In principle, I think sharing carefully selected defence capabilities with the French makes sense.
The French forces are extremely professional and despite the unfair characterisation of them in various UK and US quarters, do get involved in international operations.
Beyond the banter and jokes about Wellington and Roast Beef, at a tactical and operational level, relations are very good and respect is mutual.
We have much in common, perhaps too much.
The French armed forces also face many of the same issues that the UK does, shrinking budgets, defence inflation and a defence industry that is seen as a strategic asset, worthy of nurturing.
Both have their fair share of military equipment failures and successes.
Unfortunately, we have a mixed track record when it comes to technology/industrial cooperation, on the plus side there is Jaguar and Concorde but there is also TRIGAT and Horizon.
The two military power houses in the EU are no doubt France and the UK so in these financially restricted times, is there scope for reduction of costs by equitable sharing of programmes and capabilities?
There must be limits to any cooperation and the devil is always in the detail, but there are some areas where partnerships might be worth pursuing.
Taranis is one and the CVF design shares much commonality, in fact CVF might be a model for the future. The French and UK versions will differ in many details but a significant percentage will be the same.
Addressing his peers this week, the French Minister for Defence (Hervé Morin) said;
“We have decided with my British counterpart to launch a very ambitious operation
The new British government wishes that we analyze in a very detailed way what are the competences and means that each of the two countries should retain complete sovereignty, those which could be pooled, and those on which there could be interdependence
We will compare our notes in November
The British are ready to envisage cooperation even in very confidential topics”
One area where we might see this being realised is Air Transport and Refuelling
“For the MRTT [Multi-Role Tanker Transport] air tankers, we will try to work out a common plan with the British”
We have seen news this week that Vince Cable is looking in detail at the Air Tanker PFI
This might for once, actually make sense.
Our requirements are similar but the ridiculous PFI arrangement has meant we get neither value for money or a decent solution. The FSTA PFI will provide aircraft for the RAF that will have a number of serious shortcomings. Sharing with the French may actually result in a better base platform and savings in training and maintenance.
[SMUG MODE ON]
Back in January I wondered if something like this was on the cards for the FSTA and posted about the Commercial AAR Interim Solution (CAARIS) being suggested by various parties (page 10)
[/SMUG MODE OFF]
Whilst the RN might wonder about the possibility of Rafale and a common CVF design with some cost sharing, would the overall costs of operating trap and cat decks mean any savings would be eaten up and crucially, will the RAF relinquish the opportunity for a fifth generation strike fighter?
I can’t see any opportunity for having cats and traps and F35C instead of Rafale.
We also face a serious dilemma, as JBD pointed out in a recent comment, the more we cooperate with our EU partners on matters of technical and intelligence sharing the less inclined will be the US to do the same.
The eternal struggle between the US and EU, with the UK in the middle, will continue it seems.
Perhaps there is a sensible middle ground that satisfies the politics, finances and industry.
Anyone got any strong opinions on the matter?
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Share on Facebook!
Share on Reddit!
Stumble it
Add to Technorati
37 Comments
The idea that the two governments are effectively going to set out the ground rules for future cooperation is very interesting. I would like to see where they set their limits.
For my part future collaboration on new projects is fine so long as there is a mutual requirement and it is not some industrial workshare scheme. There also might be room for reciprocal ‘swaps’ where either partner enjoys a capability lead.
A revised FSTA deal including France clearly has the promise to satisfy that mutual requirement. However, I don’t have much faith in wider EU solution. I myself have wondered why NATO hasn’t considered a refuelling fleet similar to the NATO Awacs E3s.
The fact that France’s CVF is on hold and that ours is still the subject of speculation shows the pitfalls of cooperating where there isn’t a true mutual requirement.
I remain (just) in favour of F35B for CVF and see no prospect of cats and traps. Plan B would be STOBAR and that would involve Typhoon or Gripen rather than Rafale.
And Yes Britain will continue to walk the tightrope between the US and EU.
I think to make sense any change would have to be as big as the UK builds sea stuff, france builds flying stuff and germany builds driving stuff.
Anything smaller, like France builds landing ships and UK builds nuclear submarines, would lead to both sides suddenly deciding they dont need what the other builds and then accusing the other of dealing in bad faith.
I wish it could work, but it wont.
“In principle, I think sharing carefully selected defence capabilities with the French makes sense.”
In principle I agree; France is in many ways an ideal partner, their force spectrum mirrors our own thus creating opportunities collaboration on procurement, France retains the ambition and will necessary to deploy their forces which makes them a useful ally, and they are a long-term partner through deeply integrated economies and interests, however, there are caveats.
There goals are their own, as are our own, and those do not always meet and are occasionally even in conflict.
Cooperation and collaboration should always be under the proviso that it does not impinge on US/UK defence-intelligence sharing structures.
This puts Taranis well out of the picture, given its heavy use of stealth technology.
Jasons, I really don’t think F35B is the answer for CVF. If the details that is being released about its proposed performance is true it is:
A. Not that Stealthy
B: a bit of a brick
C: limited range
D: Limited payload
With Taranis just around the corner why the fcuk do we need it?
Rafale on the other hand (apart from beinf french and a tad on the small size is very agile annd can perform both the air defence and ground attack cababilities.
I understand that trying to make the Typhoon carrier capable is a non starter, I am not convinced the Gripen would be that much easier, but it is a solid aircraft so it might be ok.
Now the dream solution is to combine the Rafale with Tranche 3b and produce a slightly larger Rafale that is fitted with EJ200 series engines and other Typhoon kit.
Failing that just by the Rafale and be done with it.
I honestly believe if we want to retain a VTOL capability just do a revamped Harrier. The engine can be made more powerful. We could have an all new airframe using composites, integrate 27mm Mauser cannon and a Radar, DAS from the Typhoon, Flight controls from the F35 demonstrator and a way you go. A fantastic CAS aircraft and it can defend the fleet!!!
hmm. the first comment states that the F-35 is a brick? wow.
i’m almost to the point of believing that international cooperation on that airplane is becoming a detriment–if the UK doesn’t want it…then by GOD don’t buy it.
if the UK moves into the EU camp then you better believe that tech transfers will decrease.
globalization is winding down and you can bet that foreign buys of defense products will decrease dramatically. moves by BAE and General Dynamics to establish subsidiaries in the US and Europe respectively will fail and you will see a “homegrown movement”.
i also don’t believe the UK will be able to walk the tightrope or find that happy middle.
The German experiences with bi- or multilateral procurement projects:
The French have slightly different requirements, a joint project is begun, the French realise the joint design would not be 100% Made in France, the French quit.
Thinking of Jaguar: You do remember that the naval version of Jaguar was clearly superior to Super Etendard and the French still developed the Super Etendard specifically for being able to let their navy buy a few 100% French fighter-bombers?
Similar story with Eurofighter -> Rafale.
I personally advise against any development and procurement cooperation with the French – they are too industrial-egoistic.
Occasionally they develop something that’s the best off-the-shelf product of its kind, though.
The 105mm LG-1 field gun, AMX-15 light tank, Mirage III, Mirage F-1, Alouette III and Aster15/30/SAMP-T missile come to mind. Puma/Super Puma were fine as well.
The first of my two-pennies worth regarding American co-operation, Obama doesn’t seem that fussed about having us as a strategic partner, apart from where we support American interests i.e. Afghanistan. They need us more than we need them in this instance. It’s time to nail our colours to the mast and I think Europe would be our best bet. The last US administration didn’t do the UK any big favours and I can’t this one doing any better.
The other penny is the F-35B, a brick? I think not, admittedly its not a perfect solution and has its drawbacks, but I suggest that those who criticise it haven’t read too much about the systems it can deploy. Admittedly it doesn’t carry a huge warload but then neither does the Tornado when deployed on ops. We don’t have a fighter like the F-35 whatever guise it comes in, and an unmanned system, however sophisticated, will not replace a top-notch RAF pilot who’s over the target.
As for the Naval Typhoon/Rafale argument, why re-invent the wheel to do the same job? Who else would buy a navalised Typhoon? Even if someone could be persuaded to take a few, it wouldn’t off-set the developement costs. And it would take the best part of a decade to get into service, by which time the technology would be even further behind the F-35.
Now I’ve spent up, I’ll shut up…..
I know in my previous comment I said I’d shut up, but….
In a previous post, ‘Is it starting to unravel for the JSF?’ I commented on a conversation involving John Farley, dated 2003. He was the Harrier Chief Test Pilot and flew the prototype P.1127, in the world that is V/STOL he strides collossus like amongst mere mortals. And as I commented previously, as leading authorities goes it doesn’t get much higher than this. His argument went:
“The Harrier is still a remarkable device, but today is no longer viable as other than a sophisticated low level night bomb truck or BVR interceptor that can operate from small sites. Still not things to sniff at perhaps, but you need a bit more than that for the next generation of kit that may still be around in 50 years time.”
Ok, its from a 2003 perspective, but its worth a read.
http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-90847.html
Dominic,
There are practical reasons (plus the turly mighty weight of French “industrial-egoism” — thank you Sven for that wonderful and descriptive term) why trade would not specialise quite that deeply. But — UAVs excepted, where both Britain and Germany have an edge on breadth and advancement of design on the French — a trend in that direction would not be too awful. However, there are some reasons to think the mid-sized defence companies of Cold War days were actually more efficient and had less tortuous overhead in general.
If I remember one of Farley’s chief compliments when he later tried out the 35B test aircraft was that it was much more pilot-friendly, ie lacked the notorious touchiness of Sea Harrier and even the second-generation RAF models. Couldn’t all of this have been achieved by development of a “4.5th generation” (awful term) Son-of-Harrier? Would it have been more difficult, or instead easier, to introduce the “pilot-friendly” changes, plus contemporary commlink, AESA, etc., in a frame directly evolved from Harrier itself? Rather than trying to cramp F35 down into a V/STOL variant. Probably that ship’s sailed, but against starting from scratch with Gripen for example (something to which I’m sympathetic) it seems like a real missed boat.
Naval Jaguar was a missed boat as well, and that’s a strong point from Sven. It feels as though, beyond sympathy from a number of europhile Tories (which, in Britain, nearly always means Francophile — “europhilia” rarely seems to concentrate on Germany, or Spain, or the Netherlands) much of the running on this comes from the French side. In that there is a fierce drive to make Rafale pan out: Brazil’s not going to give them enough orders, nor at the price they wanted, by itself. And there seems to be Le Royale getting a leg up from its usual last place in France’s defence-budget stakes: possible future cooperation on sub design, justification for PA 2. However, as so often, that means what might scupper such arrangements will likely emerge from the French side, leaving the UK Horizon-style with le bag.
“The first of my two-pennies worth regarding American co-operation, Obama doesn’t seem that fussed about having us as a strategic partner, apart from where we support American interests i.e. Afghanistan. They need us more than we need them in this instance. It’s time to nail our colours to the mast and I think Europe would be our best bet.”
There is a marked difference between the transience of a single US president, and the ongoing anglophone confluence of ideas and goals that will continue regardless of who is at the helm.
But part of the reason why our ‘special’ relationship ain’t so ‘special’ any more is simply because europe is a backwater in the 21st century.
If the end of the world comes it certainly won’t have massed divisions of soviet armour in its vanguard and the atlantic coast as its destination.
Russia is going to slowly implode over the course of the next fifty years, and continental europe will do the same if much more gracefully (more a kind of ossified stasis while the rest of the world moves on).
Why then should America care about having an unsinkable aircraft-carrier in the ‘boondocks’, Japan is far better placed to play that role in the 21st century.
My opinion, for what it is worth, is that it would be a mistake for Britain to nail its colours to the EUropean mast, but not because cooperation and collaboration are not good things, rather because the EU is becoming a product of fear and thus will evolve into a barrier to hide behind from the big bad real world, refusing to face up to ones own obsolescence and accelerating that irrelevance by isolation.
That is not the future I wish for Britain.
Indeed, the UK is great if you want to block access to the atlantic to a militarised europe, but not much else really.
However you measure it, Europes share of world GDP has collapsed, the big five have gone from controlling 25% to 15% over the last 50 years.
Its still a lot, but its falling, and Europe shows no inclination to stop, instead trying to hide behind a wall, but the world will just move on around it.
mmm’ lots to comment on.
Firstly, closer cooperation with France does not absolutely not need further distance from the U.S. not in industrial relations, nor military intelligence. Believe me there is such a thing as “compartmentalisation” which why signals sent as ‘secret’ have a different distribution to ones sent as “NATO Secret” for example. So any bollocks about “they wont share any more” is exactly that – bollocks.
I think we all agree about the air-tanker PFI, so a cooperative programme to buy and convert second hand Airbus airframes to MRTT seems like a very good idea.
The carriers are actually an excellent place to cement so UK-France cooperation. F35 might not be a “brick” but does it meet our requirements ? For the Fleet Air Arm I would say no (and we can discus why, again, in a different thread). Fitting French cats and traps to the design now, before its too late, and a buy of 70 to 80 Rafale, of exactly the same type as flown by the French Navy (no EJ200′s or any other horribly expensive mods) would open up to joint training, even if not joint doctrine and tactical methods of employment. We can fantasize about what a next-gen Harrier might have been, or how wonderful a Sea-Typhoon might be, but we are looking at major budget cuts, and buying off-the-shelf kit is one way to operate within our budgets.
The French might ditch their second carrier if the management of the 3 carrier fleet (2 x UK CVF plus 1 x French CVN) could ensure that if the CVN was in dock, a UK CV could be available for “training cruises” with French Rafale (and E2) squadrons embarked. This agreement might extend as far as full employment of a UK crewed carrier with its French air-group on NATO operations, or other operations agreed between the 2 governments (remember the French and British military commitments to the Balkans were based on common goals). This truly is not as “big a deal” as it sounds. NATO units regularly work under the command of senior officers from other nations, we have been doing it for over 30 years.
Solomon – globalization is just getting going ! And the UK is in the EU, whether some of its citizens like it or not. If the US goes back on its promises about things like sovereignty of F35 software, then its just another unreliable ally, I am sure many US Generals and politicians say the same about the UK after our less than stellar performance in Basra. Such is life.
The UK should fund its armed forces to be able to undertaken operations as required by its own foreign policy. On top of this it should meet its NATO treaty obligations, and have the capability to join collations as required. It does not need to “get into bed with Europe” any more than it needs to “cut the apron strings” from the U.S. – it needs to figure out strategically where it fits and what it wants to do, and then cooperate with whomever it wants to meet its own national objectives.
Good points Jed
There will be no navalized Typhoon because it’s quite impossible. The option was studied, and the Typhoon was found unsuitable.
The carrier role is part of why Rafale is lighter than Typhoon and why the French left the Eurofighter program back in the previous century.
Gripen NG might be navalized, but it’s a one-engine aircraft and pilots dislike that feature in naval air war.
They might dislike a single engine but they are going to have to suck it up
F35 has but one engine
…one of the main critique points of some notorious F-35 opponents.
@Phil
If you want a Harrier for the 21st Century, google the HS P.1208-2, P1214 and P.1216 – all of them reached the detailed proposal stage, with CAD and initial CAM bring done, plus models and loads of (top secret) artwork. Specs and some of the work is in the Public Domain now (x-plane.org forums and the impressive “British Secret Projects” series of books by Tony Buttler). The P.1214 was behind the infamous X-wing harrier of the late 1980′s and I believe HSA at Kingston dudn’t treat it as a serious effort – more a way of cramming as many cutting edge elements into one airframe as possible! :-D
@Jedibeeftrix:
If the UK is on the edge of “the boondocks” and the EU becomes isolationist (and no longer an effective counter-wieght to Americanisation). Is it time to work-up the Commonwealth???
absolutely, canada in particular will allegedly be a sizable economy of over $3.2 trillion by 2050, australia $2.3 trillion, and india $17.8 trillion, compared to:
UK – $5.0 trillion
France – $4.5 trillion
Germany – $4.5 trillion
Italy – $2.6 trillion
Again, “working up the commonwealth” does not preclude cooperation with US or EU.
Why would the EU become isolationist? This tendency is surely more present in the US.
Who can tell whether the “Special Relationship” (a product of Churchill/Roosevelt) will remain the same in character 50 yrs from now?
Maybe our “special relationship” (or one of them) will be with India by then!
“Why would the EU become isolationist?”
Become?
More than half the EU budget is to enforce agricultural protectionism.
Usualy funded by massive import taxes on industrial(ish) goods.
There are import taxes on energy saving light bulbs and import limits on bras.
That’s protectionism, agreed. I wouldn’t describe that as Isolationism.
“Usualy funded by massive import taxes on industrial(ish) goods.”
The EU gets less than 15% of its revenues from import duties – € 15 billion per year. That’s extremely far away from “massive” and has almost no influence whatsoever on overall trade.
EU protectionism is furthermore within the limits of the WTO agreements and nothing special at all in this world.
I’m pretty sure the folks who have read my comments before know where I stand in the discussion over where our position should be between the European Union and the United States. The world is changing and frankly I agree with the consensus that Europe as a whole is on the way down you just have to look at the statistical markers and attitudes. As for a full and proper Commonwealth we are allowed to dream.
As for France I think Sven hit the nail on the head the French are very egotistical this makes them extremely hard if not impossible to work with sometimes. There is a long history of tried and failed cooperation between the UK and France but of course there are success stories in amongst the failures.
I have a sneaking respect for the French. They genuinely seem to put their own national interests first even if that means saying “NON!” to everyone else. If only we, as a country, had the balls to do likewise.
This french attitude, this industrial-egoisism, as Svem so delightfully put it, has kept the french producing aircraft, military vehicles, ships and missiles – all of which they vigorously sell all over the world without worrying about the US complaining about technology transfers. Getting into bed with such a partner may be fraught with difficulty but it may, in the long run, be extremely worthwhile. The UK is still a world leader in some areas and a partnership with the french might allow exploitation of those technologies in a way that is commercially advantagous to the UK. Currently policy appears to be to sell technology to the US and then buy back the resultant developed systems – ie VAAC Harrier flight control systems for the F-35.
Pete, I must agree to the same admiration of the French. Although I hate to admit it. The fact is they look after NUMBER ONE, or should I say “Numéro UN”.
As has been said there are some fine examples where the two contries have produced workd beaters. Maybe its worth a try.
I do hate being screwed by the US.
On a diufferent note, went to RIAT yesterday and the A400M was bloddy amazing (so was the F22A) but to keep on a Eropean theme, the A400 was impressively agile and very very quiet for sucj a large aircraft!!!
AFVG
Horizon
EFA/Typhoon
ASTER
Jaguar
Puma
Gazelle
Martel
Airbus A300
Concorde
I wouldn’t share Terminal VD with the French.
In the past the UK and France had a cooperative agreement over the development of helicopters, we developed Lynx, they developed gazelle and puma and both sides bought each others helicopters. Now many will argue at how successful this approach was and it was weighted heavily in favour of the french, but as far as I can tell this wasn’t that much of a disaster and some decent helicopters were produced…so could we re-use this strategy.
For instance guided weapons could be a key area for commonality especially with MBDA being the incumbant on both sides of the channel, or maybe something more radical…say the French buy UK high end UAV airframes (Mantis/Taranis) and fit their own systems if they want to, and the UK buys OPV hulls (i’ve read currently under development)from the French and fit our own systems if we want to.
What does everyone think?
I’ve no qualms about doing deals and buying kit from the French, some of it is exceptional. The problem lies in the deal we eventually cut. We’ve just got to make sure we don’t end up with the shi**y end of the stick.
It would be interesting to know what the French military think of their industrial-egoism, given their lack of heavy-lift helicopter capability. This must leave them somewhat scuppered on the battlefield for the sake of biting the bullet and buying a few Chinooks.
Jasons,
‘Who can tell whether the “Special Relationship” (a product of Churchill/Roosevelt) will remain the same in character 50 yrs from now?’
Is this the same special relationship where Churchill handed over our bases in the Caribbean for a fleet of fifty shagged-out and obsolete destroyers?
“I do hate being screwed by the US.”
Phil, I don’t think it’s a case of being screwed by the US – they’re just looking after their national interests. The odd thing is that we seem to think that we should be treated differently and get all upset when we’re not. If the US had created Chobham Armour do you think the british Army would have got Chobham armoured Challengers? No. The US would have insisted that we bought Abrams and probably a downgraded Abrams at that. The US will not usually buy foreign equipment. It will manufacture foreign stuff under license (think Harrier and Clevite). We have done the same with Westland Helicopters so it can be a two way street.
The more I think about it the more I like the thought of getting into bed with the French. If the UK and France, both of whom need a new assault rifle, were to adopt 7×43 as their new calibre then the rest of europe would probably follow and that would make it a defacto NATO standard no matter what the US wanted.
Perhaps, we could share a nuclear deterent? Co-operate on the next generation of SLBM’s? UK submarine technology is very good; I’m sure the French would want in . . .
@You must be joking?
Actually Jaguar was a pretty good deal for us, the French wanted something like the CAS version of the Alpha-Jet turned out to be.
Listening to the costs of F35 & the BBC interviews of the RAF people flying them, I can’t help but think that there is a lot of spin behind this project (the beeb don’t psontaneously cover defense hardware unless someone offers to pay for the newsteam!). In my experience the spin is quickly followed by a shocking revelation about the project.
Also been listening to “call me Dave” Cameron describing the UKas the junior partners in the Special Relationship.
As A result I’m leaning more and more to fitting Cats & Traps to the CV’s and buying Rafale, just out of peke! Unfortunately I know the RN would have to completely gut the airframes to fit UK avionics, comms and engines; sending the unit price through the roof!
Argh.
@Peter Arundel
I know what you mean about the French, I see the sense in your points. The problem is, can we swallow our *own* industrial-egoism enough to accept the egoism of the French?
Dave, mate, we don’t actually seem to have any industry left to get egotestical about . . .
Bae has bought up Alvis and Vickers and basically shut them down in favour of it’s overseas vehicle manufacturers (hagglunds, for example). Purely british military aircraft production is now limited to just one type – the Hawk. Over the years various governments have flogged off the varous defence reasearch establisments and shipbuilding has declined to the point where there is now a severe shortage of people who actually know how to build a ship!
Pete,
Don’t get me started on my own opinion of BAe’s more egregious sins. This is one case where I have to give the US an edge on a legal matter — its anti-trust legislation (although that’s been steadily defanged the last few decades.) It’s an almost mythic matter at this point, slay the big corporate-feudal dragon and build workable small-to-mid-sized companies from its bones. (While at the same time hacking through the thorny wall of bureaucratic mess and cleansing the Augean weekend conference centres … five impossible things before breakfast I guess.) But there are some useful bits left, at least in shipbuilding and land/air design. They need the chance to live again.
Which I guess sidles into the important question: cooperate with who? I’m all in favour of cooperating far more with European partners. I just don’t think the French are in general the best bet. Much rather team with the Italians on a number of matters of high-end kit: long good track record with Selex and its divisions intermarrying with British designers/suppliers, the Cavour would have been a good baseline for a CVF alternative wed to LHD capabilities (give it about 10m more on length and a well deck, some other jiggery-pokery and you’re there), and they seem to have a much better FREMM in mind than the French version. Or the Spanish — let’s please God get on with build for some Juan Carlos/Canberra LHDs while they’re cheap. (The Spanish seem to have passed on most of the star-up costs to the cousins from Oz, with a Spanish hull-to-deck build and British workshare on the sensors, weapons, details, etc., they’re probably cheaper than a T45.) There’s useful cooperation rather than boosting MBDA stock values and jam tomorrow about subs and the like. FSTA is a place where Anglo-French concordance makes sense. But I think the carrier-sharing picture is clouded most by the fact that, strategically, the British and French fleets have different roles, perspectives, and capabilities.
In terms of practical development, well, I have a naval disposition, but on that front and possibly others it would make more sense to cooperate extensively — on defence industry issues, on diplomacy, and on actual integration of forces — with the Dutch and Norway. Kongsberg makes some of the best unmanned underwater vehicles around, which are key (survey and MCM) to the notion of a functional C3 down the line, along with Naval Strike Missile which (ever since surface launch of Sea Eagle went south in the face of American leverage) would offer a credible alternative to buying American for surface level ship-killers. On sensors and systems, get some public-private initiatives together to ransom the likes of Racal, the once-mighty Signaal (child of Hazemeijer), and the like from Thales, get the Norse talking to BMT about their Vidar design as a replacement for the Ula-class subs, etc., etc. All of that seens far more practical than big words and cross-Channel junketeering with France.
To put a cynic’s hat on and head back to my first comment in this thraed, some of this probably also has to do with the possibility of getting Rafale orders onto British carrier decks. Word out of Farnborough is that the Brazilian air force (which seems to have maintained a remarkably professional private-censure lobby for Gripen on cost basis for their F-X program) have parried the plans of their Francophile president for a Rafale buy until after the autumn elections. If the (British) coalition’s foreign policy hands have good sense, they’ll parlay that into useful things like FSTA cooperation and some kind of plan for MBDA’s future with a more active British component down the road (as some of the most anglocentric projects move into production or even retirement) while playing coy about Raf.
A quick comment (from yours truly? Surely not :) on a well-commented thread. It’s tied to that “cooperation with who?” question.
Follow me into an alternate universe where the French don’t give such outstanding corporate junket and AMC survives in partnership with Signaal. We have SMART-L’s cousin mounted on the Darings as it is, and with AMC a going concern, might even have done an end run around Aster. (Take dear old Sea Dart, which had a world-class integral booster and a nice big body where you could get lots of new electronics in, and a nose cone big enough to admit active-seeker gear? And work with Alenia on an active version of Aspide 2000 — which has the body specs of Sea Sparrow for quad-packing and the range of CAMM — and you’d already be fielding the goods in the T45s’ VLS. Probably for less, and with much larger share for British R&D and industry. I’m willing to go to the church of Aster 30, but in that skinny body it has to work right every time or you’re laid bare, and I have a back-of-the-neck concern that something made with spectacular precision to kill the absolute worst future threats may be too “nervy” to be rugged and reliable vs. the common or garden attacker now.) There have been and are alternatives.
Now, one place where close cooperation with France on “sensitive topics” (I love French officials’ heavy-handed hints in English) would be on what comes after M51. If you can put up with our-way-or-the-highway from French R&D, it seems like the best place to piggyback for long-term Trident replacement.
Of course in the longer term how you really go around Aster (and the need to buy expensive, proprietary French tech) is, navalise Meteor. If you can avoid putting more than a minimal booster on it (and pooching out its diameter thereby, as with Aster) you can probably twin-pack it, at least, in SYLVER cells. Considerably more bang, and larger magazines/volleys to ensure kill, and if Meteor lives up to spec (good chances it will) lots of kill near the range envelope, so if that’s a few km closer (say 100 compared to 120-40) that’s not awful.