The French fighter fleet is undersized. Parliamentary reports, available aircraft, budget shortfalls, and risks in the event of a major war.
Summary
For several years, official reports from the French Parliament have been warning of a worrying situation: the fighter aircraft fleet is insufficient to cope with a high-intensity conflict. The target of 185 combat aircraft is no longer being met, and the fleet actually available is significantly lower than the theoretical figures. In a scenario of intense combat, losses could accumulate in a matter of days at a rate that would be impossible to compensate for over several years. This “just-in-time” model is based on assumptions about duration and intensity that have now been surpassed by the realities observed in Ukraine. The issue is no longer just the number of aircraft, but also their availability, industrial depth, production capacity, and supply chain resilience. Behind the figures lies a major strategic issue: France’s real capacity to endure in a high-intensity confrontation.
The recurring observation in parliamentary reports
The warnings did not begin in 2026. For more than a decade, the defense committees of the National Assembly and the Senate have been highlighting the fragility of the French fighter format. The terms vary, but the message remains the same: the fleet is too small to sustain significant losses without a lasting loss of capability.
The official target of 185 combat aircraft had been defined as the operational minimum. However, this threshold is no longer being met. The gradual withdrawal of the oldest Mirage 2000s, combined with staggered deliveries of the Rafale, has created a scissor effect. France still has a capable air force, but it is too small.
The reports emphasize one specific point: in the event of high-intensity warfare, a week of fighting could be enough to inflict irreversible losses in the short term.
The theoretical fleet and the fleet actually available
On paper, France has a fleet consisting mainly of Rafale aircraft, divided between the Air and Space Force and the Naval Aviation. In practice, the number of aircraft that can actually be deployed is much lower.
Several factors explain this discrepancy:
- Some of the aircraft are grounded for heavy maintenance.
- Others are dedicated to training or advanced training.
- Some are permanently engaged in nuclear deterrence.
Ultimately, internal assessments often indicate an average availability of less than 60%. With an already reduced fleet, this drastically limits the combat strength that can actually be mobilized.
In an intense conflict, this constraint results in rapid aircraft rotation, increased staff fatigue, and accelerated equipment wear and tear.
Why not all aircraft are available
The issue of availability is central. It is not a matter of a lack of competence, but rather a structural choice.
The Rafale is a complex aircraft. Its maintenance requires high-level skills, specific parts, and tight supply chains. Each heavy maintenance cycle immobilizes an aircraft for several months.
Added to this are the constraints associated with successive modernizations. Aircraft must regularly undergo upgrades to integrate new standards, sensors, or weapons. These transitions temporarily reduce the operational fleet.
Finally, constant operational pressure wears down airframes faster than expected. Repeated external engagements have consumed potential, without a corresponding increase in the fleet.
The risk of rapid attrition in high-intensity conflict
Recent conflicts have highlighted a reality that is often overlooked in Western Europe: attrition can be rapid, even for technologically advanced forces.
In a high-intensity scenario, air losses are not measured in annual percentages, but in aircraft per day. A few aircraft shot down or seriously damaged are enough to disrupt a reduced fleet.
With its current format already constrained, France could lose in a few days what would take several years to rebuild.
The production time for a modern fighter aircraft is measured in months or even years, even when production rates are accelerated.
Industrial limitations and the question of replacement
Replacing a fighter aircraft is not an immediate operation. The industrial chain operates on a just-in-time basis, calibrated for peacetime production.
Current production rates allow for the delivery of a few aircraft per year. In the event of massive losses, it would be unrealistic to imagine rapid compensation without heavy and anticipated investment.
Furthermore, ramping up production does not depend solely on final assembly. It relies on a complete ecosystem: engines, radars, computers, weapons, software. The slightest break in this chain slows down the whole process.
Parliamentary reports emphasize this vulnerability: without upstream industrial preparation, replacement capacity is virtually zero in the short term.
The budget needed to change scale
Increasing the fighter fleet size requires clear budgetary choices. Each additional aircraft represents an investment of tens of millions of euros, not including support, training, and infrastructure.
Estimates suggest that several billion euros would be needed to return to a sustainable level above the threshold of 185 aircraft, while improving availability.
But the budget must not only finance additional airframes. It must also strengthen:
- Stocks of critical parts.
- Maintenance capabilities.
- Industrial infrastructure.
Without this comprehensive effort, increasing the number of aircraft would have only a limited effect.
The need for a resilient supply chain
The war in Ukraine has highlighted a key factor: supply chain resilience. Armies that can endure are those that have stocks, multiple suppliers, and flexible production capacities.
In the case of France, dependence on certain specific components creates points of fragility. A disruption in supply, whether industrial or geopolitical, can immobilize an entire fleet.
Strengthening resilience requires building strategic stocks, diversifying suppliers, and better anticipating needs in the event of a major crisis.
A “just-in-time” model that is now outdated
The current format is the product of a period when major conflicts were considered unlikely. The emphasis was on quality, versatility, and limited projection.
This model has proven its effectiveness in crisis management operations. Today, however, it is showing its limitations in the face of the prospect of a prolonged confrontation with a state adversary.
Parliamentarians now speak of a fragile model, incapable of absorbing a significant initial shock without lasting damage to capabilities.
Strategic choices ahead
The question is no longer whether the fleet is effective. It is. The real question is one of duration. A credible fighter force is judged not only on its technological capabilities, but also on its ability to absorb losses and regenerate.
Increasing the size of the fleet, improving availability, securing the industrial chain, and making a significant budgetary effort are all major political decisions. However, they will determine France’s military credibility in the decades to come.
The French fighter force remains highly effective. But in a world where high intensity is once again a realistic possibility, effectiveness without depth becomes a risky gamble.
The figures, now public, invite us to face this risk head-on.
Sources
- Reports from the National Assembly’s Defense Committee
- Senate reports on the operational readiness of the forces
- French military planning documents
- Official hearings of the Air and Space Force
- Public analyses of the availability of European fighter fleets
Live a unique fighter jet experience