Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: France global reach is world second now
french stratege    8/8/2009 4:54:41 AM
US readers may have difficulties to consider that but only France has a 100% independant global reach after USA.And far below USA, granted.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15   NEXT
french stratege       8/11/2009 9:03:37 AM
I know perfectly history of Falklands Herald.
Argentine submarine did not sunk a single British boat.They managed to attempt an attack against an unknow target which failed.
They have an advantage since Harrier carriers have to be close to Falkland coast because of Harrier short range and endurance in CAP.So carriers stayed in a limited area close to continental plateau which add a lot on vulnerability.
With its continuous speed since nuclear, distance from coast, ability to not stay in a limited area to strike, modern antitorpedo decoys and protection including SSN, SSK would have a much more difficult job.
France has 60 ASM aerial means and hundreds of modern ASW torpedoes.Good luck.
And as I said, we don't even need our carrier to achieve air dominance on northern Brasil since we can base in Antillas.
Except in DACT exercise close to coast, SSK rarely manage to find a solution vs a carrier group since they lack the range at tactical 10 to 15 knts speed to manoeuver around a 20 knts carrier.
 
Brasil case closed.
 
Now, I want to remind you it is a what if case since Brasil is a France strategic partner and a strong ally.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Kahn was NEVER much less STILL the bible   8/11/2009 9:19:25 AM
The 44 rungs to Wargasm is just so much "Pap."  
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY       8/11/2009 9:25:52 AM
We have two real world cases where (Arab Israeli War and India Pakistan War in the early seventies)  his theories were put to the test. We won one test and lost one test.
 
I don't see that either was a test of Kahn....please explain....and our response to the India-Pakistan War was confused and silly, from little I've read.  The Yom Kippur/Ramadan War is a case of whip-lashing diplomacies...first the USSR is trying to slow the "peace process" and the US accelerate it as the Arabs are winning, then the dynamic is reversed as the Arabs begin to lose...and the USSR threatens direct intervention....the US responds with increased DefCon....and a negotiated settlement emerges...I'm not sure that I'd call this "winning." save that the US proxy stomped it's Arab/Soviet Proxy's. 
 
And even then the war had a benefit for Egypt, so Egypt can claim to "won" the war....the 1977 Peace Agreement between Egypt and Israel emerged from Egypt's decent performance in the Yom Kippur/Ramadan War.
 
Bottom-Line: please be more specific, possibly on another dedicated thread about how either of these events "prove" anything about Kahn's work.
 
Quote    Reply

Parmenion       8/11/2009 10:40:52 AM
 
Can we please keep Dr Strangelove out of this? I quite like  Kahn as an academic but in real life game theory has no accomodation for human compassion or mercy- the things that make us human. I think it's quite likely that if either side has got advance warning of missiles already in the air they would not have responded- what is the point of more killing, when it serves no purpose to defend anyone?
 
I think there's a play where terrorists somehow manage to set off some of the US's arsenal against the USSR. Long story short they manage to get the Russians to realise what's happened and the Russians order their forces not to launch any retaliation. I thinkn the last scene is the president on the phone to the Soviet Leader- then suddenly the phone goes silent.
 
Melodramatic I know but I think it has a point.
 
   Oh and Herald I agree with you that people who let their own inadequacies drive us toVietnam's or creation forbid WW1's need an appointment with Mr Sledgehammer. My point was that I do not believe FS is that kind of person or holds those views- he was just getting a bit ahead of himself because he'd effectively managed to drive himself into a corner.
 
Right, now to make sandwiches. Have a nice day everyone http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emsmile.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" />
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Enterpriser    What the.......?   8/11/2009 11:17:42 AM
People - the question is: "Is France's Global Reach sufficient to place it at number 2 on the league tables?"
 
Therefore the only sub-questions that are legitimate and germaine to the discussion are:
 
1. What is defined as global reach? (is it a strike mission by SSNs with SLCMs/ SSBNs toting SLBMs/ AdA Rafales launching SCALPs or Exocets etc. or is it the ability to place a Joint Force [incl. Land assets] at significant distance anywhere in the world and continue to supply and support them whilst they conduct meaningful operations in support of a raison d'etat? Additionally, is the scenario being informed by realpolitik or are we purely considering military capability only?)
 
2. Having defined what 'Global Reach' entails - which I strongly believe we will all end up agreeing is more than a simple strike option (i.e. ongoing ops will be seen are more important) - What is the suitability or capability of the military of the French Republic to conduct such operations? (i.e what is the limit of the size, capability or operational tempo of forces they are able to field?) 
 
3. How does the French Republic compare when rated across the comparable spectrums of other militaries (in whatever class/es of assets that were deemed important) who might like to claim the No. 2 spot?
 
 
AND THAT'S IT!
 
Discussions of:
 
A) FS's propensity to value independence of capability over actual capability,
B) FS's propensity to orgasm over French Technology,
C) The Brazilians (in general),
D) The inopportune location of a French Colony/OS Territory next to a regional military superpower (which only indicates the difficulty of an operation, not the objective capabilities of what the French Military can do -  the Americans can logistically sustain an Airborne Corps in Moscow, but militarily would you? having regard for realpolitik?),
and E) the absurdity of MAD/Herman Kahn/SSBN options,
 
are all inappropriate and are not germaine to the discussions. If its relevent, it will relate to one of the three previously outlined and numbered sub-questions for this topic.
 
 
 
Brett.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       8/11/2009 11:47:12 AM
 Parmenion
Thinking about nuclear weapon is relevant as Kahn framework.When you are speaking about nuclear game theory, it is difficult to let compassion to dominate.
 
My point was that I do not believe FS is that kind of person or holds those views- he was just getting a bit ahead of himself because he'd effectively managed to drive himself into a corner.
LOL
We were speaking about what if scenario and I was not driven in a corner in any mean.Reread what I wrote.
I feel uncomfortable for personnal reason to envision a conflict between USA (or even Brazil) and France but if Drance is subjected to agression I think in cold blood and I'm not reluctant to think about using our nuclear capability.
What matters is to win or deter.
And it includes USA if they shift from today ally position to an ennemy one.
And our deterrent capability has been designed to counter a superpower whatever Russia, China ...or USA.It is why we maintain a 300 nukes level as defined as minimum level to deter a country like Russia or...
If our deterrent was not able to counter a US agression like an agression to incapacitate it, it would be as dependant as UK one and so it would not have been reasonable to follow a more expansive strategy than UK.
Remember that US offered to France Polaris.And that we do not even share today deployment areas or targeting information of our SSBN with USA or UK.
Frankly why do you think we modernized fully our deterrent in the last decade for a 30 billion euro price, while USSR had collapsed and Russia have few subs to chase them and China none?
 
Quote    Reply

Parmenion       8/11/2009 11:48:02 AM

People - the question is: "Is France's Global Reach sufficient to place it at number 2 on the league tables?"

 

Therefore the only sub-questions that are legitimate and germaine to the discussion are:

 

1. What is defined as global reach? (is it a strike mission by SSNs with SLCMs/ SSBNs toting SLBMs/ AdA Rafales launching SCALPs or Exocets etc. or is it the ability to place a Joint Force [incl. Land assets] at significant distance anywhere in the world and continue to supply and support them whilst they conduct meaningful operations in support of a raison d'etat? Additionally, is the scenario being informed by realpolitik or are we purely considering military capability only?)

 

2. Having defined what 'Global Reach' entails - which I strongly believe we will all end up agreeing is more than a simple strike option (i.e. ongoing ops will be seen are more important) - What is the suitability or capability of the military of the French Republic to conduct such operations? (i.e what is the limit of the size, capability or operational tempo of forces they are able to field?) 

 

3. How does the French Republic compare when rated across the comparable spectrums of other militaries (in whatever class/es of assets that were deemed important) who might like to claim the No. 2 spot?

 

 

AND THAT'S IT!

 

Discussions of:

 

A) FS's propensity to value independence of capability over actual capability,

B) FS's propensity to orgasm over French Technology,

C) The Brazilians (in general),

D) The inopportune location of a French Colony/OS Territory next to a regional military superpower (which only indicates the difficulty of an operation, not the objective capabilities of what the French Military can do -  the Americans can logistically sustain an Airborne Corps in Moscow, but militarily would you? having regard for realpolitik?),

and E) the absurdity of MAD/Herman Kahn/SSBN options,

 

are all inappropriate and are not germaine to the discussions. If its relevent, it will relate to one of the three previously outlined and numbered sub-questions for this topic.

 

 

 

Brett.



What I've been trying to say. Damn straight.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Unless you're the SysOps   8/11/2009 11:54:35 AM

People - the question is: "Is France's Global Reach sufficient to place it at number 2 on the league tables?"

 

Therefore the only sub-questions that are legitimate and germaine to the discussion are:

 

1. What is defined as global reach? (is it a strike mission by SSNs with SLCMs/ SSBNs toting SLBMs/ AdA Rafales launching SCALPs or Exocets etc. or is it the ability to place a Joint Force [incl. Land assets] at significant distance anywhere in the world and continue to supply and support them whilst they conduct meaningful operations in support of a raison d'etat? Additionally, is the scenario being informed by realpolitik or are we purely considering military capability only?)

 

2. Having defined what 'Global Reach' entails - which I strongly believe we will all end up agreeing is more than a simple strike option (i.e. ongoing ops will be seen are more important) - What is the suitability or capability of the military of the French Republic to conduct such operations? (i.e what is the limit of the size, capability or operational tempo of forces they are able to field?) 

 

3. How does the French Republic compare when rated across the comparable spectrums of other militaries (in whatever class/es of assets that were deemed important) who might like to claim the No. 2 spot?

 

 

AND THAT'S IT!

 

Discussions of:

 

A) FS's propensity to value independence of capability over actual capability,

B) FS's propensity to orgasm over French Technology,

C) The Brazilians (in general),

D) The inopportune location of a French Colony/OS Territory next to a regional military superpower (which only indicates the difficulty of an operation, not the objective capabilities of what the French Military can do -  the Americans can logistically sustain an Airborne Corps in Moscow, but militarily would you? having regard for realpolitik?),

and E) the absurdity of MAD/Herman Kahn/SSBN options,

 

are all inappropriate and are not germaine to the discussions. If its relevent, it will relate to one of the three previously outlined and numbered sub-questions for this topic.

 

 

 

Brett.


this is a rather preachy little screed don't you think?  I mean I tend to agree, but in an relatively anarchic situation such as a forum is it the best approach to, seemingly, demand compliance with your discussion wishes?
 
For me, global presence means, not only the ability to strike and cause pain, but to intervene with ground forces, so as to fundamentally affect the political situation in the target country.  The difference between "Operation Desert Fox" in 1998 and "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in 2003.  France has a small, but nonehteless full-spectrum capacity for this...provided by it's possession of the CdG, amphibious lift, paratroops, and follow-on forces.  It is the only nation, other than the US, with this capacity.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    Typo and addendum   8/11/2009 11:55:43 AM
read : but if France is subjected to agression
Why Parmenion we developped Triomphant class at this performance level (as silent at least as an Ohio) for 18 Billions euros?
Why we developped M51 at this performance level for 8,5 Billions euros while M45 developped in the 90ies had a good precision and already >6000 km range with 6 warheads and probably more than 8000 with 4?
Why we developped for 2 Billions euros ASMP-A of 500 km range and stealthy instead of continuing with 300 km range ASMP?
Hum.... equivalent of 10 brand new carrier? For prestige? Because we like to spend money?
Which force is today the more able one to incapacitate our deterrent and chase our SSBN?
 
Quote    Reply

Parmenion       8/11/2009 12:06:32 PM

 Parmenion

Thinking about nuclear weapon is relevant as Kahn framework.When you are speaking about nuclear game theory, it is difficult to let compassion to dominate.

 

My point was that I do not believe FS is that kind of person or holds those views- he was just getting a bit ahead of himself because he'd effectively managed to drive himself into a corner.

LOL

We were speaking about what if scenario and I was not driven in a corner in any mean.Reread what I wrote.

I feel uncomfortable for personnal reason to envision a conflict between USA (or even Brazil) and France but if Drance is subjected to agression I think in cold blood and I'm not reluctant to think about using our nuclear capability.

What matters is to win or deter.

And it includes USA if they shift from today ally position to an ennemy one.

And our deterrent capability has been designed to counter a superpower whatever Russia, China ...or USA.It is why we maintain a 300 nukes level as defined as minimum level to deter a country like Russia or...

If our deterrent was not able to counter a US agression like an agression to incapacitate it, it would be as dependant as UK one and so it would not have been reasonable to follow a more expansive strategy than UK.
Remember that US offered to France Polaris.And that we do not even share today deployment areas or targeting information of our SSBN with USA or UK.

Frankly why do you think we modernized fully our deterrent in the last decade for a 30 billion euro price, while USSR had collapsed and Russia have few subs to chase them and China none?



Honestly FS! Everytime I think I might have a chance to calm Herald down you go a trample it! Just play along. http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emwink.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" />
LOL
But seriously I respect your views- I just think that the topic of blasting eachother with nuclear holocausts is one which understandably people can get agitated over.
 
Basically if you and Herald get to the point where each one is making a probably perfectly correct statement about your respective countries nulcear doctrine, it can end up getting really heated even when  nobody's done anything wrong. If we keep the discussion roughly within the bounds that Brett suggested then I think we can keep the interesting debate, but take some of the heat out of it.
 
Personally I can't think of a better time for compassion to be the guiding principle than when considering the use of nukes- but that's just me http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emsmiled.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" />
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics