Quote : "You cannot think that we can give up a day's holiday just like that," said Bernard Thibault, leader of the large CGT union" That $hithead is a communist !! And he 's "defending" a Christian Holiday !! The French people are wrong on this one . The Proposition is well valid to my eyes and I was welcoming it . Cheers .

Thanks for the Compliment BW, in response to your response: 3) Tempo: I realize that your area of focus is the Med coast; however the majority of Egyptian C3, Airfields, and other major military installations are located in the triangle of Alexandria, El Minya, and Port Said. The closest point of that Triangle to Corsica is Alexandria, and that is still 1300 miles away in a straight line. If you have to respect Italian neutrality you can add at least two hundred miles to the trip. Once you get there you run into a very heavy SAM network with equipment on the whole a lot better than what the Iraqis used. That the French can wear down the Egyptian AF eventually I agree, but I think they would take heavy losses doing so. I mean the Allies lost 55 planes in Desert Storm (almost forty to enemy fire) and that was against no aerial opposition and a blinded, isolated ADS. 4) Logistics: True, my concern is with the support element of the French Fleet and how able it would be to handle lengthily combat operations. My knowledge on the subject is very limited, from what I can see you have 4 Replenishment ships able to carry about 20,000 tons of stores. Is that enough? I certainly don’t know. 5) Your Welcome ;) As to the long range Falkland raids there were six in total, the first was only with one bomber, the second with two, and I’m not sure the numbers on the other four. “To cut short , the Airstrikes from Chad and Djibouti on Egypt airbases down South would try to archive the same goal : forcing them to REACT and displace OR focus on another threat .” A worthy goal, but were you not saying earlier that your focus was going to be on the Med coast? It is at least as far to attack your primary targets as Corsica is, and of little added value. If you are attacking the few southern bases then the displacement, helps you not at all as the forces would just move closer to the med. The idea of making them react to another threat has some merit, but it depends on your objective. It might make your main bombing strikes easier, but does not help with the destruction of the EAF. You would be pulling them away from the strength of your forces and having them engage much weaker strikes with limited support. I personally believe that the ratio would be much more in your favor with a concentration of resources, don’t let them overwhelm you with mass. You give an example of 16 aircraft strike. They have no radar support as the escorts required for the AWACS would cut into the strike numbers. So when do they activated their radars? Too soon and they give their positions way and allow the EAF to concentrate on them, too late and an E2 or Ground radar picks them up and vectors defends on them while they are still in a disadvantaged position. Casualties: Like I said the Allied effort in Desert Storm lost forty aircraft in a month, and I think that Egypt would be a lot harder nut to crack. Ready when you are my friend.

You mean the French don't have Predator or Comanche (duh...Kiowa? Apache?) or special forces to sniff out the route, or satellites? I assume we would use EMCON and passive systems, or do we still rely on TFR?

Perhaps they will try to attrit you with MiGs. Do you have all target discrimination? Then perhaps fifty EAF Fishbeds die--yay France!--then you get bounced by vectored F-16/AMRAAM/E-2. Escorts die then SEAD then strike aircraft, yes? Many while bingo fuel. Or heavy laden and hampered in maneuver. Or dry Micas. Meanwhile you are striking WHAT with this mission? And the next one?

I 'm ready ;-) 3) Tempo : As I said , we can do 2 strikes per day from homeland , no more . But 2 powerfull strikes with 50+ Aircrafts . Minimum time in between the two strikes : 6 hrs . I calculated the distances the way you did . I do not fly over Italy . As a side note , it would be impossible for us to provide CAS later on , unless we can capture/improvise an Airfield . Only CdG is in range for a rapid action . I know that . 4) Logistics : If it is of any interest to you , here is a link giving EVERYTHING the FN have (2003) , so you can add few more Ships (scenario in 2009). http://www.netmarine.net/bat/listes/flot2003.htm You can see that we have numerous support Ships , including big Tankers . In any case , plenty enough to support the Fleet at less than 2000nm away from home . ********************************************* You said : "The idea of making them react to another threat has some merit, but it depends on your objective. It might make your main bombing strikes easier, but does not help with the destruction of the EAF" The two Ojectives are closely linked together ex-98C . How can I put it ...hmmm AH yes I know ! "hold them by the nose while kicking them in the ass" -Patton . Med coast is the nose , you guess where the ass is . My two 16 Aircrafts flights ~which are an exemple~ are a big threat in themselves if Egypt is not very carefull . In case of encounter with EAF , 16 M2000s can take care of themselves pretty well ~56 MICAs in total . Now there is something quite interesting to "argue" about : Thoses 2 strike missions would have to fly WITHOUT or very little Air Intels as no French AWACS would be near-by . That is ...daring ! And it is why it could succeed . Keep up with me ;-) Remember the Black Buck raids :-) Egypt would need at least 2 AWACS South to have Radar cover . It 's pretty wide down South ... Ground Radars would only pick-up the Escort at 30.000feet and almost too late . Time to scramble , engage the Escort and SEADS , then notice than few Bombers could have actually flew-by low , and the latest would already be in range to launch SCALP/APACHE . In case we hit strong CAPs ~more than 10 F-16s at once~ we have 2 solutions : 1) Abort 2) Drop Ground ordnances and go "weapons free" . 16 M2000s going weapons free BVR vs Egyptian F-16s with Sparrows would be a bloodbath . In both cases , we attrit them . I know that we can win the Air Campaign , and with Attitude ;-) What is worrying me is the "after" . The landing itself ... Cheers .

Nichevo , look at Map :http://www.scramble.nl/mil/1/egypt/orbat.htm I would target Assouan where Egypt has a Mig-21MF squadron but I expect few F-16s too . Then Hurghada where they have another squadron of Mig-21s and some combat helos , then keep proceeding North ... Cheers .

It has to be said that due to the size of Egypt , they would have to ferry F-16s from up North to the Airbases down South if they want to reinforce what is only defended by Mig-21s . And that would be less F-16s to deal with the main blows coming from the Med . Cheers .

Okay, I am turned around on one attack or two, in which directions. I thought you were all Med, BW. Absent surprise, and assuming they anticipate this plan, your half-blind strike package has 6 MICA left for that 50 F-16s. If you attack with two 16-plane pqacks, the EAF need 2x50 MiG-21 and 2x50 F-16 to blunt both. At least one could get creamed. Then, okay, you took out one airport for 24 hours, and you lost 14 planes vs 50 Mig-21 and 6 F-16. Are your press so much friendlier to you than ours is to us that they will write "Airport Destroyed" as opposed to "Strike Force Wiped Out?" ...Unrelated, do you have an A-10 type ground-pounder? ...Oh, and if you go weapons free, the target lives another day, you have been mission killed, you know that, right? Heroism lies in success, in completing the mission. "Weapons free" is nigh unto cowardice, the bombers must get through.

Bluewings, weapons free would be a great mistake. Since you cannot win rapidly it would be to Egypts advantage to bring you into attrition heavy dog fights. Over time this will sap the will out of your crews and allow the press to amplify your losses. Also remember the bombers are laden with fuel tanks and bombs. The may have 2 Magic or MICA for self defense. If they jettison a2g stores the best strategy would be to disengage and RTB. If given the option, always RTB to fight another day.

BW it is a good point I tried to highlight in question #7. Your strike planes will be at a disadvantage in situational awareness just after going feet dry because your AWACs would not want to fly over hostile air space with the EAF lurking. So your planes are in the same position as the Iraqis in GW1 because Egypt has AWACs and GCI. See the map: http://www.europe-atlas.com/maps/mediterranean-sea.jpg Ok any place south east of Crete and your AWACs is in danger of interception. Look where the Egyptian fighter base is: http://www.scramble.nl/eg.htm From Mersa Matruh the M2000 there could intercept your AWACs. So to even be there you would need substantial CAP to even deter an attempt. This is perhaps a mission for the Rafale from CdG. So you are blind as you go feet dry. Egypts defensive advantage is overwhelming. Your limited logistics and Geography keeps your attack at bay.