French military (catch all)
Mon Dieu
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ents-show.html
According to confidential defence documents leaked to the French press, less than half of France's Leclerc tanks – 142 out of 346 – are operational and even these regularly break down.
Less than half of its Puma helicopters, 37 per cent of its Lynx choppers and 33 per cent of its Super Frelon models – built 40 years ago – are in a fit state to fly, according to documents seen by Le Parisien newspaper.
Two thirds of France's Mirage F1 reconnaissance jets are unusable at present.
*
According to army officials, the precarious state of France's defence equipment almost led to catastrophe in April, when French special forces rescued the passengers and crew of a luxury yacht held by pirates off the Somali coast.
Although ultimately a success, the rescue operation nearly foundered at an early stage, when two of the frigates carrying troops suffered engine failure, and a launch laden with special forces' equipment sunk under its weight.
Later, an Atlantic 2 jet tracking the pirates above Somali territory suffered engine failure and had to make an emergency landing in Yemen.
Look for the same thing elsewhere.
Everything has gotten so expensive that the maintenance and infrastructure costs are killers. Defense procurement generally fails to account for the fact that annual O&M costs are typically 10-20% of purchase price and long term support typically adds 25-35% to the per item cost.
A Viet Nam era camouflage band cost Seven cents; today they're over a buck. The average Joe in an Infantry unit has about $12K worth of gear vs. his 1960s counterpart's $500. An M1A2 costs over $4M, UH-60s are up to around $20M.
Not to mention that each $10.00 per Barrel rise in oil prices costs the USAF about $600M...
The Anti War types will win; soon no one will be able to afford a war...:wry:
True, Wilf. This in particular:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
Actually, military equipment SHOULD be getting cheaper, and so should armies.
If you want to see true corruption, look at the companies that build Sniper Rifles!!...
The Sako TRG 22/42 are more than good enough for virtually all purposes and are the cheapest in their respective calibers out there by far.
Hardware procurement has really gotten to be a con game. Reminds me of Ernie King during WW II -- FDR told him to buy what he needed and he took that as a license to steal and bought more ships and stuff for the USN than we could have ever manned. Thus setting the USN on course to keep buying more and more...
(NOTE to Squids; no attack, the first part is historical fact, the second is the way the game is played today. Not the Navy's fault)
Funny youse guys should mention the spike in spending
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/2008060...h-c1b2fc3.html
AFP - Tuesday, June 10 <- AFP. Qu'elle surprise
STOCKHOLM (AFP) - - World military spending grew 45 percent in the past decade, with the United States accounting for nearly half of all expenditure, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) said Monday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Military spending grew six percent last year alone, according to SIPRI's annual report.
*
The United States spends by far the most towards military aims, dishing out 547 billion dollars last year, or 45 percent of global expenditure.
Britain, China, France and Japan, the next in line of big spenders, lag far behind, accounting for just four to five percent of world military costs each.
Heh. Off thread but I can tilt at windmills...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
An aggressor can prepare for war in few years and be ready for just a short period - this is much more efficient and affordable than to be ready all the time.
Depends on how well you want your people trained. Your solution may be more efficient but is highly unlikely to provide a particularly effective force.
Quote:
I prefer another approach to keep such aggressors at bay. I'd prefer if we kept the know-how, developed equipment that can quickly be produced in great quantity, were alert with a moderate force and budget and ready to expand quickly. Meanwhile, arms control treaties can keep costs down for everyone at conventional war crisis hot spots and alliance frontiers.This is to some degree what some European countries do, albeit they fail at preparing seriously for the expansion phase.
Among other things...
How's that keeping frontiers calm working out in the Balkans...
Quote:
The typical response to such a strategy proposal is the assertion that the world would run amok without the almighty U.S. military as policeman in the background.
Typical response from whom? Not likely to be the response of anyone on this board and certainly not from me. Need to watch those standing broad jumps at erroneous conclusions, they can lead to sprains. I would, however, note that my favorite cartoon from The Economist was the one about ten or so years ago where the little European was standing outside his house obviously on his way to work and talking to his wife as the house next door labeled Bosnia was burning and filled with carnage. He said to his wife "Ask the Americans what they intend doing about this."
Quote:
Well, that's a very questionable assumption.
I agree, yours was a questionable assumption.
Quote:
We've seen most ground combat power of the U.S. committed to a war and its other ground forces being quite occupied with other than conventional war preparations. I don't remember any country being invaded in the meantime (except Somalia by Ethiopia - which was obviously ENCOURAGED by the supposed policeman).
Okay, I agree -- what's your point?
Quote:
This suggests that almost the entire ground forces of the U.S. were not necessary to deter any aggressions at the very least during the past years.
Or it could suggest the the total Armed forces of the US were highly successful in deterring aggression worldwide. Other than in Africa; we tend to leave Africa to all you former colony owners. How you folks doing down there?
Quote:
Instead, they were used for the only major aggression in the past years.
Yep. Two 'aggressions,' Afghanistan in response to an attack on US soil and Iraq in response to many provocations over the years from the ME. Iraq wasn't totally innocent but they really just happened to be geographically central in the ME. That in response to 22 years of probes and attacks on US interests around the world from various state and non-state actors in the ME; we virtually ignored most of those to little avail, they just kept coming -- so our aggression was simply notification that we would accept no more and a belated response to extended provocations. I blame four previous Presidents for not properly responding but they did that in an effort to be nice guys. Futile effort. Little we do will ever satisfy most in the world. So yes, we got aggressive -- probably would not have had some student pilots not failed in getting to near stalls and run into buildings with their aluminum birds...
Nope, little we do will ever satisfy a good many in the world. Until they want something...
Quote:
I guess this should be debated somewhere else
True. Nothing really to debate. We can differ.
Quote:
as the French don't really seem to follow such a "prepared for everything" approach as their ground forces are not well-prepared for a major conventional war.
Not just the French, that's essentially true of all nations -- because that is the hardest and most expensive thing to prepare for ergo, it gets lip service or the minimum necessary to maintain the capacity to expand -- which is essentially what I suggested before you got all political. It's also what you suggested but you don't want to do anything else. Not sure you'll have that luxury. Apparently, the Bundeswehr isn't at all sure on that score either...
Fuel Price increase drives French navy to port
The rapid rise in fuel prices has resulted in the French navy cancelling 3 summer missions. Sacre Bleu!
Read all about it here, as well as other places, I'm sure.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/...-Navy-Fuel.php
Fuchs may have a point about the cost of war (or at least as Western nations are set up to fight) becoming so excessive as to make it almost prohibitive for some to attempt it. At least unless it is an existential conflict.
France to slash military manpower by 15 percent
PARIS (AP) — France's military will slash its ranks by 54,000 personnel and close dozens of air, army and other bases in an overhaul meant to slim forces at home while making it easier and faster to deploy troops abroad, the prime minister announced Thursday.
Prime Minister Francois Fillon said the 15 percent cut in manpower and base closings will save billions of dollars but still permit an agile military suited to the country's security needs.
Like other European countries, France is grappling with aging military equipment and budget constraints while facing new threats such as terrorism.
Fillon said the military units and bases slated for closure are "ones that are no longer adapted to today's threats."
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...XwUvQD924EOUG1
Maybe they either know something
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
...I really don't know why European powers degrade their forces to expedition forces voluntarily.
A collective defense based on assumptions and memories of a past time doesn't seem to be very solid.
you don't -- or they could just have opinions that differ from yours. Either way, everyone from the Albanians to even the normally and nominally neutral Swedes and Swiss and to include your own country are doing just that. So they're all wrong and you're correct?
Same thing holds true for the collective defense based on the past; while the EU bureaucracy and a couple of nations seem to agree with you on the surface, most of the rest of Europe does not...
Leadership is rarely popular will personified...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
The political dynamics even of a parliamentary democracy don't necessarily yield the correct actions. They even don't necessarily follow the people's will.
True of course, though I'd suggest the latter is probably generally a good thing; people can be unduly selfish -- and fickle.
Quote:
The German government's stance to Afghanistan is consistently against a majority of the Germans population, for example.
Which may be a case of good leadership overcoming a little selfishness...
Quote:
Back to the dynamics; the German military ops "out-of-area" (outside of NATO territory) have not benefited the nation visibly.
I don't think benefit to Germany is why you have troops in Afghanistan. It certainly is of little to no benefit to the US to have troops there or in Iraq. Maybe there's another reason? Maybe they think it's necessary for the good of Afghanistan...
Quote:
The appearance (and the speak) of our responsible politicians hints very much into the direction that they PLAY with the Bundeswehr, as an asset to use in foreign policy games just like we used money in earlier times.
I think that's why most nations have forces larger than necessary for a mobilization base in times of apparent peace.
Quote:
Inf act, our military missions overseas have degraded our national security by adding foes and have cost a lot of money and military readiness.
Isn't that a shame -- try to do good and suffer for it. We know the feeling, we hate it when that happens -- but we've gotten used to it. You probably will also. Don't lose too much sleep over the foes; we've got tons of 'em.
Quote:
And then there's the small detail that I assume to have a better general and military history knowledge than most if not all the top 20 politicians who define that policy (some of which were never in armed forces, none of them has officially studied history afaik - so they have no professional background superiority concerning this, just briefings).
Does your alleged superiority in this regard extend to all their advisers? Do those briefings tell them things you aren't privy to? Do they make decisions based on different criteria than you would use?
Quote:
France has a history of small expeditions and many befriended African nations that depend on this kind of assistance to keep their defense expenditure bearable. They have the expeditionary capability and there's no real need to expand that imho.
True, and the British have a colonial legacy to worry about and deploy for. OTOH, you'd think the Danes and the Swedes have been out of the colonial business long enough not to bother but they're into it also. And the Dutch -- the Poles; the list goes on... :D
Isn't that a contradiction?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
...I'm not all against small wars. I've got strict criteria, though. It would be much easier to convince me to intervene in Biafra, Rwanda & Darfur scenarios for a couple of months than to send a FFG for a pointless multi-year patrol off the Lebanese coast or some infantry with APCs to Afghanistan.
Given your often stated rationale for the use of force best being applied only to issues of national survival?
While those above named operations you would support would be of beneficial humanitarian impact their continuance poses no threat to Europe while the two you do not support can arguably have an adverse impact on Europe, probably not to an existential level but certainly to an increased terrorism and dissent level.
Priorities...:wry:
Afghanistan and its internal strife -- it is not really a civil war
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
I believe I discussed Afghanistan in detail somewhere in this forum. I see no useful contribution to national security in contributing to that civil war.
by any reasonable definition -- are a part of the effort to dissuade some Islamist fundamentalists from violence. If you believe Germany has no interest in deterring that for long term benefit, I'd suggest you may be in error. If, OTOH, you believe there's a better way to go about that dissuasion, that's a different matter but it appears that the folks in Berlin have opted for that approach -- even if many Germans disagree.
Quote:
Actually, I wrote a rule set for application of military power and alliances long ago and checked it against many historical cases - and was satisfied to have fixed my own compass for such affairs.
It had/has two sufficient justifications for warfare;
- a promising attempt to protect th own national security (possibly enlarged to collective defense of the sovereignty of all members of an alliance)
- (non-obligatory) intervention against genocide (not violent ethnic cleansing) for ethical reasons
That's just a personal rule set and nobody needs to agree with it - but I can guarantee that I am consistent in my stance towards the question "war or not war". It's just not a very obvious and simple rule set that could be understood by fragmentary observation of symptoms.
All well and good. As long as you realize it is a personal rule set and allow others to disagree in good faith, no one should complain.
I'd simply suggest that anyone disagreeing with you is not necessarily stupid or immoral; they might just have arrived at different and perfectly acceptable conclusions from the same or similar facts.
You might consider that a change in circumstances you have not foreseen may cause you to add a reason or two -- and that economic, military or political reality may cause others to ignore your rules. You're entitled to your rules and others are just as entitled to theirs. All of us should be able to accept differing ideas without implying anyone who doesn't agree with our ideas is dangerously ignorant.
France to rejoin NATO military command
France ends four-decade Nato rift
BBC News
17:31 GMT, Wednesday, 11 March 2009
Quote:
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has announced his country is to return to Nato's military command, reversing four decades of self-imposed exile.
Mr Sarkozy confirmed the decision in a speech to defence experts at the Ecole Militaire staff college in Paris.
President Charles de Gaulle pulled France out of Nato's integrated military command in 1966, saying it undermined France's sovereignty.
C'est it ain't so Nick!?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rex Brynen
DeGaulle is flipping like a pancake....:eek:
Quote:
Critics say France will now be no more than "a clone of Great Britain".
But Mr Sarkozy said there was no sense in France - a founder member of Nato - having no say in the organisation's decisions on military strategy.
La France a clone of dee Eeenglish?! Non! Non!:D
Best
Tom
Welcome back, now go away
Now France is to return to the military structures so carefully created and managed since 1966, oh yes plus the new members - where will the French actually sit? An extra chair at the conference table, easy. Placing French officers back in command posts, IMHO is a lot more difficult. For example will Germany and the UK relinquish their spots? Dep. SACEUR for example.
Can anyone recall which posts the French held before leaving?
I welcome the French return for a host of reasons and it will IMHO slow down the EU becoming a super-state (a debate that lingers on in Europe).
davidbfpo