For several years there has been a slow and steady drift into greater collaboration with European allies in matters of defence. Collaboration then becomes resource sharing, then integration and before you know it we will have slid into a state of affairs that leaves us unable to deploy military capabilities alone.
The carriers are an obvious case in point. Since their inception it was always a firmly held view that the STOVL F35B offered the lowest cost of ownership. Study and study confirmed that whilst it would always be the most expensive capital option, over the lifetime of the aircraft the savings would be significant when compared to the more traditional CATOBAR arrangements as found on US and French carriers.
Nothing in this has changed despite the SDSR confidently predicting that the F35C will offer a cheaper solution. Given the half baked costings and vague notions of saving money, the SDSR does not inspire any confidence in this at all so those assertions will have been largely based on best estimates, or guesses to you and me. The UK has almost no reliable data on which to base such decisions, it has been more than 40 years since we operated CATOBAR carriers/aircraft.
In an interview with BBC Scotland during a visit to the Govan shipyard, Liam Fox said:
“There are estimates of the cost, ranging upwards from £500m. There are a lot of studies going on, which will determine exactly what system, what costs and where”
So yet again, we are adding more cost into the programme but aren’t really quite sure about how much
What has suddenly changed?
The switch to the CATOBAR F35C has absolutely nothing to do with saving money and nothing to do with specifications; it is all about European and Anglo French politics. The SDSR mentions interoperability with allies as one of the driving factors for the switch but this provides absolutely no benefit for the UK.
Whilst we are busy flogging off the Harriers to the Indians or Americans, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy will meet in London tomorrow to confirm and announce the details of greater military cooperation.
French defence minister Hervé Morin, speaking at the Euronaval 2010 conference last week, confirmed that greater cooperation concerning the two nations’ carriers was being investigated.
“Beyond joint exercises, we are in favour of sharing the accompanying of aircraft carriers, a British frigate could perfectly well participate in the protection of the Charles de Gaulle and vice versa. I’ve asked our military command to consider the feasibility of stationing British aircraft on our aircraft carrier and vice versa. The British have decided to equip their aircraft carriers with catapults, we can have joint exercises, but also arrange to have a Rafale squadron make use of the British platform”
Earlier this month it was suggested that French nuclear facilities could be used to maintain the warheads on the UK’s strategic nuclear deterrent. The French are also said to be offering the UK use of their Bréguet Atlantic maritime patrol aircraft following the announcement that the Nimrod MRA4 would be scrapped.
Morin said restrictions on sharing carriers “in the case of a conflict or crisis where our respective interests diverged” were likely, and any treaty agreed during Cameron and Sarkozy’s meeting must cover the difficult issue of how and when the UK and France might deploy shared carriers.
I think a deal on the FSTA transport and refuelling aircraft is also on the horizon and suggested this some time ago.
Other likely outcomes will be shared training and maintenance for the A400, nuclear warhead maintenance, carrier maintenance and even a joint brigade.
Writing in the Telegraph, Liam Fox said
It makes little sense for the two most powerful armed forces in Europe to be spending more than necessary on duplicate capabilities which could be delivered in a more cost effective manner
It makes perfect sense if we are a sovereign nation with control over the means of our defence, we are Great Britain, not Europe.
The spin will be that this is an arrangement with France not the EU but we all know where this is going.
The reality is, the UK and France have many shared interests and greater resource sharing on non combat capabilities (maintenance and training etc) is not wholly unreasonable but a joint brigade and almost symbiotic relationship on carriers is a step too far.
The 1998 SDR was lacking in any form of commitment to making a clear choice between NATO, the US and Europe in matters of defence. It fudged the issue but still crept closer to Europe, trying to maintain the illusion that we could be all things to all men. This simply does the same but yet again, actions and words are not the same thing, we talk about the US and NATO but edge ever closer to Europe.
This makes the decision to change from the F35B to the F35C look 100% political and the operational and cost issues can go hang, the important thing is to secure a joint UK/French, and by extension, European, carrier capability.
We are on the glide path, it starts with cooperation, then a spot of common capability sharing, then joint equipment programmes and before you know it, we no longer have independence and have therefore arrived at a de facto EU Defence Capability.
How easy would it be to divide the shared assets (aircraft, carriers, etc.) when the inevitable messy divorce happens? Really, I think this arrangemet is indicative of the ridiculously Francophile view held by the occupants a certain Westminster Palace. Surely the general populace don’t share this view, or the view that further EU integration is good generally?
“and almost symbiotic relationship on carriers is a step too far.”
agreed, the obvious answer is to bring both british carriers into service, thus maintaining a permanent ability to deploy a carrier task group.
I know that for the UK it is a huge, primarily psychological, step being forced to cooperate more closely with another country. Pride also plays its part in all this.
Just remember that deeper cooperation and total (defense) integration are two different things.
As a small country, Holland was forced to enter deeper cooperation early on, and truth be told, there was serious fear being overruled as Holland would always be seen as the little guy trying to “hang out” with the big boys.
Losing our unique position within NATO also had an impact on national pride, and then some.
But overall, it turned out reasonably well.
Some succesfull examples are the UK/NL Amphibious Landing Force, the GE/NL deployable Army Corps HQ and ADMBENELUX (joint Belgian/Neth. navy staff) to name but a few.
To keep a long story short; closer European cooperation doesn’t automatically becomes full European integration. Remember that a lot – and I do mean A LOT – of countries across the Channel are vehemently opposed to a federal Europe as well.
Strange, if you call this “NATO” everyone’s just fine with truly deep integration of command, infrastructure, training, equipment.
Because NATO is a collective defence agreement, and one that ties the worlds largest military power to our interests, whereas the EU is a political project who aim is “ever-deeper-political-union”, something most people instinctively realise is an unworkable disaster.
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/a-future-european-kratos-%E2%80%93-will-it-be-legitimate-in-the-absence-of-a-demos/
NATO had a common military goal.
Whats the common miliatary goal of the EU?
Is it something the UK shares?
Did NATO Membership imperil UK security?
Speaking to BBC Radio 4, newly appointed Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir David Richards confirmed plans for greater cooperation but denied that the two countries’ forces would operate within one brigade.
“We are going to fight in something called an expeditionary joint force, which sees us possibly working alongside them at brigade level, but not within the same brigade,” said Richards, adding that it made “absolute sense” to be in close cooperation with the French.
As well as possible joint overseas deployments, the proposals are also said to include the sharing of equipment, military transport, joint research projects and joint training.
sounds pretty sensible……..
provided you want a foreign nation hostile to your interests to have a Veto on your use of military force…
I am sorry but I think many of you are taking the whole euro-skeptic thing to rather tenuous lengths here.
For the French CdG is turning into a disaster. They have not ordered PA2 yet, so we are likely to have both of our carriers built before they have got two hulls. Therefore they have an issue with keeping pilots current and CQ’d etc. So please tell me how embarking 12 Rafale alongside 12 F35C / F18E or whatever, is starting on the slippery slope to giving up UK sovereignty ?
As I commented on another post, I actually think UK should “do a Norway” where it comes to the EU – but when it comes to bilateral UK – French military co-operation – so what ?
Did they send as many minesweepers to the Gulf during Iran-Iraq war as the UK, yes. Have they always let us use Djibouti if we wanted to, yes. Do they have a similar post-colonial requirement to protect territories spread around the globe, yes. Did they do a good job in the Balkans, yes. Did they join in fully with the Liberation of Kuwait, yes.
So a joint expeditionary force and a carrier sharing agreement or whatever allows both countries to make more cuts to their respective forces, which I happen to think is wrong. So I agree with Alex and Marcase, and promise not to comment any more on political focused articles
avoiding that would require making up the force deficit ourselves, which we plainly cannot do……..
I am fine with bilateral and multi-lateral ad-hoc arrangements within europe, but the result must be inter-governmental and supra-national, and must preserve the ability for sovereign and strategic power projection.
Jed/i
Because theres a lot more to it than that.
Its not the UK doing France a favour because it doesnt have a second carrier yet.
The FAA is gone and will never be replaced.
In 2015-2020 when the F35C is due to be purchased, the arguement will be made that we cant afford it / it isnt necessary.
Its also a bad deal for the French, the chance of the UK sending a carrier so France can bomb its seperatist colonies is virtualy nill as well.
Its not co-operation.
Its co-option.
Both have been Co-Opted into an EU army which, much as cameron says is nothing like St Malo, looks an awful lot like St Malo.
Just noticed a column in today’s Metro quoting Jock Stirrup. Apparently the deal to build the two carriers was a sop to the shipbuilding industry. In return for consolidating down to one UK shipbuilding site, the government of the day would guarantee them work for the next ten years or so in the form of two carriers. If this is true then this backroom deal has protected a narrow set of industrial interests, while forcing the shape of the entire UK defence strategy for the next 20 years. Sorry if this is old news to observers here, I knew there were a host of different interests at work but to hear about a clear cut deal like this took me by surprise.
DomS
Have a read of this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Surface_Ships
Isn’t anybody going to say the French only ever send the Légion étrangère to war and keep the “French” units at home?
I think I just have.
X
I can remember a comment made by in Gulf 1 when the french sent a task force, US General stated, that was fine but on whose side did they intend to fight?
“Apparently the deal to build the two carriers was a sop to the shipbuilding industry”
It was a pretty sensible decision from part of the pretty sensible DIS, a good labour idea once again wrecked by an utter failure to fund it, much like the SDR98.
Given the size of the job of building two carriers it was felt best that the remaining naval ship-building should merge, not trusting a feckless government BAE and VT required a promise of orders to justify them merging their shipbuilding businesses.
How right they were to do so!
From the shipbuilders’ point of view, would you have signed a contract taking up your entire capacity for years, that involved some pretty impressive investments up front like enlarging the dry dock in Rosyth and training up a load of apprentices, without getting a damn good guarantee that it would actually happen and you wouldn’t be left with an empty order book, an enlarged dry dock, and 50,000 tonnes of spare steel plates when somebody thought they knew better?
13 years in the DIS showed me that the French CAN NOT be trusted. At NATO working level meetings and in bi-lateral get-togethers – no one trusted them. We must be mad.
Will some posters on here please read what they post. “The French are not to be trusted” we are being coopted”. We are living in the 21st Century not the 19th. We no longer rule the waves and nor should we. We are a small Island Nation of 60 million people. This century will see the development of Brazil, India and China. The only way we can counterbalance these large blocs is through a united European front. If that also happens to stop us using some kit on helping the US sieze Iraqi oil then all the better.
All Polititians are the same.
France’s recent millitary history is not brilliant. Particularly in cooperation. In Bosnia on one occasion a French commander completly bypassed the command structure he was supposed to be under, and “Phoned home” to the President de la Republic for orders after a bridge he was supposed to hold was taken.
They initally refused to take part in joint action in gulf 1, untill it became clear that regardless of their shenannigans it was going to happen, then they decided to play nice.
Then there was the in and out of NATO dance.
They are not bad soldiers, they are not cowards, they have some good kit.
But if they decide that it is not in their interrest, then previously signed agreements mean little or nothing.
I doubt seriously they would lend us their carrier to retake the Falklands.
Right, I’ve calmed down a bit since my first post, but the continual spin flying around this announcement is making my head hurt.
1/. Rapid Response brigade. The French have been keen on this sort of capability since the 70′s. But is it a standing force like the ones proposed in the 80′s (which didn’t work), an ad-hoc arrangement put together on a per-mission basis or a seperate supra-nationsal force? The 1st, will be inflexible as *only* the units allocated will be avaiable (that’s how the 80′s efforts foundered); the last option is a dangerous precedent that could lead to a pan-european army and I don’t see any difference in the middle option that any 2 NATO partners wouldn’t do anyway?
2/. Joint control of carriers. Will this just be to maintain flight hours and technical skills until both countries have enough money to run a decent carrier fleet as a sovereign capability? Or are we really going to loan carriers to each other operationally? The former is good sense given our budget situation and the intransigence of cancelling the carriers. The latter is madness – if FAA aircraft are on a French carrier and it sails into a war that the UK is against/doesn’t want to be invoved in then can the pilots refuse to fly? Would the French captain charge them with mutiny? What would be a situation aboard a UK carrier steaming towards the Falklands if French pilots refused to take-off?
3/. Nuclear testing cooperation. This is about the only thing that makes sense (and it is probably why it is subject to a separate agreement). Currently we use Aldermaston and Los Alamos in the USA for testing and maintenance. All we’re doing is changing the partner. Jedi makes a good point that there needs to be an industrial strength firewall to prevent US IP leakage to the French, but overall I’m surprised no-one thought of this before.
I am aware that we are in the 21st century, “All Polititians are the same”, but that doesn’t mean that we should ignore the lessons of history. Our alliances with France have brought us nothing but grief.
We believe that joining an alliance means subordinating your interests to those of the alliance. The French don’t believe this.
Sarkozy is quoted as saying (question about the Falklands), can you imagine Britain in a major crisis and France standing back? The answer to that is YES.
As it is being said that this is all about money – how about predicting which British made equipment will be bought by the French?
“In 2015-2020 when the F35C is due to be purchased, the arguement will be made that we cant afford it / it isnt necessary.”
that, if true, would be a tragedy
I certainly think it might be beneficial in terms of equipment purchases. There is talk of a loss of soverignty but don’t we risk that already with the USA?
Why purchase Trident when we might get a more 50/50 partnership with the French and the M51? Develop the NavalScalp? Buy the FREMM rather than develop the probably more expensive Type26?
Are we truly independent when we buy equipment from a non-British provider? What happens if we find ourselves in anothe Falklands which the US disagree with so refuse to provide the necessary materials to maintain and service our US-purchased equipment?
Better a 50/50 relationship than a 90/10 one.
“Why purchase Trident when we might get a more 50/50 partnership with the French and the M51?”
because we would swap the sovereignty issue from the US to France, and have a deterrent that cost twice as much instead.