France has nuclear submarines, armed with M-4 and M-5 Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles, which have ranges of up to 6000km and 11000km respectively. If any of these subs are in the North Atlantic, they could take out Washington DC and New York.
One US carrier, take out the entire French Air Force? You don’t really believe that, do you?
**
**
Gee, that’s so witty Sam… no one would have ever thought to say that. :rolleyes: If you’re going to be a bigot then at least try to be original, huh?
You are also neglecting the fact that if you try to invade a democratic free country such as France, the people of that country are going to be mightily pissed off. It wouldn’t be an Iraq, with civilians celebrating in the streets as you roll in the tanks. The only way to truly win such an invasion would be to kill each an every person, because they sure as hell will be trying to kill you. Just imagine how you would react if a suitably impressive invader (extra-terrestrial, possibly?) invaded the US.
And to kill every person is hardly a reasonable objective. Why are you invading in the first place?
So the question really fails at the first hurdle: the US is not a country that could ever have any objective in invading a free country that could be actually achieved by that invasion.
pan
I can’t believe the level of bigotry and ignorance being displayed in this thread.
Yup.
I don’t agree with the view that would roll over and surrender like cheese-eating sur-
Ahem
I mean, they would be really pissed. It might or might not be able to eliminate the regular forces, but the French would resistant as a population. There is a strong chance the government would surrender due to lack of troops and an inability to hold cities, and the act that they have very little to gain by not surrendering (on paper) and a lot to lose by openly resisting.
Regardles, I don’t think they would roll over and die.
I quickly checked : The french airforce has 18 air squadrons for a total of 355 planes, and the french navy 93 planes.
That’s a total of 448 aircrafts (though certainly they aren’t all fighters/bombers…it must include training planes, survey planes, show planes, electronic war planes, etc…I’ve not clue about the detailled figures and don’t intend to search for them). A Nimitz carrier has 85 aircrafts.
Still want to bet on the carrier?
(and I’ve no clue about what your references are concerning “spotting abilities” but a carrier group must be quite easy to notice).
Actually I searched a bit more, and the 18 squadrons are only the squadrons belonging to the " fight airforce command", hence are essentially fighters (with some electronic warfare and recon planes).
They don’t include the squadrons from the “strategic airforce command”, “survey, intelligence and communication air command” “projection airforce command”, nor the airforces flight schools.
However, I still suppose that the 355 planes are the total number, not the the number of fighters (Just a guess…355 fighters seems way too much to me)
Also, I discovered that french aircrafts are organized in “escadrons”, each including several “escadrilles”…hence I don’t know which of these words means “squadrons”.
Actually, I’m pretty certain there are some military buffs around here who know exactly how many planes each possible country has and have a detailled knowledge of each type of aircraft. Sorry for the hijack, but I would now be curious to know…
Well done Clar.
so Smiling Bandit, are you going to admit you were talking out of your ass?
Great Debates, indeed.
:rolleyes:
Seems I was totally clueless and wrong.
-Apparently, after further research, 355 is indeed the number of aircrafts belonging to the “fight airforce command”.
-It’s not exactly the total number of fighters or fighter/bombers, since there are some non fighters in this command and some other airforce command include fighters or fighter/bombers too (like attack planes, deep penetration planes…I assume they’re fighter/bombers, since their names are often somehow similars)
-I’ve absolutely no clue what the total number of aircraft in the french airforce could be.
-The navy indeed has 93 planes, including 30 fighters, 27 support planes, the rest being unindentified (because they are grouped in two categories with weird acronyms and I’ve no clue what kind of planes they are and what they’re used for).
So, apparently, France has something like 400-450 fighters and an undetermined total number of aircrafts.
I had absolutely no clue that there could be so much planes in the french army. I thought these things were costly and scarce. One learn something every day.
Ok…I eventually found here a document (dating back to 1999) presenting the french armed forces in english. Since it’s an information document from the ministry of foreign affairs; part of a more general information site , I assume I can post the whole of it.
FRENCH ARMED FORCES
Strength of service and civilian personnel, 1999:
200,114 Army
71,980 Air Force
59,093 Navy
96,523 Gendarmerie
65,964 in the other services (responsible for medical services, fuel supplies division, central administration, etc.).
Composition of Nuclear Forces
Since February 1996, the French nuclear deterrent force has had two components: the oceanic strategic force equipped with nuclear ballistic-missile submarines (SSBN), and an air component consisting of Air Force Mirage 2000Ns (re-fuelled by Air Force KC 135 FRs) and carrier-borne Navy Super Etendards equipped with intermediate-range air-to-ground missiles.
Composition of Combat Forces
Since 1 July 1998, the Army’s forces have been concentrated under a single command, the Land Combat Command (CFAT), which is to be linked to the Land Logistics Command (CFLT).
The Air Force has about 40 bases and a fleet essentially made up of 380 fighter aircraft (Mirage 2000s, Mirage F1s and Jaguars), about a hundred tactical and logistical transport planes, 14 tanker planes and detection and communication systems including four Awacs.
Naval combat forces (FAN), the maritime component of French projectible forces, consist of 20 battleships, including an aircraft-carrier and amphibious vessels manned by a total of 5,600 men.
The Anti-Submarine Action Group (GASM), the Minewarfare Force and support forces which can, if need be, supplement the naval projectible forces, had 89 vessels on 1 January 1998.
Between them, these various forces have 123 navy aircraft.
The Gendarmerie, whose contribution to security is essential, has around 180 armoured vehicles and some 50 aircraft.
In addition, France has forces stationed overseas, composed of land, naval and air elements, pre-positioned at many points on the globe. Their 20,000 or so men and equipment are permanently stationed in the overseas departments and territories.
There are also nearly 8,000 troops stationed in several African states with which France has defence agreements. This presence is to be reduced to slightly over 5,000 men by 2001, as forces are redeployed to increase their mobility. France is also taking part in the RECAMP operation to strengthen African peacekeeping capabilities.
Finally, France has an ongoing policy of providing sizeable contingents of “blue helmets” for United Nations peacekeeping and humanitarian operations.
In 1995, 13,500 men were engaged in operations outside French territory, including 8,600 in the former Yugoslavia. By 1997, this figure has dropped to 9,000, largely because operations in the former Yugoslavia had been scaled down to the 3,800 men involved in SFOR.
Stuff it. I’m quite willing to accept the number of planes. The problem is that I doubt they’d have any of them left in a matter of days. The US has unparralled spy capability. If the fighters or bombers move, they can be shot down quickly. They may take out one plane for every two we shoot down, but they can be taken out. Plus, they have a huge disadvantage in that they have only a few small carriers, which can not effectively project their power and would serve as little more than big targets.
If we were invaded by a foe we were clearly unable to beat, I think I would side with the invaders. I love my country, but if my country isn’t going to be around anymore I’m not going to die to defend it.
All this military talk aside (as I’m sure the US would need two carriers…one for each coast)…
I’m a bit disturbed by this:
This was not at all my implication. It seems that most of the posters to this thread didn’t misinterpret what I meant, but I don’t want the comment to linger.
I was more trying to imply that Germany used a very unorthodox method in overtaking the French…invading neutral nations who happened to be “on the way”. Not really unorthodox, per se, but immoral according to “world laws”.
Had Germany tried to invade through the Maginot Line, things would have been much different.
Of course, it may also be wrong for me at this point to mention some dude named Bonaparte. I’m a bit sketchy…what was his full name again?
Now, I assume the current leaders of the French military are Frenchmen, which means they wouldn’t have a chance. French soldiers do their best when they are not led by a Frenchman. If you look at the two most memerable and successful French military leaders, you will find Napolean was from Corsica, and Joan of Arc was a woman. 
An invasion of a technologically equivalent nation over an ocean is a formidable military operation. Prepositioning troops and equipment for an invasion of France is unattainable. Without an alliance with at least one European country, the long tail of supply is untenably vulnerable. Nuclear strikes are undesirable in any case, unless we wish to unite an entire continent against us, not to even mention the sore looser scenario.
So, you are left with an Aircraft Carrier supported naval battle in support of an amphibious landing. Given the home field advantage, and the absence of even sufferance from the civilian population, much less the active support shown for the WWII Normandy invasion, it is an entirely different proposition. Without a second front to divert resources from the already deployed French Armed Forces, it becomes a duck shoot for the defenders, unless you have a truly massive assault force. (The entire US Navy, and a huge amphibious force (something we no longer possess, by the way) Without that, it is not possible to establish a militarily usable beachhead.
Just like in the “Who could invade the US” threads, the answer is, only the closest of allies, acting covertly, with strong support of an alliance of other close allies. With the combined forces of the Netherlands, Britain, and Belgium, and a whole lot of excuses to move equipment and men onto the continent, it could be done, but at a huge military cost. This time the Canadians could sit it out. It would be essential as well that Germany, and Italy remain at least neutral.
Yes, we could strike at command and control assets, and air defense assets by deep strikes from the American continent. But it takes boots in the mud to successfully invade a country. With no beachhead, you have to land everyone against hostile fire, and that is deadly to the invaders. You cannot fight an attrition battle over an ocean, and you have to have free and safe transit for your supply lines. Given the success of French Special Forces, and equivalent, and the very good antisubmarine forces, that would take massive military effort to accomplish. That would have to come first, which takes the strategic and tactical surprise element entirely out of your ground attack.
No doubt, SDMB legends to the contrary notwithstanding, the size of the French Military might well grow in the first few weeks of the war.
Tris
All joking aside, I agree that France has a perfectly formidable armed forces. Formidable enough that we can essentially consider it a stalement. France has enough weaponry to destroy or seriously damage any force that the U.S. could legitimately move across the ocean. And France has nukes to back it up, and the ability to destroy or seriously damage carrier groups. France can’t really project power, so it’s no threat to the U.S. other than through its nuclear force. Call it a draw.
What the U.S. can do that France can’t is project its power. France still has a limited ability to do that in its neighborhood, but the U.S. can put serious forces on the ground anywhere in the world. So the U.S. is the only country capable of really taking care of any message that can develop.
“message?” Where did that come from?
Taking care of any problems that develop in the world.
For all the talk about U.N. involvement or lack thereof, when it comes down to it, it would always be U.S. soldiers on the ground doing the heavy lifting. Even if the whole U.N. had agreed, they couldn’t have made up more than another 5% or so of the size of the force in the Gulf.
Nor I. I do not agree with this:
I thought we were ignoring the Nukes? Well, logistics is a problem, but if we can acheive Air Supremacy (and there isn’t any reason we can’t, although it would be somewhat costly), we can invade. We have the technology to ensure there won’t be another D-Day Omaha beach now. Its what comes after that would be the problem.
Actually, a carrier is only useful if you intend to invade somewhere else. If you’re attacked, not having carriers isn’t a disadvantage at all since you have no use for them. Why would you put planes on a carrier if you have a perfectly well equipped air base some dozen of miles away? As you yourself pointed out, carriers are only “projecting forces” tools.
Also, though it used to have two (and will build a second one) France currently only has one middle-sized carrier (much larger than the british ones, but much smaller than the american ones). Plus a copter carrier, which is roughly the size of the british carriers, but can’t be used for planes since France doesn’t use vertical landing planes.