French army falling apart, documents show

[ROCK45]

A article I found don't know much about the source but was wondering if things could be as bad as it's described?

French army falling apart, documents show


By Henry Samuel in Paris
Last updated: 10:50 PM BST 06/06/2008
Most of France's tanks, helicopters and jet fighters are unusable and its defence apparatus is on the verge of "falling apart", it has emerged.
French army is falling apart
France's military has been given a bleak prognosis

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.

"External operations, in the Ivory Coast and Lebanon are a fig leaf: we are able to keep up the pretence but in ten years our defence apparatus will fall apart," one high-ranking official said.

The disclosure comes just ten days before President Nicolas Sarkozy announces a major reform of the armed forces, with a defence white paper outlining France's military priorities for the next 15 years.

He is expected to argue that the situation can only improve by reducing the number of France's operational troops from 50,000 to 30,000, and its fighter aircraft, as well as closing military bases.

He will also use the occasion to push for greater military integration in Europe, an issue that France will highlight when it takes over the EU's six-month rotating presidency in July.

French proposals circulating in Brussels show that France wants a new EU military headquarters based in the Belgian capital and run by Europe's new foreign policy chief. It is also calling for a bigger rapid reaction force and for countries to spend more on defence.

France has played down its European defence ambitions for fear of boosting the No vote in Ireland's referendum on the Lisbon treaty on June 12.

In parallel to beefing up the EU's defence capability, Mr Sarkozy is keen on France becoming a full member of Nato's integrated military command structure, which Charles de Gaulle left in 1966. But he is unlikely to make a decision on this until next year.

Link
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...rench-army-falling-apart,-documents-show.html

 

[guppy]

I have read this too. There is no smoke without fire, although it may be argued that some of the systems are being replaced soon, and therefore there is no urgent need to repair some of the systems.

Sarkozy has also hinted the need to increase the budget of the military, while reducing spending elsewhere. Hard to see how the french will swallow that though, with increasing inflation etc etc, like many other countries today. His government has already lost round X to the public transport industry.

cheers

guppy

 

[riksavage]

President Nicolas Sarkozy continues to push hard for an EU Army using pooled resources and funds (strategic lift etc.). He can then hopefully spread the financial burden to alleviate some of the problems described in the above article.

He wants the rest of Europe to buy European instead of American, bringing huge benefits to companies like EADS, GIAT (now renamed) et al. His vainglorious vision of an EU army will of course be lead by a French General! Unfortunately Afghanistan has shown the weakness of European states when it comes to war-fighting, the constant problem of pandering to nations with restrictive caveats means Europe will always end up with a dog with a very loud bark, but with a tiny bite. I can't see this ever happening - the UK for one will not get involved and risk losing its military ties with the US. The closest the UK will come to supporting such an initiative is the planned amphibious UK/Dutch battle-group (the Dutch being one of main fighting contributors in A-Stan not restricted by caveats).

 

[AegisFC]

Moved to the Land Forces/Army forum.

 

[Waylander]

Hmmm, just a couple of days before the new white paper should appear this interesting numbers are leaked...

This defenitely happend by coincidence...

Nevertheless it is not that surprising.
Why should they be in a better shape than the rest?

 

[Chrom]

Hmmm, just a couple of days before the new white paper should appear this interesting numbers are leaked...

This defenitely happend by coincidence...

Nevertheless it is not that surprising.
Why should they be in a better shape than the rest?

The situation in French army is not quite as bad as describes. As in any army, there are fully ready units, 2nd and 3rd line units.

There are really no point to keep everything fully operational at all times, without any reserves.

Also, as in any army, substantial part of old military technic is not scrapped right away, but kept in service waiting its order to be scrapped.

 

[Waylander]

You mean old stuff like Leclercs, FFGs and Pumas?

And IMHO in western armies there are not many differences between different units making a designation of 1st, 2nd and 3rd line units rather difficult (Except for the usual difference between reserve and standing units).

Apart from the usual rapid reaction forces of each country, which are light infantry most of the time anyway, nearly all units have to live with the same amount of support...or lack of it.

 

[Chrom]

You mean old stuff like Leclercs, FFGs and Pumas?

And IMHO in western armies there are not many differences between different units making a designation of 1st, 2nd and 3rd line units rather difficult (Except for the usual difference between reserve and standing units).

Apart from the usual rapid reaction forces of each country, which are light infantry most of the time anyway, nearly all units have to live with the same amount of support...or lack of it.

There is difference. In any army, new weapon goes to best units, older to less ready. Take USA for example... a whole Zoo Park with M60, M1 / M1A1/ M1A2 tanks, F15 and F-16 of different age, etc.

I think, even in German army there is a hefty share of old unusable technic still formally in service. This doesnt mean any unit is really equipped with it. Just what these technic is still in storage waiting to be scrapped, or in reserve.

Usually military technic in reserve is specially stored and require several days preparation to be fully ready. Even completely new technic can be stored in reserve.

 

[guppy]

President Nicolas Sarkozy continues to push hard for an EU Army using pooled resources and funds (strategic lift etc.). He can then hopefully spread the financial burden to alleviate some of the problems described in the above article.

He wants the rest of Europe to buy European instead of American, bringing huge benefits to companies like EADS, GIAT (now renamed) et al. His vainglorious vision of an EU army will of course be lead by a French General! Unfortunately Afghanistan has shown the weakness of European states when it comes to war-fighting, the constant problem of pandering to nations with restrictive caveats means Europe will always end up with a dog with a very loud bark, but with a tiny bite. I can't see this ever happening - the UK for one will not get involved and risk losing its military ties with the US. The closest the UK will come to supporting such an initiative is the planned amphibious UK/Dutch battle-group (the Dutch being one of main fighting contributors in A-Stan not restricted by caveats).

I agree. I don't think that Europe has the will to do much more than the non-article 5 missions. IMHO, I think that would involve too much risks for the EU. Why break it when it ain't broken? Besides, the americans would probably resist it. France is just trying to find a way for the french defense industries to survive, and hoping to restore old glories long lost.

 

[Waylander]

There is difference. In any army, new weapon goes to best units, older to less ready. Take USA for example... a whole Zoo Park with M60, M1 / M1A1/ M1A2 tanks, F15 and F-16 of different age, etc.

I think, even in German army there is a hefty share of old unusable technic still formally in service. This doesnt mean any unit is really equipped with it. Just what these technic is still in storage waiting to be scrapped, or in reserve.

Usually military technic in reserve is specially stored and require several days preparation to be fully ready. Even completely new technic can be stored in reserve.

New tech is put into service as fast as budget and production capabilities allow it.
There is no difference in the amount of training or supply a unit gets wether it is euipped with the newest vehicles or personal equipment or with older ones.

Just because a unit receives new equipment earlier than another one says nothing about the quality of the unit or about it's state of supply.
Someones just has to be the first one to get new equipment.

And as I said before I exclude army reserve/national guard formations which are naturally equipped with less sophisticated, older equipment out of the warehouses.
I also exclude the units which normally get equipment for tests (like the Lehr-units of the BW) but they are still not better trained or supplied than other units.

 

[kato]

I think, even in German army there is a hefty share of old unusable technic still formally in service. This doesnt mean any unit is really equipped with it. Just what these technic is still in storage waiting to be scrapped, or in reserve.

The only "outdated" systems in some kind of storage in Germany are:
- small arms (G3, P1) -> also issued to some units
- Leopard 1A5 MBTs; Leopard 2A4 MBTs
- M109 SPHs (mostly mothballed at plants)
- a number of older ships in mothballs (e.g. FACs as spare parts hulks)
- a number of recovery vehicles
I think there are also a few older Gepard B2L still around, and a few dozen Roland waiting to be scrapped, but that's about it.

There is effectively no (equipment) reserve in the Bundeswehr under current doctrine. Most equipment held in some kind of storage is there to serve as spare parts, or is held for potential sales.

 

[eckherl]

There is difference. In any army, new weapon goes to best units, older to less ready. Take USA for example... a whole Zoo Park with M60, M1 / M1A1/ M1A2 tanks, F15 and F-16 of different age, etc.

I think, even in German army there is a hefty share of old unusable technic still formally in service. This doesnt mean any unit is really equipped with it. Just what these technic is still in storage waiting to be scrapped, or in reserve.

Usually military technic in reserve is specially stored and require several days preparation to be fully ready. Even completely new technic can be stored in reserve.

We do not have have M-60 series tanks for combat nor training purposes, that includes all units serving in regular, reserve or national guard.

 

[Chrom]

And as I said before I exclude army reserve/national guard formations which are naturally equipped with less sophisticated, older equipment out of the warehouses.

That would be naturally 3rd line units, just under different name.

I also exclude the units which normally get equipment for tests (like the Lehr-units of the BW) but they are still not better trained or supplied than other units.

We need full statistic for other countries to do any judgment. Might well be the case French army is ok.

 

[Waylander]

I said this:

And IMHO in western armies there are not many differences between different units making a designation of 1st, 2nd and 3rd line units rather difficult (Except for the usual difference between reserve and standing units).

I made a difference between standing line units and reserve units.
And you replied this:

There is difference. In any army, new weapon goes to best units, older to less ready. Take USA for example... a whole Zoo Park with M60, M1 / M1A1/ M1A2 tanks, F15 and F-16 of different age, etc.

I think, even in German army there is a hefty share of old unusable technic still formally in service. This doesnt mean any unit is really equipped with it. Just what these technic is still in storage waiting to be scrapped, or in reserve.

Usually military technic in reserve is specially stored and require several days preparation to be fully ready. Even completely new technic can be stored in reserve.

You ignored my reference to the exclusion of reserve formations. My statement is still that in most western armies there are no different 1st, 2nd and 3rd line units. Usually there are just regular and reserve formations.
As I said before a unit is not inferior in training or gets less support and supplies than another one just because other regular units get new equipment earlier.

BTW, the equipment which is mentioned in the article is equipment in use with regular units and not with reserve units.

 

[Chrom]

I said this:


I made a difference between standing line units and reserve units.
And you replied this:


You ignored my reference to the exclusion of reserve formations. My statement is still that in most western armies there are no different 1st, 2nd and 3rd line units. Usually there are just regular and reserve formations.
As I said before a unit is not inferior in training or gets less support and supplies than another one just because other regular units get new equipment earlier.

BTW, the equipment which is mentioned in the article is equipment in use with regular units and not with reserve units.

3rd line units ARE reserve formations. Just different name. I dont know exact order of French army, nor which military technic is considered "in service", nor how formally regarded technic in storage - is it "in service" or not? In different countries all this could be formally very different.

For example, in many armies it is very common when old technic is formally in service but in fact in reserve or ready to be scrapped. In other armies it is common when as soon as technic not in active regiments service, it formally falls in another group - either as "stored" , "reserved", or "ready to be scrapped".

Note, in all cases we speak, in fact, about very same group of military technic - just with different name in different countries - due to different traditions.

 

[Rythm]

units which normally get equipment for tests (like the Lehr-units of the BW) but they are still not better trained or supplied than other units.

I dare disagree. Lehr-units are something special in the sense that they do get much more time in the field than other units. there is simply more money available for them, wich leads to more experience among the NCOs (and partially the officers too ofc).

 

[Todjaeger]

3rd line units ARE reserve formations. Just different name.

Not entirely true. To an army organized with 1st, 2nd and 3rd line units, then yes, 3rd line units are likely organized as some form of reserve formation.
However, those armies that are organized with regular and reserve units do not necessarily consider (or equip) their reserve units differently than their regular units. The US Army with Regular, Reserve and National Guard components are equipped as much as possible, the same way. In some cases where new equipment is being fielded, I would expect that it would be distributed to regular units first, but reserve units will be in the queue for the same gear.

A key point to keep in mind regarding how a nation considers their Reserve formations, it how they use them. Some nations have their forces organized so that reserve formations are a type of "Home Guard" or militia, for local/national defence only. Others have reserve formations primed to act as replacements for frontline forces that have been incapacitated. Still others have their reserve formations set to operate alongside, and in concert with regular forces when on active duty.

As for the state of French forces, if the equipment availability has a negative impact on unit readiness and/or unit operability that is a problem. However, if the ~1/3 of the F1 Mirage recce jets meet France's needs and are also set to be replaced with something, then I do not see an issue. As for the Leclerc tanks, which are relatively new, that suggests some combination of design flaws/shortcomings and lack of proper maintenance.

As for a plan to scale the French Army back to 30,000 personnel... That would provide for a force roughly the same size as that of Australia at present. While France has roughly 2.5 times the population of Australia, it has a significantly smaller area the cover. France might well feel that its interests would be adequately served by having fewer personnel.

-Cheers

EDIT: On closer examination, it appears to be some of the usual journalistic inaccuracies and whinging. The Armee de Terre has approximately 133,000 personnel, not the mentioned 50,000. Also the Atlantic 2 "jet" is actually a turboprop. "Facts" like these make me question the veracity of the entire article.

 

[swerve]

As for a plan to scale the French Army back to 30,000 personnel... That would provide for a force roughly the same size as that of Australia at present. While France has roughly 2.5 times the population of Australia, it has a significantly smaller area the cover. France might well feel that its interests would be adequately served by having fewer personnel.

-Cheers

EDIT: On closer examination, it appears to be some of the usual journalistic inaccuracies and whinging. The Armee de Terre has approximately 133,000 personnel, not the mentioned 50,000. ....

I think this may be a misunderstanding, & that the proposal is not to reduce the army from 50000 to 30000 (as you correctly say, it is much larger than 50000), but to reduce the deployable combat forces (referred to as "operational troops") from 50000 to 30000.

 

[Waylander]

I dare disagree. Lehr-units are something special in the sense that they do get much more time in the field than other units. there is simply more money available for them, wich leads to more experience among the NCOs (and partially the officers too ofc).

And they tend to train alot for displays which are more of a show or ballet than a real maneuver. This eats away alot of their time and additional supply bringing them again on par with the rest.

@Chrom
But we are talking here about standing regular units of the french forces and npt about stored equipment.
There is no difference between one Leclerc equipped line Regiment and another one.

 

[jako]

He is expected to argue that the situation can only improve by reducing the number of France's operational troops from 50,000 to 30,000, and its fighter aircraft, as well as closing military bases.

how does the figure of 50'000 compare to other european nations such as italy, germany and the UK