Guardian article - French suggest UK/FR SSBN fleet

#1
Not seen this on here. The French have apparently proposed that the UK and France should share deterrent patrols, a proposal rejected by UK

Proposals for closer UK-French defence co-operation have been driven by Paris, British defence officials emphasised yesterday, though Brown may raise the issue in remarks today to the Foreign Press Association in London.

Britain and France could synchronise nuclear deterrent patrols and co-operate in the deployment of surface fleet task forces, sources say. However, British officials played down the possibility of formal agreements on the nuclear deterrent – or on sharing each other's aircraft carriers.

"We could not make a full commitment," a defence source said, referring to the deployment of carriers. He referred to the British intervention in Sierra Leone 10 years ago and Iraq. France did not "want to have anything to do with" either operation, the source said.

However, both governments say they recognise the potential scope for much closer co-operation both in terms of strategy and in procuring new weapons systems.
Full article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/19/france-britain-shared-nuclear-deterrent.

Not sure what I think about the idea, but it obviously isn't going to happen this year.

C_C
 
#2
I don't know why we don't do it.

We have so much in common and so much shared history with many countries in Europe (not neccesarily all on the same side agreed).

Why not start forming a European Army? But don't do it in the suicidal 'all or nothing' approach we had with the Euro.

Bond groups together. France and UK, Germany and Austria, Belgium and Holland, the Scandanavian bloc. Then merge these, Anglo-franc with the bosch and unterbosche. Flemdutch with the Scandanavians.

A sort of EuFor, which has already worked in many places around the globe. It would be like a closer knit NATO with each country still able to defend its borders.

Its the future.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
1. The UK deterrent exists to protect the UK. I cannot believe the French would use theirs for that so we would only have a part-time deterrent. It's not just about the platform although that is absolutely crucial. It's about potential enemies knowing we have the political will to use it (somewhat doubtful when Marxist Labour regimes were in power here during the Cold War). Any politician who falls for this one is betraying our country. Thinks: does this mean the frog one os coming to end of life and they can't afford a replacement?

2. There is a significant strategic difference between Fr and the UK. It is this. If an enemy nukes the UK then US reinforcement of Europe is jeopardised and maybe the rest of Europe would just have to roll over and give in, not wanting a dose themselves. There is no strategic gain from an enemy nuking France so they don't need a deterrent in the first place.So they don;t care whether it works or not. Hence the attempt to halve their costs.
 
#4
chocolate_frog said:
I don't know why we don't do it.

We have so much in common and so much shared history with many countries in Europe (not neccesarily all on the same side agreed).

Why not start forming a European Army? But don't do it in the suicidal 'all or nothing' approach we had with the Euro.

Bond groups together. France and UK, Germany and Austria, Belgium and Holland, the Scandanavian bloc. Then merge these, Anglo-franc with the bosch and unterbosche. Flemdutch with the Scandanavians.

A sort of EuFor, which has already worked in many places around the globe. It would be like a closer knit NATO with each country still able to defend its borders.

Its the future.
That's the problem.
 
#5
Jesus christ - when have we ever really seen eye to eye with the French when it comes fighting wars ? We each have our own national interests which is why these things will never happen or work. EuFor ? a load of bollocks useful for maybe a little bit of peace keeping but without any meaningful capability. Can you ever see a European Army deploying into a warfighting situation ? Nope because by the time everyone has got together, drawn up a list of national caveats, worked out the C2 layers and figured out who is going to provide what capability, the Americans have already steamed in and pretty much smashed everything worth smashing.
 
#6
Would have been a lot cheaper to solve the Cold War by nuking frogland-the Soviets NBC kit wasn't that good,so the Channel ports would have been impossible to reach.Hopefully,the fallout would have made Brussels uninhabitable for many centuries!Local warming might have made English wines palatable too.Wouldn't trust the smellies to be our nuclear watch-might use it on us for sinking their fleet in WW2 :D :slow:
 
#8
Even before it could begin, it would take years just to come to an agreement on what language is to be used. One of the failings of NATO, giving French as the other official language.
 
#9
Get a grip...

They are French.

Need any other reasons to avoid this idea like the plague?
 
#10
Now where not the Carriers ALL THREE OF THEM meant originally as part of a Euro/Anglofrog fleet ?
Something at the back of my heed says that 2 Brit and 1 New Frog Carrier where planned and that la frog was supplying the escorts.
I know if old age has set in and mi Alzheimer's is playing me up you will correct me.
john
Mind you what ever became of those Italian (Fiat ?) Landrover replacements that Blur signed up for ?
 
#11
chocolate_frog said:
I don't know why we don't do it.

We have so much in common and so much shared history with many countries in Europe (not neccesarily all on the same side agreed).

Why not start forming a European Army? But don't do it in the suicidal 'all or nothing' approach we had with the Euro.

Bond groups together. France and UK, Germany and Austria, Belgium and Holland, the Scandanavian bloc. Then merge these, Anglo-franc with the bosch and unterbosche. Flemdutch with the Scandanavians.

A sort of EuFor, which has already worked in many places around the globe. It would be like a closer knit NATO with each country still able to defend its borders.

Its the future.
Utterly naive. Can you see Les Miserables in Paris having anything to do with British interests such as the Falklands, Gibraltar etc? Similarly, why should we get involved with former French colonial interests?

In such coalitions, as highlighted from the Balkans, each contingent commander can play a 'red card' as to which operations do not fit with their country's preferences. If France were to play the red card over the FI at a critical juncture we'd be kicking ourselves. Their track record in fighting is not admirable.

More moves by the French to get someone else to pay for their defence budget.
 
#12
Remeber oue tradional enemies have been the French. Believed seen in Sinapore in the 60s "The Enemies of the Royal Navy, No 1 The MoD No 2 The French No3 Enemy of the day".

The last European Army was instituted during the last major European punch up, unfortunately they were called the Waffen SS, with troops from a percentage of todays EU states, obviously German, but also French Flemish Dutch Norwegan Danish Austrian Latvian and even those who servred in the Legion of St George under Amery, who met Mr Pierrpoint early one morning for a long drop.

Trust the French when their own interests are not involved, not a hope, more likley to stab you in the back, better we have a treaty with the Germans, invade France and take half each. Anyway the French need a good kicking every so often just to keep them in their place.

Oh and I know most arrsers will agree the only thing that has kept peace in Europe since 1945 has been a strong NATO not the corrupt venal EU thieving scum. Remeber the French dropped out of NATO in the 60s with big nose telling the Americans to get out and the reply by I think Johnson "even the dead soliders in your country"

Old joke, "why does France have trees along side their roads" "so the Germans are not blinded by the sun when they invade."
 
#13
chocolate_frog said:
I don't know why we don't do it.

We have so much in common and so much shared history with many countries in Europe (not neccesarily all on the same side agreed).

Why not start forming a European Army? But don't do it in the suicidal 'all or nothing' approach we had with the Euro.

Bond groups together. France and UK, Germany and Austria, Belgium and Holland, the Scandanavian bloc. Then merge these, Anglo-franc with the bosch and unterbosche. Flemdutch with the Scandanavians.

A sort of EuFor, which has already worked in many places around the globe. It would be like a closer knit NATO with each country still able to defend its borders.

Its the future.

No its not, if Afg has taught us anything its that we cannot rely on many of our so called allies.

The EU has no future, the more the politicians try to integrate, the more the peoples will resist and the closer the end comes for "The Project"
 
#14
"Britain and France could synchronise nuclear deterrent patrols and co-operate in the deployment of surface fleet task forces, sources say."

Synchronize does not mean share. It means synchronize.

France has more to lose in that than the UK; at least the French deterrence fleet uses French subs and French missiles, not hand me downs from the USA.
 
#15
fantassin said:
"Britain and France could synchronise nuclear deterrent patrols and co-operate in the deployment of surface fleet task forces, sources say."

Synchronize does not mean share. It means synchronize.

France has more to lose in that than the UK; at least the French deterrence fleet uses French subs and French missiles, not hand me downs from the USA.
eh?......I'm far from being a spotter when it comes to Naval matters, but I thought the Royal Navy Subs were built in the UK?
Anyway, the way I understood it was that they were already working closely together, infact so close that they even managed to prang their Subs into one another.
Really though, if were going to have to rely on someone lets not let it be the French
 
#16
I second that, wholeheartedly; I 'd rather France did not tie itself to the UK once again only to be dropped as usual in favour of the USA at the first opportunity.

Keep your subs and your US made missiles, we'll keep ours French designed and produced ones.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#17
What do you mean, Fantassin, by synchronise? Do you mean alternate Fr and UK patrols? Say yes and I will explain why that idea is totally stupid.
 
#18
Since I posted the link to the Guardian article I've been trying to remember what the last attempt at a multi-national nuclear force was called. It was the Multilateral Force (MLF).

See Wiki here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilateral_Force

and longer piece here
http://www.ena.lu/evgeny_kustnetsov_multilateral_force_debates-020500001.html

I hadn't realised that De Gaulle rejected both UK membership of the EEC and French membership of MLF in the same 1963 speech, nor that he offered Germany an opportunity to participate in the 'force de frappe'.

But all this was a long time ago. Don't know how a UK/FR SSBN fleet would operate today, perhaps better waterspace management would be a start ....

C_C
 
#19
seaweed said:
What do you mean, Fantassin, by synchronise? Do you mean alternate Fr and UK patrols? Say yes and I will explain why that idea is totally stupid.
I, for one, said nothing.

The Guardian article, on the other hand, wrote "synchronize".

One way or another, I am against any sort of nuke deterrence sharing, with anybody.
 
#20
Presumably this is a way of side-stepping the Non-Proliferation restrictions? This has long been discussed; though I can't find the article I believe that previous plans were for a French-German-Italian civil and military nuclear triumvirate, but France backed out over German control of nuclear material - Kohl was apparently very keen (this off the top of my head.)

This paper: http://euce.org/eusa2009/papers/portela_02I.pdf has some very interesting things to things to say about it, if you can be bothered to read 30 pages.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads