Britain and France to share aircraft carriers

Seem like protectionist defence procurement isn’t quite giving us sovereign capability the way we were promised, eh?

Had we ordered much of the new carriers to be built overseas, we could have had them at a fraction of the £5 billion cost. But the asinine logic of the Defence Industrial Strategy means that we instead had to have them built in the UK.  

Why? It gives us sovereign capability, we keep being told. 

Balls. Instead we end up with British-built carriers that may not have airplanes to put on them - and which we have to share with France.   

So much for the Defence Industrial Strategy giving us sovereign capability.  "May we take le carrier to le Falkland islands, s'il vous plait, Monsieur?  We give you fish quotas or concede new EU directive against the City in return, oui?"  

The Defence Industrial Strategy is ruining our defence capability. It might suits politicians and their pork barrel politics.  Big defence contractors might love the mega buck contracts it puts their way. 

But the way the Ministry of Defence spends our defence budget means that what economic strength Britain retains is not efficiently converted into military muscle. Too many vested corporate interest are getting in the way.

Posted on 31 August 2010 by Douglas Carswell

Comments

It's not just the carriers. The F35s to fly off them are looking like £100 million a time and rising. The proposal was to have 120 of them. That's serious money.

Posted on 31 August 2010 15:40 by forlornehope

Is this the beginning of the EuroArmy?

We want our referendum!!!!!

Posted on 31 August 2010 16:10 by Kelly

Er, didn't you go to the length of putting in the body of your post a defense of pork when I pointed out that the Republic of Ireland is full of it the week before last?

Posted on 31 August 2010 16:15 by Michael Shilliday

DIS is not working because it was never funded. Successive Governments, including the current one, blow ever-larger sums of money on certain Whitehall departments while defence spending has dropped over the last 20 years.

Buying from overseas is not cheaper. Short-term it can appear to be until maintenance and upgrades are added. Longer-term when the domestic industry has withered on the vine the prices from overseas suppliers then shoot up. At which point the UK would be much more beholden to overseas powers than this shared carrier suggestion, which is mainly being put forward because defence has been starved of funding compared to other Government departments while being under much greater pressure.

Posted on 31 August 2010 16:35 by Matthew Knowles

I posted a comment in response to the 'Begging from America' piece on the 25th of August suggesting that the drastic cuts to defence were a deliberate ploy to ensure that our armed forces were so depleted they couldn't function on their own and thus pave the way for a 'euro-army' or whatever. This is the first step on that road.

Posted on 31 August 2010 16:44 by Scott Milne

Well, the good news is that with an EU defence force, we'll never be going to war again. Can you imagine getting all 27 to agree on anything?

Posted on 31 August 2010 17:05 by backofanenvelope

I am sorry but really now you are going to far.

Again you seem to assume that just because we buy it overseas it is going to cost absolutely nothing or as you say a "fraction of the cost." This is simply not true, you love to bang on about how Black Hawk is $8m a pop but you are completely ignoring the surrounding costs.

Taiwan recently bought 60 Black Hawks from America for $3.1bn which is the price for all the support services it needs and of course the chopper itself with equipment. I think I do not need to do the maths here but it sure as ketchup aint $8m a piece.

As for the carriers then, where do you suppose we buy them from? The Americans? And what do they have which is even remotely close to a QE-class carrier? They have the Nimitz class carriers of course and they are on the market for $4.5bn AND they are staffed by 5,000 sailors and airmen AND you would need a completely new dock for there simply are none that size in the UK. You say buy if from China? No, we can't do that because of the EU arms embargo and they can barely build carriers for themselves. That pretty much only leaves France and the rest of the euro gang, but I would not by mustard from France given their record of their De-Gaulle class carrier (it is absolutely crap).

Posted on 31 August 2010 17:06 by 13th Spitfire

This is all part of the further intigration with europe and is totaly against the will of our people. I am totaly against it and very dissapointed with Cameron.

Posted on 31 August 2010 17:11 by Johnny Norfolk

It would be an interesting exercise to find an example of Anglo-French naval co-operation that we can name the damned things after too - especially as half of the RN seems to think Nelson is still in charge and firmly believe that the French Navy exists only to give the Royal Navy something to sink!

Posted on 31 August 2010 17:17 by Mr. B.

What happens if we have to go to war with France?

Posted on 31 August 2010 17:17 by James Hamilton

I'm with Matthew and Scott. It makes no sense to put highly-skilled engineers and workers on the dole so that we can "save" money on defence so that we can afford huge numbers on the dole. That is insanity. Use the power of competition to get prices down so that British companies can build what we need and a bit more that we can sell. That's the way America does it. Is it difficult to understand?

Posted on 31 August 2010 18:24 by Disputin

Who's going to have first call on the sole Anglo-French carrier when we decide to recapture Calais, Normandy and Acquitaine in order to stem the flood of euro-ruin?

Better make sure it's "our" week - shouldn't take any longer........

Posted on 31 August 2010 18:32 by Michael St George

Fellow Bloggers
Couple of points, MOD spends yr money as the Minister directs, we are not free agents!Talk to Liam Fox!
Why shouldnt we beg from America, we've been doing it for years, WW1, WW2, Lend Lease, we were unable to continue in 1941 without American support as we were bankrupt, as it happens neither could the Russians. Defence of Europe throughout the cold war.
Read a history book, try An Audit of War by Corelli Barnet.
DIS doesnt work because it is stupid, there isnt enough money in the world to beat the market! See similar fall of Communism for info.
War has changed since strategic industry was important, these days you fight with what you have to hand at the start.
Why are we buying Carriers when we are v nearly broke and cant afford the planes, how does that improve our ability to project non-existent British power? Get a grip!

Posted on 31 August 2010 19:29 by The Uncivil Servant

I'd rather we share our military equipment with the French than the Americans. The French supported us over the Falklands from the outset, whereas the Americans...

Posted on 31 August 2010 19:34 by Tom

carriers are weapons of offence not defence and with the changes in the world they are now unnecessary. We are not policing the waves anymore. At a time when we can't afford a decent health or education service spending on a weapon that won't stop an invasion is pointless. The point of defence is to defend Britain. Aside from nice toys for admirals these ships have no purpose. The new enemy is terrorism. Carriers wouldn't have stopped 9/11 or 7/7. So what is their purpose?

Posted on 31 August 2010 19:34 by Bruce

Why do I have a feelign Douglas that if you'd have been in Harold Wilson's first government you would have put TSR 2 on the scrapheap as well?

Things like that damaged our defence capability more than trying to be protectionist.

Posted on 31 August 2010 19:48 by Ultimo Tiger

Mr B wants examples of Anglo-French naval co-operation. Mers-el-Kébir?

Posted on 31 August 2010 21:16 by TheEye

Tom - with support like that from France we'd have lost. They sold Exocet to Argentina. Even during the conflict they were ready to sell Exocet to a dodgy third party on the assumption it was Argentina...luckily it was a Mi5 sting. Belgium wouldn't even sell us bullets for our SLR's and the EU as a whole .. all of our 'chums' wouldn't let our military have over flying rights- during the conflict. Reagan offered to lend us a spare aircraft carrier...once Haig had given up. Now thats co-operation.
Depend on the EU? I'd rather we surrendered.

Posted on 31 August 2010 23:50 by Ethan

This is the result of Lisbon. Read chapter 7.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12002.htm

Also read the Written Evidence - Memorandum from Open Europe for a list of Labour negotiating failures.

Posted on 1 September 2010 04:15 by Tom Thumb

Tom - Yr couldnt be more wrong, the French entirely failed to support UK during South Atlantic conflict - programmed missiles for Argentinians, which at the time they couldn't do themselves - result RN losses. Meanwhile the Americans released NATO warstock of missiles and supported us in the UN. This is a matter of public record and not really open for dispute.
Lets pls improve the Blog and stay with the facts.

Posted on 1 September 2010 06:57 by The Uncivil Servant

This whole twin-carrier project is nonsense. Add together the cost of the carriers, aircraft, infrastructure and training and you are looking at £60 billion. In any case, the RN is now too small to support such vessels - not enough men.

Posted on 1 September 2010 07:17 by backofanenvelope

Spitfire
The America Class Amphibious Assault Ship.
$2.4bn fixed price to design and build, thats £1.6bn
Displaces 45,000tons.

But your mistaking buying an existing overseas design for ordering them to be built overseas.
A Korean Yard could knock out a QE class in a tenth of the time at half the cost.

Posted on 1 September 2010 10:03 by DominicJ

When the Argentinians invaded the Falklands, the United States' first act was to declare her neutrality and deny Britain use of US military facilities on Ascension Island. Ascension is, of course, British territory.

France by contrast made information about the Exocets immediately available (so we could tamper with it) as well as Super-Etendard and Mirage aircraft so we could train against them.

This is also John Nott's view and he, er, knows a thing or two about the Falklands War:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1387576/How-France-helped-us-win-Falklands-war-by-John-Nott.html

Let's improve the blog and stick to the facts, eh?

Posted on 1 September 2010 13:26 by Tom

Well Tom I've done some resarch and your partially correct.

Allied Win no 1
Ascension Island, a British possession, was vital in the long term supply of the Task Force South; however, the airbase stationed on it was run and operated by the U.S. The American commander of the base was ordered to assist the British in any way and for a brief period Ascension Air Field was one of the busiest airports in the world.

Allied fail no 2
'according to Dr. James Corum, the French team apparently continued to assist the Argentines throughout the war in spite of the NATO embargo and official French government policy.

So that s nice isn't it.
But you still cannot rely on the French. Simply put if it's not in their immediate interest they won't do it. A pity the UK doesn't adopt a similar stance IMO.

wikipedia

Posted on 1 September 2010 14:47 by Ethan

Not only did the French refuse to reveal anything about the Exocet, they also forbade the Royal Navy to do so. The first Exocet we got to investigate was when 4 lorry-mounted ones were captured, rather late in the day.

Mr Nott was the Sec of State for Defence - I was a member of the DIS!

You are quite right tho' - lets stick to the facts....

Posted on 1 September 2010 15:04 by backofanenvelope

Logically incoherent. If it's a shared capacity, why would Britain need to ask France for permission to take a carrier someplace, without at least France asking the same permission in return? This only makes sense if you assert that we would be hiring French carriers, which nobody is suggesting.

Shared military assets with our nearest neighbour, and best friend, with shared interests and a century old alliance only makes sense.

Posted on 1 September 2010 15:39 by Charlie Grove

Oh dear Mr Carswell... it seems history and the Conservative origins of this matter are not your strong point. Here, let me put it into context for you:

The UK/France Letter of Intent (LOI) on co-operation and areas of mutual interest in maritime defence was signed by Ministers in 1996 [nb. Conservative government]. This covers a very wide range of activity, including operations, and 20 formal Working Groups have been established under the direction of the British and French Chiefs of Naval Staff. The working groups cover such activities as:

Future Aircraft Carrier Development

Operational Planning

Training between Surface Fleets

Submarines

Operational Doctrine (Anti-Submarine Warfare)

Operational Doctrine (Anti-Air Warfare and Anti-Surface Warfare)

Naval Aviation

Communications

Personnel Exchanges

Amphibious Operations

Posted on 1 September 2010 16:02 by Autonomous Mind

This article is nonsense from beginning to end. Sharing carriers with the French will never happen.

Posted on 3 September 2010 13:49 by William Hannam

We can afford decent armed forces, what we can't afford is to be spending lots of money and wasting lots of young lives fighting wars in order to make our politicians feel good about themselves. No one has really made a case for being in Afghanistan that could not have been achieved by more intelligent diplomacy. You don't have to be a loony left peacenik to realise that apart from getting rid of Saddam, little concrete has been achieved from the invasion of Iraq. our politicians basked in the glory of saddam's demise but were ill prepared for what to do next and who has been picking up the bill ever since - the UK taxpayer either through the MoD or DFID.

considering as far as i am aware britain is still an island, still has trade interests and dependencies around the world, and the new world order of peace and love has yet to arrive, we need to invest in our navy or we'll be making the same mistake as the government in the early 80s when they gave up patrolling the south atlantic and suddenly found the argies invading the falklands.

Posted on 4 September 2010 00:40 by John Wrexham

Douglas I tend to agree with you up to a point but on this issue i feel you are mistaken. Building the carriers in Britain makes sense to me. If we keep on outsourcing the manufacture of vital equipment then eventually we will never have the skills available.
Bruce states "Carriers wouldn't have stopped 9/11 or 7/7. So what is their purpose?"
Well for one carriers can help defend the sea lanes. Britain lest we forget is an island. If we can no longer control the trade routes then Britain can be starved into submission. Try reading some history you might learn something.

Posted on 5 September 2010 16:52 by LT

Make A Comment