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 is a relatively weak military power.
Nappy    6/23/2005 5:02:28 PM
France is a relatively weak military power in terms of the world. It has neither logisitcal nor economic capability to invade none other then it's neighbors (possibly a land invasion of England included). What do I mean by invasion? Ability to completely invade,dominate, and ultimately totally control (not like the "green zone" areas and chaos we see in Iraq). Germany is a possiblity but their armaments production capability is far higher then France. Spain is also a possiblity, but to be frank not possible due to the terrain(Pyrnees), and capability of the Spanish airforce (they have a significant airforce believe it or not, in fact with a budget of 8 billion annually just for the airforce.) England is a possiblity also, the French navy is significantly inferior to the English navy but it's possible to perhaps make a surprise landing. As far as comparing France to say an India. This is ludicrous. If India wishes, (this will NEVER happen) she could invade Russia and take Moscow (without Nuclear weapons of course), this could be done fairly easily by India (perhaps with a loss of 20-30 million Indians), Indians frankly pump out more and better qualified engineers, chemist then say France and Russia combined as per the DOW chemical company R&D report in 2004, and have a better capacity to utilize these resources, the Indian economy is much bigger in production capability then say a France or Russia (as output by ODM per operating cost). Finally, I just don't believe France has the "willpower" to do anything like an invasion. It's people are too inclined to luxuries and other wasteful and decadent excess that they will rather surrender or bargain with another power rather then fight. I do not mean to offend or upset anyone (in fact this is a complement to the highly developed social paradise setup by the French people) but the realities are that in a war France would probably roll over.
 
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
Godofgamblers    voila mon pays....:)   4/6/2009 4:53:19 AM
http://balipropertyexpo.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/upacara2.jpg" width="1947" border="0" />
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers    AdG   4/6/2009 5:02:15 AM

It seems we keep coming back to the Great Man theory hehe. I must admit that Winston Churchill is another exception since he does seem to have changed history, rather than simply have followed contemporary trends. By all rights, Halifax and his peers should have taken power and would have continued the policy of appeasement. Britain?s foreign minister even praised Hitler?s taking of the Sudetenland at the time..... Winnie was truly alone in what many thought was an illogical and irrational crusade against Nazism. He belies Carr's theory that 'great men' are but the product of their times and of historical trends.

 

As to my view on Albion, I think it found itself left behind during the Napoleonic era. The rapid changes in France, the frictions between different the various groups (some of which we have been discussing) made for a dynamic momentum that was lacking in the UK. There was truly an explosion of great men and of cultural activity in France during this period. The UK actually began a steady decline in the 1800s (see this thread for further discussion) which intersected with France's decline after La Guerre de Conquete.

 

The UK does not seek to become a great power once again but rather works within the framework of NATO and with the US so it can 'punch above its weight'. Whether this indicates a lack of ambition or simple realism on their part depends on your POV. France seems to have timid unformulated plans for grandeur. Whether this indicates ambition or mere nostalgia also depends on one's POV.

 

Both nations have hitched their fortunes to the EU which has stalled. Many in the UK seem to have given up on it altogether, in fact. Few in Europe believe any more that the EU will be a meaningful political or military force in our lifetimes. It seems that European politicians outside of Russia, and perhaps France, lack ambition to do anything except maintain the status quo.

 

Are you familiar with the Polish Lithuanian confederation of 1648? I believe this has been France's general strategy for the past decade or so though it has yet to settle on the right partner.

 

Je parle un francais convenable et dans le temps, j'ai ecrit pas mal de dissertions a la fac en francais. En ce qui concerne ma nationalite, je suis indonesien de souche, mais j'ai habite dans plusieurs pays, y compris l'angleterre, mais aussi dans l'europe de l'est. Ainsi ma culture personnelle est assez vaste mais je suis un peu autodidacte, ce qui veut dire que mes connaissances ne sont pas aussi profondes que j'aimerais puisqu'I'll y a des sujets que je n'ai pas appris de maniere formelle.

 

Si vous le pemettez, je relance la question..... a votre tour:

 

What is your view of the UK in light of our discussion?

 

Quote    Reply


Godofgamblers    AdG   4/6/2009 5:05:56 AM








































IIRC the largest non US defence company in the world is BAE. (4th IIRC)  then there are a swag of other US companies.  The french just make the 10.




















































Yes, the French companies maybe 10th, or third if you look at country of orign.  However, Frances miltiary industries are mostly French own and they build almost all of there own equipment.  But the fact is that France is one of say five countries that has a miltary industrial complex big enough to supply it's self.



Sure countries like Canada and Australia could ramp things up in time of war but that takes time.



Whether or not the Rafel is a good plane, there is a production line in France that in time of war can be turned on.  All but Russia, China, the UK/Germany/Italy/Spain (if they can agree), the US, and Sweden have the ablity to build a 4.5 gen, or better, fighter at a whim.  That is not a small feet.



Seems like most on here got burned by a French girl and can't get over it.



 



Have fun, Jason















So because we believe the Rafale is inferior to an F-16 due to it's lack of proper mods we've lusted for a French girlfriend who didn't want us? Not only is it a bad allegory, but you're assuming we don't prefer the hot Amie chick or nice Brit.

... Actually, it's just plain stupid... France pulls of the 'Ice' pretty well, but not the 'Princess' part.

 

The Mirage 2000 on the other hand is a nice plane. Nothing special, but quite decent.

http://www.claritaslux.com/images/girls1.jpg" width="336" border="0" />

Are you questioning the allure of French women, cwDeici? You risk losing credibility on this site.... be careful:)
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers    AdG   4/6/2009 5:06:08 AM








































IIRC the largest non US defence company in the world is BAE. (4th IIRC)  then there are a swag of other US companies.  The french just make the 10.




















































Yes, the French companies maybe 10th, or third if you look at country of orign.  However, Frances miltiary industries are mostly French own and they build almost all of there own equipment.  But the fact is that France is one of say five countries that has a miltary industrial complex big enough to supply it's self.



Sure countries like Canada and Australia could ramp things up in time of war but that takes time.



Whether or not the Rafel is a good plane, there is a production line in France that in time of war can be turned on.  All but Russia, China, the UK/Germany/Italy/Spain (if they can agree), the US, and Sweden have the ablity to build a 4.5 gen, or better, fighter at a whim.  That is not a small feet.



Seems like most on here got burned by a French girl and can't get over it.



 



Have fun, Jason















So because we believe the Rafale is inferior to an F-16 due to it's lack of proper mods we've lusted for a French girlfriend who didn't want us? Not only is it a bad allegory, but you're assuming we don't prefer the hot Amie chick or nice Brit.

... Actually, it's just plain stupid... France pulls of the 'Ice' pretty well, but not the 'Princess' part.

 

The Mirage 2000 on the other hand is a nice plane. Nothing special, but quite decent.

http://www.claritaslux.com/images/girls1.jpg" width="336" border="0" />

Are you questioning the allure of French women, cwDeici? You risk losing credibility on this site.... be careful:)
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       4/6/2009 5:19:01 AM
Are you questioning the allure of French women, cwDeici? You risk losing credibility on this site.... be careful:) 
there are two female accents that leave me weak at the knees.  french and irish.  :)  odd because they are fundamentally completely different.  but, so were my ex's chalk and cheese compared to each other....
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       4/6/2009 6:19:29 AM
That Irish accent is cute.... like an elf or something:)
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    I'm reading this thread with great interest.   4/6/2009 7:42:54 AM
AdmiraldeGrasse welcome. Its nice to see a fine mind at work  I may not agree with all that you said, but I do agree with much of it
 
That is refreshing. To have another someone join us who can argue their case well.  
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       4/27/2009 9:44:53 AM
For GOG
Considering US military power,  France is a relatively weak military power.
Considering rest of the world?
Probably the second...far away from USA.
First there is nuclear power and regarding that there is nuclear power and non nuclear power.
France has a better ability than China or UK or India (which can not even strike France) to use this nuclear power: global reach, accurate, second strike ability and fully autonomous with 350 warheads
Our doctrine is clear, if France vital interest is jeopardized, we use nukes at least in antileadership or counterforce agaisnt conventional and industrial potential (listen last Chirac speech 3 years ago).
 
At our borders? We have no conventional threat.Russian air force is not strong enough compare to what France has to bomb us conventionnaly more than we could retaliate
 
Now once a country is defended from its territorial integrity, let see what matters in diplomacy and it is a world wide force projection
A) First intelligence and France has its own satellite network (contrary to Britain) and 30 ESM spy stations worlwide so second or third depending what Russian have really today
B) Second ability to deploy and plan : France has a global network of manned bases and harbours so second or third  depending areas and only USA and Britain match that
For C4ISR we are fully autonomous with all capabilies including software tools and worldwide communications including sufficient telecom bandwith
C) Third power to project:
UK has no real carrier or modern navy fighter until 2017 (see delivery table h*tp://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-46157.aspx )
France can project a real aircraft carrier with 36 rafales (after 2012) and E2C from 2009 to 2016 (next rehaul)
Plus 3 LPH (1 building) and 4 LPD (2 reserve) plus of course chartered civilian ships like UK
Not a bad capability compare to UK until 2017
UK has more SSN attack nuclear subs but reduce to 8 while we stay at 6
8 is better than 6 but matters only vs Russia or China (and we have more usable air power agaisnt Russia or China to compensate)
For other navies I don't see what  Iran or even India or China could do agaisnt a real carrier and 6 SSN in blue sea water, plus our aircraft ( Fighters or SAW) on our islands in Indian or Pacific Ocean...
So our actual capabilites by sea is better than UK while small compare to USA of course
 
 On air land battle only USA of course, then France and UK has a real projection air land battle capability
France and UK are close in size and equipement but France is fully autonomous regarding C4ISR and planning (see JED article below)
France use to be better than UK regarding air superiority but UK is closing the gap with Eurofighter IOC and deliveries
On air to ground power, or ground force it is similar
 
On fast entering force capabilities I mean air transport, France currently has ageing force and A 400 is delayed.We have a problem for permanent rotations even we keep our surge capacity for an autonomous operation (considering remaining potential of first generation of Transalls).
UK is stronger except they are farther to potential areas of deploiement so their actual advantage is weak.
But air transport is only for light forces like paratroopers then supplying men and light equipement.
Heavy equipement has to come by sea as well for USA, UK or France so it is not an issue in heavy deploiements.
 
Our helicopter force while numerous and potent,  is ageing also and we have to spare remaining potential except for a surge operation until Tigre and NH90 come in sufficient numbers in the next 4 years (considering remaining potential of first generation of Pumas).
So UK has today a more serviceable capability concerning air transport but it matters for current continous deploiement of low intensity  (where we can currently charter other planes) but not so important for autonomous and surge capabilities where we keep our autonomous capability at planned level just in case. 
On paper Russia has some means but obsolete concerning C4ISR or air force, and almost no credible capabilities on experience and traning far away from their borders.For China it is even worse.India has a limited capability.
 
Then we have second capabilty to ramp up production for a global conventional war considering we produce autonomously  full range of our weapons, our fi
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       4/27/2009 9:51:29 AM
Read
plus our aircraft ( Fighters or ASW) on our islands in Indian or Pacific Ocean...
 
Nota bene: from our Indian ocean islands (Mayotte and la Réunion), plsu Djibouti, our Rafales with tanker and E3F support can reach India or Pakistan and strike on blue waters between
In 2010 we have a 100 rafale force and it is better than India (or others) have in the area, or even it is a dealy force agaisnt Russia for limited operations (a lot of Russian pilots would have a bad fate until PAK FA is deployed).
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       4/27/2009 10:11:25 AM
To summarize and even France is far away USA capability
-France has a real abiltiy to use its nukes
-France has equivalent to US marine Corps on air land battle:
And we are second for numerization after USA and slightly in advance compare to UK
Plus 7 E3F and E2F, plus 750 modern cruise missiles, plus medium range air defense (unless UK)
Plus second in ECM technology on our fighters (all our fighters have internal jammers BTW)
Plus 3 to 4 time more BVR A to A missiles than Israel for exemple in storage
Plus good special forces (UK is similar regarding this)
-France is fully autonomous and has a modern planning capability second only to USA
-France has between 6 and 8% of USA naval power (including a tactical nuclear force with ASMP contrary to UK now) and is the only other power to have a potent conventional carrier until 2018 (if UK has two plus enough F35 to put on) plus LPH
-France has a global network of bases to build logistic and depot supplies or to base aircrafts
-France has a real capability to ramp up its military at a modern level
-France has a real projection experience and a global alliance network
Our President is commited to maintain that since he double our budget appropriation this year, and increase our annual  procurement payments of 20% for the next 5 years
I hope that our second aircraft carrier will be ordered in 2012 as the F4 improved Rafale
I hope we procure 4 C17 as a gap filler but it is on evaluation now.
I hope we study and deploy an ASAT capability ASAP.
 
 
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