Means more training and currency for the aircrew concerned. Particularly if our intention is to use the F35C rather than the STOVL F35B.
Purely from a readiness and exercising perspective, yes, I can see the benefits in that. But my hunch is that the signing of two treaties between France and the UK may have very profound implications for the future.Ĭoncerning the practicalities of loaning each other aircraft carriers, I'm really not sure how that is going to work. The questions I have raised are not ones that will be settled this year - perhaps not even this decade. Sceptics may wonder whether it will end up being about much more than symbols. Others may say: if we are testing our nuclear components together, would it not make sense to join together to purchase the next generation of warheads? Someone in the know told me that our two countries would use different missiles "for the time being".Ītlanticists may welcome all this as proof that France is at last abandoning its hauteur towards Nato.Įurope enthusiasts may also welcome it as the first step towards a common European defence. However, it will now be easier - much easier - for future politicians to ask: if we are using each other's carriers and if our men are training together, why don't we form a joint air-wing? One source I spoke to described that as "a downstream issue". Isn't it sensible to save money by sharing nuclear expertise to test the safety of our nuclear weapons? This, in other words, is an entente frugale forged in tough economic times.Īfter all, they will ask, doesn't it make sense for Britain to make use of France's aircraft carrier when ours is being repaired - and vice versa? They always insist, as David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy no doubt will today, that they are merely making practical, common-sense, non-ideological policies. That's the question politicians never want to answer when they unveil new treaties.
0 kommentar(er)
