Merger of Britain's and France's armed forces

[JohnH]

Well, I don't know where to start with this one...

Prime Minister David Cameron and President Nicholas Sarkozy have today signed a treaty that merges certain elements of each country's armed forces to save money for both...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11670247

Ultimately, we will have combat units that don't speak a common language and both countries will have to share one aircraft carrier. Yep. Her Majesty's Royal Navy will own half an aircraft carrier.

If the Argentineans invade the Falkland Islands again (as they did in 1982) or the Brits want to join an anti-Iraq coalition (as we did in 2003), we'll have to see if the French will give permission for their half of the aircraft carrier to go to war.

I understand that money's tight and defence spending has to be cut, but if the UK needs to do an merger of the armed forces, why the Sam Hill didn't we merge with Canada? Up until 1969, we effectively had the same navy!

 

[legrandefromage]

'the guns will go 'le bang, le bang!'

 

[IDB1]

[Clouseau]Special delivery.. a berm[/Clouseau]

 

[hamster]

My father, who served as a regular for 33 years, spent 6 months in a French unit in the 1950's as an exchange. It's not unknown.

BTW, the language thing is nonsense. How else could NATO operate? :roll:

If you ever fly into Eindhoven airport for example, you will see arrester wires on the runway, where the Dutch air force practice landing on American carriers.

 

[mattbrown]

Tony Blair started it all

I cant see a problem, we live in more peaceful times, the terrorists are groups of people, not countries.

 

[JohnH]

BTW, the language thing is nonsense. How else could NATO operate? :roll:

Hamster, before rolling your eyes anymore, I think you'll find that communications between high-level military officers with translators in comfortable surroundings are a far cry from being in a combat unit while under fire in some shithole Afghan village. In that situation, I wouldn't want to be the guy trying to understand the orders that my non-British commanding officer was screaming at me.

If you ever fly into Eindhoven airport for example, you will see arrester wires on the runway, where the Dutch air force practice landing on American carriers.

I don't see what that has to do with military independence; in other words, the freedom for a government to unilaterally deploy its own forces to defend its own territory, e.g. the Falklands War. There's a difference between being able to collaborate with another country and having to.

 

[tintin40]

I knew i should have taken more notice in French lessons at school

 

[hamster]

So how much extra tax do you want to pay then to ensure 3 aircraft carriers, plus aircraft? Two was already a fudge.

The sooner we forget about this daft notion of being a wannabe superpower and get on instead with being a medium size country the better in my view.

And I do agree that the language is not the best situation, but it was made to work in NATO and that's why national units tend to fight together.

I think that it's a huge stretch from coordinating aircraft carrier refits and shared nuclear test facilities to suggest a mixed UK/French infantry battalion.

Of course the Daily Mail will scream about this but also shrieks about the need to cut the deficit.

 

[rosstheboss]

Since the end of WW2 Britain has had it's armed forces set up for the Cold War, since that never happened we have had to downsize considerably - for example is it really necessary to have 300+ Challenger tanks? Not really... People will no doubt kick up about this but I don't really see the argument - I can't see us fighting a standing army anytime soon (touchwood!!) and if we did, I can't see it happening to us on our own....

 

[JohnH]

So how much extra tax do you want to pay then to ensure 3 aircraft carriers, plus aircraft? Two was already a fudge.

The sooner we forget about this daft notion of being a wannabe superpower and get on instead with being a medium size country the better in my view.

You're missing my point, Hamster. As I said in my opening post, I acknowledge that money's tight and that we might need to merge defence resources. My gripe isn't about the merger, it's about who we're merging with. The French opposed operation Desert Storm, operation Desert Fox, and vocally opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003. So how do you form a military alliance with a country that doesn't want to join the same wars as you?

If we're going to cut costs, we should have merged with Canada. We're linked by the north Atlantic and as Nato members, the means of collaboration is already there. They used to be called "The Royal Canadian Navy" for chrissakes...

And I do agree that the language is not the best situation, but it was made to work in NATO and that's why national units tend to fight together.

Hamster, you do know that France wasn't even in Nato until 2009, don't you? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7937666.stm

I think that it's a huge stretch from coordinating aircraft carrier refits and shared nuclear test facilities to suggest a mixed UK/French infantry battalion.

I'd better bring you up to speed:

From next year, there will be joint training exercises with British and French troops, to prepare them for a new rapid reaction force. This is not a fixed joint brigade but will be drawn upon as needed, from a designated pool of troops in both countries. It will be deployed by a joint political decision, under a single British or French commander.

But here's the best bit...

An agreement on the aircraft carriers, which spend about 30% of their time undergoing refits, means that when France's Charles de Gaulle carrier is out of service, Britain's operational carrier will be made available for French personnel, both to keep up training and potentially to use in a military operation - if Britain agrees. The reverse would happen when the UK's carrier is out of service.

"If Britain (or France) agrees...".

There is the end of military independence.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11672796