French military (catch all)

[AdamG]

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.

[Tom Odom]

Well they put a Jaquar into a mountain side while Stan and I were in Goma. There was great discussion of this decline in the late 80s when I was in UNTSO serving with French officers. Looks like it came true

Tom

[Norfolk]

This is what happens when you have to pay for all those hefty pensions for the '68ers.

[Ken White]

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...

[Ron Humphrey]

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...

The military has its own capabilities for building hydro electric dams and purifying water, etc.

MAAYbee OILRIG anyone

[Fuchs]

The Anti War types will win; soon no one will be able to afford a war...

Which begs the question; is the material-heavy approach to modern warfare useful?

The situation has changed in comparison to the 60's - material is extremely expensive, manpower is expensive - but all Western nations have significant unemployment, including the age group 18-30.

[Ken White]

Which begs the question; is the material-heavy approach to modern warfare useful?

however, it won't go away. No one is prepared to cede an advantage to others.

The situation has changed in comparison to the 60's - material is extremely expensive, manpower is expensive - but all Western nations have significant unemployment, including the age group 18-30.

True, though I'd say much of that material is more over priced than it is actually expensive. Manpower is expensive because the legislatures of the West have made it so -- unintended consequence of trying to be all things to all people (and buy votes...).

No matter. The unemployed 18-25 year olds are a far greater problem that will get worse before it gets better. You'd think people would realize what causes that overpopulation. The fun thing is that the so-called have-nots are reproducing at twice to three times the rate of the more (in their own minds) civilized nations. That, I suspect, is going to provide employment for all that materiel heavy military force...

We live in interesting times...

[sandbag]

I think it still is. Fad logsitics concepts (JIT, et al) that are wildly successful in corporate environments fail when LOCs/LOSs are under fire or don't have the structure set up to make them work. In recent memory, the "Drive to Baghdad," while tactically neat, was not logistically sustainable after the push. Heavy units MTOE organized around the newer, untested support structure had to beg, borrow and steal from "legacy" division wedge units.

Why? Simple: the "Iron Mountain" is effective because it leaves little to chance. Decimating support units in favor of more infantry is a good concept if those units don't actually have to be supported. You make that worse when you strip your "tail" out in the hopes that higher-echelon support units will be there to help, and said units aren't on the battlefield yet.

I'm not a cheerleader for bringing back DESERT STORM-era SUPCOMs or anything like that. That said, I've watched the 82d Busborne in action, and I did not like what I saw.

Which begs the question; is the material-heavy approach to modern warfare useful?

The situation has changed in comparison to the 60's - material is extremely expensive, manpower is expensive - but all Western nations have significant unemployment, including the age group 18-30.

[SWJED]

France's Livre Blanc

By Judah Grunstein - Cross-posted at Small Wars Journal and World Politics Review

France's Livre Blanc was finally released today (French version here and here, parts 1&2, both .pdf), and the only real shock is seeing in print what's basically trickled out in leaks and declarations over the past few months. It's a very well-written document, coherently argued and convincingly articulated. As expected, counterterrorism and the integration of defense with homeland security play a prominent role, with an emphasis on developing intelligence capacity, both human and satellite-based, in the context of a newly added Anticipation component. There's also a significant reduction of the French armed forces, from a total of 271,000 to 225,000 by 2015 (Army 131k, Navy 44k, Air Force 50k), mainly from the administrative back office, but which will necessitate politically unpopular base closings.

But the real story to my eyes is the prominence of Asia as a strategic focus of interest, which surprised me even after having already called attention to it in last week's series. The document doesn't make a case for intervention so much as careful management, calling for the West to take a greater interest in stabilization of region. It makes mention of the continent's three nuclear powers, three major unresolved crises (Korean Peninsula, Taiwan Straits and Kashmir), and the lack of any real regional, multilateral security instrument...

[Jedburgh]

France's Livre Blanc was finally released today (French version here and here, parts 1&2, both .pdf)

Here's the English version: French White Paper on Defence and National Security

[Rex Brynen]

France ends four-decade Nato rift

BBC News
17:31 GMT, Wednesday, 11 March 2009

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.

[Tom Odom]

France ends four-decade Nato rift

BBC News
17:31 GMT, Wednesday, 11 March 2009

DeGaulle is flipping like a pancake....

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!

Best
Tom

[jmm99]

Zarkozy's Socialist opponent had this to say (from the OP link; bold added by JMM):

"Nothing today justifies returning to Nato military command," said the leader of the opposition Socialists, Martine Aubry.

"There's no hurry, no fundamental need, except for this Atlanticism that's becoming an ideology."

"Atlanticism" is not a term used much here. Two older, background articles are here and here. Our old buddy, Dominique de Villepin, has also criticized Zarkozy's "Atlanticism".

I have a hard time seeing a "North Atlantic Union" - from a US perspective; but the Atlantic Rim countries do have common interests. So, a NATO and a SATO (bringing in the southern countries along the lake) would be a possibility for the future - leading to an ATO ?

Just a wild, futuristic thought on what is here a sunny day.

[davidbfpo]

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

[Van]

Will France returning to the NATO command structure fix problems or create problems? Or both, and in what ratios? Over what time frame; 1 year, 5 years, 10 years?

Given France's historical behavior towards collaboration (with allies), the French conduct during SFOR, IFOR, and the Kosovo campaign, their relationship with Iraq between 1992 and 2002, and that I have personally heard French officers state that France is the logical counterweight to U.S. global power and influence, my assessment is that this will be immediately disruptive and in the long run detrimental to NATO.

Within the U.S., there are vocal factions that think that France is incapable of error, so, of course, it could get some of the further Left folks reconsidering NATO or their attitudes about France. This is an interesting dynamic, and could be disruptive in PoliSci departments through American academia. So there is an upside.

How will Russia view this? The Soviet Union and later Russia always viewed NATO as an explicit threat because of the claim that it was a defensive alliance*, and that NATO's purpose is attack was proven in the Balkans, when NATO attacked and occupied (from their perspective) Slavic territory. France coming back into the C2 structure will be viewed as an explicit threat.

And the EU... Threatening Russia is bad juju for the EU, and putting 600 years of mostly ugly history back into NATO will also be disruptive. Thinking about it like this, I am getting less clear on what France's true objective is...

I'm bringing popcorn, this should be a good show.

*To Russian thinking, 'defense' is striking before you can be struck, and crushing your enemy's will to fight, not building a wall. Every time we said 'defensive', they heard something very different.

[George L. Singleton]

France ends four-decade Nato rift

BBC News
17:31 GMT, Wednesday, 11 March 2009

A historic overview: As a 2nd and lst Lt. based out of Pakistan I made several R&R trips (my tour of duty was two years in then West Pakistan) landing at either Chatereau or Everoux, both then being US Air Bases in our then NATO ally nation of France. DeGaulle's blatant dislike of America (Johnson was then President) did not carry down to the ordinary French citizens, who went out of their way to be helpful to me, traveling alone on trains and walking the streets of Paris later on as a sightseer.

Jump forward to today, our local Alabama Air National Guard until a year ago deployed for annual training to a French Air Base where unique operations benefitted from our refueling tankers. So, our military presence has been in France, again, for several recent years.

President Sarcozy is clearly pro-American, I personally like him, and am happy at this development. There is always room around the table for another friend and ally, who I for one am glad to see rejoin NATO.

On one other poster's comment that pan-Atlantic organization/economics seemed somewhat questionable, as far back as 1987 when I graduated from Air War College the paper I had to write to graduate suggested that in future economic interrelations and cooperation would be as important if not more important than just military cooperation in our ever shrinking world. I still feel this way, and of course, I support building the joint US-European future Air Force refueling tanker in Mobile, Alabama as well!

[jmm99]

from JMM
I have a hard time seeing a "North Atlantic Union" - from a US perspective; but the Atlantic Rim countries do have common interests.

I also suggested an ATO as a futuristic possibility, where ATO could be Atlantic Treaty Organization (military) or Atlantic Trade Organization (economic), or both. However, in considering this futurism, I suggest re-viewing the video "Cowboys herding cats" for a perspective on what would be involved.

"Atlanticism" is supposedly Zarkozy's motive (see links in my prior post).

Since we (US) have a "more perfect union", I see no need for a "North Atlantic Union" - especially when the EU has not advanced to the point we were at under the Articles of Confederation.[*]

But, at all costs, avoid "Running with the Squirrels" - and never, never get into the cage with This Cat.

------------
[*] As to successful confederations, I can think of only two large-scale examples: the US and Canada. The Swiss also come to mind on a smaller scale.

[George L. Singleton]

Since we (US) have a "more perfect union", I see no need for a "North Atlantic Union" - especially when the EU has not advanced to the point we were at under the Articles of Confederation.

The US foundered early on with our Articles of Confedertion which we did away with or our nation (US) would probably not exist as it does today, imperfect though it is and will always be...nothing we do will ever be perfect per se.

Canada's experience with Confederation is to me, at least, different, one supposes in part due to Canada still having a Crown appointed Lt. Governor and much symbolism and pomp which in the main adds value to tourism there and appeals to the parliamentary style of democracy. Canada for now even seems to have smoothed over and better incorported the French speaking folks in Quebec and elsewhere and seems well fit to have of late Prime Minister's who are literate in both French and English, French for hundreds of years having been, past tense, the language of diplomacy...now superceded largely by English...after all.

NATO has accomplished, correct me if I am wrong, essentially a standardization of weaponry, caliburs, interchangeability of parts for whatever. The area which I think (?) may still be weakest is communications standardization, which as a stand alone topic might be a good focus for a new thread of discussion on SWJ.

NATO (my opinion) is serving us well in Afghanistan where a large physical area is unevenly populated by a large Pukhtun majority but where our main alliance strength remains in the largely non-Pukhtun northern part.

The days of CENTO and SEATO are over and gone so only NATO has stood the test of time...and I think it was correct, after an apparently huge internal meeting squabble, for NATO to reopen it's Russian Liaison Arm.

Rumor mongering and baitng to create unhelpful to current needs points of view alleging such useless and outmoded things as Russian bombers being based in Cuba in future is to me antidiluvian thinking and a waste of words and time.

[Blackjack]

Thought this thread could use an update on the French rejoining NATO. France apointed to two General officers to NATO. The first is an Air Force Pick and the Second is a Marine.

Deux généraux français vont être nommés très prochainement à la tête de grands commandements de l’Alliance atlantique.

Le conseil des ministres a approuvé le 3 juin les candidatures suivantes.

Le général d’armée aérienne Stéphane Abrial, actuel chef d’état-major de l’armée de l’air (CEMAA ) prend le commandement d’ ACT , le commandement allié Transformation, à Norfolk (Etats-Unis) à compter du 10 septembre 2009. Il succède à ce poste au général américain James N. Mattis (Corps des Marines des Etats-Unis). La mission du ACT est de diriger, au niveau stratégique, la transformation des structures, des forces, des capacités et des doctrines militaires de l’OTAN pour améliorer l’efficacité militaire de l’Alliance. ACT constitue avec le commandement allié pour les opérations (ACO ), l’échelon le plus élevé de la structure de commandement militaire de l’OTAN .

Seconde nomination : le général de division Philippe Stoltz prend la tête du commandement des forces alliées basé à Lisbonne (Portugal) à compter du 20 Juillet 2009. Cette structure a autorité notamment sur la Force de réaction rapide de l’OTAN, la NRF (Nato Response Force). Le commandement de Lisbonne est un des 3 commandements qui dépendent de ACO.

Les nominations font l’objet d’un décret signé par le Président de la République, Nicolas Sarkozy. Décret publié au Journal officiel du 8 juin 2009. Elles interviennent près de trois mois après le retour de la France au sein du commandement militaire intégré de l’OTAN, les 3-4 avril 2009, à Strasbourg lors du Sommet de l’Alliance atlantique . Ces candidatures sont proposées et entérinées par Alliés dans le cadre des procédures de l'OTAN.

-Ministere De La Defence

General Abrail's Biography

General Stoltz Biography in English.

[Culpeper]

WTF?

http://apnews.myway.com//article/201...D9H7OGRG0.html

Jul 27, 9:31 PM (ET)

By ELAINE GANLEY


PARIS (AP) - France has declared war on al-Qaida, and matched its fighting words with a first attack on a base camp of the terror network's North African branch, after the terror network killed a French aid worker it took hostage in April.

You have to admit the headline is a little surprising. Something's up.