Numbers, experience, equipment… How much would the French army be worth today, in a so-called high intensity conflict? After the election of Donald Trump, which could reshuffle the cards of the American presence in Europe, and in the face of the Russian threat, will France have the means to assume a leadership position within the European Union? 20 minutes takes stock of the situation.
What is the state of the French armed forces?
The Ministry of the Armed Forces will have just over 200,000 people in 2024, including 120,000 in the Army (including 77,000 in the land operational force), 40,000 in the Air Force and 41,000 in the Navy. The reserve has just over 40,000 people. Among the main equipment, the Army has (officially) 222 Leclerc combat tanks. Before 2022, France also had 76 Caesar trucks (capable of firing six projectiles 40 kilometers in less than a minute), and gave about thirty of them to Ukraine. An order for new equipment should allow this to rise to 109 units, after 2030.
The Navy, for its part, has four nuclear missile submarines, five nuclear attack submarines, an aircraft carrier, 15 frigates and 45 Rafale Marine fighter jets. The Air Force has 197 fighter jets, including 108 Rafales with final deliveries in 2024, but will have to hand over some Mirage 2000-5s to Ukraine in early 2025.
Researcher at the Ifri Security Studies Center (French Institute of International Relations)weapons specialist, Léo Péria Peigné tempers these elements. “In human terms, we are starting to see the effects of France’s aging, which limits the recruitable population,” he explains 20 minutes. Other factors, such as the end of external operations (Opex) which largely contributed to the recruitment of the armies, mean that it may be difficult to make the transition with the armies’ new missions, in particular our presence in the east, less attractive. »
As for equipment, the weapons specialist estimates that France actually has “just under 200 tanks, two-thirds of which are constantly operational.” On top of this, “new vehicles are entering service – Griffon, Jaguar, Serval – very modern machines but whose design is also very influenced by French African Opex”. On fighter planes, “by spreading the delivery of the Rafales, when the last one is delivered, it will almost be necessary to eliminate the first ones, which will then be more than thirty years old”, warns the specialist. And we still don’t have the ability to destroy enemy anti-aircraft defenses.”
The Griffin is the Army’s new troop transport vehicle, replacing the VAB.– ©KNDS France
An enviable nuclear power?
France is also and above all a nuclear power, which gives it a special status. “More than ever, French nuclear deterrence guarantees us protection that many other allies can envy,” writes Armed Forces Minister Sébastien Lecorn
But is the French deterrent credible? ”We have 290 nuclear warheads, which may not seem like much, but we have enough to cause considerable damage,” assures Yannick Pincé. If we launched even half of our arsenal, we could lower temperatures globally. And we have another ally with whom we have common vital interests, the United Kingdom. If we combine the two, we are not far from China’s capabilities, and we gain even stronger credibility there.” However, even if “France has always had a European dimension in its conception of deterrence”, recalls Yannick Pincé, “our allies will always prefer the American umbrella, because in terms of capabilities the United States is much superior to us, and are considered more dissuasive.” The United States (3,700 nuclear warheads) has, in particular, 180 nuclear weapons deployed in Europe.
Léo Péria-Peigné underlines for his part that “deterrence absorbs between 10 and 15% of the military budget and concentrates an enormous amount of effort in a very specific sector, perhaps to the detriment of more conventional capabilities”.
Is the French army still a great army or a “bonsai army”?
The French army is now between 10th and 11th in the ranking of the world’s military powers. In Europe “we are still among the first”, assures Léo Péria-Peigné, “but we are witnessing a progressive decline, mainly due to the fact that other actors are developing their capabilities”. The French army would now be ahead of the Polish army, which as of this year has 216,000 soldiers in its ranks. “We need to put things in perspective,” however, deciphers Léo Péria-Peigné, “because Poland tends to have personnel who are only reservists. But in reality it is on its way to becoming the number one army in Europe. Above all, unlike France, all Polish resources are put at the service of a single strategic objective: European territorial defense, where France disperses its resources across various objectives (Europe, Africa, Indo-Pacific, deterrence, Sentinel, etc. .) »
Has the French army become over time a “bonsai army”, as the journalist specializing in military affairs Jean-Dominique Merchet described it, that is, an army that has everything, but in small quantities? Certainly. Which has its advantages and disadvantages. Yannick Pincé underlines that he is therefore “one of the few in Europe to have maintained a multi-capacity army”. The same goes for Léo Péria-Peigné. “It’s quite healthy in itself, because it’s easier to progress if necessary, than to start from scratch. »
But this choice also has its disadvantages. “Sometimes we only have one unit left, as in the case of electronic warfare, which seems weak given the challenges it represents today. We only have six long-range rocket launchers left, we have no real means to fight drones, lists specialist Ifri. If tomorrow we have to be the framework nation within the Union, we will lack things. But we are not the only ones, everyone is in this situation. »
Could the experience gained in external operations be useful in case of high intensity warfare?
Since 2015, the French armed forces have been regularly engaged in counter-terrorism operations: Barkhane in the Sahel, Chammal in Iraq-Syria. But “it is not because we know how to wage war in Mali that we know how to wage high-intensity war,” said General Thierry Burkhard, chief of staff of the armed forces.
“On the one hand, this earns us the admiration of some, because what has been done is not only combat, it is also the ability to organize, to carry out deployments, logistics, which is very precious, but it also cost us a a lot in terms of wear and tear on the equipment, explains Léo Péria-Peigné. And we have to recognize that these are very specific operations, with limited opposition, because they are more about counterinsurgency than warfare. We therefore have an army that specialized in expeditionary missions in the Sahel and which now must evolve to be able to cope with the high intensity. » What value will this experience have « if we have to defend our European allies within NATO? ” ” I do not know. It is an ambivalent heritage. »
Could France and Europe defend themselves from Russia without the Americans?
It goes without saying that a clash against a great power like Russia would take place on a European, or NATO, scale and not on a single nation. However, “the presence or absence of the United States in Europe defines our ability to defend ourselves,” believes Léo Péria-Peigné. “Without the United States we are in difficulty, but the American priority is no longer Russia, it is China. The war in Ukraine temporarily halted the decline of the American presence in Europe, but will it last? [avec l’élection de Donald Trump]I do not know. »
Our dossier on the war in Ukraine
The presence of American soldiers on European soil is essential, confirms Yannick Pincé, because “attacking NATO countries means attacking American soldiers”. However, during the presidential campaign, the billionaire threatened to withdraw from Europe. “Will Trump withdraw his troops? I’m not sure, though, thinks Yannick Pincé. We must not forget that NATO is also an alliance that allows American industry to operate at full capacity, as European countries purchase American equipment. Look at the difficulties we have in exporting Rafales to Europe, while our allies buy F-35s. So even Donald Trump would think twice before following up on his words. »Wait and see.
Ch may find it challenging to transition to high-intensity warfare scenarios, where the scale and scope of engagements differ significantly.
General Burkhard emphasizes that while France’s experience in operations like Barkhane and Chammal has cultivated skills in logistics and deployment, these are not directly translatable to conventional warfare against a peer adversary. The unique challenges posed by high-intensity conflicts—such as larger scales of engagement and more sophisticated enemy tactics—require a level of preparedness that may not fully align with the counter-insurgency focus of recent operations.
Furthermore, as noted by experts, the wear and tear on equipment sustained during long-term deployments could impact readiness for sudden, large-scale military actions. The reliance on specialist capabilities, like the limited number of electronic warfare units or long-range rocket launchers, raises questions about the French military’s capability to meet the demands of conventional conflicts without robust reserves or alternative assets.
To adapt, France will need to update its military strategy and invest in diversifying and strengthening its capabilities, ensuring it can adequately respond to both asymmetric threats as previously encountered in Iraq and Syria, as well as conventional warfare scenarios that require substantial force deployment and sustained operational tempo.
while France possesses a multi-capable military structure, its efficacy in high-intensity warfare could be threatened by equipment attrition, recruitment limitations, and strategic commitments that spread resources thin. Future investments in military capabilities, a reevaluation of strategic priorities, and an emphasis on readiness could be crucial for the French armed forces to maintain their status as a credible military power in Europe and beyond.