“The peace dividend of the end of the Cold War is over”- so said France's President
Emmanuel Macron, as the world enters a new age and leaves behind the peaceful decades
following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The Russian bear has once more awoken, and brought with it the threat of full-scale war
in Europe.
In the last few months we've been highly critical of European countries and the status of their
military- and with good reason.
What used to be some of the most powerful militaries on earth have become atrophied
husks of their former selves.
In some way, this is to be expected as pretty much every western nation stood down from
their Cold War, high-readiness state.
But in many ways, Europe has allowed its militaries to atrophy to a point that it's become criminal,
and put an incredible burden on the United States to be the guarantor of European security.
Many Americans, rightfully so, feel that Europe has been largely free-loading on the US's
security guarantees.
France however, is not one of those nations.
While its military is still not in great shape for a major conflict today, the Ukraine war
has shown us that most nation's militaries aren't fully prepared for high intensity combat
either, including the US.
Even so, the French military remains a competent and capable force on the continent.
While once Britain's fleets and Germany's ground forces were to be feared, it's now
France who's almost certainly the dominant European power in both arenas.
France and the UK both have around 200,000 active duty personnel, with a nearly equal
number of reservists- 35,000 versus UK's 37,000.
The French defense budget is only $5 billion short of the UK's $50 billion dollar budget-
and yet France fields significantly more capable than the UK.
It has just over 1,000 combat aircraft versus the UK's 663, with 226 dedicated fighter aircraft
vs 119.
On the ground, France does come up 5 tanks short of the UK, with 222 vs UK's 227, while
the UK takes the edge slightly on armored vehicles and artillery.
At sea the UK operates 2 aircraft carriers vs France's lone Charles De Gaulle nuclear
carrier, but France has three smaller assault carriers while the UK has none.
France also operates 4 more destroyers than the UK, though 1 less submarine.
So what makes France probably Europe's best military at the moment?
For one it's proven its ability to fight largely independently of any other power.
For over a decade France has been involved in a fight against Islamic extremists across
Africa, and while it has had the support of the US in various ways, France has been able
to operate largely independently during this protracted campaign.
The United Kingdom meanwhile is extremely dependent on the US for logistical support,
including physically moving its troops to where they are needed.
If a European battle royale were to break out right now, smart money is on France or
Spain at the moment, not the typical military powerhouses of the United Kingdom and Germany.
France was one of the first countries to wake up to the realization that the Cold War peace
dividend was over, and take action.
President Macron has pledged over $500 billion in spending through to 2030, meaning that
by the end of the decade the French military's budget would be doubled.
This is especially good news for its nuclear arm, as France remains the EU's sole nuclear
power- but is in bad need of upgrades and modernization.
This is hardly news though, as every nuclear power is either in the middle of modernization
or planning to start the process soon, having allowed nuclear systems to deteriorate since
the end of the Cold War.
But France was already modernizing even before the outbreak of the Ukraine war.
Starting in 2020, the French military has been undergoing a 40 year modernization plan
named “Scorpion”.
France has taken a page out of the US military's playbook and is looking to adopt a similar
network-centric style of warfare.
In the US, this is known as joint all domain command and control, and consists of networking
together various weapons platforms and soldiers.
This allows US assets to work closely together to the point of allowing one asset to spot
a target, and a completely different one to engage it.
It's the key to the high mobility and high lethality of US forces- and France has definetly
noticed.
France calls it “combined collaborative combat”, and is specifically looking into
information technology upgrades for its armored forces.
The military is looking to bring light and medium armor platforms into current military
networks, much like its heavy tank fleet.
This will be an immediate force multiplier for platforms that normally are too lightly
armored to operate in the thick of combat operations.
By networking them together with more survivable platforms, they can quickly engage targets
and then fall back out of danger.
One of the biggest upgrades is the Jaguar armed recon and combat vehicle.
The vehicle is meant to replace three different platforms: the AMX-10RC tank destroyer, the
ERC-90 Sagaie armored recon vehicle, and the VAB HOT Mephisto armored personnel carrier.
Replacing three vehicles with one means incredibly more efficient logistics support, even if
it's coming with some compromises.
The Jaguar is not as survivable as its American Stryker counterpart for example, but it’s
better prepared for World War III for one key reason: unlike the American Stryker, the
Jaguar makes use of a commercial truck chasis, meaning that it can be easily replaced during
high attritional conflict.
The Stryker meanwhile has to be built from scratch by its manufacturer.
This simple fact is even more important given that wargames between US forces and a comparable,
near-peer force, show that within six months of fighting most of the US tank fleet would
be destroyed or left inoperable.
In that same time, the US would be lucky to replenish 20% of its losses, even with boosted
production capacity.
By the end of the first year of high intensity combat, the most common vehicle used by American
forces would be a simple armored gun truck.
In such a catastrophic, high intensity scenario against a near-peer, France would be far better
prepared to replenish losses with a capable combat vehicle compared to America.
France's “Scorpion” modernization plan will enter phase “Titan” in 2030.
This will run through to 2045 and have two different focuses.
The first will be on modernizing France's heavy tanks, artillery, and combat helicopters.
Advances in anti-tank munitions such as new anti-tank guided missiles, or Russia's new
900mm kinetic energy penetrator for its T-14 Armatas will mean that French tanks require
upgrades to armor, mobility, sensors, and their own firepower.
While Russia won't be fielding the T-14 anytime soon, especially after sanctions, eventually
it will- or a possible adversary will field a similar threat.
France simply can't afford to rest on its heels despite fielding the very capable Leclerc.
Upgrades for combat helicopters will focus on increased endurance, speed, and sensors.
The Ukrainian war has proven that combat heliciopters are extremely vulnerable on the modern battlefield,
and better interconnectivity will allow them to operate safely in a high threat environment.
Attack helicopters are only good on the front lines, but if it becomes too deadly for them
to operate there then they need to be able to speak with other military assets who could
provide targeting solutions for their weapons.
As the man-portable air defense threat is likely going to increase in lethality, the
ability to provide precision fire support from outside the threat range of enemy air
defenses is increasingly more critical.
Likewise, French artillery will focus on upgrading their mobility and ability to network with
other systems.
The Ukrainian army has proven the deadly effectivness of precision artillery such as the US's excalibur
round, which allows an artillery piece to have the precision of a guided rocket or missile.
While modern air defenses can do a good job of protecting from rockets and missiles, if
employed properly, artillery shells are incredibly difficult to intercept- and a battery of artillery
working together could easily defeat even the best defenses.
But French forces have a critical weakness that needs shoring up if it's to fight a modern
conventional war.
The French military can pack a mighty punch, but a RAND corporation study pointed out its
biggest weakness: it has low readiness levels and lacks depth.
The deployment of French soldiers to act in anti-terrorism roles inside of France, as
well as ongoing operations in Africa, have put a tremendous stress on the French military-
and like the US, ongoing counterterrorism operations have eroded its edge in fighting
conventional power conflicts.
Currently the French military is better geared for fighting light, mobile conflicts against
extremists in Africa, rather than a major industrialized conflict.
To increase readiness, the French military needs to focus training on fighting near-peer
foes and large unit tactics.
Its military must also be geared to be effective in a heavily contested environment by an opponent
wielding a large amount of anti-access/area-denial assets.
Currently, western militaries have been spoiled by fighting in extremely permissible environments
such as sub-saharan Africa or in the Middle East.
However, to fight World War III, France must re-learn how to fight without all of the advantages
it has enjoyed for over two decades.
For example, a study conducted on US troops found an overreliance on fire support by infantry.
In a near-peer conflict, such fire support may not be available, and American infantry
needs to be prepared to make the hard charges that their forefathers did in World War II,
and learn to fight without support elements if need be.
If war did break out though, it would likely be against either China or Russia, and in
either case France would enjoy the vast support of the entirety of NATO.
In a conflict against Russia, France would be responsible for providing ground forces
to the eastern allies such as Poland, where it's certain that NATO's major ground campaign
would begin.
It's air force, one of the best in the continent, would fly alongside US forces stationed in
Germay as the tip of the aerial spear in a fight for the skies over eastern Europe, before
transitioning to ground support roles after sweeping the skies clear of Russian MiGs.
At sea, France's navy would be critical for either a Russian or Chinese conflict.
In case of war in Europe, French surface vessels could be used to plug the Greenland-Iceland-UK
gap, and thus keep Russian attack submarines from striking at US Atlantic convoys ferrying
troops and equipment to mainland Europe.
However, France could also support the operation to block up the Baltic sea- a task made much
simpler by the possible ascension of Sweden and Finland to NATO.
In a Pacific conflict, French submarines would be of critical assistance to US forces.
France, like its US ally, operates a nuclear submarine force- and this gives them the endurance
needed to assist in conflicts on the other side of the world.
Given that a war with China would be certain to break out over the invasion of Taiwan,
France has strong reasons to see a Chinese invasion fail.
A successful takeover of Taiwan by China would leave the Chinese Communist Party in control
of most of the world's microchip supply, without which a modern economy can't function.
This would leave the CCP with irresistible leverage over France and the rest of the world.
French nuclear weapons would hopefully never be used, but in case of conflict they act
as the EU's only measure of independent nuclear deterrence.
While Europe is covered by the US's nuclear umbrella- meaning that America has committed
to responding with nukes against anyone nuking a European city- the four years of the Trump
presidency put into doubt the security alliance of Europe and the US for the first time since
World War II.
Having an independent nuclear deterrent is of significant interest for the EU.
No matter the conflict that they end up fighting in, French forces have proven themselves to
be competent and capable.
Their only weakness is a lack of depth, and a serious vulnerability to becoming combat
ineffective due to high attrition.
This is a weakness that every military has at the moment, given that no one- except perhaps
North Korea- has given serious thought to the rate at which modern combat chews up equipment
and ammunition.
France has seen the threat though, and is investing not just in its military but in
its defense industry too.
But these investments have to compete with investments in education, healthcare, and
other measures that have a direct and immediate impact on people's lives.
Military investments are intangible for the average citizen- up until the moment that
they're not because your nation is at war.
Given how unlikely war is though, it remains to be seen just how committed the French people
are to upgrading their military capabilities.
Now go check out how your tax dollars are being spent with Top Ten Most Expensive Active
Duty Military Weapons, or click this other video instead!