As first reported by Joshua Posaner and Laura Kayali at Politico, EU Internal Market Commissioner, Thierry Breton, has stressed the importance of Europe bolstering its defence.

His propositions include the creation of an aircraft carrier and a missile defence shield.

During his speech at the European Defence and Security Conference, Breton accentuated the European Commission’s need to launch an “ambitious European defence investment program”.

Amid anticipation for an imminent European defence industrial strategy, set to be unveiled on November 8, Breton advanced the conversation on the building of an aircraft carrier, a “Eurodome air defence system”, and a space-focused “European threat detection and identification capability”.

You can read more by clicking here.

Germany previously wanted a European aircraft carrier

Back in 2019, then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel endorsed the idea of a joint European aircraft carrier. The idea was suggested by her party’s leader, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer.

“The next step could be to start on the symbolic project of building a common European aircraft carrier” to underline what the EU calls its global security role.

Merkel said in March this year, according to Reuters, that “it’s right and good that we have such equipment on the European side, and I’m happy to work on it”.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

319 COMMENTS

    • Severall issues: who would give orders to carrier sailor to fight and die?
      What would be the perception if planes are Rafales for other europeans or F35 for the French?
      Who would build it? Man it? With whose money?
      The need for more than the 4 carriers in Europe exists to defeat any ennemy who could threats sea lines. Tensions are rising. Though EU may better create a sort of Admiralty, which would set acquisition priorities per country. For example, Italy, Spain or France would build carriers and Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal, Grèce, Croatia and Bulgaria would build long range frigates. With this kind of mindset, which could include UK and Norway as well, naval potential of Europe would increase at a very high pace.

        • So true! The words in my messages is reflexions from the site Meta-Défense, they raises them, I convey them, because I think it is worth sharing these ideas with British fellow men.

          • Those Austrian naval /commercial shipyards at Trieste are still going – under ‘new management’. Hows those London shipyards doing ?

        • There is a good series of historical novels where the hero is an officer of the Austrian Navy. The first is “A Sailor of Austria: In Which, Without Really Intending to, Otto Prohaska Becomes Official War Hero No. 27 of the Habsburg Empire” by John Biggins.

        • Well I certainly hope so as neither country existed till post 1918. They were both part of the Austrian Hungarian Empire.

          • Interesting history.
            Parliament in Budapest
            Court in Vienna
            Civil Service in Blava
            and of course Charles ruling from Prague as Holy Roman Emperor!

          • Holy Roman Empire ended at conference to sort out Europe after defeat of Napoleon ( he had finished off the HRE, but this made it official.
            The Hapsburg then kept the imperial dignity – which they used to have bribe the HR electors to get elected- and appointed themselves Emperor of Austria ( later Austria-Hungary)
            There were two parliaments , one in Budapest the other In Vienna , as the empire was divided into Austrain and Hungarian sections.
            KuK was the shorthand for Empire and kingdom as the Hapsburg was Emperor in one part and King ( of Hungary) in the other.
            No Franz Joseph or Charles didnt rule from Prague
            The British monarch had a similar split title but the other way round as King-Emperor with India being the Empire …had separate army , civil service, etc

    • Yep. Its just another grab by France for EU money. They got some for the old equipment they gave to Ukraine.

      And then there’s the ‘Nuclear is really Green’ take they’ve used recently to get EU energy funding etc.

      • Not France.
        Nobody really wants it in France, it would be a nightmare.

        Just the wild wish of some people about an united europe.

        • This is the bit that gets totally missed…..the French population don’t want a much tighter integration either.

          The EU ‘forces’ would, as you say, be a nightmare to operate.

          Italy has carrier aviation too and Spain sort of has it. But both those use(d)Harrier then F35B.

          • Slightly fanciful Offer, a 35b eu carrier no cats traps or planes. It’s an eu airstrip at sea. Any nation could support with 35b planes as and when they choose.

          • French population wants something that works. Euro did not bring prosperity, Shenghen did not protect borders, German alliance did not bring good weapons so far. Should anyone fix these issues, the EU sentiment will rise again. For euro, things are on the right track. For migration, tone is changing, act have to be made. For weapons, political drive is required. Wait and see. French people aim for pride and power. If EU gives it, EU will gain support. Lack of support is a matter of unfullfiled promises. Not exactly the same issues as the one of Brexit.

          • I never tried to equate it to BREXIT?

            I merely stated that the French population doesn’t totally love the EU.

            As with any political project if it is going very well everyone is happy and opinions sway in that direction. Wealth, power, health and sunshine all have effects!

          • Yes, you did not 😄 I agree with your statement, I just tried to give a light on the differences between the UK criticism toward EU and the French discontent. I feal both exists but have different roots.
            Best regards

    • Rule, Hibernia! Hibernia rules the waves!

      Who’s going to pay for this? Ireland, Finland, Latvia? Maybe future new entrants Albania and Moldova? This is a bad joke. Another jumped up little Napolean with visions of Empire and Super Power status for wee fading Marianne and her over stuffed rooster.

      When you Brits despair at the quality of your political class, throw a glance in our direction. VdL, Breton, Kyriakides et al, Macron, Scholz and Verruca all make Bojo the Clown look like a Nobel Prize winner. As for corruption, your lot look like a bunch of choir boys.

      Rant over!

  5. We have nato, but if wanting an eu navy, just start by deploying carriers under the eu flag as a starting point. Likely many obstacles and unsure of the value of this.

    • I don’t think it will happen so soon, except if tensions increases again. But if so… The French nuclear arsenal will be doubled first.

  6. So France would want Rafale on the carrier, while Germany would want F-35C. That should run for years. If dozens of Countries have to agree rules of engagement, will it ever leave port?

      • Nothing wrong with the Aircraft carrier it will be the politicians that would be a nightmare where would it be based 15 different ports 15 different captains 15 different Admirals have to have a consensus on should we turn to port or starboard don’t forget the 3rd option full ahead ok let’s have a vote to late we are on the rocks and sinking

        • Operating different Aircraft Types from Carriers is nothing new,the USN,MN and RN have done it since Carriers came into service,hardly a bad idea.

    • Then Flat top,Angle top, Ramp , side lift centre line lift which Name ,which language which cuisine the EU wanted this after the break up of Yugoslavia along with an EU army that was 30 years ago .I’ll rewrite this post again in 30 years time too seek progress

      • The EU has an ally; the UK with 2 very good carriers. We could provide just what the EU needs for a very large fee indeed!

        We’ll be able to buy more F35s! What a cunning plan.

    • It’s not going to happen! Another witless, brain dead EU Commissioner, who failed at politics in their home country, opens their mouth and excretes another garlic scented fatuity. Who does he expect to pay for this. Certainly not the French tax payer🤣

      • And of course he means built in France, by French companies, with a French Admiral, crew and planes, enforcing French neo-colonial foreign policy in West and North Africa. No thank you!

        • The crew of the EU carrier will be on holiday for the whole of August. They won’t work weekends & insist on a 2 hour lunch break.

          • Damn how the hell are they wealthier, have better growth, more industry, better health service and better pensions than us when they are so bloody useless and inefficient over there.💭

          • UK is a larger manufacturing country than France. UK 8th in world, France 9th. UK also has a larger GDP($).
            In 2021 the ratio of French Govt spending to GDP was an unsustainable 60%. In the UK it was a reasonable 44%. Want a bigger pension and an arguably better health service? Pay more tax. In the case of France, a lot more. From this, you can see how it is only a matter of time before the French economy goes crash, bang, wallop.

            Furthermore, the UK has grown faster than both France and Germany since the 2019 pre-pandemic level.

            Apparently, the UK is not the worst country in the world, as some of your media and politicians would have you believe.

          • You also have the largest FinTech industry in the world and are the 2nd largest exporter of services after the 🇺🇸.

          • If the French ran the Galley, I would demand a two hour lunch break too, wine, a cheese course, fabulous food, where do I sign for the EU Navy….

          • Don’t forget that the crew will have to change along with the home port depending on who is in the chair for that six months🙄

        • Perhaps to paraphrase Capt. Renault in the movie Casablanca: ‘I’m shocked, Shocked to learn (French lobbying) is going on in here.’ 😁

        • That is part of the issues. Who pays the bill at the end. Now compare the cost of having an army and the one of buying gaz for your industry twice the price because your allies wanted a war with your gaz supplier to sell you there own gaz. « Protection » has it’s price. UK and France were ridiculed in Suez, hence France deterrence program. Same thing is happening à n Europe, with far wider consequences: integration of Polish and Scandinavian interests in French and German foreign policy, need for power to avoid being blackmailed by anyone, need for a fleet. Many people on this chat play lowkey. Strange. We are serious, even if it takes time.

    • The Germans will no doubt have all the deck chair space already provisionally written into the contract.

      The Irish will want to put hook equipped Pc9’s on board….

      The only saving grace will be if the French run the Galley!

        • The Italians can do the seafood, espresso, cappuccino and gelato and maybe run a pizzeria on board too?

          The wine list can include all EU countries? The PANG carrier is big enough to carry decent stocks.

          What is not to like?

          The fact the carrier farce would never leave port or fly any aircraft would be incidental to its superbly fed and happy crew.

  7. The name of the ship will have to be translated into 24 languages. The captain will have to be French, otherwise the toys will go out of the pram. Oh and it will have to be bigger than ours. After all we can’t have the British having a bigger one.

    • It’s hull was built but it got bombed and at the end of the war was towed to Kalingrad by the Soviets, ended up being scrapped as an incomplete hulk in the late 1940s I believe by Russia.

    • There where two, one was a conversion of one of the Admiral Hipper class cruisers, it was launched, and part way through it’s conversion when it was scuttled in Koenigsberg to prevent the Soviets getting their hands on it. Some bits of her where eventually used to repair her sister ship which had been sold to the Soviet Navy in the 30’s.
      The other was Graf Zeppelin, which was purpose built, launched, but never finished fitting out, and eventually moved east to Stettin where she also was scuttled (Mr Bell is conflating the two). The Soviets refloated her, but nobody really knows what happened after that, whether she was sunk as a target, or in a storm, or was just broken up for scrap.

    • It did get built, but never fully finished. You can see it if you are really keen and a qualified Deep Sea CCR diver, it’s in pretty good nick at the bottom of the Baltic.

    • Not true it was built and as good as completed when work was suspended when it became pointless, the Russians used it as target practice post war in the Baltic. There are even pics of it if your search.

    • Graf Zeppelin, hull and some superstructure complete but cancelled in 1942.
      There was to be a sister ship under Plan Z but never started.

  9. Hmmmm, so the EU tries again to be a state in its own right, one of many reasons so many voted out.

    “to underline what the EU calls its global security role”

    Like the Ukraine situation? When the EU sat on its hands while the US and UK got on and sent weapons in there?
    There were warnings of what was coming beforehand due to the anglophile Intelligence organisation between US/UK/AUS/CAN/NZ, called the UK/USA Agreement, now more commonly referred to as “5 Eyes” that EU nations are no part of, beyond being termed 2nd party at best.

    It isn’t the having of a Carrier that I object to, they’re needed, but the ignoring or lack of any mention of what underpins the security of Europe, and that is NATO, not the EU.

    It is NATO that these carriers should be part of, but the article makes no mention of that as If it wants NATO to not exist but the EU to be the pre eminent entity.

    Which in defence matters it clearly is not.

    Who crews this Carrier? All nations? How does that work?
    Who commands it?
    Where is its home port?

    The cynic in me is seeing French Admirals wanting another toy.

    While NATO exists I see no need for the EU to have its “own” carrier beyond its own super state ambitions.

    • As long as it’s built by France, commanded by France, and fielding French aircraft, the French are perfectly willing to let others pay for it, fuel it and crew it, and they’ll even let it fly an EU flag. And if it suckers Germany into paying for a carrier version of FCAS, that’s just French gravy.

    • “Where is the home port”….. ?… Easy mate, Luxembourg. I think her Captain will be called Pugwash ! you can never keep a good Captain from contributing. 😎

      • Funnily enough, we have a Captain P on here time to time, hope he’s OK and he’d make a fine commander of this vessel…

        • Hi Daniele. I recall in the 2000s, the French were considering building a QE 2 type carrier to serve alongside the Charles de Gaulle. The plan was for the UK would reciprocate with a Mistral helo carrier build. Presumably to eventually replace with HMS Ocean?

    • The French chief of the defence staff even had to resign after the invasion of Ukraine and France’s catastrophic failure in intelligence. More custard over the face of Macron.

    • In fairness the EU as a common defence structure and NATO are not incompatible. It just means that NATO would consist of; the US, the EU, the UK, Canada, and Norway. In a lot of ways this would be better since with a common defence policy Europe would get a lot more bang for its Euro, and provide a bit more balance in a US dominated NATO (which is of course a bug part of why neither the US nor the UK really wants to see it happen.)

      • Ah, afternoon Dern.
        I actually thought you’d inject an EU positive side to this one when I read the article, I recall your previous comments.👍
        I guess yes, from a procurement and equipment perspective a EU wide system has its advantages for them.

        I myself don’t want an EU superstate, which for me this is another step towards, and at the heart of my comment.

        • And yeah, that’s where we fundamentally disagree, because as much as I value our nations individual sovereignty, I also see that going forwards the choices Europe will face will be domination by a foreign power (US, Russia or China), or banding together into a superstate, and I’d prefer the latter to the former.

          • I know. And to be fair, I’d agree with you if it came to that, and that is a fair assessment.
            We are all Europeans. That is one of the things that always gets me with some on the Remain side, using the terms “left Europe” We are part of Europe, and still are, geographically and culturally, and always will be. We left the EU, not Europe. Though I also see most on this side of that dividing line seeing the UK already facing dominion by the EU itself, or more precisely, France and Germany.
            I’m not convinced China and Russia will get to the stage you suggest myself, to the point that European independence is at stake.

          • Independence is a spectrum however. China is already making attempts at outright buying ports in Europe. Having worked in Africa and seeing the sort of colonial strategies China uses there I honestly worry about the future.
            I don’t think we’ll see Chinese armies crossing borders, but economic, and therefore political dependence? I can see that all too easily. (Although even with the crossing borders issue, it’s too easy to imagine Chinese troops being stationed to protect Chinese investments, again, we’ve seen it elsewhere in the world).

            I get the not wanting to be dominated by France and Germany, but following Brexit my view is that the UK essentially is left with the choice of either being dominated by the EU, or the US, whereas if we’d stayed in we’d have been a leading voice within the EU. *shrug*

          • Spot on China is already using its military as security guards at its ‘projects’ in Africa and has got into some considerable trouble with them beating up local workers who get out of line. Who knows what the future holds and what is going to happen in the US. Europe needs to unite militarily in whatever form that takes while staying linked to NATO as long as it stays stable. The thought of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea allying in military operations at whatever level leaves me deeply concerned, esp with many idiots in the US seriously thinking defence starts and ends at its borders. If that happens they will already have lost the war but many there don’t see it and won’t till it’s too late only fuelled by internal decisiveness.

          • Post-truth and zero accountability by the 45th president is related to insular beliefs. Fortunately the 14th Amendment bans insurrectionists from holding public office so he’s unlikely to be the 47th. The total 91 enditements against him will be tried in court before the election so that only the truly stupid stubborn can pretend that he’s fit to serve.
            General Milley was clear that the US armed forces swear allegiance to the Constitution and not to a wannabe dictator.
            3% GDP spending on Defense in Europe is the way forward.🇩🇪🇪🇸

          • The EU was against the UK on everything. They would.not listen to anything we said.So cut the leading voice rubbish out.

          • Both China and Russia will cease to be significant threats in the next 10-20 years. Their shockingly poor demographics guarantee this.

            Any attack on an EU member, most of whom are already members of NATO, will immediately mean all other European NATO members and the US coming to their aid, regardless of what EU force exists.

            Given their past history collaborating on military projects, I can’t see the EU getting a new aircraft carrier in the water and operating in the next ten years, even if the green light was given today.

            The jibes about the French being difficult and demanding to work with are, unfortunately, founded in truth and I see little reason to think it would be different on this project.

        • Problem is the Franco-German axis still thinks it is Europe. The EU takes is lead from them and the rest are supposed to buy European, but this actually means Franco-German. Until the EU is a partnership of equals the EU can’t succeed. Even now, while everyone is predicting the end of the dollar and rise of the BRICS nations trade settlements in dollars and BRICS currencies has increased at the expense of the euro.
          There is a good reason Poland has aligned itself with the US and is buying Korean and US military equipment and nuclear reactors. Moreover, it is supposed to join the Euro but has refused to do so and will avoid it as long as possible. While Germany was busy buying Russian fuel and Poland was warning from the sidelines of their malign intent, “old Europe” belittled and ignored Poland. The EU is happy when Poland and other border nations secure the borders at their own expense but the moment these nations want to express their own sovereign intentions and cultural independence they are no-longer “good Europeans”. The reality is the EU is drifting apart internally. Politics is becoming totally divided. Nations are looking to the US for investment and leadership while old Europe bickers about peripheral issues and vies for national advantage.
          We have had the Euro for over 20 years now and we still don’t have a banking union, we don’t have a common debt union, we don’t even have a common market for services (which negatively impacted the UK badly) and we don’t have a common fiscal or coordinated economic policy. The CAP basically still exists to serve French farmers and the single goods market primarily benefits German manufacturers. Southern Europe has been largely de-industrialised and turned into a tourist destination for the North and policy makers in Brussels look down their noses at everyone else for their patriotic and traditional values.
          The EU can never succeed like this. While Brussel thinks it alone gets to decide what is Europe and what constitutes European values and France & Germany continue to use the EU as a vehicle to promote their national interests it will only become more divided as resentment in peripheral nations grows.

          • I agree. Having heard all this from Farage himself, on more than one occasion, and how the EU Parliament operates, it’s one of many many reasons why I voted out.

          • You are absolutely correct.
            If you look at UN/WHO long term demographic projections, as well as GDP projections by World Bank, OECD and PwC, it is obvious to anyone, that with each passing year the EU is a dwindling force in terminal decline. By 2050 the CPTPP, as it is now, will be 3 times larger than the EU. By 2050s the UK will surpass Germany in terms of population and, not long after, in terms of GDP.
            The EU Council, Commission and Parliament, as well as many EUrophiles, have grand delusions of what we are and what we can become.
            Superstate, my proverbial!🤣🤣

        • Took part in an exercise Nato late 70ts along with the French ships . Whilst alongside Fitting Hoses to shore connection standpipes it seemed everybody had different sized connectors if that was then I wonder how all EU coastal countries have adapted 1 standard Fitting or not ?

        • The EU will never be a superstate. Their is no popular support for it, even amongst many EUrophiles. Most EU citizens see it for what it is, a French imperial wet dream.
          Can you really see Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Italy, Austria, Sweden or Finland agreeing to this French Folly.

          • However the Euro zone did demonstrate that EU couldn’t be trusted to operate it’s own rules and provide accurate financial information. That’s not been forgotten.

          • The problem is Mark, these things have a nasty way of creeping up on you….

            Let’s bring in majority voting, only in certain areas and just to make things ‘more efficient’ you understand…. Said the European Parliament, trying to keep a straight face..

            Then ever so slowly it gets rolled out…

            Wake up one day and it’s a case of ” that’s odd, I’m sure I lived in a sovereign state when I went to bed, wonder were that went?”

          • That’s why UK’s leaving the EU was such a disaster; not for the UK, but for the EU. The British counterweight to the Franco-German axis, if you’ll forgive the expression, has gone. I don’t think countries like Ireland, Denmark, Netherlands, etc. realised what an invaluable ally the UK was until it left. This is the main reason France and Germany will oppose Ukrainian membership as the balance of power will move east (Poland/Ukraine/Balts/Frugal 4).

        • One small problem is a certain country has a National Industrial Policy that just makes an EU common defence policy unworkable. They just do not play nicely or should I say Joue Bien 🥴
          Just read the background on why the Horizon Frigate programme between France, Italy and U.K. didn’t work.
          Also explains why Italy now partners with us and never has with France since.
          Though the Italians did get their own back Big Style (see Chevalier class for details).

      • At last some common sense while in reality I fear a United EU military force seems full of obstacles and potential disagreements, the logic is sensible and I fear vital in the future. The US is in a state of decay certainly in terms of unity, confidence and reliability. Potential madmen might be in full control in a few years and beyond, narrow minded idiots who think you can actually buy off Russia from China and many of them want out of NATO and think they should defend America at its borders, the insanity of the thinking should scare us stiff and Russia with its useful idiots are doing their best to split Europe and the US even the Toronto Star is telling its readers Canada should be leaving NATO and joking BRICS. The future is frighteningly unstable, the most sensible course is a Europe strongly in NATO while developing its own United security mechanisms EU based or otherwise because as things stand if the US did in some form cut lose from Europe under the delusion it doesn’t need us in its defence as it turns its attention to China then we will be sitting ducks for Russian adventurism despite its current laughing stock performance in Ukraine. Indeed I won’t feel at ease till we have Ukraine inextricably brought into both NATO and the EU to help thwart those ambitions. Without them only Poland fills me with military confidence and with both Iran and NK cosying up with Vlad and potentially supply massive amounts of munitions we will need all the help we can get.

    • There was an IISS panel discussion that grabbed my interest around five days back, focusing on aspects of the Japan-UK strategic partnership. It does touch upon considerations you’ve raised above, Daniele. Worth a spare hour or so on You Tube to my mind, if not already viewed.

    • Yes agree, the last bit of the EU empire is really its own armed forces…to be honest it was one of the reasons I voted to stay in..not because I love the EU but because I think the UK was the great balancer for this and was the only way to keep the EU on the strait and narrow, after all its been UK geopolitical strategy to prevent a European super state….…..prevention of an imperialistic EU movement was something I was willing to sacrifice a bit of sovereignty over.

    • Absolutely spot on Daniele, just another brick in the Federal European wall and some still deny it…

      The irony of countries who drag their feet over 2% GDP into the defence as required by NATO, but apparently also oddly want to dilute it still futher with some contrived bloody useless EU Defence Force….

    • You should not underestimate the will to find a path. Germany has interests of its own: peace in the east. This will not change because USA says so. Same thing on there west border. Just look at the map. France need peace with Germany as well. It will not change either. Now that diplomacy in Europe are integrating Polish, Roumania and Scandinavian interests, we will need to build up military close to Russia and create a missile shield. For sure. And stronger ground forces with heavy divisions. Though, where will energy or minerals come from? The seas for most of it. Hence the aircraft carriers coordination roadmap. You can all play as if europeans are silly. Keep underestimate what is important for us. It is not smart. Besides, UK could have a role in the story. Hope some politicians are smart on both sides of the Channel, we could do so much better together.

      • Back to my first post, and a comment you seem to have missed?

        “It isn’t the having of a Carrier that I object to, they’re needed,”

        “You can all play as if europeans are silly. Keep underestimate what is important for us. It is not smart. Besides, UK could have a role in the story. Hope some politicians are smart on both sides of the Channel, we could do so much better together.”

        Where did I say that “Europeans are Silly”, exactly? I was talking about the EU and lack of reference to what you depend on. NATO.

        The EU is not “Europe” BTW. Great Britain, Norway and Switzerland are as much European as France and Germany.

        “Hope some politicians are smart on both sides of the Channel, we could do so much better together.”

        We do. All the time.
        As NATO.
        And as part of the UK/France defence agreements on things from missiles to nuclear infrastructure.

        • You are right, my comment was not precise enough and I did not went through all comments following. Some people are talking cheap, displaying French people as greedy. We may be so, but not 100% of the time 😉
          Let put it this way: I am not 100% sure of the will and capabilities of US to secure the eastern borders nor am I sure that they have interest to create stable conditions there, for 2 reasons: selling gaz and selling weapons. Do Europeans share the same position? Partly yes. Did we appreciate to be in peace with Russia? Yes. The fear of Russia does exists. Is any of the europeans able to defend itself against Russia? Except France and UK, no. Is Nato enough? No, because politicians of US are looking to China. Can european countries one by one deter Russia with sovereign policies? Barely. So back to EU promoting EU wide policies in armement and specialisation. This will protect us from any other priorities in US policies and create doubts in the plans of potential eastern invaders. Race is on. Struggles will soon take place in Pacific Ocean as well and USA is knocking on the door to check who can help. France can. It will not do it unless vital sea lines are secured by a fleet. This fleet, we cannot afford it alone. Do fellow EU members have an interest in getting petroleum, lithium and cobalt? Yes. What can they do to share the burden and free vital forces that will be required by USA in Pacifique Ocean? That is the questions raised by Thierry Breton. Macron has allready expressed commitment on this vision. The Armée de l’Air is preparing for this, with deploiement of 5 A400 in pacific, Rafale présence in exercices. The french pacific fleet is doubling and drones are being prepared for long range surveillance and strike. It will not be enough unless we have the EU commited.
          I know you think Nato is enough. I don’t believe European countries do anything more in Nato than obey passively. People from Europe are sleeping in Nato, not thinking and preparing for war. The political level has to step up.
          UK partnership, Lancaster House agreement and Saint Malo treaty, missile partnership, coordination of fleet movement with the British admiralty are all steps in the right directions. In France, people love to hate British people, but they never underestimate UK relationship and the role it will have in the near future.

          • 👍 I don’t bash France or it’s people myself, I have no problem with close allies.
            I do get pissed off with the politics, like the Channel Islands electricity nonsense over fishing permits.

            I remain sceptical on the carrier idea, much as I support European NATO allies having them, simply to crewing, command, and how it would work beyond the ship basically being a French asset in reality.

            On the detail you mention regards the Pacific…how interesting that you too have a “tilt to the Pacific” that the UK also has, which has been roundly criticised by our Labour opposition government, and which many here in the UK, including me, fear will be dropped.

            Very interesting…..

            Your English is excellent by the way. 👍

  10. It continues to “befuddle” me what this dream for an EU army and now, presumably a blue water capability actually means when there is NATO. I’m assuming and please correct me if I’m wrong that it’s the French primarily driving this; I can’t think of anyone else. Certainly not the Germans as their military is in a lamentable state and definitely not the Poles as they would happily give Brussels two fingers. Perhaps the time has come for NATO (read, the US to re-invent itself? Brussels would go silent in a heartbeat. Debate over. That’s it, rant over. Thanks for indulging.

  11. Aren’t there only a few countries in the EU which have experience operating a carrrier? Apart from funding, I’m not sure what a lot of EU members could bring to the table.

    Plus, why does the EU feel the need to project power in such a way? Most countries in the EU are also in NATO, which, thanks to America, has a lot of carriers available if they are really needed.

    I’m all for European countries raising defence budgets, working together and being responsible for their own security (they are all capable of it if the will is there), but I don’t think the EU should be involved in this.

      • Each and every country within NATO has a veto and uses it frequently, so everyone has autonomy. It is hard enough to get any nation to invest in their own defence capability. A EU carrier. No Way

        • Yes. Its both a military and political organisation, (has a separate civil budget) so full of many has been politicians
          However even UK has around 70% of its armed forces ‘assigned’ to Nato
          as far as budget goes
          “France is the third-largest contributor to NATO’s military and civil budgets (unique allocation key of 10.63%), behind the United States (22.14%) and Germany (14.65%) and ahead of the United Kingdom (9.85%) and Italy (8.41%).” Says France

          This table from Nato says different
          Germany 16.19
          UK 11.18
          France 10.39
          Italy 8.70
          https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

    • “why does the EU feel the need to project power in such a way?”
      I have to say I find it concerning that every recent EU defence initiative openly states that it’s goal is power projection outside of the EU rather than strictly collective defence, but I guess this is the best way of keeping out of NATO’s juridiction.

  12. Reading between the lines, a land-based missile defence system would be a very good idea for the UK and an increase in our defence budget to a minimum of 2.5% might just be prudent unless people still think we can rely on our European neighbours to come to our defence in a timely manner.

    An additional tranche or two of Typhoons with some decent long-range anti-ship capability for them and Posidon would serve as a useful deterrent also.

    The threat from the sea is increasing after all.

    • Not 100% sure of the plateform. Russia has no carriers yet. A bomber would have a significantly better firepower. Like an A400M carrying antiship cruise missiles. Otherways a drone doing recon and a land based missile would be affordable, less costly and efficient to cover large parts of Giuk.

  13. If people felt that the UK, which has numerous interests outside of the territorial waters of Great Britain, was chasing a prestige project with the QE Carriers, then what is this?!
    I am all for European nations upping their collective defence game, and if they want to use the EU as a mechanism for that then fair enough (I’m not sure it would work as well, but there we go). But the projects should match requirements- if you’re looking for an “EU Navy” project, then a small fleet of ASW/ surface warfare frigates specialised for operating in areas like the Baltic and Black seas would be the obvious choice- as it brings capability that is actually required by the bloc as a whole. Losing control of those areas, and extending into the eastern Mediterranean, would hurt even the landlocked countries badly.
    What does an aircraft carrier deliver for the EU? It would be a duck in a barrel (not even a fish, because it floats) in most of the EU waters most likely to see enemy action, and the EU doesn’t look to project hard power abroad. Even if they liked the idea of it, trying to get consensus across all the members of the bloc would be impossible.

    • Why does anyone in the UK care what the EU does now that we have left the EU?

      Who are we in the UK to tell the EU what it can and can’t do?

      Maybe the EU has aspirations to become a world power? Maybe the EU feels that it should be able to keep its trade routes open without help from the USA or anyone else?

      Outside of our NATO commitments it is none of our business what the EU does or doesn’t do.

      • None of our business in terms of some expectation of dictating that, I agree- we have no place for that. I also wasn’t suggesting we should try.
        But European security, especially maritime security, absolutely does affect us- and so we should at least be interested in the defence choices they are making.
        On top of that, we will almost certainly operate alongside any European defence force as part of our commitments to JEF and NATO, our EFP presence, etc. So, again, what they choose to do with their resources will directly influence our force posture.
        If the EU wants to start projecting hard power abroad, that is of course up to them as you say- although I think it contravenes the core principles of their charter as it stands. But that would be a hard sell to the smaller Baltic States who are rather more concerned about Russia than they are making sure the South China sea stays open.
        Ultimately, we have significant defence interests and cooperation with Europe and EU bloc countries, and so your assertion that it has no impact on us is not accurate; we do have a stake in what they choose to do, for the reasons I’ve laid out above.

      • “Why does anyone in the UK care what the EU does now that we have left the EU?”

        Because an EU defence force could divide loyalties between NATO members and EU force members. What happens if something happens that triggers NATO article 5 but the EU denies permission for its NATO members to allocate forces to the NATO response?

        “Who are we in the UK to tell the EU what it can and can’t do?”

        I don’t think anyone here is TELLING the EU what they can and can’t do, they’re just pointing out the obvious flaws in the plan.

        “Maybe the EU has aspirations to become a world power? Maybe the EU feels that it should be able to keep its trade routes open without help from the USA or anyone else?”

        If that’s the case they need to be far more ambitious than building one aircraft carrier. The EU has 3 aircraft carriers, all of which have questionable availability records.

        If we were to combine all the navies of EU member states they have a very slight numerical advantage over the US in terms of ‘Large Surface Combatants’ (116 vs 113) but that doesn’t tell the full story. Most European designs contain far fewer VLS cells than their US counterparts, often fewer than half.

        EDIT: Correction, the EU would have 97 large surface combatants. The source I used included UK assets as ‘European’.

        The US also intends to increase it’s surface combatant fleet significantly over the next 20 years with the DDGX and Constellation classes. They’re also looking at replacing the Ticonderogas with similar sized cruisers.

        Frankly this plan further demonstrates the lack of ambition we’ve become familiar with when it comes to EU military forces.

        • Step by step. Power is a rolling stone, not a 1 jump creation. What would be the maturity of the political level with an EU immediatly powerfull? What would be the feeling in the world with such a sudden change? Power is strong harm. For stability, it cannot come with a little brain.

  14. Mmmmm. I personally think the whole idea of an EU military is a little bit worrisome and I’m not sure all the nationstate members would be happy with that idea…once the EU has an armed force accountable to EU bodies and not individual nation-states it effectively becomes a de facto empire. In 2007 José Manuel Barroso (President of the European Commission and Prime Minister of Portugal put the EUs character as an empire in a new positive context.

    “What we have is the first non-imperial empire,” he declared. “We have 27 countries that fully decided to work together and to pool their sovereignty. I believe it is a great construction and we should be proud of it.”

    What he said was the EU is a ‘liberal’ empire in the sense that it promotes markets in the single economy, and legitimates politics through electoral processes, primarily based in the member states. What then does it need an aircraft carrier for, as an aircraft carrier is the single most potent form of power projection available…………

    An EU that actuality does have all the key characteristics of an empire ( at preset it has most…it can force member states adopt its laws, has a centralised power model etc) would not be something to cheer along really.

    We have NATO it works…apart from turning the EU into a true empire why would you need an EU armed forces…

    One of the reasons I’m not sure we should have left is that the UK was one of the big balancers against the EU becoming imperial in nature.

    • If the UK’s carriers, even 1 of 2, are updated into more hybrid carriers, there’s an option for increased interoperability off the bat there. Read recently that India is also gunning for a third carrier. I think some of us here wouldn’t mind Aus have a medium sized carrier maybe based on an upgraded Canberra class.

      • I think the Aussies if anything would go for the South Korean light carrier design operating F35B or F35Cs if anything.
        The Canberra design is a pure LPHD and would need reworking to make it a lightning carrier.

        • The Anadolu was originally designed for F-35Bs and it’s basically got the same parentage as the Canberra. Sure, like the Juan Carlos, which I think still operates Harriers, the Canberras would need a bit of reworking, given heat resistant coating and the like, but pure LPHD is overstating it.

          • I’d spoken to an Aussie navy officer a few weeks ago. The cost of the refit for Canberra class ships to operate a limited number of F35Bs is somewhere in the region of £150-200 million each. That’s quite a cost to be able to operate between 6 F35Bs (with helos and troops onboard) or upto 12-15 for a maximum F35B lightning carrier is pretty high. I think the Australian navy will likely go for a purpose built light carrier design. Could be proven wrong in which case I will bow and humbly admit I was wrong.

          • Have you seen the estimated cost of a S Korean CVX? $2.1bn US.

            Makes $150-200m look a little better. it’s all relative.

          • I think they would struggle to fund this anyway ,The AUKUS sub project will drain the coffers. Plus there is the Type 26 build.

          • Agree. The Aussie defence budget already has some big ticket items to pay for. The adaptation of Canberra class ships to fit F35Bs onboard isn’t likely anytime soon.

          • If you look at the work Japan is having to do on their “Destroyers” that amount sounds pretty reasonable actually.

      • The Indians are looking nervously at what the Chinese are up to, as regards India’s ability to dominate the northern Indian Ocean. Whether another carrier is the most useful response to that is open to question.

        • The Indians would be better served getting some SSNs into service. The PLAN current Achilles heel is their inability to confront premiere league SSNs like Sea Wolf, Virginia and Astute class.

          • No so much….any conflict between India and china at see is going to be based around the choke points from the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean….it’s actually possible to undertake navel blockade and interdict around the straits of Malacca and Java sea,the Phillip channel in the straits of malacca are only 1.5 miles wide….effectively you can cut access from the china seas and pacific to the Indian Ocean a a very few narrow choke points…you have to go all the way down through the Celebes sea and Banda sea to the Timor sea to get any form of access to or from the Indian Ocean and pacific without going through one a of handful or choke points. Basically any china India navel confrontation is going to be choke point oriented so electric boats are the thing…they are as good or better than nuclear boats in enclosed seas and choke points.

          • Agree. That would involve the Indian navy forward deploying into position around those choke points. Such an action would immediately draw the PLAN out to confront them.
            China is desperately trying to diversify its energy and raw goods imports from sea transit through the Malacca straights, passed Singapore to overland from Russia.
            If China can source it’s raw materials, gas, coal, oil heck even fresh water from Russia they will not be so precariously placed should a naval blockade stop imports.
            I think if Russia doesn’t go along with Chinese demands (requests) for raw materials and energy imports there is a real danger Russia’s east could be invaded and subsumed into a greater Chinese empire. The irony of such an eventuality would be delicious and serve the Russians and Mad Vlad a dose of their own medicine.

          • I completely agree, it’s one of the reasons I think Putin was insane to do what he did in Ukraine as well as create the narrative of confrontation with NATO, Russia was never going to be invaded by NATO, but outer Manchuria.. china still claims that…and china is going to need Siberia and eastern Russia if it’s going to feed its population in 50 years….personally I think china is laughing its ass off at Russia as now Russia is effectively turning itself into a Chinese client state, without china having to lift a finger or go to war with another nuclear power.

    • I’m sitting with popcorn waiting with interest for ( certain ) remoaners here to reply to these points.
      Though I suspect I’ll have a long wait.

      • Although I voted to remain I’ve never really considered it an issue that we left ( it was always a fine line sort of argument in my mind) as my main reason for remaining in the EU was that I did not really trust the EU…seems bizzare I know but I reckoned the only thing keeping the EU honest was the UK…going “umm no way” I don’t think that’s a good idea to the whole single European body politic thing. In principle the European community was a fine idea…the EU of the 21st C has sort of become a less than democratic monster.

        • Yes, as always a balanced comment. You, and every one, knows where I stand, but I can see the point you make of staying in to try to influence, though I don’t think Cameron got anywhere when he told the EU they need to change.

          And I doubt any of them were listening.
          What was it one of them said “we continue” whenever a nation objected or voted no to something. It’s not about individual nations, but the grand project.

          • Personally I think Cameron was particularly useless..in the weak sort of way..quite frankly him coming back with no concessions was ridiculous…the UK leaving the EU was a serous problem for the EU no question…if he had actually gone there and said look pony up or we are walking I suspect he would not have been able to fit through the door with the number of concessions he could have got….if the EU thought for a moment the UK was going to walk they would have bent over backwards…contrary to what a lot of people seem to believe the UK is a serious nation and it not being in the EU is a serious problem for the EU and is a huge dent in EU credibility…at some point the EU is going to have to get over itself and figure how it can work seamlessly with what will be the biggest none aligned economy in Europe by 2050.

          • The UK already has the biggest none aligned economy in Europe – and the second largest of all European economies. It may well become, as I think you are alluding to, the largest such economy later in the century.

          • Yes I meant the largest economy in Europe that was also no aligned ( basically the biggest economy in Europe will not be in the EU…the economy also with the greatest soft power and strategic reach).

    • Hello Jonathan,

      I got a memo from a mutual acquaintance saying I was expected on this thread. It has lots of things I want to comment on, some I agree with, some I disagree with but its a busy week at work so just one thing.

      I do not get the ‘Empire’ bit unless people are misunderstanding what was clearly meant as rhetoric.

      The EU is a voluntary union of 26 states that you can leave as we showed. All coupled with democratic elections and protections that make Britain and the USA look like relics from the days before democracy.

      The USA is a union of 50 states you cannot leave. The UK is the former English empire (even if it never called itself that) where the smaller states may be allowed a say on leaving if the centre allows it.

      For me we have lost the only democratic elections we have ever been allowed and access to one of only two independent courts we have ever had (we may lose the other soon). All to concentrate power even further at the point where the first past the post system is most democratically dysfunctional.

      This is a massive loss of sovereignty with no upside.

      • To answer that I would say most of the executive and legislative organs of the EU are at best very opaque and are not directly responsible to an Electorate:

        council of the. European Union: is unelected and not responsible to a single electorate.
        President of the council of Europe..is rotational.
        European council: is unelected and not responsible to a single electorate.
        President of the European council is selected by the council.
        European Commission: is unelected and not responsible to a single electorate.
        president of the European Commission is not elected and not responsible to a single electorate.

        The vast majority of the executive and legislative functions are not accountable to an electorate and therefore European Union is effectively not accountable to an electorate but to the executives of the nation states that make it up…..and I don’t much trust my own executive to make decisions that affect me…I certainly would not be happy that a council made of a composition of far right and far left random leaders from nation states I have nothing in common with ( Hungary has a lovely ruling party for instance). It is quite possible for European executive and legislative to have a membership that does not represent the views of the majority of Europeans.

        Also there is nothing to prevent a democratic “Empire” as you pointed out the US is very much an empire…as is Germany and most federal states…so yes you can call the Uk an empire…but then you have to call pretty much every modern nation state an empire…..because everyone of them is an amalgam of smaller states..that were subsumed.

        After all the definition of an empire is:

        “A central state with power over other regions. This influence over territories can be exerted through the use of the central power’s military force, financial incentives, cultural/religious indoctrination,or the leadership of an emperor ( in the modern world This can be a president or other head of state).

        With the seven key characteristics of imperial power coming from: central power and control processes ( such as a centralised court and executive, economic power, cultural power and control, religion, shared enemy and finally military power..another key defining characteristic of empire is they are expansionist in nature and use one or more of the seven characteristics to expend.

        so characteristics of the EU…
        1)Centralised power….yes it has a centralised executive, legislative and judiciary which exerts control and make laws over subject nations.
        2)economic power: a budget of 180billion, a central bank, a centrally controlled currency, used trade and tariffs those external to it.
        3)cultural power: EU culture policies aim to address and promote European integration through relevant legislation and government funding.
        4) shared enemy …yep
        5) military: common security and defence policy, with a number of EU military formations and from this article a hankering for more..
        6) religion: the European convention on human rights instructs nation states on this.
        7) control process….the European Commission and courts.

        so yes the EU is an empire..it may be beneficial and member states that have democratic processes..but the EU itself has very little direct accountability to an electorate…

  15. I actually can’t think of anything that European / NATO needs less than an Aircraft Carrier ! An integrated Missile Defence system is way more relevant and Germany will bulldoze through what they want which is US / Israeli COTS based.
    Check out this guys profile he is 100% French national Ecole system upbringing and educated so slightly biased.
    The EU aren’t stupid, France is smack in the middle of replacing its SSN’s, getting ready to replace their SSBN’s and building PANG to replace the CDG, hence they are ever so slightly skint.
    So quell surprise France wants the EU to help fund part of that.
    Oh and there is one major obstacle to this brilliant idea, France will want a version of PANG to provide cover for theirs. Unfortunately Germany will nix that straight away as they banned anything that is Nuclear powered post Fukushima.

    Dead in the water.🥴

  16. Aside from the infinite unanswered questions about how this would actually work, I can envisage this being an incredibly easy target for Russian and Chinese espionage.

    No bad thing though that this is being talked about though. The conversation around collective defence can never stop.

  17. An EU army isn’t the end of the world so long as it doesn’t conflict with NATO but the remainers made a mistake by trying to gaslight people into thinking it wasn’t happening: it would have been much better to just go after the ‘Fourth Reich’ conspiracy head on.

    • The thing is it wouldn’t have happened as long as the UK had remained in the EU. We are Euroskeptical to a fault and would have vetoed any talk of it instantly. But, as some including myself said, once we are out, we can’t influence what happens on the inside anymore.

      *edit* Also a EU military really shouldn’t conflict with NATO, it would just mean that you’d have 1 entity within NATO instead of 25 (I think) separate ones, plus the US, Canada, UK, Norway etc.

      • Completely agree, and while I don’t think the issue swung many people either way, it would have been smarter to properly engage with the issue with facts like you have rather than helping muddy the debate by outright denying any EU military ambitions despite the evidence.

        My two concerns are if the EU as an entity considers itself outside of NATO and therefore all resources put towards it end up being thrown down the drain, and if the EU embarks on a series of World Police actions which upset the USA.

        • The issue is, the reason the US in anti-EU is not because they think they’ll buck NATO, it’s because the US knows that a EU superstate will be competition. Friendly competition for sure, but still a competitor. A united EU defence system for example could support an MIC that’s as big as the American one… harder to sell F-35’s on US Industry friendly terms to foreign nations when the EU is offering their version with fewer strings attached for example…

          • Very true, and I bet people in Washington are thinking about how they’d have more control over what gets sent to Ukraine and when if Europe was entirely equipped with US gear.

  18. 2023 A Committee will be convened
    2025 France will demand design leadership
    2027 France leaves the project
    2030 A progress report is published. The vessel will have a flat deck and ‘some aircraft’
    2032 France rejoins the project
    2035 France and Germany demand that Estonia ‘pays its fair share’
    2035 Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland, Sweden and Denmark leave the project
    2036 A name for the aircraft is chosen: Bismarck. Germany is now the projects main (only) funder
    2038 A progress report is published. A flat deck ‘many’ types of aircraft’ and a multinational crew. These will all speak French
    2040 The Germans complain that the project has so far cost 12 trillion Euros and all they have seen are some drawings and video of a vessel with a flat deck. France has an economic boom …
    2041 China announces it has bought Belgium

  19. This will be a French attempt to bolster their future carrier design and maybe get more than 1 ship funded. Let me guess, 2nd carrier will be “European” built in France, crewed by France, operated by France, aircraft and aircrew – French, but paid for by Europe.

  20. I seem to recall a senior French defence official describing the previous German proposal as “perhaps not very well though through”. This struck me as a generous way of putting it.

  21. The EU is not a sovereign state so how does a political body established for trade between nations get a military?

    Surely, NATO is the military collaboration in Europe and the west – responsible for defence. The EU is significantly overstepping it’s jurisdiction and responsibilities here. Too many big ego’s at play.

  22. Well here is an Idea: The EU buys/supplies some more F-35s/ordinances for the RN carriers and /or leases some flying time for NATO pilots

    • When the QE Carriers were getting built sure there was talk Tony Blair letting the French have use of one ,if memory servers me right even the Admirals were panicking in silence . 😷

      • I believe the proposal was back in the 90s when the carrier project was starting up. The plan was basically that the UK would provide 2 large carriers and the French a third in the CdG, with escorts generated by other members, so that Europe could always have a carrier group available.

        Of course it didn’t pan out that way. That would more or less require the Royal Navy to give up control of the carriers to a joint command structure that would coordinate maintenance schedules and deployments. UK solo deployments would’ve largely gone out the window.

  24. Probable shows the nervousness if Trump gets back in as he will carry out his plan to pull out of NATO. Europe needs to build up its own defence.

    • Trump would never pull out of NATO, he tried to get Europe to spend the minimum 2% of GDP on defence, which they’ve been getting away with for decades. When he pulled out 10,000 US troops it concentrated minds & European countries agreed to up their spending. I don’t particularly like Trump, but he gets results.

      • His Chief of Staff and head of the military did not share your confidence.
        He is already laying the ground work for the big steal 2.0.

    • Trump does not have plans to pull out of NATO. That’s a European and UK canard used to disparage Trump and deflect his demand that Europe pay its fair share for defense.
      What is more likely is that a Trump second term produces a fracturing of NATO where like-minded nations, US, Poland, Baltics, UK, etc., decide to form a NATO 2.0 with the US, UK and Canada as a cornerstone and Germany, France etc left to an EU defense. Poland, the Baltics, and others are never going to trust their defense to Germany, France, and Brussels. Sounds perhaps a bit of a stretch, but it can’t be discounted if Europe just continues to refuse to pay its fair share.

      • It’s definately not a canard. Multiple people such as the National Security Advisor Bolton, Mike Pompeo and Jens Stoltenberg have all said that Trump actually ordered plans to be prepared to do just that.

        Senior administration officials told The New York Times that several times over the course of 2018, Mr. Trump privately said he wanted to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Current and former officials who support the Alliance said they feared Mr. Trump could return to his threat as EU states’ military spending continued to lag behind the goals the president had set.

        Trump is a wild card and he has been impeached twice. He’s facing 91 federal and state charges, including fraud and theft of classified documents. The Washington Post analysed his term in office and determined that Trump’s false or misleading claims totaled 30,573 over 4 years. Do you really want this man as your president again?

  25. The EU could use the €1.15 Billion that it was going to give to Palestinian Terrorists as aid. The carrier will be built in France, giving France 2 new large carriers & the EU would also have to buy about 60 €120 Million Rafale, as the F35 is seen as a NATO aircraft. Win Win for France, again 😅

    • 1.15B Euros would get you a new German frigate, so god knows how little that would cover of a French-built nuclear carrier (I’d guess maybe a fifth at most).

      Safe to say, the EU will never go for it. There’s not a single member willing to shell out that level of funding and see zero financial gain in workshare.

      • The French reckon PANG will be delivered for £7 billion. So one PANG for price of both QEC. I’d rather have the QEC.
        BMT naval architect friend looked over PANG design and reckoned as first in class with new technology PANG more likely will be £10-11.5 billion. So close to Ford class price tag.
        Whether France can afford even 1 PANG is questionable, 2 is completely out of the realms of possibility unless France drastically increases its defence budget…hence why an “EU funded” carrier is being proposed.

  26. Am I missing something here? Surely the goal is to have a European high readiness force that can deal with threats to any members of the EU.
    Would that not be better met by say a bunch of F35b, drones, AAR, command centres/aircraft, awacs and big stocks of weapons.
    the F35b, drones can operate from 1000’s of locations across Europe, the longer range aircraft based further away. Decent stocks of cruise missiles, bombs, and long range rockets would be much better than an aircraft carrier that needs replenishment ships just to be off the coast.
    Unless the EU sees its goal of operating further from Europe.

    • After Germany behaviour during the Typhoon project and the huge cost over runs they caused , I am very happy they have zero to do with Tempest.

      • I am reassured someone lese noticed trhe German ‘ally’ delayed Typhoon by a decade at least. Others disagree. One will be along soon …

        • I do not know about the decade but certainly several years and several billions. There was a two year period the project was in crisis every month due to Germany wanting to dumb it down or pull out completely.
          So my responce when Tempest was announced and Germany and France went their own way was Bon Voyage and Bon débarras.

  28. The European missile defence network and space defence capability I understand, but is an aircraft carrier really the right ship? Joint EU task groups of destroyers and frigates surely is more use than a single carrier? If they want to get into that then just make sure France can get their second or write up a UK/EU agreement where a QE CSG has a supporting squadron from several EU nations or something.
    Still, there’s some merit to the idea. Europe should be able to look primarily to itself for defence with the US lurking in the background but also able to focus elsewhere and be sure we can keep the situation under control for a time, sure, but there has to be some level of willingness to operate a global force with regional partners, especially if the EU is growing closer.

  30. Persuading some landlocked EU members to fund an aircraft carrier would be fun. Would the declared neutral countries also be expected to cough up?
    The more the EU tries to look like a conventional single state, the less convincing it seems.

  31. I can’t see France being able to afford two carriers so this would be a good way for them to piggyback other people. I still have my doubts PANG will ever be more than a shiny 3D rendering on a powerpoint

    • The cost of PANG was estimated to be between six and eight billion for one. They would have gotten two carriers if they stayed what became the QE class carrier.

      • See above. Initial cost estimate is £6-8 billion but realistically the PANG design is going to cost £10-11.5 billion each. That’s not my estimate. That’s an expert in the field.

    • Electric catapults, billion+Hawkeyes AWE good but expensive, 2 reactors needing mid life refuelling. New gen 5+ carrier fighter planes still on drawing board with no potential export orders.

      • More often than mid life, every 12 years or so.
        They use LEU – around 20% as a feature to maintain compatibility with their civilian nuclear power plants tech .
        However they do make the refuelling’s ‘ toute suite, CDG only spent 2 years for hers including standard overhaul. Even the subs have pre built hatch openings in the pressure hull for the refuelling rods, to avoid messy hull cutting

  35. Apart from France, Spain and Italy already have light carriers. I know that France wants to replace the Charles De Gaule with a new supercarrier, but it will cost nearly 8 billion. France abandoned the PA2 project (QE class carrier). They would have been able to get two carriers then. There’s no harm in trying to sell the EU the QE design with the CATOBAR if that’s the size they are going for. What size of carrier are they looking for?

    • Yep QEC sized. PANG is of course nuclear powered and had to be bigger then a QEC so 72,000 standard tons Vs 65,000 for QEC. But we have 2 QEC ensuring continuous or near continuous availability.
      France missed a trick with the QEC design and should have gone ahead with PA2. You are right. They could have had 2 new carriers by now for less than the actual price of one proposed PANG design.

      • They could revive the project, but I doubt they would want to be seen asking the UK again. I’m sure they could slightly modify the QE for nuclear. The EMALS itself would potentially be sold to France for $1.32 billion. That figure was from Sept 2022.

  36. A French businessman with a current trade portfolio proposes an aircraft carrier as a solution to a predominantly land-based threat. Yeah, no.

    • The reality is that France cannot afford PANG, but they simply won’t accept or admit that and opt for a CV rather than a CVN.

  38. Europe could have an aircraft carrier but it will need a clear and decisive European command structure to have any relevance, otherwise at points of crisis it’s going to be stuck in port while Germany, for instance, deliberates for weeks on whether it will authorise German personnel and equipment to be involved in whatever the proposed mission is. I suspect this due to what has happened with the Ukraine war where Germany as dithered on almost every decision of import: lethal weapons for Ukraine, foreign weapons going through their airspace, tanks, cruise missiles, sanctions, swift banking system, Nord Stream and so on.

  39. Love the idea, it’ll never happen.

    Buy a common frigate flotilla for the Baltic States to train up an officer class on more than mine sweepers, with a NAS Helicopter unit attached and if they can get that to work, scale up to 4 carriers with support and fixed air.

    With Trump resurgent, Europe must get off its arse and stand up.

  40. I don’t think an EU unit would work. Maybe a CSG-based SNMG3? UK could contribute with a carrier but would need a NATO air wing. Currently not many options there due to F-35b-only. RN/RAF don’t have the capacity to be sole operators. SNMG3 would need rotation support; since it is a standing force. There just aren’t enough NATO carrier operators outside of the US.

    • I don’t know. Italians have Cavour and Trieste and could provide a light carrier with 12-15 F35Bs onboard. That’s a reasonable capability. Spain might get the F35B for their navy. Although likely to be also a single squadron sized force.

      • Yes. better for Germans to buy a Cavour sized carrier with F-35Bs. After all the Italians build their sub designs.

        Carriers are too complicated operations to have multinational mixed crews
        Its hard enough for UK with RN and RAF in the mix for their carriers

  41. A European aircraft carrier ? What utter twaddle. It would never work for manning, aircraft type, vulnerability and operational deployment differences.

  43. I actually have a serious question and it isn’t about a carrier that will never be built.
    If there are any Navy bods on here pipe up, if you know the answer.

    Could Europe provide Minesweepers to Romania and Bulgaria such as Sandowns etc via the Rhein – Maine – Danube canal ? I have a feeling its possible and think they may need them.

    • Ex RN Sandown class Minehunters are and have been cascaded to Allied Naval Forces,Romania has 1 and is awaiting delivery of another 2.Due to their size delivery by River/Canal would be the obvious option i agree.

    • Yes, the Canal is about 4m deep, so as long as the ships you are providing are of a very shallow draft (I think Sandowns are 2 and a bit) then there shouldn’t be an issue.
      But it doesn’t matter because ships that small can pass through the Dardanelles anyway.

      • Nope they can’t due to the terms of the Treaty a warship over 100 tons is Warship so covered by the Straits Treaty.
        So far Turkey hasn’t allowed any Warship though the Straits which doesn’t belong to a Black Sea nation and isn’t home based in the Black Sea.
        Hence Romanian warships have been passing through and 1 Russian tug as both were returning to their own home base.
        Russia tried to get 3 other Warships through arguing that they were going to be home based in the Black Sea, they were refused.
        Romania has 1 ex RN Sandown MCM’s waiting to be delivered and Ukraine has 2.
        I can’t see Turkey allowing the Ukrainian ones through as they are a belligerent and never been based there. The Romanian one may be allowed through, but that will be up to Turkey.
        So if NATO wanted to send sweepers they would need to go via the Canal system (just like Russia is rumoured to be doing) via their internal waterways.

        • Article 10 of the Montreux Convention:

          In time of peace, light surface vessels, minor war vessels and auxiliary vessels, whether belonging to Black Sea or non-Black Sea Powers, and whatever their flag, shall enjoy freedom of transit through the Straits without any taxes or charges whatever, provided that such transit is begun during daylight and subject to the conditions laid down in Article 13 and the Articles following thereafter.

          Romania and Bulgaria are not at war, and are Black Sea Powers, hence sailing them into the Black Sea via the Dardanells is not an issue. And no, NATO wouldn’t under the Montreux Convention need to send a Minesweeper force through the canals unless A) They totalled more than 30,000t of foreign warships in the straights, or B) they where declared for a Humanitarian mission in which case it would be 8,000t.

          • Yep unfortunately Turkey has invoked the treaty as they have declared that there is a state of war between Russia and Ukraine. And so far no non belligerent has sent anything through the straits which isn’t home based prior to hostilities.
            Romania has sent its existing ships back and forth due to that exemption the new Sandown will be a test case.

  44. A noble idea, but the inter nation squabbling, would negate the whole thing, who would operate it? Who would crew it. Who would it really be the registered owners? Anything to do with the french will be a total beaurocrattic calamity.

  45. I’m going to be a bit radical and suggest something realistic. If the EU are really serious about upping European Defence then maybe they need a pragmatic solution. There is a simple way to provide a very capable European Carrier Force and it wouldn’t take decades.
    Just reduce our Divorce payment from the EU to pay for a full CATOBAR conversion of both QE’s and an increased number of F35’s. We then coordinate with France to ensure 2 are operational at all times and declare them all to NATO standing force with a National Emergency opt out. Just like we do with Trident.
    They also provide France a grant for PANG to replace CDG.
    Damn sure the RN and MN can sort it out between themselves (we bring the beer and they the Wine).

    • I would personally steer clear of this suggestion, we don’t need anything to delay our response to a situation should it occur, I think adding EU to our carrier deployments would cause more issues than it solves.

      • Massively agree. Having sovereign power over our military forces means we don’t need permission from the dithering Germans or petulant French to do anything we do decide or choose to do.

  46. So the next government will tilt to Europe and retreat from areas where our carriers will actually be useful. Europe wants carriers we’ll have a couple spare.

  47. Sell POW to EU for £5bn.Use the money to buy 3 Batch 2 America class LHD and fit ski jumps.Extra money if needed from not replacing Albion class.Therefore 3 mini carriers and 3 LHDs in 3 hulls.And the US Marine Corps could provide the extra F35Bs cos they are same ships as they use.The French can convert POW to STOBAR and use Navalised Rafale,everybody happy.Except the Czechs,Poles,Baltic States,Spain Portugal etc…OhWell….

    • Nope, let’s keep what we’ve got. France wants a new carrier we would happily build them a QEC but it’s never going to happen. They want PANG and EU funds to build a 2nd PANG then over to them. The bill WILL be £11 billion per ship. Then add the new navalised version of Franco-Germanic 6th gen aircraft, not built, no prototype and already fractious disagreements between the 2 partner nations coat for an airwing will be very expensive. Alternatively they could keep Rafale M and hope it can keep being modernised into the 2050s and beyond.
      Not keen on giving any of our carrier capability away. It’s ours, we’ve paid for it at considerable expense and offset a lot of other useful requirements like LPHD to achieve strike carrier power. Now we should double down on them and make our carrier strike force as potent as possible.

  48. First share an aircraft carrier, then a submarine, then a nuclear submarine, then a ballistic missile nuclear submarine.
    Fancy that.

  49. So the sixty million euro question under which flag would it sail ? Who would command it ? Who would Captain it ? And who would be the ships company?

    • God. I hope not but knowing the Tories and their utter incompetence and short-termism I could see this happening. Wouldn’t put any stupid decision passed Sunak. If there is a quick buck to be made you can bet your arse he will do it.

  51. I suspect this is just an effort for the French to get another carrier. I think the EU would be wise to spend on a better air defence and strengthen the defence of their home territories than to buy a global asset. However the EU is determined to become a world super state and for that you need a carrier. While
    I think improved European defence is a good idea, I suspect the EU motivation and an inappropriate selection of asset. Europe already has several carriers including the UK ones that operate under NATO. This is just EU trying to build itself a military for its new state.

  52. Excellent idea. A dozen at least to compete with the US. To be built I assume at the same time as 2 millions strong army and massive air force. Gets my vote if I had one.

  53. Thierry Breton – lets just hope this guy diesn’t end up the the next President of the EU Commission. No friend of UK and for that matter Germany. So still hope.

  54. Sell them the Prince of Wales for a profit and use the money so Queen Elizabeth actually had an air wing, or better yet fund the air wing and build another carrier Ark Royal and bag a profit on POW!

  55. *Checks calendar… Nope definitely not April 1.

    Has some EU apperatchik been spending some time in the coffee shops of Amsterdam?

  56. If anyone’s wondering about the concept art at the top of the article, I think it’s from the DCNS Evolved Aircraft Carrier concept that was proposed about a decade ago.

  60. LOL at the jingoistic gammons and their desperate attempts to big themselves up, despite the abject failure of the UK in practically every metric & sphere of influence.

    It’s fun to watch though as you keep sinking lower and lower 🤣

  62. Apart from the presence of US & UK carriers, “Europe” already has French, Italian & Spanish carriers, which will be renewed & replaced as necessary.
    Not that we have laurels to sit on, few major EU nations seem ready to commit to even 2% minimum to defence. Here we have a Eurocrat proposing an EU carrier, ignoring the fact that Europe’s defence is best served by NATO, which all states brlong to bar Eire.
    Keep it all under NATO & stop this EU mission creep empire building. Smacks of the super state that led many to reject the EU here.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here