France Trumps UK as Strongest EU Power

[TrueSpirit]

Germany does build good SSKs, but that is a far cry from nuclear and they are heavily reliant on other countries for subsystems.

That's right. Only SSK's. Especially the latest ones that they have been transferring to Israel: Type 800 Dolphin, appear to be lethal.

Wonder, how would Indian Scorpene's would compare with that, if they are ever finished in our shipyards.

Regarding subsystem, if you look deep inside (at a very fundamental component level, i.e.board/chip ), you would realize that most of the stuff is being manufactured in US, Japan, Taiwan, Korea & East Asian countries. EU as a whole has few semiconductor companies, including both Integrated Device Manufacturers as well as Fabless ones. Only STMicro, Infinieon & NXP comes to mind. Even Israel does it lot better when it comes to semiconductors.

 

[Armand2REP]

That's right. Only SSK's. Especially the latest ones that they have been transferring to Israel: Type 800 Dolphin, appear to be lethal.

If you talk to Greece and South Korea, the noise level of those subs is more like Chinese nukes.

Wonder, how would Indian Scorpene's would compare with that, if they are ever finished in our shipyards.

Scorpene is the most advanced SSK on the market and the lowest accoustic signature. It uses the same subsystems as our latest nuke subs.

Regarding subsystem, if you look deep inside (at a very fundamental component level, i.e.board/chip ), you would realize that most of the stuff is being manufactured in US, Japan, Taiwan, Korea & East Asian countries. EU as a whole has few semiconductor companies, including both Integrated Device Manufacturers as well as Fabless ones. Only STMicro, Infinieon & NXP comes to mind. Even Israel does it lot better when it comes to semiconductors.

That isn't really a factor when those are openly sold on the commercial market. Our STM supplies most of European defence companies and won't be withheld from Germany if they want it. I was speaking of the subsystems like sonar, communications, optics, combat systems... most are supplied by Thales Underwater Systems. Germany uses a mix of Thales and Finmeccanica .

 

[TrueSpirit]

If you talk to Greece and South Korea, the noise level of those subs is more like Chinese nukes

Sure, I would find that out.

Scorpene is the most advanced SSK on the market and the lowest accoustic signature. It uses the same subsystems as our latest nuke subs.

Great then. Except for the fact that being an export version, it would inevitably be somewhat watered down. Anyway, we have no means of validating the above statement.

That isn't really a factor when those are openly sold on the commercial market. Our STM supplies most of European defence companies and won't be withheld from Germany if they want it. I was speaking of the subsystems like sonar, communications, optics, combat systems... most are supplied by Thales Underwater Systems. Germany uses a mix of Thales and Finmeccanica .[/QUOTE]

You are right. I get your point.

 

[Tshering22]

AFAIK, France was always, militarily & technologically, strongest power in EU. UK's position is EU is basically, due to its special relationship with US. Only Germany has the potential to equal France in EU but its internal polity & historical baggage does not allow its leadership to build upon that potential. So, Germany remains just an economic & technology power but France is the nation whose comprehensive national power exceeds every other nation in EU. France's relative position in EU is likely to remain unchallenged for several decades to come.

French self-reliance & autonomous conduct in most matters of foreign policy, defense, geo-political engagements & space, nuclear & propulsion technologies (unlike UK & Germany), despite remaining a key NATO member, is one of the several factors that makes it stand out in EU, as a power to be reckoned in its own right, & be respected.

Germany is unable to exceed that because of the chains in which Allies tied them after defeating the Nazis. Even today, Germans are easily capable of developing ballistic missiles, nuclear warheads as well as almost every type of conventional armament that US or France or UK or Russia can make. They just will be nuked by US that is why they don't do it.

Remember, things are not as rosy in the EU as the Allied Members of EU show. Germany is shown as the leading economic power which it is, but it is militarily severely bound and tied by France, UK and USA even today and is threatened.


No offense to French or anyone but the current apologetic governments of Germany that are unable to stand up for Germany remind me of someone in our own country.

Economically they may be doing good because engineering and technology is in German blood but strategically they are virtually in the same situation as they were after Postdam.

 

[TrueSpirit]

Germany is unable to exceed that because of the chains in which Allies tied them after defeating the Nazis. Even today, Germans are easily capable of developing ballistic missiles, nuclear warheads as well as almost every type of conventional armament that US or France or UK or Russia can make. They just will be nuked by US that is why they don't do it.

Remember, things are not as rosy in the EU as the Allied Members of EU show. Germany is shown as the leading economic power which it is, but it is militarily severely bound and tied by France, UK and USA even today and is threatened.


No offense to French or anyone but the current apologetic governments of Germany that are unable to stand up for Germany remind me of someone in our own country.

Economically they may be doing good because engineering and technology is in German blood but strategically they are virtually in the same situation as they were after Postdam.

Quite close. Though, I am not sure if they are actually "threatened" by anyone, in the literal sense. I believe, you must mean, rhetorically speaking, right ?

However, it's a known fact that NATO itself was created to keep "US IN Europe, Russia Out of Europe & Germany DOWN in Europe.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

French self-reliance & autonomous conduct in most matters of foreign policy, defense, geo-political engagements & space, nuclear & propulsion technologies (unlike UK & Germany), despite remaining a key NATO member, is one of the several factors that makes it stand out in EU, as a power to be reckoned in its own right, & be respected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#French_withdrawal

NATO's unity was breached early in its history with a crisis occurring during Charles de Gaulle's presidency of France. de Gaulle protested the United States' strong role in the organization and what he perceived as a special relationship between it and the United Kingdom. In a memorandum sent to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Prime Minister Harold Macmillan on 17 September 1958, he argued for the creation of a tripartite directorate that would put France on an equal footing with the US and the UK.[22]

Considering the response he received to his memorandum unsatisfactory, de Gaulle began constructing an independent defence force for his country. He wanted to give France, in the event of an East German incursion into West Germany, the option of coming to a separate peace with the Eastern bloc instead of being drawn into a larger NATO-Warsaw Pact war.[citation needed] In February 1959, France withdrew its Mediterranean Fleet from NATO command.[23] He later banned the stationing of foreign nuclear weapons on French soil. This caused the United States to transfer two hundred military aircraft out of France and return control of the air force bases that had operated in France since 1950 to the French by 1967.

Though France showed solidarity with the rest of NATO during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, de Gaulle continued his pursuit of an independent defence by removing France's Atlantic and Channel fleets from NATO command.[24] In 1966, all French armed forces were removed from NATO's integrated military command, and all non-French NATO troops were asked to leave France. This withdrawal forced the relocation of SHAPE from Rocquencourt, near Paris, to Casteau, north of Mons, Belgium, by 16 October 1967.[25] France remained a member of the alliance, and committed to the defence of Europe from possible Communist attack with its own forces stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany throughout the Cold War. A series of secret accords between US and French officials, the Lemnitzer-Ailleret Agreements, detailed how French forces would dovetail back into NATO's command structure should East-West hostilities break out.[26]

 

[TrueSpirit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#French_withdrawal

Thanks for sharing. I have already read about this chain of events in quite details. I am aware of the surreptitious dealings of DGSE with both US/USSR camps, simultaneously. So, you are bolstering my assertion, right?

 

[Tshering22]

Quite close. Though, I am not sure if they are actually "threatened" by anyone, in the literal sense. I believe, you must mean, rhetorically speaking, right ?

No my friend. I mean literally. US doesn't want to see an equal in either Europe or in Asia. Which is exactly why both Germany and Japan are subjected to such strong limitations in strategic areas despite both being fully capable to become independent powers of equal status.

While UK willingly dances to American tunes, France independently may agree or disagree with Americans. However, a true German regime (not racist types) or a rightist Japanese regime would undermine US power in Asia and Europe.

So US and key Allied nations keep their nuke threat under the veil of friendship and business.

If there is indeed no restrictions on these countries then let them militarize without interfering.

Then we can see.

However, it's a known fact that NATO itself was created to keep "US IN Europe, Russia Out of Europe & Germany DOWN in Europe.

Hence proved that Germany is the real superpower in Europe if the apologetic structure of the current governance in Berlin changes.

With due respect of France of course.

The French are very powerful and independent nation in their own right with immense self reliance and a powerful, neutral, robust industry.

If France and a free Germany join hands, they could be very very powerful.

 

[LalTopi]

List of countries by level of military equipment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

let's not get carried away, judging by current numbers there is nothing to suggest that France is significantly ahead of the UK or Germany. ok. it's also quality of equipment but, correct me if I am wrong, France may be slightly ahead but all three have access to the latest technology excluding nuclear for Germany.

What the guy at Rand was really talking about was who can the US rely on as its replacement buddy in the next little skirmish that comes along, e.g. Libya size. almost like a poodle. to show the world that America is not going it alone. After Afghanistan, the UK public has had enough and wants no more, hence the US may look to France. Germany never sees itself in an offensive role, like Japan, after WW2, so France can oblige the guy at Rand if it really wants American praise that much.

Also, as the guy said, all three have downsized to smaller but better equipped forces. this may be great for Libya or Argentina sized conflicts but completely useless for protracted asymmetric wars, e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq, or in any large military conflict, e.g. involving China or India. The US still rules the roost in terms of capability for these types of conflicts.

 

[roma]

..........Shame, be good to have the Germans and Japanese play a stronger role against the rising belligerence of the Chinese.

hmmmm somehow i think the usa has the brains to realise that they will need to allow japan to re-arm to some extent in order to counter china - germany wont have that opportunity .....if our india diplomats had the strategic vision , there would be an important role for india to play in getting the usa to view japan differently today , sort of an exception view-point just as the usa has made an exception for india to be armed with nukes despite not being P5.

the usa has to come to the realisation asap that on their own, longer term, they are no match for china !

 

[roma]

No my friend. I mean literally. US doesn't want to see an equal in either Europe or in Asia. Which is exactly why both Germany and Japan are subjected to such strong limitations in strategic areas despite both being fully capable to become independent powers of equal status.
.

Germany is under LIFETIME military sanctions .... no nukes for them - EVER ! Japan may be able to wrangle an exception , being physically closer to china , Germany OTOH is too close to the rest of western europe ( core NATO allies ) to be trusted EVER .... one adolf is all it took for a lifetime red card !

 

[Armand2REP]

List of countries by level of military equipment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

let's not get carried away, judging by current numbers there is nothing to suggest that France is significantly ahead of the UK or Germany. ok. it's also quality of equipment but, correct me if I am wrong, France may be slightly ahead but all three have access to the latest technology excluding nuclear for Germany.

What the guy at Rand was really talking about was who can the US rely on as its replacement buddy in the next little skirmish that comes along, e.g. Libya size. almost like a poodle. to show the world that America is not going it alone. After Afghanistan, the UK public has had enough and wants no more, hence the US may look to France. Germany never sees itself in an offensive role, like Japan, after WW2, so France can oblige the guy at Rand if it really wants American praise that much.

Also, as the guy said, all three have downsized to smaller but better equipped forces. this may be great for Libya or Argentina sized conflicts but completely useless for protracted asymmetric wars, e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq, or in any large military conflict, e.g. involving China or India. The US still rules the roost in terms of capability for these types of conflicts.

He was not just talking about who is the better ally, but who is the most capable among them. If you are interested in European defence his report is a good read.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR200/RR222/RAND_RR222.pdf

What Michael was really talking about was who retains the most capability after defence cuts. France has frozen defence spending and maintains course on all major projects. Germany has cut its army to a peace keeping force while the UK has forgone modernization and cut personnel to the bone for the sake of funding Afghanistan. France retains 130,000 active soldiers while UK has cut to 82,000 and Germany to 70,000. France is the only nation in Europe that retains an Army big enough to conduct wars of the scale they have in the past. The message is, France gets tougher while UK and Germany gets weaker after austerity. France does not have the size of IA, but it can project far more power beyond its borders.

 

[LalTopi]

Germany is under LIFETIME military sanctions .... no nukes for them - EVER ! Japan may be able to wrangle an exception , being physically closer to china , Germany OTOH is too close to the rest of western europe ( core NATO allies ) to be trusted EVER .... one adolf is all it took for a lifetime red card !

Are there still any forced external sanctions on Japan or Germany? I mean apart from nuclear which is the same for everyone except for the P5? what legacy restrictions remain after WW2?

 

[amoy]

Are there still any forced external sanctions on Japan or Germany? I mean apart from nuclear which is the same for everyone except for the P5? what legacy restrictions remain after WW2?

My 2 cents - Also as WW2 legacies, Germany and Japan lost a big part of their territory and all overseas colonies. Along with that they also lost their urge for heavy maintenance of power projecting capacity.

Germany - how much does it still hold as per their old anthem?

Von der Maas bis an die Memel,
Von der Etsch bis an den Belt

Japan - lost South Sakhalin, Kurils, Korea, Taiwan, and ...

In contrast to Germany whose vestiges in Africa (Namibia, Botswana etc.) were gone after WW1, France is quite active in Africa up to date, needless to say South Pacific.

 

[TrueSpirit]

He was not just talking about who is the better ally, but who is the most capable among them. If you are interested in European defence his report is a good read.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR200/RR222/RAND_RR222.pdf

What Michael was really talking about was who retains the most capability after defence cuts. France has frozen defence spending and maintains course on all major projects. Germany has cut its army to a peace keeping force while the UK has forgone modernization and cut personnel to the bone for the sake of funding Afghanistan. France retains 130,000 active soldiers while UK has cut to 82,000 and Germany to 70,000. France is the only nation in Europe that retains an Army big enough to conduct wars of the scale they have in the past. The message is, France gets tougher while UK and Germany gets weaker after austerity.

Fact.

France does not have the size of IA, but it can project far more power beyond its borders.

Fiction (ok, fact but with a significant catch): French power projection capabilities are limited to (Marine Nationale): 1 nuke AC based task group that constitutes of:

1 nuke AC, 3 amphibious assault ships & 1 amphibious transport dock Plus 6 SSN's + 4 SSBN's can be considered to be strategic assets. I am discounting the frigates, corvettes & air-defense ships.

Throughout the Mali operation, French forces heavily (not completely) depended on US, German, UK, Canda, Belgium, Sweden, UAE & other countries help for airborne long-range transport ferry. This critical weakness when exposed during the Operation Serval, caused some discomfort in their defence circles.

Without this indispensable leg of power projection, France cannot claim to have enough power projection capabilities, even for defending its needs. However, I don't reckon this to be a big enough challenge to be overcome by the second biggest aviation MIC in the world. It's is more about political will & internal decision-making.

However, if we are comparing to UK or Germany, overall, French Armed forces are much better funded, equipment-wise: they have access to the "latest & greatest in all technologies" with enough numbers, are sizeable & are of the best-trained forces in Europe.

 

[Armand2REP]

The only thing I agree with is the lack of strategic lift. We still transported 92% of equipment used and had half the troops pre- staged so their equipment was already there. Of course we get A400M next week fixes that problem. You have to realize, we didn't utilize all of our resources, but pooled with allies to take off the financial burden. The fact we had to go it alone never should have happened but we are the only power left.

 

[pankaj nema]

If Germany was not limited like Japan post war, it would be one of the strongest military power on the planet. Nothing stops it from being one.

The same thing is true for Japan

If Germany and Japan had not been neutered so badly after WW2 because they were the VILLAINS of WW2
then we would have seen very different Germany and Japan

Japan today has started re arming itself because of the Chinese threat
but Germany is playing a totally different role

It is FEEDING the lazy Europeans of the EU

Without German economic might the Euro would become a tissue Paper

 

[LalTopi]

He was not just talking about who is the better ally, but who is the most capable among them. If you are interested in European defence his report is a good read.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR200/RR222/RAND_RR222.pdf

What Michael was really talking about was who retains the most capability after defence cuts. France has frozen defence spending and maintains course on all major projects. Germany has cut its army to a peace keeping force while the UK has forgone modernization and cut personnel to the bone for the sake of funding Afghanistan. France retains 130,000 active soldiers while UK has cut to 82,000 and Germany to 70,000. France is the only nation in Europe that retains an Army big enough to conduct wars of the scale they have in the past. The message is, France gets tougher while UK and Germany gets weaker after austerity. France does not have the size of IA, but it can project far more power beyond its borders.

Thanks. informative. but pretty much doom and gloom for the three armies, with the only consolation for the French being that the French army has been relatively sheltered from budget cuts. it's just amazing how much a few Taliban militia completely fcked up the future of the British army as a full operations fighting force.

 

[TrueSpirit]

Thanks. informative. but pretty much doom and gloom for the three armies, with the only consolation for the French being that the French army has been relatively sheltered from budget cuts. it's just amazing how much a few Taliban militia completely fcked up the future of the British army as a full operations fighting force.

That's a fact. Looks like no force in the world has answer to IED's & RPG's in hands of a well trained, motivated & funded militia. We have been seeing this pattern since more than 50 years. Absolutely, no one has been able to contain insurgency in a foreign country, be it US/USSR/India/NATO countries, simply no one.

Anyway, NATO forces are toothless without US taking the lead because they simply do not have requisite manpower for absolute area domination, in such protracted conflicts. The only saving grace is advent of UCAV's/drones.

 

[syncro]

@Armand2REP fly low Frech ; )