Plan to share aircraft carriers with France

Tom Peck
Tuesday 31 August 2010 00:00
Comments

Britain and France are expected to reveal plans to share the use of their aircraft carriers.

This would allow Britain to scrap or downgrade one of the two replacement carriers announced in 2007 at a cost of £5.2bn, but would risk thousands of shipyard jobs.

David Cameron and President Nicolas Sarkozy are expected to announce the proposal in November.

The arrangement would ensure that one of three ships – one French, two British – remained permanently on patrol. Currently Britain's two aging vessels – HMS Ark Royal and HMS Illustrious – are occasionally both in dock at the same time.

A decision on the future of the two planned replacement carriers will be announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review in October. A shared patrolling scheme with the French military would allow one to be built to a lesser specification, sold to another country or scrapped.

The carriers would remain under the command of their respective armed forces. Discussions are under way as to what might happen should an exclusively British interest, such as the Falklands, come under attack during a period in which the French carrier was on patrol.

According to The Times, sources close to the National Security Council, the new cabinet group which decides the direction of British foreign policy, said that Defence Secretary Liam Fox was minded to give the go-ahead to both carriers, but the second may have its capability downgraded. A down-graded carrier could be used as a base for a troop landing, and take helicopters rather than jets.

However, the fast jets planned for the new British carriers would not be able to fly off the French version and French aircraft would be unable to use the British model.

Critics have already questioned the viability of such a partnership. Gwyn Prins, a research professor at the London School of Economics, told The Times: "At first glance it may seem sensible to pool aircraft carriers with the French. But a moment's reflection in the light of past history and of modern geopolitics shows why that is unwise."

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in