Good post You confirm what I said.It is not glorious as I said to have only 9% of US naval capacities (and one sixth for air land battle), but is better than nothing.Btw who are the contender for naval power? US, UK, Japan, Russia, maybe India in the coming years (but not sure),are the only naval power which inflict great losses to French navy (if too close of their coast for India and Japan - they lack of autonomy to sustail naval conflict in a other ocean).A conflict with these countries has a probability around zero for France. France has weaknesses (second CV, SSN in not enough number for me, lack of heavy air transport ...) but we have some advantage like Djibouti in one of the most strategic point in world.Probabaly more important than a carrier because closing Djibouti would easily fund that carrier in years. But such an outpost in Indian Ocean closing red sea and near Arabian peninsula is a magnificent asset. France has a complete autonomy of decision because we have the minimum space assets. You are right!

PeregrinePike: The actual name of the forest in question is the Schwarzwald. GoG: While you are correct that economies are very difficult to measure (witness the tag that is associated with economics as being the “dismal science”), you will get a rabid bunch of academics assaulting you when you accuse them of only practicing only rhetoric! One set of comparative measures that, while rough and approximate, are the trends of economic growth (not the magnitude). If you normalize these trends (e.g. slopes) to the economies size (this is, to some extent, a judgment) you can see some interesting collective data from which you can judge the general direction an economic unit. Looking at the past several years it seems as though the French economy is in significant but gradual decline while the UK economy is slowly advancing. So trends seem to favor the Anglophone conspiracy. Racist Remarks: I’m not so sure that any remark made on this thread is racist. I am sure that some of the comments made suffer from language barrier and, perhaps, inept use of the language by native English speakers. What I believe that we need to understand is that we are making “culture-ist” remarks. By this I mean that cultures have features – some good, some bad – that influence their ability to be actors in this little drama. Pull the progeny (very early on) of one culture out of their environment and place them into another culture and you will often get very different results. It seems to me that cultures not only influence the bounds of individual action or competency but also have different levels of maturity. Witness Arab Islamic culture as an example. This is clearly a medieval culture whose very discourse and behavior modalities limit the ability of the culture when it needs to compete with a more modern (mature) culture. This breeds failure, frustration and violence. Education of the elite (of these cultures) is only a veneer as biases and basic world view is embedded very early on. So, there is a cognitive dissonance embedded within the ruling elite of the medieval cultures in question. The West solved this problem by hundreds of years of religious wars and a wrenching re-evaluation of what reality is. I am not so sure that we have the time to wait for Islamic or African rationality to emerge on its’ own and I am not sure how we impose modern thinking upon others without very unpleasant violence. Recall the past as a guide to the future. How did this cultural dissonance fall out in the New World over the last 200 years? How will the encysted medieval Islamic cultures of Europe and, in particular, France fare? It seems to me that the future for France, the Netherlands and Germany, in particular, revolves around this question. These countries either need to insist upon assimilation of the Islamic element (e.g. a severe cultural change in the immigrants) or they need to accept that there will be ongoing conflict with the result that one side or the other dominates and eliminates the other. So, racism is a red word – a propaganda term whose use is deliberate and obstructive when attempting to view a problem objectively. Best, wjr

Frankly, so what if France has 1 or 2 carriers, and the British have 3? The French carrier(s) are real carriers. They carry more actual fighter aircraft, and those fighter aircraft are all-around better.

Afterthought: I don't mean to imply anything about professionalism in my consideration of the UK and France. Overall, I think the human capital of the British military is outstanding, and quite possibly the best the world. Man-for-man, I do believe them to be quite superior to the French. However, this is not a thread about training, professionalism, or HR policies. It is a thread about standing as a world power, which in my mind is about power projection. France's defense policy is Gaulist; they are strident about independent power projection. The British defense policy is partially dependent on the United States, and in fact would be even more dependent were it not for the rude awakening of the Falklands. The French are all around more flexible and more committed to going it alone. They are #2.

They're not as good as the US but they're good enough that no one will think about messing with them. Isn't that enough?

I had already given an example from a French air force instructor on Egyptian training.French instructor have trained some Egyptian previously flying F16 on M2000.There were suprised of Egyptian pilot bad skills using navigation systems and FCS.They ask what they do their F16, and the Egyptian pilot said : "oh we never use INS, we just follow Nile river to come back on the base". ----First of all thats a highly biased and presumtous statement that only highlights French arrogance. I have trained with Egyptians, who by the way train with the U.S., and they are not as inept as you would suggest. You can be sure that during the Bright Star exercises no one is just "following the Nile". BTW we I say we can reinforce Djibouti, it would likely be done by turning around Africa by shipping to avoid red sea.Our force would not enter red sea until Egyptian air force is crushed of course. Bluewing: I discarded main offensive from med because Corsica while in range is far and so it reduce sortie number and war load of fighters. ----you clearly said you would move to Djibouti prior to iniating hostilities. So I take this statement as concession that you could not conduct you operation as originally planned. Saying that you will not do this until the EAF is crushed is the same as me saying we will crush the FAF. Ok, a little detail on how you are going to pull it off. Otherwise it is a statement of intent nothing more. Djibouti is close to south Egypt frontier while Egyptian infrastructure is weak is the south making landing on shore more easy for French. Of course Leclerc are so so superior than a M1A2 but Egyptian have older versions.More other French force have a C4ISR and reaction time and mobility much better.Our helo number is much much greater than Egypt. ---What are you smoking? Leclerc so so superior? I dont think so. I have the knowledge and operatonal experience to disqualify that remark. Egypt has indegionous production capability and is operating the modern versions of the M1 Abrams which I will tell you are a match for the Leclerc. To avoid a mine is better than yours arguement I will say that both tanks are equal. It is no question to get frontal battle until air superiority have soften ground force of course. Air mobile helos units whill easily transit by flight from Djibouti to south coast of Egypt and inland south.Or transit directly from Chad via a short overflight in west sudan where boundaries between Chad and Lybia are not defined and Sudan has no force (north of Darfour). Today French do incursion from Chad in this area and Sudan say nothing.SO if France is in war, it is easy for Sudanese gov to shut eyes and say the French must have went trought Lybian desert and not Sudanese. More over we can play Erythre ---FS, you are not addressing the issue of what Sudan will do about you violating their Sovernty. Also since you are using a well axis of advance through undefined border region this will allow the Egyptian defense to mass fires on this area. The time it will take you to deploy 500+ MBT, which fall far short of the 3 to 1 numerical advantage your Generals will insist on, gives Egyptian engineers time to prepare defenses and obstacles to further channel your forces. Egyptian Commandoes, commercial and US satellite intelligence will allow ample early warning to when you cross the LOD. As you come within range guided MLRS will rain down on you prior to contact. Patriot and SA-6 batteries will cover the defenders as will the CAP. Early warning will be provided by AWACS and GCI which is state of the art. The mobility of the Abrams/AH-64 allows for a flexible defense and rapid counter attacks. SSM attacks, and Fighter bombers will counter strike your air and logistic bases in Chad. For the Red Sea OSAs, FFG-7, 2 to 4 SSK, and mines will block the Southern Entrance to the Red Sea. This will be backed up by Harpoon armed F-16's, CAP, CGI and E2. If Egypt can destroy a troop ship, ro/ro or major warship like CdG then it is likely that your attack will be blunted. With the forces I listed there is a high probability that Egypt can inflict enough damage to stop your landing. Should you still attempt to land 1 to 2 brigade of tanks with infantry in support will be in position to oppose you. Patriot and I-Hawk will surely attrit your force. and Air battles between F-16/M2000/AwACS vs Rafale/M2000-5/AWACS will bloody on both sides. You still have not explained how you would achive air superiority except to say you have technological advantages. Thats nice but in Vietnam you had even greater advantages and you were routed. At this point I cannot say for certain who wins our scenario. BUt I can say that you are looking at about 30% casualties minimum for the attackers and possible more. This is due to the fact that Egyptian SA is quite good and out numbers you. In the air and sea you have technological advantages. But not quite as lop sided as US vs Iraq. Egypt used U

I'm an American, but I'm not arrogant/blind enough to fail to recognize, man for man and on average, the British military isn't our approximate equal. However, that is more appropriate for a UK vs. US comparison thread. The Brits are first class.

How does France have world wide power projection. Two carriers do not give you that projection unless your against a third world country. Do the math, France is a regional power in Africa, Middle east and europe. They could do more damage to Egypt than Egypt could do to them. Conquer Egypt no, the price would be to high and very little to gain. France has major problems, welfare, socialist government and Islamic emigration (birth rate) could be a major problem in the future. You cannot compare that to the situation in America. The great melting pot, with everyone wanting the american dream and after the first generation cultural differances fade.

jhaley - by your standards, no one except the United States is a world power. If those are your standards, fine. They are not mine. Case closed.

Calm down a little. Think about what he said. Regional power. Able to conduct limited operations abroad. Economic and political world power yes. Military world power, a little. But not really a thread to most nations unless we discuss nukes. Egypt is many times more powerful than Iraq was. And you see the level of firepower that took to ensure low casualties. France even if it committed its entire military could not ensure victory vs Egypt if the goal was to invade. And even if victory was achieved it would be at unrealistically high losses and cost. Egypt actually has a very well organized military and is quite capable of fighting off any attacker short of a superpower.