't complain.

 

 

FS, you are equally ignorant of politics as you are of logistics. However, I'll entertain a CIVIL conversation about tangible things that can be agreed upon. Also, lets not discuss personal issues as to who is more qualified to discuss this subject matter. If we all simply stick to the topic this will go a lot more smoothly. Now, I notice that you keep mentioning how capable your military is. How you have these kinds of bombs and this kind of jet ect and so forth. Well, congradulations to France for having a modern Army! Now that we both agree on that, lets take a closer look at what you can actually do with that Army.

Fighting wars is about 10% of the things you mention.(i.e. blowing up stuff, cool jets). The other 90% is all the things that make it possible. Things like, having the ability to get enough water, food, POL, spare parts and ammo forward to units in contact so that they can fight. Now, considering the U.S. Army is VASTLY superior to the French Army in terms of logistical capacity/experience and its hell for us to keep up with the demand. How are you coming to the conclusion that France's much more limited means would allow you to conduct this operation independantly? FS, your troops would be defeated by the environment before you ever encountered the enemy! Just counting for water alone, you would need AT LEAST 4 liters of water a day per man just to survive here. For an invation force like the US Used, approx 300,000 men, thats 1.2m kg of water daily. Even more if you are running humanitarian relief operations simultaneously. Do you think water just magically makes itself available? Now add in food, fuel and the other things I mentioned. FS don't embarrass yourself discussing subject matter you don't know.

 

-DA

Taking the bait, FS has gone on to describe the glory of the French military. Because of his pride ans nationalism, he feels obligated to state that while France doesn't have JDAMs, they do have LGBs! FS, I wasn't particularly concerned with tec specs. What I was concerned with was that JDAMs enabled the USA to strike multiple targets on the same sortie. Force multipliers reduce the strain on logistics!

Its also funny that you mention the BONUS shell as some kind of big deal. You do know what bonus is for? BTW, what would be doing the targeting for BONUS? Was BONUS even in service in enough numbers during 2003 to have made a difference?

 

Your last comment is just plain dumb. You go right ahead and take your 100 KIA. We will do the same mission with a single digit number. As far as not whining? Hmm, no the French just surrender appearently. At least thats what French history suggest anytime you have taked mass casualties. The Truth Hurts

 

 

-DA