if you compare this campaign to the falklands, you would probably be able to predict the results: the UK suffered heavy losses from SSM, losing numerous ships. but when UK forces landed, man for man, the argies were CLEARLY no match for the brits. it was not a matter of equipment, but superior troops. why not assume this conflict would be any different. france would suffer damage from anti-ship missles; it would suffer losses making an amphibious landing: perhaps heavy losses. but once the battle went to the ground, is there any reason to believe that France vs. Egypt would be any different from UK vs. Arg? you argue logistics, yet look at the Falklands: you would be hard pressed to find a place on earth more logistically difficult for the brits, yet they pulled it off. take the casualties in ground battles; the number of arg prisoners, etc. i think the onus is on you to show us why this battle would be different from the Falklands. BTW, i'm having my morning coffee here, so no more 'star destroyer' jokes; that one still cracks me up.

GoG notice how FS slips in 200 Leos from Germany and AN-124 from Russia. Also notice Horizon Frigates that dont exist being inserted. Its the French side that needs to be reigned in. Also it would help to do more than make equipment list and deal with real issues like supporting hundreds of thousands of men and machine far from home with very limited air and sea lift. And then there is the "HARM DONT WORK" and "RAFALE KILL ALL VIPERS" type of responses that also drive most rational people insane. Lots of wild proclaimations supported by nothing more than rhetoric on the French side. Notice in all the post about Landing the FN is in the same condition as the Start of the war. No French lossed really? Or how Leclerc will simply cut through M1A1 formations dispite overwhelming numericall superiority when both tanks are equal.

"Yes it is. But If FS blocks the Suez or fires and ICBM or if Egypt Blocks the Suez of detonates a SADM things change. Same for rolling across Libya or Sudan without regard to sovernty. FS started the diplomatic mess. And the US would not stop selling arms to Egypt or honoring contracts on behalf of France. Franch supported Saddam until the bitter end so Why would other nations not do the same. In fact the US supported Egypt vs France once before. Also France and Israel dont exactly like each other. The US is able to do pretty much anything it wishes INSPITE OF HOW other nations feel. Thats a Superpower. If France has these ambitions then it must also deal with real world diplomacy." roger that. i agree with all your points. these are legitimate issues, i.e. arms sales, violating sovereignty during attacks. but some people mentioned other nations getting involved militarily; this would erode the France vs. Egypt scenario. this is what i meant.

Oh well militarily is too hard to say what another nation might do. But if Libya, Sudan or Eritria are violated you can bet they will do something about it. Especially with France in such a vulnerable position.

gixx, this is why i asked at one point for Alexis to step in and give his opinion. he has been strangely absent for this whole debate. i respect his opinion quite a bit. i have no way of knowing who is right: you or FS and BW. my common sense tells me that france would crush egypt by choking it, cutting off its supplies and bombing the bejesus out of it. but you raise some interesting scenarios; this is why i'd like to hear alexis' point of view.

lol, 'in-flight missile repair technician', just read that. good one! gives a new meaning to the joke: "he ended his job as he began it: fired with enthusiasm" !!!

Alone and unsupported France could really hurt Egypt over time. But a US style "Shock and Awe" overwhelming victory is not possible outside of really bad Egyptian generalship. But Egypt is not alone and unsupported. And even if it was the army is too strong and has indigeounous production or some critical systems. Its not that France could not win. It would cost too much. More than Vietnam cost the US but in only a fraction of the time. But this is irrelevent since no war is fought in a vacuum or without regard to politics. My aim is not to bash France. Only to bring truth. And the truth is that when the US, a true superpower, decides to fight. Politics, and logistics are always taken care of. Remember how bad "old Europe and Russia" tried to keep the US out. But the US is politically and militarily strong enough to make it happen. But we are not in Iran? Why not? Definately not because we can do it. But politically the time is not right. In NK the cost is too high. But the US has means to manipulate such things. As was shown in GW2. So if France wants to be power projector number 2. She has to get her affairs in order first. Otherwise Egypt wins 10 out of 10 times.

"the key issue is whether the french fleet can get to its target without taking too much damage. i'm not well versed in naval matters, so i can't comment." I disagree, they don't have the logistics or resources to dilute to the level of running multiple feints. Their best chance of survival is ironically a "Coral Sea" type disposition. ie all surface assets protecting the carrier - that is assuming that the carrier itself is able to apply enough impetus to influence a battle outcome. If you look at the CdG's air wing - there isn't enough organic air mass on board to be a tipping point. If that's the case - where disproportionate effort is required to protect an asset that is not a fundamental battle event changer - then whats the carriers role? Is it there to imply pressure, is it there to harass and intimidate Egyptian commercial LOC? Unless it becomes a critical battle influencer - it's chewing resources up in self protection - rather than offensive application. That's also why the USN crunched the numbers in WW2 and came up with carriers that could manage high aircraft levels. Short squadrons by nature are only useful for expeditionary work in this scenario. my 2c worth

If I may just dabble here. The Falklands were islands with limited hiding places and very few local resources to keep the Argies supplied. Further after the Belgrano got torpedoed there was no way a ship could reinforce the Argies. Game was over from that point forward. On the other hand, Egypt is a big country, with lots of local resources to keep the Egyptian Army going. And even if they just ran around in the desert they could exhaust the limited resources of the French.

Damn you're good.