The UK and France must expand their defence industrial collaboration, particularly in missile development, space, AI, and hybrid warfare, to strengthen European security and deter further Russian aggression, according to Maria Eagle, Minister of State for Defence Procurement and Industry.
Speaking at RUSI and IFRI in London on 5th March, Eagle emphasised the importance of a strong industrial base to underpin military power, calling for a renewed UK-France defence partnership that would deepen defence cooperation beyond existing missile programmes.
Eagle underscored the success of “One MBDA”, a long-standing partnership between the UK and France that has delivered advanced defensive and offensive missile systems such as Meteor and SCALP/Storm Shadow. She also highlighted the Future Cruise and Anti-Ship Weapons (FC/ASW) programme, which will provide Europe with its most advanced deep-strike capability.
She stated:
“Through ‘One MBDA’ we’ve helped safeguard European missile production capabilities and delivered innovative defensive and offensive systems… Together we are co-developing powerful Future Cruise and Anti-Ship Weapons, a sovereign capability that boosts our industrial resilience and will deliver the most advanced deep-strike weapons in Europe.”
Additionally, Eagle pointed to the Maritime Mine Counter-Measures Project with Thales, which will soon see the UK take delivery of its first set of autonomous mine-hunting equipment, marking a new phase in maritime defence technology.
Eagle called for broader defence industrial collaboration, coining the term “Entente Industrielle” to describe a deeper UK-France partnership that goes beyond missiles. She argued that the June UK-France Summit should focus on expanding cooperation into space, AI, and grey-zone warfare while reinforcing NATO’s collective deterrence efforts.
She warned that Europe must act decisively to prevent further Russian aggression, stating:
“If we are to re-establish security across the European continent and dissuade Putin from coming back again to invade one of his sovereign neighbours, we need to use our Summit in June to broaden our defence industrial collaboration.”
Eagle positioned European deterrence not just as a strategic necessity but as an economic opportunity, noting that deepened cooperation in defence manufacturing would support thousands of jobs in both countries.
Eagle also announced that the UK’s Defence Industrial Strategy is in its final stages after a nationwide public consultation. She revealed that the strategy will prioritise new research and industrial ventures with international allies like France, focusing on standardisation, interoperability, and strengthening defence supply chains.
She also reiterated that the UK is seeking a new security pact with the EU, stating:
“We know the EU has a role to play in building a larger, more innovative, and more responsive European defence sector. And we would welcome French support as we seek an ambitious new UK-EU security pact.”
Eagle highlighted the need for Europe to boost industrial resilience, pointing to NATO’s Defence Production Action Plan, the DIAMOND integrated air and missile defence initiative, and the European Long-Range Strike Approach as key frameworks that should be strengthened.
She argued that collective procurement will enhance Europe’s military readiness while ensuring greater efficiency, stating:
“Collective procurement will deliver more of the capabilities we need across the continent to deter Putin… and deliver more bang for our Pounds and Euros.”
Eagle will meet her French counterpart, Délégué Emmanuel Chiva, at the High-Level UK-France Working Group, where she will push for greater integration of European defence industries ahead of the June UK-France Summit. This meeting will shape the refresh of the Lancaster House Treaties, which have underpinned UK-French defence cooperation for the past 15 years.
Eagle closed her speech by drawing historical parallels, stating:
“Like our predecessors who built the Entente Cordiale to secure peace in their time, we must now build an Entente Industrielle to guarantee European security in ours.”
Might be time to bring back an updated Alarm arm missile.
Electronic attack modes on modern AESA radars are more effective.
At 60 to 100 miles range ?
[ 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐃𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐦 𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐫 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐔𝐬 ]
Start your career with us today and work from the comfort of your home! No skills or experience required—just your dedication and a desire to succeed. Receive your payments weekly or monthly, depending on your preference. It’s a great opportunity to kickstart your career, earn a steady income, and enjoy the flexibility of working on your own terms! So Hurry and
Get Started Now.”….. 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝟏.𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞/
Where is Julia?? 🖕You gave up on girls names!
Also the ability of Mother to use its radar to issue mid course correction to a missile to take out the enemy radar with the missile running passive.
One of the reasons why specific anti radar missiles aren’t such an important thing anymore. What is important is the something telling the missile where to go and what to look for and take out.
under the watchful eyes of 5-Eyes?
In what way? As in 5 eyes spying on European countries?
yes
Yes, it happens. Both ways.
true , but 5 eyes is far better at it. French intel didn’t exactly shine pre 2022 invasion
Interesting article in the Times today about what Britain will have to do in the event of being cut off from Trident II missiles stores at Kings Bay. Tobias Elwood states the missiles can last longer than four years without maintenance so could go past a trump term but that assumes the Orange one will be having elections in 2028.
Also interestingly, M51 Dimensions (French SLBM) are similar but smaller than Trident II so a British derived version of M51 will fit with in Vanguard and Dreadnaught.
Time to star now. Quietly walking away from the Trident II life extension and W93 warhead program.
Jim I’m convinced I am merely in a video game with someone/thing manipulating everything, my thoughts and results are all getting too close for comfort on all these matters. Lots of similar ‘coincidences’ lately but today alone, while on my mundane walk back from B&Q I was thinking we need a new Entente Cordiale with France and lo and behold Eagle seems to be planning it. Also we need to get in as closely as possible to these EU defence proposals today, yep on that one too. Then I was thinking we have to face up to the fact that we will at best be subject to likely threats over close US weapon ties if we get too onboard with Europe or otherwise don’t behave like a lapdog to MAGA and upset the man child or possibly worse if a MAGA maniac like Vance follows him, you know someone who doesn’t have a Scottish mother or even a Scottie dog to diminish their worst machinations. And prime in that equation I imagined was Trident and my first thought thereafter was to wonder what relative sizes are Trident and the French missiles and is there any chance we could move to a French based missile in a Dreadnought class submarine and here we are you answer that one for me.
Obviously considerations of this nature were inspired by Macron’s offer to expand French nuclear cover to Europe and what chance if any that we could do something similar. Whatever our true independence to use Trident, it’s difficult to imagine there isn’t some US targeting assistance (perhaps other needs too) involved there to work effectively and you can guarantee that we would not be allowed to offer Europe a similar unbrella to what France can do so, yet Europe’s freedom to fight and resist Putin is vital to our own independence so such cover in this new World of nuclear Billy big bollox requires our input I fear to be taken seriously, give enough depth and exert influence far and wide and resist threats from either side of the pond.
So though it may be many years in the future studying where we go post Trident (or sooner if relations get really fractious) is vital to consider now. I think it equally vital, and it’s another question I contemplated, is to have a nuclear option on our long range attack missiles, be they ground launched, air launched or sea/submarine launched to enhance our options in light of the Trident question and to put greater doubts in Russian minds plus the knowledge that we need to be able to scale response to any Russian scaled aggression themselves. Plus it can be used to help support and defend any of the alliance of the willing so Russia can’t pick off weaker members with an abundance of threats no doubt and little fear of response, assuming it will be everyone for themselves. After all their policy culminating in this war has been to divide the US and Europe which the useful idiot has given them. It will help get around the Trident conundrum sooner, give more potent flexibility and offer potential cooperation with France and others with possible investments from the likes of Germany and Poland who are keen to have nuclear cover, but as the US is now a potential plastic duck of an assurance, that increasingly must come from Britain and France. This gives Europe true independence eventually and wider potential financial support to the nuclear powers to maintain their nuclear options. So my remaining question is can uk warheads be used or adapted to other platforms or alternatively could Britain and France work together to offer a solution I wonder? To have our AUKUS subs have that sort of option would give a substantial uptick in capability and deterrence.
Yes, I believe there is targeting assistance.
A Nuclear Liaison cell from the UK resides in the US, and I think we are included in the US SIOP, though not privy to its details.
Answer on the UK warheads is yes they could be put onto an adapted M51 third stage. The main issue would be adapting a re entry vehicle. We use the US developed re entry vehicle, the French have their own so it’s likely we would have to develop something new and they are apparently quite tricky to manufacture. Makes sense for the UK to share warhead development with France and the USA, we already do this anyway. Main thing is making sure we have a 100% British built and maintained weapon so we are not simply swapping US instability for French instability.
France designed and produced its M51’s for €7 billion which is equivalent to a single year of the money the government is increasing the defence budget by. This is very doable.
Will France and Britain extend the nuclear umbrella to Ukraine?
Jim when they say our industry is very intertwined they really do mean it and unraveling it isn’t something that can just be magicked up. The next generation of Warhead A27/mk7 will be far less reliant on US supplied materials than the present ones are, but you’re talking 15/20 years before you can get there.
It all comes down to the US and UK supplying nuclear materials and tech to each other and there is one particular one (Tritium) that you need to replace on a regular basis due to its half life which we do not produce (yet). So if you just upend the applecart you risk us not having any operational warheads in just a few years which is way sooner than we could have a stand alone replacement. As for sharing designs with the French if you want to see just how fast the US goes Ape Shit at us just do that, and by that I mean 5 Eyes, AUKUS, export bans for spares etc etc etc. The US/UK Mutual Defence Treaty specifically bans us from collaborating with anyone else.
On the other hand the UK is developing with Canada the ability to produce Tritium (UKAEA Culham) for Fusion reactors so it’s not impossible that we could develop our own standalone Warhead tech again but it will be MEGA expensive.
They should form a kind of European Economic Community where they can focus on these economic issues…….
You mean like some kind of customs Union with harmonised standards and free movement of capital
What a great idea, I wonder why no one thought for that before, sounds like it would really boost trade and make the UK richer and safer 🤔
With free movement of capital from the richer nations Germany/UK etc to the Mediterranean Nations to ensure that prices rose in the Mediterranean nations to the same level as the rich nations. With a hard booking ceiling that Germany and the Scandis keep to and that France, Italy, Portugal and Spain ignore as it suits them…..
*borrowing
Sounds more like your describing a currency Union rather than a customs Union with harmonised standards.
Sounds like a terrible idea. 🙂
Putin and US Corporate interests (via their proxies Farage et al) must have wanted Brexit to seriously undermine the EU, probably to the extent that it was fatally fractured and fell apart. Divide and Rule what’s left. Thankfully, it’s pretty obvious that this attempt has failed.
What’s worse though from their perspective is that it actually ended up strengthening the EU. The far-right nutters across Europe, who are bought and paid for by Putin and others, don’t now dare to argue for their countries to leave the EU as the resulting impact on the UK is clear for all to see. Putin’s and Trump’s action have only reinforced support for continued EU membership.
Consequently, we ended up in the one situation that the UK has been trying to avoid for hundreds of years: Europe being dominated by a single dominant power but the UK being unable to influence it. I hope we’re not as naive and short-sighted on similar matters in the future.
I guess UK hard-right wanted to align us with MAGA and American corporate interests (‘chlorinated chicken’) but as we can now see that was a horrible mis-calculation.
Spot on Tim, having listened to the Bannon tapes who after all was a close advisor to Trump, which revealed the great plan of undermining the EU breaking it up, sowing discontent and gaining control of the individual nations destroying Europe as a competitor economically and exploiting them ruthlessly can there be any doubt of the truth of that intent now. Trump himself has said the EU was set up to ‘destroy America’ and as we see Russia and Trump getting a room together, and both working hard years back to push us towards Brexit is that really just coincidence? Good to see that Farage’s popularity has nosedived in recent days as his true plan of being the well paid Quisling ensuring Britains increasing colonisation by the US becomes not only clearer to his fanboys and girls but thankfully starts to fragment. Maple MAGA is collapsing too thanks to Trump and when even the French hard right start walking out of conferences due to further ‘Roman salutes’ I think the message of tying yourself to that mob is looking increasingly unproductive. Not sure what Orban is thinking at the moment but clearly Erdogan is less comfortable at the thought of a Russian/US alignment for good reason. I think the right wing movements in Europe will move away from MAGA for self survival and in the knowledge that the US regime has no interest in defending or supporting Europe and they are mere useful idiots to be manipulated to destroy it.
In the end we can only hope these events have indeed proved a wake up call to Europe and ensure in fighting declines and a general need to work and invest together is vital to survive let alone succeed. It enables Britain to form closer links too but a little more on favourable terms I think without the usual expected level of hostility. Even the Mail and Express are suddenly becoming anti American of late, whatever next. In the meantime Trump has had to blink over the ludicrous tariff tactics because the grown ups in markets are killing him over them Canada and Mexico are humiliating him at least amongst the sane observers and Musk and his borrowed billions based on Tesla stock value is going through the floor and I note even his work at doge got a warning from Trump tonight. Must be all the demonstrations, though the press in this Country seem rather loathe to dwell upon them…. Except on LBC. Even his closest followers will soon see far from being the Emperor he wants he is merely the ‘Emporor’ with no clothes.
I am no supporter of Farage or Trump but you have been spending too much time on the internet listening to conspiracy stories. Farage and the far rights nutters as you call them are the direct result of a complete disenchantment with main stream politics.
Continuing uncontrolled and unsustainable immigration, PC policies, net zero zealotry and the abandonment of many people in areas where traditional industries have been allowed to disappear without any form of replacement are the reasons we have a rise in Reform and others across the continent.
The impact of Putin on BREXIT was as much Obama’s, it was minuscule.
Our current difficulties like the EU’s and a few others across the continent is we have become to complacent about the protection the US has provided and now that is evaporating we are struggling to adapt.
I will repeat I am no supporter of Trump who is an unpleasant individual but he did serve us notice and our political class sneered at him because they never thought he would be re-elected to fulfil his promises.
Whether we are in the EU or not our ability to continue with our centuries old policy of avoiding any one nation dominating the continent was abandoned when we cut our military capabilities to a point where they are not a sufficient size to act as a strategic deterrent in a conventional war. That was at least 25 years ago. Of course you could justifiably argue the US has to all intents and purposes dominated the continent since 1945 and therein lies the problem.
We now along with the rest of Europe need to sort ourselves out and reinvest in our military capabilities and become far more self reliant in our industrial base and most importantly diplomatically. That is a huge task.
The Brexit vote had nothing to do with the EU.
It was all about the disenfranchised electorate rubbing the “establishment’s” nose in it.
Some things we’ve talked about before: Any possibility of an Anglo French Rafale to complement F36Bs numbers? What’s happening with the Arealis (probably spelt wrong) trainer, weren’t the French interested in that as their Alpha Jet replacement? Expediting further Aster 30+ development including a UK SAMP/T system as part of GBAD. Will we see the Tempest program become more European? And, if I can be absolutely bonkers, would the UK consider having a nuclear PA-NG type carrier replacing a QE carrier or converting one/both over or into a hybrid?
Seems good ideas.Converting one of the QE into CATOBAR or STOBAR would allow it to receive some Rafale M even with ASMP.
Maybe the 3 Mistral LHDs could be modified to receive some F35Bs. Franco English interoperability would be enhanced. Maybe GB should also think about French M51 missiles for SSBNs if they could fit in.
Another point, FRANCE and GB have 4 SSBNs each, so maybe we could both build 2 more so that we would be on par with Russia.
That seems a good idea. If the British and French nuclear deterrent is going to spread over more of Europe then the Europeans can pay for additional ballistic missiles subs. Now is the time to do that as both countries are recapitalising their SSBN fleets now.
12 subs each armed with 12-16 missiles means Europe could potential field circa 800-1000 warheads which is a significant uplift over the current 525 total between UK+France.
I’d think the French M51 missile is going to become a key system within Europe with the UK potentially switching from Trident to M51 if the USA withdraws it’s support from our deterrent force. In essence we would have 5 years to adopt and fit the French M51.
You only need tohave ability to obliterate Russia once. Between UK and France there is currently a 2 x potential.. Having thousands of nuclear warheads is the definition of economic madness
The current British and French SSBN fleet can carry more than 800 warheads if fully equipped even without an uplift in hull numbers, I agree 800 to 1000 is the right number. Puts us on rough par with Chinas target.
It’s anyone’s guess if the USA and Russia can afford to maintain 1500 deployed weapons longer term. The US Sentinal program is awful and SARMAT is a disaster for Russia.
This European funded deterrent force, who would have the finger on the trigger?
Who would have a say as to when?
This is Europe – Lunatic idea.
Hi Quentin,
The Trainer is Aeralis, and there were noises from the French about considering it for the Alphajet replacement.
I think a UK Rafale purchase is almost certainly not going to happen, F35 is superior to it in combat and we already have Typhoon as a european alternative.
If you want bonkers, the Italian navy released powerpoint slides today suggesting that they want to procure a single nuclear carrier, SSNs and nuclear powered destroyers!
Morning SB, wow, Italy is going gang busters! The old Roman empire is stirring! I wonder if there’s any Anglo European talk going on this considering what the UK is also looking at. I also saw on Janes that Indonesia is looking at getting the ex Italian Garibaldi and some Harriers. I like there DDX destroyers and especially their Trieste ships. One visited Aus recently. A useful half way between the Albion/Ocean and QE carriers. A couple of those and maybe 4 MRSS. All this talk of expansion. And Turkey too building a carrier.
Some extra questions…could the Sylver system be developed to take mk41 weapons, including quad/tri/bi-packed CAMM? And even the recent GraveHawk SAM containerised system. This could be developed to take the naval 6 siloed CAMM set on a rear or side-loadable flat pallet/s into a 20’/40′ container? You should be able to get up to 2×6 CAMM into a 40′. If containerised there’s less need for a mk41.
I think I read a while back that the French are indeed making Sylver more amenable to non French missiles, through necessity really. Can’t remember any more details mind.
Seems a little odd Italy contemplating nuclear powered ships beyond subs where it makes sense and arguably carriers. But considering they are a fundamentally Mediterranean navy is that logical? Won’t happen mind and certainly not without a substantial increase in defence spending on their part.
Italy is always a country that needs to import energy. One of reasons for Italy entry in WW2.
Nuclear energy in Italy makes all sense.
Still we should not think that nuclear energy don’t lead to dependency albeit with different timings if well managed. Most of the enrichment market is controlled by Russia. In 2024 Europe bough about 1B$ of nuclear products from Russia.
Sadly I think it’s now time for Europe to begin its plans to detach itself as a strategic partner from the U.S.
Make no mistake what we are seeing is two predatory non European powers now essentially colluding to take apart a European democracy for its 15 trillion dollars of mineral wealth. We are also seeing the U.S. follow Russia in its own Near Abroad policy as it undertakes political warfare attacks to subjugate Canada and Mexico. The U.S. has essentially enabled Russia to pay for its continued wartime economy..build its armed forces and go for the next victim…there now will be a new Russian empire..around 7 trillion in minerals added to Russias own significant mineral and natural resources will power that wartime Ecconomy and places like Georgia will fall like leaves after the Ukraine war ends.
Trump believes in a world of predatory powers..he sees china Russia and the U.S. as the apex predators and European Nations as nothing more than a place to fight over for control of resources and markets.
Europe has probably now essentially two choices..
1) cast itself on US mercy and hope MAGA America does not become to predatory..but we will be making America great again on the backs of European and other nations that are within its area and hoping we are not sold out to a new Russian empire for US advantage…when it has an inevitable war with china.
2) Europe developers of collective approach to both geo strategy and geopolitics..and takes its place alongside the world powers…US, Russia and China…it will mean we probably will end up as neutral trading partners with the U.S. and china and bitter enemies with Russia…
If it was only a couple of things I would think trump wars playing fast and loss to get Europeans to pay more for NATO..but now we have the US attacking its closest friend ( Canada) using sub kinetic warfare, essentially colluding with Russia to destroy Ukraine and steal its wealth.. saying it will walk from NATO.
Good post Jonathan. Trump, Putin, Xi, all seemingly and at ease put themselves above international law, disregard world bodies like the UN, ICC, ICJ, and disrespect international boundaries and norms. And as you say the rest of the world gets squeezed and the smaller players have to try and defend itself. It’s going to be interesting to watch how far in strength the UK and Europe/Scandinavia bloc get and how quickly. I think Starmer is speaking and representing the UK well on the world’s stage and importantly standing with Ukraine as is most of Europe. Hope he keeps on going. 🇦🇺 🇬🇧 🇺🇦
*defend themselves.
Jonathan, – Ms. Eagle confuses me a bit. Vlad is a friend and future business partner of DJT, no?? And Nato is effective null and dead. So, she is attacking an American ally. Those in Quad and 5 eyes worry that US could share their Intel with buddy Puttie who has deep links with Xi J P. Old Donnie is ground breaking, he has a love in to bring Russia in from the cold. Except China is ready for any type of War, which P Hegseth loves as a call to war. Things are changing by the hour
Trump is under the delusion that he can split Russia from China which it won’t do because Putin and co know the US is an unreliable ‘ally’ at best while they can’t afford to upset the Chinese who want their former lands back and that will be their ultimate conflict eventually and Russia needs to play for time, European capitulation in some form is all part of that. But certainly for a now weakened Russia to have the US as a perceived pawn in its own game of long term survival is beneficial, but a stronger more unified Europe I suspect wasn’t expected. I wonder if Europe might play its own game in search of power projection by cosying up to China be it real or relatively suggestive of its potential. Indeed Canada has already threatened this manoeuvre as a bargaining chip and others will do the same.
Like your comments on the collusion over mineral resources and competition with China over everything! Russia is obviously wanting to gain full waterfront on the Asov and probably wants to landlock Ukraine out of the black Sea, but it has lost easy access to the Med and limitations through the Baltic and this must be frustrating its ambitions. Do both Trump, Putin want to play by the ot any “rules” anyway? Does China join in? Do the US, Russia and China leadership care about the rest of the world? Hopefully the “rest of us” can still have a place against these three.
There will be power struggles between the three that’s for sure. Trump wants to ease Russia away from China but no doubt he will try to use his ‘friendship’ with Russia as leverage against China to get them to play ball. I expect this unsubtle two timing while it will have effects, won’t achieve anything like what Trump delusionally hopes for the other two are far too smart for that. Xi is already powerful enough to resist as the statement today reflects and within ten years will be calling the shots in reality. They need to build up their nuclear stockpiles and once that’s a achieved they will be unmatched by the other two. How the US will handle that is the big question the Maggalytes will be totally out of control, they won’t enjoy taking the knee that’s for sure.
Like your comments on the collusion over mineral resources and competition with China over everything! Russia is obviously wanting to gain full waterfront on the Asov and probably wants to landlock Ukraine out of the black Sea, but it has lost easy access to the Med and limitations through the Baltic and this must be frustrating its ambitions. Do both Trump, Putin want to play by the ot any “rules” anyway? Does China join in? Do the US, Russia and China leadership care about the rest of the world? Hopefully the “rest of us” can still have a place against these three.
*by the rules
Sorry for the duplication.
Regardless of cost start by getting a replacement for trident so we are not at the mercy of the orange turd. Our nuclear deterrent is needed more now than it ever has been. And make sure we own them with our own ability to maintain them indefinitely.
It goes beyond the actual ability to blow shit up. Having an independent nuclear capability means we are not having our foreign policy dictated by a 3rd party who can pull the plug on us if we don’t dance to their tune.
I agree, Europe already has more soldiers and armoured vehicles than the USA and Russia combined. Making sure we have a 100% independent nuclear capability should be our number one priority.
Yep nuclear deterrent forces vital. An uptick in submarines and ballistic missiles to support an independent European NATO deterrent is vital.
I’d like the RAF and other air forces Dutch, French, German, Polish to have the ability to launch air delivered nuclear bombs and storm shadow/ scalp delivered intermediate range and low payload/ yield nukes as a counter to Russia returning to intermediate range ballistic missiles in contrary to previous treaties.
Europe needs key enablers that previously the USA provider so shared AWACS, Air to Air refuelling, istar platforms, satellite intelligence sources, ballistic missiles defences as well as uniformed military units such as all armoured vehicles to have APS, having enough anti drone SHORAD units.
Europe in theory should have an equivalent unified military power beyond anything Russia could even consider but we have not just harvested the pea e dividend but disarmed ourselves and ignore for 3 years the escalating threats. The Orange Messiah’s return to the USA has just delivered the short sharp shock Europe needed to awaken from it’s slumber and realise our peace, security and national interests have to be defended and that defence does not come cheap.
It’s not that we need to spend a particular percentage but we do need to deliver capabilities, close gaps and ensure we have enough for attrition and enduring a prolonged intense conflict.
That means numbers of troops, numbers of platforms, numbers of enablers and crucially enough spares and munitions.
SDSR has to deliver a huge uptick. Just like France has just declared in Macrons statement last night pledging a doubling of the armed forces by 2030.
2.5% isn’t enough and frankly is just a distraction. The percentage is irrelevant the capability to counter the threats is what we must concentrate upon and the cost will be the cost.
Europe just green lit a €800 billion fund, they should be able to get most of what is needed for that.
And 2030 is not far away!
And 2030 is not far away!
Interesting to see on Newsnight that even now Europe spends more than Russia on defence and over half what the US does and ironically the Duke of Orange is intending to decrease their defence spending. This resurgence in Europe potentially gets our spending to within striking distance of the US especially so if the extreme US waste and their multiple production and expense of similar platforms avoided. You don’t need to physically match the US just be close enough with a manpower capable of outmatching them if required. Anything like that will have a great effect on their psyche esp if Canada starts pulling its weight on defence too and gets ever closer to Europe. Trump and co have always wanted Europe as in the old days to spend much more on defence but let the US make all the de isions ie just be a stronger force for them to play with on their chess board. Like Russia throwing dummies out today I do wonder if Trump ever thought that a rearmed Europe will be a self serving and powerful entity looking to project its own will instead. Being of an arrogant, twisted and condescending nature just like many Americans but on steroids I doubt it, well you may have just opened Pandora’s box my orange friend.
People have always dismissed a European army, that NATO was the only correct tool, but inside a matter of a few weeks that former argument looks deeply naive. The semblance of it will rightly remain the infrastructure and mechanisms can be exploited rather than building new ones but a European military identity bursting from it now seems inevitable and as I have long argued needs to be ready to take over as and when required. NATO as we know it certainly can’t survive and clearly from these comments today on both sides of the channel Britain even sees that reality now, whatever it says about being a bridge and talking up the trans Atlantic alliance. Russia might end up facing something a good bit more united and fearsome than it ever did when US cover was always a debatable point.
And then we’ll see who jostles for the control of “Europe” itself. Hopefully there’ll be an agreed sharing or rotational set-up something based on what already is.
If Europe has the soldiers that you claim why does it need to rearm as it claims?
Not certain there has ever been a claim that the RN could not develop the capability to maintain an inventory of British owned Trident II missiles, simply the supposition that it has been more cost-effective to support a common pool approach w/ the USN. However, fiscal considerations may not prove to be a critical factor in future operations. Further, there may be an additional requirement to amend provisions of the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defense Agreement, especially if France will have access to US nuclear weapons tech.
Alternatively, there may be fewer impediments to the development of Anglo-French land/seaborne and/or airborne based tactical, or even strategic, nuke weapon system(s). Perhaps a FC/ASW-N variant? In reality, potential options virtually unlimited, only constrained by fiscal considerations.
1.6 billion for 5000 lmm to (Thales which is a french company) is a dispicable nonsense and/ or a costly bribe/ encouragement of interest. What’s the actual story there?
5000 Thales lmm should cost well under £250 million.
???
We marinated the Polaris missiles ourselves, Thatcher decided to go common pool of missiles with the USA under Reagan to save a few quid. That’s starting to look like a massive mistake now however in the 80’s no one thought we would be keeping trident II for over 60 years and that Bif from back to the future would be president 😀
I agree. A multi platform FC/ASW-N option provides flexibility and redundancy of response. (Political and technical).
Suggested that previously on this forum ‘years ago’ and got shorted down with ‘Balistic is only guaranteed effective solution’.
Uk needs to review and eliminate single point failure risks in its defence approach. Politics is unstable, single systems can be overcome and the timescales to pivot are horrendously long relative to emerging environments and threats
I agree. A multi platform FC/ASW-N option provides flexibility and redundancy of response. (Political and technical).
Suggested that previously on this forum ‘years ago’ and got shorted down with ‘Balistic is only guaranteed effective solution’.
Uk needs to review and eliminate single point failure risks in its defence approach. Politics is unstable, single systems can be overcome and the timescales to pivot are horrendously long relative to emerging environments and threats.
Wow crazy times, MSNBC is reporting that the five eyes countries as well as Israel and Saudi Arabia are all now limiting the intelligence they share with the USA for fear of it being passed to enemies.
The US being kicked out of a five eyes is something I could never imagined.
MSNBC is your source!? Really you are clueless.
Saudi Arabia and Israel restricted intel information to Biden Administration because they know very well that could end up in Iranian hands.
What’s your source? Twitter or Fox 😀
None of those.
The alienation that goes on here is outstanding. It is also a fascinating study on human mind.
If we transport ourselves to 1983 and an eventual Soviet invasion of Austria, 99% Europeans would have called on Pres. Reagan to reach any deal with Andropov.
Every hesitation from White House would be blamed in “hawks” in Reagan Administration and “evangelics”… and the minimum media epithet would be “warmongers”.
Of course in 1983 the memory Hiroshima and Nagasaki was more present.
Now by some sort of “out of history thinking” no one here thinks that Ukraine Invasion can go nuclear as the wartime years go, that Ukraine would not need foreign troops to be able to continue war. A sort of Limbo War will remain there, we supply weapons and eventually heroic Ukranian troops retake the territories taken by Russia and Putin will be dropped from a balcony This is high level wishful thinking.
For this many here are ok to destroy NATO.