France has signed a Letter of Intent with Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway for cooperation on strategic airlift, air refuelling
A Letter of Intent on cooperation around the Multi Role Tanker and Transport Capability (MRTT-C) was signed between France and the five current MRTT-C participants: Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway.
The Letter of Intent sets out areas of cooperation including exchanges of expertise and joint training.
“The MRTT-C initiative will provide its participants with strategic airlift, air-to-air refuelling and medical evacuation capabilities, enabling them to conduct more flexible air operations. Participants in the initiative will operate Airbus A330 MRTT aircraft starting in 2020. A total of eight aircraft will be procured and operated by the participating nations in the following years.
The MRTT-C programme is an initiative of the European Defence Agency. The aircraft are owned by NATO and procured by the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) through the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation (OCCAR). NATO ownership allows all participants to benefit from the complete fleet through a flexible and guaranteed pooling and sharing concept. They will be stationed at the Eindhoven and Cologne airbases and will include a 24/7 medical evacuation capability. Participation in the MRTT-C initiative is open for other member states to join.”
NATO says that this will help make maintenance and repair operations for the MRTT-C more affordable.
So, the NATO link means RAF planes could call on the new group in the event of crisis or fuel miscalculations?
yup, shared resource just like when Spain refuels Russian ships….. oh hang on
The RAF can therefore practice boom refueling on its C-17s, and (future) P-8s and E-7s
I’m sure in an operational scenario we could but it’s unlikely we’ll use them any other time due to the penalty clauses imposed under the contract with Airtanker Services who operate our tankers.
It was just a thought. I would expect we could reciprocate in a similar scenario?
@DaveS – As was discussed here at length recently there is nothing in the Air Tanker contract to stop or inhibit the RAF / FAA drawing fuel from foreign owned tankers.
Slightly off topic (and hugely hypothetical) but I would love to hear the thoughts of others on this… What if NATO proposed sharing the cost of Nuclear weapons of it’s constituent member states defence budgets?
A fair chunk of our budget for the forseeable future is going towards the Dreadnaught program. If this was financed, owned and administered by NATO, the costs could be diluted amongst it’s members right? – meaning a huge saving for the UK – but at the cost of no sovereign Nuclear armaments ourselves.
My question/s to you all is – would the UK want to “sell/Loan” Dreadnaught to NATO? (same question posed to France for their arsenal)
The capital saved on having a share or Dreadnaugh instead of the whole cost would mean the fantasy fleets/army/RAF we all want would be a very realistic thought.
If the situation got so dire, that the UK would launch a Nulear strike, wouldn’t NATO be involved anyway?
If the option to relinquish ownership of our Nukes to NATO was feasible, would the UK do it?
Hypothetical scenario I know…. but with so many countries already in NATO doing things like this article talks about (Not to mention the EU carrier programme (Granted that’s not NATO but you get my point)) – would a shared Nuclear arsenal be on the books before too long?
M@
To my knowledge we are already part of NATOs mutual nuclear deterrent as are the french and US, we all just have the ability to use our deterrent for ourselves too
EDITS for my poor use of the English language!
Politics.
That question is like a hand grenade into the ridiculous Tory leader televised debate.
Difficult subject this. My response is likely to send many a lefty into a pink fit and be very un PC. Has done before. Apologies in advance, I know not all on the left are far left who are offended by the UK being somebody and wish us to crawl under a rock and stay there. But…
My response is no. It goes beyond NATO, and into political and national status.
Long Answer: The EU wishes to have a seat on the UNSC P5 instead of UK / France. If not the EU then substitute Germany. I have read countless times how it is “more deserving” of a place. And India. And Japan. That is not a moan against the EU either. Any organisation such as that would expect no less, and I cannot blame them.
Being a self proclaimed Nuclear Power gives the UK ( and France ) just that. Status. As well as of course the deterrent. And yes of course given the UK’s history as a major power, diplomatic, and military links that is not the only reason for the P5 status but it is an obvious one.
Some have said it is virtual “Willy Waving” If you wish. And the problem with that is?
Some will say that is an expensive way of showing your status. I say the deterrent is actually cheap given the longevity of the program and what it gives you.
Fact. Not all countries are equal. There is a geopolitical game being played out on the world stage and the UK invests to be SOMEBODY in that game, like everyone else.
The far left can squirm all they like. They still want a nice house, or a nice car on their drive, or go on nice holidays. Compared to their neighbours. Or do they?
Why should the game of national status and having a potent political and military weapon be any different?
Leaving the politics of having nukes aside and then what?
Who would command? Who would crew? Who has the know how and experience? Which country would host the C3?
Turkey? Spain? The Baltic and Balkan states? No. The major powers. The UK. France, the USA. Under their control. And on NATO’s side.
Given the difficulty in trying to get NATO nations to contribute a paltry 2% on their military I’d expect there is more chance of the Greys landing on the White House lawn.
Trying to get anything agreed with the EU or all NATO countries needs ratifying by all. No difference with NATO. A deterrent that is not Independent causes all sorts of operational issues.
Some claim it is not Independent at all. Nonsense. those claims have been easily debunked. The UK retains full control over the procedure and means to launch. The decision however to use would be a political one.
The deterrent is great for british industry also, barrow will get many years work and earn many millions in the process for the country in tax and wages ect. It’s good to have huge expensive worthwhile projects like dreadnought, such a cool name.
Matt, I mentioned this a couple of years ago, German parliament voted into law that it was acceptably to pay into another countries nuclear program to be under the umbrella. After that then it is clear that other countries in Europe would pay to be part of a nuclear program, and I am all for it, anything that spreads the cost of something that will likely never get used is fine by me.
Daniele, I have to say I disagree with you on this, I’m sorry but “status” because of our nuclear weapons has not made a slight difference to any events, name me one instance that being a nuclear power has saved British lives? And what “status” is this exactly? Having nuclear weapons contributes nothing to soft power and has absolutely no affect on our conventional military either. The status of having nuclear weapons is one of the most ridiculous arguments for having an independent nuclear deterrent.
Do I think we should have nuclear weapons, yes too right we should, do I care if it’s part of a European/NATO joint umbrella, possibly part of a larger Submarine fleet, or whichever way it happens that still protects our jobs and skills, no I don’t care, it makes total sense when you look at the state of our armed forces and budget gaps that could do with some extra money.
Things that are more important and can actually make a difference than the “status” of having nuclear weapons, economy, conventional military and soft power, the US did not want our assistance in Iraq because we are a nuclear power, Argentina were not in the slightest put off by our “status” in the Falkland war, China did not agree to a one nation two systems deal on Hong Kong because of “status” any future trade deal we make, nuclear “status” will not make a slightest bit of difference.
It’s in my opinion that this is an argument against those who want rid of nuclear weapons, and it’s been made up as an attack to try make them sound anti-British, and the willy waving attack is an attack on those who want to keep nuclear weapons to try delegitimise the reasons for having them, and it’s not needed, both arguments are wrong because we need nuclear weapons as some of our potential enemies have them, simple as, there is no status and there is no willy waving it doesn’t exist.
Hi Sole
I don’t disagree with any of that and I do not think I said they were the be all and end all.
I would say having more than one arrow in the quiver is desirable and the UK has arrows from all of those.
Do you think the UK would still be a UNSC P5 without a nuclear deterrent?
Yes absolutely, we were never in it for having a nuclear deterrent, we were in it because we helped found it and was on the winning side of WW2. We didn’t have our own nuclear weapons at the time of the UN founding.
Any change to the UN would require our vote.
And we are in it now because of our strong technologically advanced conventional military, soft power superpower, diplomatic power and resources, the commonwealth.
The thing with nuclear weapons is they are only used as a deterrent nothing else, they stop the major powers going into a full scale war with each other, nothing else.
Yes, I largely agree Sole – and for me it works on two levels.
While Russia maintains a nuclear arsenal, the UK and France will need to retain a similar capability to independently neutralise or deter the Russian threat.
In addition, as the US shares its nuclear secrets with Britain, the arrangement locks America into the defence of the UK, and more widely, Western Europe; a long-term objection of British foreign and defence policy since the dark days of 1940.
Daniele highlights the additional benefit of “status”, and although this is perhaps more intangible, it is a view that seems to have been shared by a number of British Prime Ministers from Clement Atlee onwards.
If countries want to pay for nuclear protection, ok since it’s basically covered by article 5.
but the decision to use them should be a sovereign matter always.
Too many cooks and nothing happens or at least quickly enough in case of emergency.
So let me get this right?
5 EU countries and Norway that are not prepared to fund their own defence to the minimum NATO requirements are now to be given the use of 8 tankers courtesy of NATO?
Did the UK, Canada and the USA agree to this?
Where is NATO getting the money for this?
How come the UK has had to fund (parking the Air Tanker debate) 14 x A330 MRTTs but France and Germany get to have a 1/6th share of 8 funded by someone else?
And if that financial sleight of hand isn’t enough is it not now obvious that the EU is acquiring bit by bit as it has since ’93 all the trappings of state through its ‘European Defence Agency’ to go along with its flag, anthem, parliament, president(s), foreign Policy, Supreme court. But I was wrong – no it wasn’t an ‘EU Army’ they were after it was an ‘EU Defence Force’…..