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.
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.
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
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.
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. 🇦🇺 🇬🇧 🇺🇦
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.
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.