Let's say that in France we build everything we need, from planes to nuclear aircraft carriers and armored vehicles, only light individual weapons are imported from Austria. It is not for nothing that in 2023 France will become the second largest arms exporter in the world.
They somewhat excluded that from the comparison, but France also has its own military satellite constellation, whereas the UK is fully reliant on GPS. Also they didnt mention the massive edge France has in combined arms combat, and Network Centric Warfare with the deployment of the Scorpion Program
For the french side i can precise : The charles de gaulle is nuclear propulsion (the only one outside the USA) and already works with catapult. And the french have 3 aeronef carriers for the helicopters. The autoloader of the Leclerc come with a crew of three instead of a crew of four and works very well on the Leclerc like the south korean one. All the Leclerc are now improving to the XLR standard with some improvement like the teleguided touret. The Leclerc is the only occidental tank that have active protection (explosion in direction of the outside at the impact). French Armured véhicules are VBCI (stryker like), VAB and now new griffins and servals (troups transport and fire), AMX (light wheeled tank now replaced by new jaguar) etc... Rafale is 4.5 but the F4 standard is for now more operational than the F35 who is still trying to resolve a bunch of critical problems. The rafale is at mid life and fully ready for combat after ten 15 years of improvement. The point of the rafale is that it is the only omnirole fighter of the world. Omnirole is different than multi-role. With omnirole you can do all type of mission without having to go back to the base and reconfigure the plane. Last thing in France Fregate is the name of destroyers. So destroyers are first class frigate and frigate second class frégate. So there is 8 fremm (multi roles) and 2 horizons (anti air) which are all destroyers. And then 3 FDI wich are between the two categories. The French are now implementing scorpion program with the Leclerc XLR, Rafale F4, new griffons, serval and jaguar. The point of this program is to numérise the battlefield to share informations in real time. Beside quantity the real problem of France are drones and artillery. I don t know for our dear english neighbour.
Je crois que c'est le résumer de l'armée française le plus complet que j'ai vu dans cette espace commentaire xD Rien d'extravagant. Juste des fait et sa fait plaisir !
As a french, I think those comparisons don't mean much, because so many equipments can't be compared together. You pointed at it for the vehicles, wich are a good exemple. The most important point is that both countries still are big world powers, and no country would (should ?) really want to try to attack them (at least because of the nuclear power). If I remember well, Argentina was the last one to give it a real try, against UK ...
Also I would say that increasingly allied countries in Europe have aligned their military capabilities to compliment each other not oppose each other thus pooling resources and reducing their cost. For example you often see different nationalities of naval vessels patrolling as a squadron. We have just allowed the US to shoulder the burden too much.
France's carrier is nuclear powered, and can land and launch US Navy carrier aircraft...the British carriers can only operate F-35B model aircraft, not the F-35C.
@@acidpunker1 😂😂😂😂 I like your jokes, you can't operate your two carriers together you don't have the planes nor the workforce and support ships to do so, HMS Goast 😂
About aircraft carriers: the British ones are not nuclear. Also, they have ramps which means the F35 B (American made) does not have the highest power of its type and cannot carry as much armament as the Rafale M (French made) launched by catapults from the CDG, that is a nuclear carrier. By the way, both UK carriers had a lot of serious issues lately and the Royal Navy even thought to keep the Prince of Wales in port dry coves. It you want to do comparison do it honestly and fairly!
Look up "Project Ark Royal", mon pauvre Monsieur! The Queen Elizabeth Class ships, already far in ADVANCE of France's wonky little CdeG, are to be reconfigured for hybrid STOVL/CATOBAR operation and their current capacity to operate airwings twice as powerful and numerous as CdeG will be enhanced yet further!
This is all true, however, I'm yet to hear a convincing reason why nuclear is of great benefit. I understand they need less refueling , but every vessel needs replenishing, whether it ammunition, food or fuel. Nuclear is more of a long term issue when it comes to disposal and nuclear powered ships are not welcome at every port. It's true that both British carriers have had issues but it's fair to say that new vessels as complicated as these experience teething troubles. Recently, the HMS Queen Elizabeth has prop shaft issues, however, HMS Prince of Wales was ready to replace her withing 7 days. Can France do that? Finally, the F35B does have limiting factors, but being a 5th fighter on a modern carrier designed for 5th gen fighters must surely go some way to make up for that. Also, an F35B could in theory fly from any aircraft carrier in the world, The Rafale cannot.
@@binkbonusgbr nuclear power take less space wich mean more weapons onboard. the Elisabet class doesn't even have anti missile defences and completly dependant on it's escort for defense. Also the airwings of F 35 for the british aircraft carriers are not actually enough for the 2 of them. They will need to buy more F 35
I think the most remarquable thing with France isn't its army currently, but its military-industrial complex. They build their own weapons, and managed to be the second largest arms exporter in the world recently, behind only the US. That's unusual for a relatively small country. Remember that what made the US win WW2, was its military-industrial complex, the possibility to produce massively in case of war. Outproducing your opponent is important, because in the end, a peace-time army is very small and does not represent the true capabilities of a country in case of total war, either for France or Britain. Even if total war won't ever happen, even against other countries, because nukes anyway.
the problem is that france produces no more light weapons but very heavy weapons : vessel , aircraft, submarine , radar missile but no weapons usefull for ukraine for exemple.
France manufactures all of its weapons, with the exception of small arms and the ammunition that go with them, but its problem is the quantity and production power in the event of a high intensity conflict, the industry will not follow not in the current conditions more than a month while being optimistic!
« Trident missile test failure for the second time in a row. Missile embarrassingly plopped into sea at launch attended by Grant Shapps » 21 feb 2024 . Now French ICBMs : 2003 - 2005: M51 prototype. 8 test launches, all successful. Nov 2006: M51 test launch, SW France base, target in North Atlantic 1/4 hour later. Reentry at Mach 25. Successful. June 2007: 2nd test, successful. Nov 2008, Jan 2010, July 2010: 3 test launches from nuclear submarine. All successful. Sept. 2015: M51.2 test. Successful. July 2016, June 2020, April 2021, April 2023: 4 test launches from nuclear submarine. All successful. Nov 2023: M51.3 test from SW France base. Successful. Only one test failure on May 2013. M51 ballistic missile carries six to ten independently targetable thermonuclear warheads, 110 kilotons each, 10,000+ km range, 150-200 metres accuracy.
@@richarddickinson7788Except in this instance it wasn't as much of a test that it was a showcase. They had a government official on board and the whole event was meant to be televised. You're coping
Check out the port of Toulon by slice experts, sadly he forgot a lot of things on the French side, Charles de Gaulle is nuclear with catapult which allows more range and to launch more heavy planes with weapons and fuel, he didn't mention the scorpion program and Suffren class Snle NG class subs. Perfidious Albion 😂
Or iow, the sad, wonky, hugely overpriced but inferior-nuclear-tech-reliant little French carrier that's spent half its service life in dry docks and the 3rd rate French nuclear tech with SSNs that also use low enriched fuel in barely civil-type-nuclear-reactors and need refuelling every decade at max. Though the 1st ever French "Rubis"??? SSN class still has a couple of its microscopic units serving anyway 🤣🤣🤣 As for Paris repugnant anti-ANGLOSPHERE "strategic autonomy" policies born of gross pique and hissy little jealously fits wrt the US in particular... -PLUS the long term policy of trying sadly to still pretend to great power status, chiefly by means of the two-tier approach of fawning on Brussels and playing the role of Germany's 'Mini-Me'... -PLUS the inevitable French trick whenever allegedly acting as a "partner" with other nations in collaborative multi-national projects, of trying to dictate terms to everyone else and stick them with the cost of developing variants they neither need nor want... ...then in truth, France is invariably the 100% self-serving "non-ally" from Hell and the sooner we British, both other English speaking NATO allies AND all other non-EU NATO powers as well, tell Paris to get lost or WE ALL WILL INSTEAD, the better it'll be for effective, collective European defence! Oh, and btw, here's a toast! To Anglosphere kindred, true friends and reliable allies! Especially now, after Australia's wise decision and the resulting AUKUS pact!
Funny that guy talks about new british armament programs and forgets about French ones, also they have two carriers but F35 even if advanced in stealth have very poor payload and autonomy. But anyway beside the fact I think England made a few mistakes peculiarly in its aero-naval choices both armies suffered of too important budget restrictions those lately years.
Exactly, he hypes up British military way too much when really it is on its knees. Our aircraft carriers cant even go anywhere because we have no supply ships for them, which is why we couldnt send one to sort out the Houthi rebels.
@@joealyjim3029 What made me think the most about the future of the Royal Navy was when I heard about the announcement on Linkedin that the Navy was looking for an admiral to command its submarine forces... I must say I fell on my butt.
At the same time, he's an Englishman, so of course every time he talks about England he's going to throw in some cheery detail, and every time he talks about France he's going to throw in some downbeat detail. Typical English.
At least we can agree that Britain and France could give Russia another Crimean spanking like in 1854 and leave the rest of NATO to handle China. But to be fair given what we’ve seen of the Russian military’s capacity it’d be like two sharks attacking a disabled whale. There's a reason when someone says Russian men you think of ballet, gymastics or alcoholism.
That's what most people think of Russia. Poorly trained and utterly useless. Yet their military strength is ranked only behind USA and China. By numbers I guess.
Nah my dude. That's heavy cope. We couldn't on their grounds, both of our countries have no ground conventional forces. We have no MBTs, no Artillery, no Rocket Launchers, etc We lack the ground assets for autonomous HI since our geographic situation made it better to target spending on our airforces and navy. We'd need at least Germany and Poland on the squad to get the job done. Ideally Italy and Spain as well
That's a crazy comparison... The French army is much more technologically advanced and, above all, much more autonomous, producing most of its own equipment. The Charles de Gaulles aircraft carrier is a much more powerful nuclear aircraft carrier than the 2 British ones.
Honestly who cares? We're allies and that's all that matters. Interesting to see the differences but pointless to ask who is most powerful. We're very strong together.
3:00 Autoloader means 1 less crew required, hence a much lighter tank, since fewer inside space required. Means you can have a faster and more fuel efficient tank, thiccer armor for the same weight, or a mix of the two
The f-35 that you hear constantly about in the video are actually american made jet aircraft, the eurofighter typhoon is a joint project between the uk, germany, italy and spain (i think not 100% sure), meanwhile france's aircraft are 100% independant meaning france creates it's own air force as well as it's navy and army vehicule
About autoloader vs manual loader it's not just about sustained fire vs quick succession; If firing on the move, a human loader will operate considerably slower than stopped as the tank's balance will switch following the terrain, the worse the rougher the terrain is. An autoloader will work virtually just as fast as on halt.
As former MBT leader and platoon leader, I assure you that a an autoloader is better than a soldier loader on every aspects, especially when the tank is moving (My MBT had a soldier loader, as I was in the previous generation of the Leclerc, my tank was an AMX 30B/B2)...
It is true that after hard training the radio loaders on AMX 30 could fire and reload faster than the T-72/T-80, but for how long? And here we are talking about 105mm shells, now they are 120mm, therefore bulkier and heavier? I can't imagine the physical state of the charger after a day's work, even though the auto charger will still be just as fast and efficient. It's like in a factory, impossible to compare the performance of a simple human and that of a robot.
@@olivierpuyou3621 clearly, you didn't read my post... I said that radio loaders were less efficient than autoloaders... When i was AMX 30 leader, there already were many Leclercs in french army. And as every AMX 30 were to be replaced by Leclercs, I was sure prepared to leclerc as well... I did 2 stages to pass on Leclercs.. .but never did... French gov, due to drastic reduction of military budgets and the fall of the societ union, they decided to pass from the initial 1400 Leclercs to 400 something. Then we did knew a restructuration of the mechanised infantry. I served on AMX 30B, in the 5°Ri then when dissolved in the 16°GC (16°BCP). In every heavy mechnaised infantry regiment, there were 3 Mechanised infantry companies on AMX 10P and 1 tank company on AMX 30B. Originally, the AMX 30B were to be replaced by leclercs. But because of the cut down of the money, they decideed to eliminate the MBT company in every mechanised infantry regiments and replaced them by a 4th company on AMX 10P. (stupid decision IMHO). During military exercices in germany with NATO forces, the americans were impressed by the efficiency and the foxy choice of having a MBT company inside a mechanised infantry reg. To come back to the orginal debate... I didn't compare the french AMX 30B radio loader with other same allied tanks of the era but I was comparing the Leclerc autoloader far better than the man loader of Leopard 2, Abrahms and Challenger. The position of the loader in the Abrahms is a bit better than the 2 other (I think) but in very accidented field, it is very hard for a man loader to put a 120 mm shell in the cannon and it took 2 or 3 times more than the Leclerc autoloader. Plus the Leclerc has still the best ratio of hit while running at 40 km/h (96%)... For abrahms, Challenger, or leo II it's around 60 to 70 % and if you count that at that speed on a all terrain ground, the Leclerc will fire twice more hits than any of the other allied tanks... I have to add that the best ratio has nothing to do with a better gunner in the french army, it's all about the oleo-pneumatic suspension associated with a very great logicial of firing. The suspension is the reason the french tank was so expensive compared to others. But the high rate of hits can justify the price too. French had chosen less tanks but better killers... US chose as Russians quantity other quality... sure a Leclerc can easily match 5 to 6 T80 or T90... but 400 Leclerc can't win over 10k T72/T80/T90.
@@lucaj8131 Which involves another vehicle and more fuel. The extra crewmen can carry out many roles just like the rest of the crew. Just a thought if autoloaders are so good why don't the Americans or British use them?
My niece has just made captain in the RAAF, just 2 years after passing her finals. She also mastered helicopter piloting virtually instantly, a natural apparently.. Dead proud uncle…😁
French Navy tests HELMA-P Laser Weapon : ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-I7jk88sZr6s.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NHW28rFxVhE.html
The little contretemps England and France had from time to time are now 'forgot'. They were caused mainly because the French King and the Norman King of England (known as William the Conqueror, but really just came to claim his rightful kingdom) squabbled about who owned whose land. The Norman 'nobles', who came with William, also endlessly fought with the French king about keeping their French owned Estates too. As did their descendants. So to both sides it became a bit of a sport, except to the poor peasants on each side who lined up in front of each other so frequently I am sure they knew the opposing army by their individual names . Pierre was there of course, so was Armand, but Jean-Paul didn't always turn up!
4:00 armoured vehicule are types of vehicule regrouped under one name but it mainly consist of IFV (infantry fighting vehicule) and APC ( armoured personnel carrier)
4:00 Armored fighting vehicles include both APCs _(armored personnel carriers)_ with no weapon systems attached, and IFVs _(infantry fighting vehicles)_ with weapon systems for fire support attached Common choices include 30mm main gun to engage other lightly armored targets and troops hiden behind structures, 7.62mm machine gun to engage infantry, and mounted ATGMs to engage heavely armored targets
The UK has over 34,000 reserve forces with over 27,000 being the army. The reserve forces regularly train in almost evert role the regular forces do and with a small amount of extra training can integrate with the regular forces and have done so in the two world wars and more recently in Iraq and Afghanistan in fairly large numbers.
That Connor is a 30mm Rarden cannon, it's mounted on the Warrior armoured personnel Carrier. The Warrior is equipped with a 30mm RARDEN cannon and a 7.62mm chain gun - both providing an anti-helicopter capability. Warrior can reach a top speed of 75km/hr and has a range of 600km. It has the ability to adapt to the most difficult terrain, and the firepower and armour to support the battlegroup during assault used by British infantry, it carries a section of soldiers (A section usually consists of 7 to 12 soldiers, and is part of a platoon. Sections are usually under the command of a non-commissioned officer, often a corporal or sergeant.) and is used as a support weapon engaging enemy armoured personnel carriers, enemy vehicles, infantry, it fires 30mm high velocity armour piercing, and high explosive rounds.
@@alexnicole7431 Oh I forgot to mention, the Rarden Cannon is also equipped on the CvRT (Combat vehicle Reconnaissance Tracked) Scimitar ( my old wagon), In Iraq they proved to be very effective reconnaissance vehicles due to their powerful optics and small size. The 30 mm gun on the scimitar was not to be ignored, it was more than capable of penetrating the side armour of all tanks it faced including T-72. sadly retired in 2023 from British service we did send some of the Cvrt family to Ukraine, Spartan personnel carriers, and samaritan the armoured ambulances.
I had a manual Legacy - The clutch was made of chocolate. When it went (with 60k on the clock) it took out the dmf and cost £2k to fix. Never buy a subaru
@@Noelegamer Macron has just announced that France will increase its defence spending by 40% in 2024-2030 to €413 billion, up from €295 billion in 2019-2025 By 2030 the French defence budget will be close to €65 billion, nearly double its level in 2017
@@olivierpuyou3621 We have well over 700 great cheeses in the UK. But yes, the wine I generally buy from France, despite the successes of English wine in recent years.
In the context of the image you are showing - these would primarily include infantry fighting vehicles (APCs in old money) - a battle wagon designed to carry infantry into battle in order to support an offensive or heavy armour - ie tanks - they are usually armed with a 30mm cannon - which is used to provide heavy fire support for the infantry and can take out other armoured vehicles. On a good day the cannons can inflict some pain on a a heavy tank by targeting the tanks delicate bits like their exposed optics - but it takes a brave crew to take on a tank - tho recent footage from ukraine showed 2 bradley crews doing just that inflicting untold misery on a T72. armoured is anything really that can stand up to infantry small arms upto and including heavy machine guns hope this helps
What does it matter what equipment they have when the way they are used is so different. A few years ago, a british royal navy squadron sailed with the French aboard the Charles De Gaul and they were shocked that the flight deck did not operate for 24/7 at sea like the British carriers do. Infact they were shocked at the complete daily working routine of the French Navy! Remember the royal navy flew out-dated bi-planes in WW2, which sunk more enemy shipping than any other allied aircraft!
Both armies are pretty on par but on the carrier part, uk has some structural issue to man both carrier and the queen Elizabeth albeit a nice class, can only operate stol aircraft and is a diesel propulsion whereas the Charles de gaule is a catobar carrier than can deploy radar aircraft and can be interoperable with other catobar carrier, ie us carrier ( they are the only ones who can do that)
Oh I forgot to mention, the Rarden Cannon is also equipped on the CvRT (Combat vehicle Reconnaissance Tracked) Scimitar ( my old wagon), In Iraq they proved to be very effective reconnaissance vehicles due to their powerful optics and small size. The 30 mm gun on the scimitar was not to be ignored, it was more than capable of penetrating the side armour of all tanks it faced including T-72. sadly retired in 2023 from British service we did send some of the Cvrt family to Ukraine, Spartan personnel carriers, and samaritan the armoured ambulances.
There’s a big thing he’s forgets to say is that you can’t 100% tell if a army is better by the amount of weapons and stuff they have cause it ain’t always about the weapons it’s about the people who use them look at Ukraine with western weapons and been able to defend their land against a army like putins
One thing not mentioned in this vid is that the UK is an Island, so if your comparing who would win in a war on the amount of hardware they have you need to consider that.
France manufactures all of its weapons, with the exception of small arms and the ammunition that go with them, but its problem is the quantity and production power in the event of a high intensity conflict, the industry will not follow not in the current conditions more than a month while being optimistic!
As a NATO member, I suppose Britain doesn’t need a stronger military, but there is increasing pressure to increase the U.K. military budget from 2% GDP to 2.5%. It was announced today. That being said, tech wise the U.K. leads in many fields and is developing some cutting edge kit. Including new technologies like, independent DragonFire laser weapons AND RF DEW (Radio Frequency Directed Energy Weapons). The 6th generation Tempest will be an amazing jet fighter plane when that too is developed by Rolls Royce and BAE Systems, in collaboration with Sweden, Italy and Japan to reduce costs. But the Tempest is a British design.
« 'UK's military too small to fight' A senior US general reportedly told former defence secretary Ben Wallace, that Britain was "barely a tier two military power." The figures, published by The Times, show that if the army continues to lose troops at its present rate, the number of regular soldiers will fall to 67,700 by 2026. » GB News 20 january 2024
To put those numbers into perspective - on the FIRST DAY of the battle of the Somme in 1916 the British army lost 20,000 killed and another 40,000 wounded. That’s 60,000 lost in ONE day! How many combat personnel does today’s army have…
@@cerdicw9998 The Somme was a huge tragedy. Including in that the big loss of British life was incurred merely to prop up an alleged ally but historic enemy that' was not one whit more grateful afterwards and which has been a millstone around our necks ever since.
@@squirepraggerstope3591 Where the Brits lost thousands of men and did not advance, the French soldiers who also participated in this battle on the south wing advanced more than 16 km. Speaking of cannonballs, it's not always the one you see.
@@olivierpuyou3621'Bravely' said, Monsieur ...and I must admit it does bring home even more how ill-advised our grandfathers were just 110 years ago to depart from centuries old British policies of NOT committing huge land forces to prop up continental "allies" too weak to fight their own wars. Absurdly, of course, a million British and Dominion dead later yet we were STILL dim enough to stay hogtied to the French corpse for round 2. As Edmund Burke said and an astute Australian Historian later quoted when commenting "Despite the fact that they possessed the biggest Empire in history, Britain's leaders still interpreted the international role of the UK as that of a European great power"... ... "A great Empire and little minds go ill together." So, how long before our Whitehall and Westminster vermin manage to railroad us fully back under the control of that loathsome cesspit, the EU central institution? hmm? I must admit, France's population isn't half so stupid and not even the Haute Bourgeois Parisian elite establishment is as pathetically inept as our own! After all, when rats like Macron fawn on Brussels and greasily reaffirm France's six-decades long role as Germany's "Mini-Me", no one's fooled that all the "strategic autonomy" drivel is directed at anything more than allowing France itself to still pretend to fantasy great power status.🙄
In terms of manpower the British military has been seriously reduced. You have to question the effectiveness of the British Army now, back in the gulf war the BAOR was stripped of most of its spares to put one armoured division in the field. More recently in Afghanistan, the British military was seriously under manned on the ground.
Oh, and btw, six of the 17 French "frigates" are old "Floreal" Class ships now without any SSM armament and redesignated as "patrol frigates" so in truth, de facto shunted-off-to-act-as-OPVs-in-the-twilight-of-their-careers.😁
Je suis Français et je pense que cette vidéo de 4minutes n’est pas suffisent pour bien décrire les deux armées il n’a pas parlé des différents systèmes d’artillerie comme le caesar Français ni des stocks de missiles nucléaires. Pour se qui concerne l’avion français le rafale(68 millions d’euros) de nombreux sont en commende et il reste un avion très intéressant car il moins cher que le F35 (160 millions de dollars)et les rafale est multi rôle alors que le F35 fait bombardier ou intercepteur ou chasseur mais pas tous à la foi contrairement aux rafale; une perte de rafale est donc plus acceptable qu’une perte d’un F35. La marine Français n’a certes qu’un porte-avions mais est est bien plus efficace que les port avions britannique car il possède une catapulte à vapeur se qui permet aux avions l’or du décollage d’économiser du carburant. Par ailleurs, les forces Français sont moins dépendante de force étrangère qui les force britannique car la logistique britannique est assurée par l’US army Sinon très bonne video😊
The Royal Navy has 4 Dreadnaught I.C.B.M. submarines being built and thought to be the best so much so that the Brits are keeping some aspects secret from America though that has worked both ways. If one is talking in terms of nuclear weapons then that is an unknown as a nuclear war has not been fought and M.A. D only applies in a nuclear war. Conventional wars are unpredictable [as Vladimir Putin found out ] with many factors playing a part. One could say aircraft carriers could be made useless if hit by a couple of cheaper anti ship missiles which is what China hopes for with its DF 21 D . but they could be taken out before contact with the point being that if the cheaper anti tank/ ship/ missile / missile and cheap drones can destroy the more expensive equipment then size may not be as important [as Russia is finding out] so a smaller force is less important and quality of manpower plays a part. Tanks now employ an anti missile system similar to what Israel uses , but that is until perhaps the incoming missile develops an anti missile jamming device or similar in other words for every offence there is a defence and in a major clash between super powers we are one step closer to the use of nuclear battlefield weapons which will require the same response then the first use user has to back down or its WW3.
There Benelux has the same, if not a bigger, GDP as Russia. Time that we put some effort into it, and start growing our military too. Belgium & the Netherlands should get an aircraft carrier again, and increase the amount of submarines & frigates.
France has 1 nuclear aircraft carrier and 3 amphibious helicopter carriers from which American F-35s can also take off. The UK has no aircraft carrier and only two non amphibious carriers that can’t operate independently from NATO allies’ support in ships and planes.
@@marcyvon8404 Je ne pense pas non plus, mais en refaisant le revêtement du pont pour qu’ils puissent supporter la chaleur, comme l’a fait le Japon avec ses portes hélicoptères, ils pourraient déployer des F-35.
@@squirepraggerstope3591 nonsense? When has the UK ever deployed one of his QE carriers without the support of American F-35s and NATO allies’ ships? The sole resplendissement ship of the RN , and the few F-35s the UK owns between the Royal Airforce and Royal Navy, prevents them to be deployed by the UK alone.
It's very American to say that a 5th generation fighter is necessarily better than a 4.5 generation one. Especially since stealth is detectable nowadays. It's good against poor countries, not against modern countries with the best radars (THALES). Think of a Rafale with a Meteor missile and we can talk about your pedantic remarks again. I already see articles saying that the Rafale is obsolete. Furthermore, the British aircraft carrier is not a true aircraft carrier. No catapult, too few F-35s on it, takes too long to take off, no serious range, no penetration into enemy territory, can we talk about it again? - it's almost laughable and too expensive for the British. The F-35 has too many problems, low availability. Always French bashing while France is the only Western country besides the US that is complete and autonomous, manufacturing weapons equivalent to or even better than the US. Because we don't have the same budget to have a policy of losing planes or tanks like the US. So we do better in some areas. Nuclear submarines, Rafale which the US Navy envies us, Leclerc tank, Scorpion system, Caesar cannon, etc.
Both nations are NATO members, the largest military coalition in the world. Their forces would add up to other nations' forces, including the USA's, should there be a war.
Eh bien moi, mon papa, c'est Spider-Man, et il peut casser la gueule au tien (souvenir de maternelle). Well, my dad is Spider-Man, and he can beat the shit out of yours (kindergarten memory).
5 generation fighters are a big deal and any country that has them has insane levels air power. Some almost equate them as akin to nukes in their level of deterrence theyre that good, becuase they can carry nukes and have sophisticated anti radar, jamming tech, speed etc.
its all theoretical, no peer wars have been fought with 5gen fighters so who really knows, The war in Ukraine has proved to the world that even western tanks like leopards challengers abrahams can be destroyed, they are not invincible.
@@Narjoso Forgive me but in the American list, for an aircraft to be considered 5th generation it must have super cruise flight, right? However, the F-35 does not have this capability, so it is not 5th generation, unlike the F-22. So it's a plane like the Rafale (which has super cruise) of the 4.5 generation .
we had 500 leclerc but they have stopped the producton in the 2000's. They keep 200 leclerc updated. France + german prepare together their next generation tank , it will be a complex fighting system , a high technology
@@stephen10. There are still 400/450 Leclercs but due to lack of budget to pay the soldiers and maintain the tanks, they are placed in "reserve". Hopefully that will change one day.
The British military is under equipped! The politicians expect the military to do everything from protection the Falklands, too fighting China! Will half of the amount of personnel and equipment! So frustrating!!
France has given half of its artillery to Ukraine of which many pieces have been destroyed by the Russians. The UK has given Ukraine one third of its Challenger battle tanks of which three have been destroyed. Also handed over by the UK to Ukraine, was one half of its artillery of which over half have already been destroyed. Which means the state of the French and UK land armies are somewhat too depleted to even go to war with each other.
That can change rapidly if there is a pressing need to change, just that for now, there's little to no threat to them, even from Russia, but if things start to escalate where a threat becomes more potent, you can bet that both France, the UK and many other countries will put far more of the economic power of the economy behind the military. To put it into context, just look at the second world war and how rapid things can change in a short space of time, and when it comes to European countries, especially in the west, they've been a bit asleep on military matters because it's not a pressing issue, but if a threat becomes more direct, you can bet they will build far more arms and do so really quickly, but clearly, even with how unstable the world is getting, Europeans don't see much of a threat to themselves, especially EU countries, hence why they are taking there sweet time to rearm. Personally, I think more needs to be done to help Ukraine, the more arms they are giving to give them the means to kick Russia out of Ukraine, the better for everyone.
The famous CAESAR cannons you speak of and according to OSINT sources only 1 was destroyed, one seriously damaged and one slightly damaged on the carrier truck level. So there's still quite a bit left. But if in 2022 only 10 pieces per year came out of the factories, in 2023 it was 30 and in 2024 it will tend towards 40 pieces per year.
As for the two powers aircraft carriers, the UK's Queen Elizabeth Class ships are c72,000 tonne full load displacement ships capable of each operating max, balanced airwings of c60 platforms, all types. Which in 'Strike' role could include up to c48 x fast combat jets. They are, however, both still configured only for STOVL operation, which imposes several limitations, of which the two most important are that 1) it severely limits the type of aircraft in any given category that can be operated with EVERY associated adverse implication 2) it precludes the operation of most "serious" UAVs, including large fast combat types, tankers etc. As a result, 'Project Ark Royal' is currently in train, the aim being to re-configure both ships for hybrid STOVL/CATOBAR operation. The real question, however, is in view of our repulsive London Whitehall+Westminster elites record re RN budgets etc, whether a GENUINELY effective solution will be implemented (2 x EMALS assys with one at least of 90m+ length and min launch weight capacity of c32,000kg, PLUS appropriately capable arrestor assys; PLUS move to angle flight deck layout) or whether (and this is more likely) a mere cop-out 'bargain basement' con 'conversion' will ensue instead. As for France, the single current carrier "Charles de Gaulle" is just 42,000 tonnes f.l.d. and only nominally capable of operating a max airwing of 40 platforms... though c30 is more usual. While the intended replacement "P.A.N.G." vessel, will be another 'showcase' nuclear powered CATOBAR ship, though a bigger one of c75,000 tonnes and that will operate airwings of c50 - 60 platforms, incl. c30 fast combat jets (primarily the intended 6th gen FCAS fighter that, iirc, has Germany seriously contemplating bailing out of the project in view of the typical French attempts to stick the other member countries with costs for developing such variants as a marinised one, for which ONLY France has any use). In short, then, France's MN will remain a ONE (very costly) carrier navy with a centrepiece arguably dedicated as much to PR and displays of national tech. prowess as to anything else, though hopefully it'll be far less troubled by repeated problems and so spend less of its service life in dry dock than CdeG has done.
"Yeah, I'll react to that, sure." For the third time, I ask what your channel's slogan means. I don't see anywhere for video reactions to be submitted nor have you responded to my comments with video suggestions. Again, all your military video reactions come from similar sources with the same ideological perspective. This would be akin to a Fox News anchor saying, "Sure, I'll react to any video, as long it's produced by Fox News." Hopefully, you'll provide a link to where video suggestions can be sent. And if you have no interest in reacting to perspectives that fall outside the pro-establishment spectrum, such as IForces News, please make that clear. (In which case, you may also want to change your slogan.)
We are celebrating 120 years of Entente Cordiale this year. It was marked by French infantry participating in changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace recently.
Have forgot the rules : The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule of Fight Club is: you DO NOT talk about Fight Club! Third rule of Fight Club: someone yells "stop!", goes limp, taps out, the fight is over.
The UK has weapons nobody knows about , after all its the most inventive country in the world ..... also you never show your hand to the enemy , the UK has massive underground facilities , who knows what's in storage ? the UK also has the Royal Marines , the Parachute regiment , the Ghurkas , SAS and SBS .....
You can fit the UKs army in a futbol stadium and have seats left 😂 Attrition or any war does not favor Britain or France. As the French general said. France is like a crocodile. Big mouth and small hands. Can't backup the tough talk against Russia.
@@stephen10. Maybe other countres like us more? And our allies are our people spread over the world. Your colonies hate you - Algeria, Vietnam and all of the Sahel now!
@@acidpunker1 France has no more colonies since 1960. For algeria , they are even in trouble with Morocco. Vietnam ( indochina) we don't feel realy hate toward france ! For Sahel they have called france in 2012 to fight jihadists, it were temporary bases. We are happy to leave this Sahel's mess (burkina,niger,mali). it 's not the first time that Sahel asks us to leave and generaly they recall france after 10 years. Russia has played a role in Sahel with a big propaganda vs westerners.
Your tanks were just tracked cubes without turrets. France, with the Renault FT-17, invented what is still today the modern tank: a 360° turret, a separate engine compartment at the rear and crew compartment at the front.
J'ai une très mauvaise nouvelles vous n'avez pas inventé le tank...la France avait aussi développé les tank en même temps..vous avez juste préféré les utiliser en premier. Plutôt que d'attendre d'en avoir suffisamment pour faire une attaque correcte.
Italy has the 2nd most powerful military in Europe, after the UK although we have no nuclear arsenal (just like Germany). We're like 10th in the world.
Britain is an island nation so its military requirements differ from France that has land borders with the rest of Europe, Britain only needs strong air defence capabilities whereas France needs strong land based protection. This was played out with the WW2 where Germany stormed through Europe with its tanks and military, whereas to attack Britain could only be done from the air. For an enemy to get boots on the ground with heavy equipment in Britain could only be an achieved by sea and that’s pretty much impossible.
It's not actually true. France only shares borders with long term allies, and has distant oversea territories to defend. Its military threat model is as such basically identical to the UK's. The only difference being its sustained engagement in central Africa, which warranted a slightly higher emphasis on mechanized infantry. But both of their conventional ground forces are very few and overall very close in figures. Be it MBTs, Artillery, Rocket Launchers, you name it
