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       8/10/2009 11:32:46 AM
BTW, if Herald want it, he can write a decent alternative scenario or explains me what could USA use as technical means we would not have considered, to undermine our deterrent or our ability to retake Guiana.
If we have not ability to make sure that our deterrent would work vs a USA chase, we have other possibilities which is to gave our military tech to ennemies of USA in order to shift world power balance, and also to build up and recover later.
 
 
Quote    Reply

FJV    HuH?   8/10/2009 11:44:55 AM
The US can sink you carriers and most of your fleet. Which should be adequate.
 
Should a response be nuclear, France seizes to exist. (Jacksonian attitude is common among Americans)
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       8/10/2009 1:24:02 PM
Then it is first nuking of Brazil if USA side it to get Brasil out of Guina, then if France is attacked by USA, nuclear warning on USA military forces (likely US navy), and then MAD.
Make no mistake, we would not bow to any USA blackmail when attacked on our homeland by an external country like Brasil.Never.
And if USA dare to attack french forces we would react.
I think it is quite surprising that a lot of US readers consider that USA (which define themselves today as an ally of France) would side our ennemies grabbing our land.If so we would react accordingly.Since Suez we have defined such a strategy based on nuclear deterrent and we made it clear.Constitutionnaly french president is compelled to insure territorial integrity at any cost including war
 
Quote    Reply

Lynstyne       8/10/2009 3:50:01 PM
F.S that rumour is scourced only from youre president (allegedly) and is said to be the reason he gave the uk the codes to disable the exocets. 
 
Probably as a half baked attempt to deflect anger at his betrayal of argentina. in fact its the only good thing he ever did backing up his ally rather than a customer,
 
another persistant rumour in some circles is that a threat was made that the exocet factory would burn down in mysterious circumstances (cue men in balaclavas). I doubt theres much truth here either
 
Note despite persistant venom in the uk that the french sold exocets to argentina thus aiding them against us - the truth appears to be that pretty much the worlds supply of exocets was bought up by the UK and then sold (suitably modified) to argentina. probably the worlds greatest black op..
 
Realistically does anybody really believe Nuclear war was threatened or even a viable policy given the circumstances . the uk was trying to win the Morale dimension - not going to be the easiest task after vapourising 15 million is it.
 
Now re mitterand  This is the man who tried to lay the rainbow warrior debacle at britains door (Apparently maggie was apopoleptic and threats where made.
This is the man whos government denied any ill effects from chernobyl - look at a map of europe and work out how germany belgium norway and the Uk can be affected but not france .  To this day the French joke god must love them for that cloud to part around france.
 
mitterand is pretty much despised by france as a liar. Are you really going to take his (alleged) word on this??
 
I say alleged as the story surfaced after his death
 
They dont like the new guy much either (cant spell it) - but thats because hes rail roaded (what in my opinin are urgently  needed) reforms.
It seems most of france dont agree.  (Note the above is the scource of several dissagrements with SWMBO)
 
More on topic france would not be stupid enough to launch a nuke for any reason short of national survival a minor scrap in south america is not just cause CRef UK above.
 
F.S re youre statement that the french ships can carry more than stated that applies to the UK to so thats a moot point.
 
I think that airpower wise you are currently in a better position than the RN at this time CdG reliability not withstanding. However logistically i dont think the french armed forces are as well set as the UKs for expeditionary warfare. 
So i think projection wise France and UK its probably dependent upon circumstances.
 
Now let the MN supply airpower with the UK CAS and logistics Then that is indesputably 2nd place.
 
Even the US would have to plan how to take that group down. 
 
 -- Note to prevent a flame war  the us could pretty much take down most fleets off the cuff.  given that  the above is a first rate force i reckon it could cause a sleepless night or 2. I am under no illusions that if the us so decided that the above would cease to exist.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Parmenion    Harrier Carriers vs. CDG   8/10/2009 5:16:30 PM
 
Right now I'm weighing in. I think the UK has not been given a fair shot. Also it seems silly we are talking about absurd scenarios involving nukes when the issue is essentially whether the MN or RN has better power projection capability- the one who does gets the # 2 spot, regardless of whether Brazil can make their socks go up and down.
 
Could someone explain to me why the CDG is worth more than HMS Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal?
It's true that Invincible is in mothballs but it can be reactivated at short notice, and the CDG is in port to at the moment so it balances out. Between them the UK carrier force can deliver a minimum of 60 harriers. The CDG can deliver 40 Rafales in the best case scenario (I believe).
 
Are 40 Rafaeles really better than 60 Harriers- I would like Herald or someone with real tech knowhow to answer this one.
(Though FS I know you will have an opinion. http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emsmile.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" />)
 
And even if they have an advantage, does this matter- when talking about "power projection" and "expeditionary warfare" we're basically saying poorer countries. So a Harrier GR-9 will still get the job done, and 60 rather than 40 planes means you can hit more targets.
 
Also, having a single carrier means that the French have all their eggs in one basket, as illustrated by the fact it's in dock at the moment. Two operational carriers plus a spare means the UK can always respond quickly to trouble, and could do two small operations from one carrier each. Not to mention the option to reactivate Invincible, giving us quite a formiddable force. This extra flexibility balances the advantage of the Rafaele- if it is that much better.
 
In terms of Escorts I'm willing to call it a draw because I think the lines on the La Fayette class are sexy.
 
We have more submarines than you do.
 
In Sea-lift capability I think Herald and some other guy have already made pretty good arguments that the UK has the advantage. Not to mention that we have sent large forces to the Falklands, Iraq, and Afgahnistan- we have experience here that the French do not.
 
Plus these two sources seem to agree that the UK is the number two navy, not France.
 
So FS as the only UK poster here who's spoke up so far I'm willing to call it a draw. The MN and RN can share the # 2 spot- but I suspect some posters would think I'm being too generous.
 
Now to wait for the inevitable backlash.
 
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Define your terms   8/10/2009 5:32:30 PM
What is global reach?  Assuming it's akin to power projection France is not 2nd behind the US.
 
Power projection includes not just aircraft, aircraft carriers, and amphibious shipping but attack submarines, cruise missiles, strategic air transports, other air transports, all other naval power, logistical ability and sustainability, war reserves including spare parts, quality of deployed forces, tanker aircraft, etc.
 
France has no strategic lift and a total of 14 C-130s and 55 C-160s.  It's SSN's in no way compare to the RN or USN.  While the quality of forces is very high the 500 Naval commandos and army "marines" are not superior to the Royal Marines and SBS nor are other French para's and special forces superior to the Brits.
 
France includes within it's military budget the Gendarmarie (105,000 police with a budget of 7.7 billion Euros) and other items that inflate it's apparent level of spending.
 
Without it's single aircraft carrier this entire discussion would of course be moot.  So the first caveat to this discussion is France not fighting anyone with a reasonable chance to sink that one ship.  The next caveat of course is that clearly when the RN has 2 larger carriers this discussion is again entirely moot.  So for today the question is what you need the navy to do carriers, amphibs, subs, etc. and what is utility of the French Navy vs all others in different areas?  Moreover, how would one compare 6 C-17s and 50 C-130s in the RAF to the 14 C-130s and 55 C-160s in the ALA, quality of ground troops, etc.
 
There might be some specific scenario's where France would be more effective than the UK but in most areas the UK has more power projection ability; morever, France has very few areas of advantage left once the UK replaces it's two small carriers with the two large ones on order.  France needs high quality SSN's, strategic airlift (more than provided by A400M), and a 2nd carrier to compete with the Brits for power projection and there remains the advantage the UK has in it's superior personel.  Man for man the RN is the best navy in the world and has been for a long time.  Nobody has better trained soldiers either.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       8/10/2009 6:20:38 PM
Sigh...

...how does this always digress into France vs the USA...lol. ANYWAY, I think it's hard really to say who is "2nd" behind the USA. You can't really compare it like that. Rather, I'd say you have the USA as a superpower with global reach and PERSISTENCE. As in the US can deploy and independently maintaing combat power anywhere on or off the globe it chooses. And after that you also have nations like France, Russia and the UK who can also project power far beyond their borders but have a limited ability to sustain it in a meaningful way for any extended duration. So I would characterize France along with Russia and the UK as "Great Global Powers" while nations like China, India, Japan, Australia, Germany, S Korea, Brazil, Canada, Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt ect. are also great but at the regional level.

.02
-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

albywan    cheese eating surrender monkeys   8/10/2009 6:35:38 PM
How can a nation of surrenders claim to have global reach?
 
Sure you currently have a global presence stretching from the South Pacific back to Europe, but you also have a history of walking away from conflicts - or just rolling over...
The World War parts 1 and 2, Algeria, Vietnam...
 
What was the last war you won? US war of Independence????
 
go make more cheese, you are good at that.
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    LB   8/10/2009 6:49:08 PM

What is global reach?  Assuming it's akin to power projection France is not 2nd behind the US.

 

Power projection includes not just aircraft, aircraft carriers, and amphibious shipping but attack submarines, cruise missiles, strategic air transports, other air transports, all other naval power, logistical ability and sustainability, war reserves including spare parts, quality of deployed forces, tanker aircraft, etc.

 

France has no strategic lift and a total of 14 C-130s and 55 C-160s.  It's SSN's in no way compare to the RN or USN.  While the quality of forces is very high the 500 Naval commandos and army "marines" are not superior to the Royal Marines and SBS nor are other French para's and special forces superior to the Brits.


 

France includes within it's military budget the Gendarmarie (105,000 police with a budget of 7.7 billion Euros) and other items that inflate it's apparent level of spending.

 

Without it's single aircraft carrier this entire discussion would of course be moot.  So the first caveat to this discussion is France not fighting anyone with a reasonable chance to sink that one ship.  The next caveat of course is that clearly when the RN has 2 larger carriers this discussion is again entirely moot.  So for today the question is what you need the navy to do carriers, amphibs, subs, etc. and what is utility of the French Navy vs all others in different areas?  Moreover, how would one compare 6 C-17s and 50 C-130s in the RAF to the 14 C-130s and 55 C-160s in the ALA, quality of ground troops, etc.


 

There might be some specific scenario's where France would be more effective than the UK but in most areas the UK has more power projection ability; morever, France has very few areas of advantage left once the UK replaces it's two small carriers with the two large ones on order.  France needs high quality SSN's, strategic airlift (more than provided by A400M), and a 2nd carrier to compete with the Brits for power projection and there remains the advantage the UK has in it's superior personel.  Man for man the RN is the best navy in the world and has been for a long time.  Nobody has better trained soldiers either.



You were doing so well until the last highlighted portion ;)  At the end of the day "Quality" of "Personel" and "Training" are pretty much impossible to quantify and compare.  In the desire to foster non argumentative discussion its best to leave statements like that out of any discussion as they inevitably lead to a nationalistic p!ssing contest.
 
Not saying you are wrong, not saying you are right, I have my own opinion on the matter but not going to share as it mine ;)
 
Regards
 
Arty
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Yes, the CdG   8/10/2009 7:08:57 PM
air group with Rafales, Super Entendards, and E-2's is better than the air group of the Invincibles.  Longer range, greater endurance, and better radar coverage, all add, synergistically, to create an air group better than the RN.  The MN sees the RN further away....strikes the RN from further away, and can intercept the RN's strike further out-meaning that even IF the "Laugh It Up's" aren't all that great and even IF Aster-15 isn't all it's cracked up to be, that the RN's Harriers may NEVER get into a firing position to put Herald's beliefs, truths, wild Franco-phobe (After all until someone actually "pots" an ASCM or AshM at the CdG we really can not know how good or bad the Aster or the Lafayettes are) to the test.
 
And the CVBG gives France the better amphibious capacity.  Being better able to provide AAW, AsuW capacity than the RN, the MN has the better capacity to "kick in the door" of an opposed intervention.  Also the ability to control the sea, better than the RN, negates the RN's probably better Amphibious capacity...Albion and Ocean are more vulnerable to attack than are Ouragoun, and so though Britain has a greater lift capacity it's ACTUAL capacity is less than France's because, for the moment the RN lacks a Conventional Carrier.
 
Yes the RN has superb SSN's, but the MN is no slouch in that regard either....so unless the British can dominate the battle space via this weapon system, I'd still give the edge to the MN.
 
Again, you don't have to like France or FS to have to face some fairly indisputable facts about France's capacity.
 
And leave the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkee cr#p at home...how can any nation that gets beaten by a bunch of rice-growing peasants and then runs out on its sworn ally be considered anything?  Hows that feel USAJOE1?  You OK, with being responsible for the debacle that befell the South Vietnamese people?  I apologize if you were only joking...on the Internet it's hard to tell.
 
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