France and Germany agree to disagree, ditch joint next-gen Euro fighter

One of Europe’s two major next-gen fighter aircraft programs has been hit hard by differences between France and Germany, the two main participants, leaving the UK-Italy-Japan's Tempest as the main contender. Reports say that the Future Combat Air System (FCAS, or Système de Combat Aérien du Futur – SCAF – in French) has been …

[Jellied Eel]

Nervous pilots.

This refers to FCAS being more than just about a single aircraft; the program also envisioned drone aircraft to accompany the crewed fighter, and a communications system "combat cloud" to link them together, described as a "nervous system that networks aircraft, drones and other components into an integrated whole."

Soo.. GCAP seems to be trying to do.. a lot. Which means a pilot might also have to be doing a lot, like flying the aircraft, not getting shot down, shooting at stuff and shepherding its drones. Which seems to be quite a big ask on a pilot. So OK, AI might be intended to manage a lot of that stuff, but it seems like a big workload on the pilot. But GCAP also seems to be quite a large aircraft, so wouldn't it be better to make it a two-seater to offload from the pilot to a weapons/systems operator in the back seat?

It'll be interesting to see if Germany joins GCAP though. Tornado seemed to work, so this one might also and also help move Europe away from a dependency on the US. Especially as they're not exactly a loyal wingman at the moment. The US won't be happy with a competitor, but that's business.

[EvilDrSmith]

Re: Nervous pilots.

Tornado (UK/Italy/Germany) did work very well, as does Typhoon (UK/Italy/Germany/Spain), though Typhoon suffered some delays due to the Germans trying first to down-scope its capabilities and then reduce the number of aircraft bought with no loss of industrial work-share to save money. As such, they may not be considered that reliable a partner by the Italians, though they (the Italians) are possibly having doubts over the UK at the moment, given the failure of the UK government to set out a proper defence funding plan (as was mentioned in the article).

There are two other European future combat aircraft programmes ongoing, which might draw some of the former FCAS members, if those programmes continue.

Turkey (or Turkiye as I guess I should say) has their own indigenous fight programme which seems to be progressing, with assistance from a number of non-Turkish companies. This looks like it might deliver an actual aircraft at the end of the programme, but I don't think the Turks want partner nations as such, just customers.

Also Sweden has a proposed scheme for a Gripen replacement. The Swedes have a long history of producing good quality military jets (Tunnan / Draken / Viggan / Gripen) as part of their non-aligned and self reliant post WWII policy, and this seems consistent with that. However, the costs of developing a 6th-generation aircraft alone may stretch Sweden's resources, and they are, of course, now a NATO member, so they may be amenable to a former FCAS member or two joining / part funding their plan; Germany, perhaps.

I suspect that the French will go their own way - it was their requirement for a carrier-capability that was one of the issues that led them to leave the Eurofighter/Typhoon programme, and which has apparently being partly responsible for killing FCAS (along with industrial work share disagreements).

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Nervous pilots.

The history of European fighter aircraft projects all seem to involve the French demanding changes which slow down the delivery and increase costs until they eventually pull out and announce their own aircraft for sale that they've been working on all the time.

They should call the next one OS2

[disillusioned fanboi]

Re: Nervous pilots.

Dassault has a long history of actually building fighter planes. The Eurofighter was an expensive knockoff of the Rafale - certainly no-one in the eurofighter consortium had build a fighter with canards before.

Rafale and Eurofighter had a shared genesis, but after the split Rafale entered service before Eurofighter.

Dassault correctly spotted the trend by making a plane to do everything and do it well. Today Eurofighter cos-plays at being multirole.

In the FCAS plan, Dassault was the lead integrator for the manned fighter from the start. Airbus got to be lead in other sub-projects. Then Airbus decided it wanted to be co-lead in the Fighter, but everyone blames the french ? Personally it looks like Dassault is good at what it does, the others are the ones slowing things down...

[EvilDrSmith]

Re: Nervous pilots.

"The Eurofighter was an expensive knockoff of the Rafale - certainly no-one in the eurofighter consortium had build a fighter with canards before.

...

Dassault correctly spotted the trend by making a plane to do everything and do it well. Today Eurofighter cos-plays at being multirole."

Erm, politely, that's rubbish.

One of the feed-in projects to Typhoon was the BAe EAP, which itself sprung from the Agile Combat Aircraft programme which started in the 1970's. If I recall, MBB of Germany had a similar experimental programme which was also canard based, so there was knowledge of how to design a canard design, and canard designs were hardly a new thing - the Swedish Viggen had been in service since the 1970's, so there was a reference type that showed the concept worked.

Eurofighter Typhoon and Rafale both came out of the same research project - to claim that one is a knock-off of the other is ridiculous.

Prior to the French splitting off, there were fundamental disagreements about project lead and workshare (with the French on one side of the argument, and the UK, Germany and Italy on the other) plus an equally fundamental disagreement over the size/weight of the aircraft: France needed a carrier capable aircraft, which required a relatively small and light aircraft, equipped for carrier operations, the other partner nations needed a larger, heavier and overall more capable aircraft.

The concept of the multi-role aircraft is not remotely new - people were trying to achieve that in WWII if not earlier. The US were perhaps the first to achieve something more-or-less true multirole with the F16, if not the earlier F4.

One of the things that makes Rafale and Typhoon stand out is that they are not multi-role, they are 'swing role'. F16 in the 1980's could do multiple roles, but pretty much had to be set up / armed to do one role in particular prior to take off. Swing role represents aircraft that can switch role after take off. And Rafale was not the first - Gripen was demonstrating 'net-centric' communication whereby it was integrated with multiple other sensors and systems (on land. sea and air) and swing role ability before the Rafale or Typhoon.

[steelpillow]

Re: Nervous pilots.

"The Eurofighter was an expensive knockoff of the Rafale - certainly no-one in the eurofighter consortium had build a fighter with canards before."

Bollocks. Typhoon was evolved principally from the private-venture B.Ae EAP (Experimental Aircraft Programme) technology demonstrator, which was the UK's first canard delta. It flew the same year as the Dassault Rafale, and the SAAB Gripen made it into the sky only a year later. Collectively they are known as the Euro Deltas. It was an idea of its time - unless you were American or Russian and were too up your own political arse, even when the F-16XL double-delta was offered to you on a plate.

[Like a badger]

Re: Nervous pilots.

It'll be interesting to see if Germany joins GCAP though.

If their reservations about FCAS were questioning the need for a next gen manned fighter, then presumably not?

And whilst the various nations just about made the Tornado and Typhoon programmes work, the German/Dutch screw up over the F126 frigate at the same time as FCAS falls apart doesn't bode well for German involvement. German defence procurement has been a known problem for a long while, and there's no sign of it being fixed anytime soon.

Mind you, every nation seems to struggle with defence procurement. The Yanks are particularly bad, the Brits are perhaps even worse, Germany is awful, France is, well, French etc etc.

[Eclectic Man]

Re: Nervous pilots. - frigates

I worked on the CNGF, Common New Generation Frigate, a joint UK, French and Italian warship built around an Italian weapon system. The HQ was in London, and the team of navy personnel and civil servants was hand picked (I was a contractor consultant). They all knew the danger was cancellation and had to race to get steel cut and a hull in the water before the politicians lost interest (once royalty has named and launched a vessel, it is much harder to cancel). Sadly they lost that race.

I suspect the real problem is that the style of warfare has changed so rapidly in the past few years due to the use of drones in Ukraine and by Iran, that specifying the threat and designing countermeasures a decade at least in advance of operational capability is genuinely difficult. Don't forget, just before the attack on Pearl Harbour, the US Navy did not consider aircraft carriers to be particularly useful. The invention of the tank in WW1 and its potential was appreciated only by the German high command, not the British or the French. Basically, defence procurement is really hard. Best of luck with this, folks!

[Androgynous Cupboard]

Re: Nervous pilots. - frigates

They say that the military is always fully prepared for the previous war.

[robert lindsay]

Re: Nervous pilots. - frigates

"Don't forget, just before the attack on Pearl Harbour, the US Navy did not consider aircraft carriers to be particularly useful"

Nope, The US had 5 before pearl harbor and ordered another dozen in 1940. Did they know HOW important carriers were? No. But the signs were already there, from the British attack at Tarento, the damaging of Bismark, Halsey's raid on pearl Harbor in the 30s. Even the IJN still thought of carriers as a prelude to the Tishuma style battle that would solve everything.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Nervous pilots. - frigates

I suspect the real problem is that the style of warfare has changed so rapidly in the past few years due to the use of drones in Ukraine and by Iran, that specifying the threat and designing countermeasures a decade at least in advance of operational capability is genuinely difficult.

Yep, plus long lead times for development of something like a 5th or 6th gen aircraft. I knew I'd seen something German-

https://www.janes.com/defence-intelligence-insights/defence-news/defence/ila-2026-first-f-35a-for-germany-nears-completion

Final assembly of the first F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) for Germany is nearing completion at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth production facility in Texas.

The first of 35 F-35As. Perhaps Germany thinks they'll be enough, or can't afford those and FCAS/GCAP. But then Merz has also been sabre rattling about going to war with Russia in 2030, which is likely to be a very different conflict to the Ukraine v Russia spat. If there's a substantial NATO or joint EU attack on Russia, it'd probably involve lots of missiles trying to destroy their aircraft, airfields and air defences. But Russia's nuclear doctrine is if there's an existential threat to Russia, ie Kallas et al's plan to do a Yugoslavia and break it up.. it launches and starts killing cities. So the usual first strike/MAD challenge. Picking a fight with China would have much the same problem, plus being a long way from NATO, a massive logistics challenge.

Which is a bit like US/Israel v Iran. Iran doesn't have nukes, but is a semi-neighborly dispute. Israel's been using some missiles, but also flying over Iraq with their aircraft, which means lots of tanking. The US has (or had?) air bases in closer countries, but Iran promptly hit those air & naval bases, striking useful things like tankers. Those have been close enough for Iran to use lots of Shaheds as strike drones or decoys, the US and Israel don't really have (or haven't used) any equivalent. Plus there may be echoes of Iraq v Kuwait, where one of the imperatives for US intervention may have been Kuwait supplying the US with jet fuel and lubricating oils. Hopefully post Gulf War(s), the US started refining more of their own, but US v Iran has lead to a shortage of jet fuel.

And then there's Ukraine, and possibly a bit of drone hype. They've certainly been a bit of a game changer and allowed for a lot of experimentation, and hype. Lots of anti-personnel and vehicle drones being used, pretty much by necessity because Ukraine doesn't really have an air force, and Russia does. So lots of videos of drones hunting soldiers. Also lots of videos of Russian Su-24s and other aviation dropping FAB-250 to FAB-3000s on Ukraine's defenders and fortifications. Ukraine can't counter those because a lot of their GBAD has been destroyed, or pulled back to defend cities like Kiev. It's been a while since there were any reports of aviation losses.

But that's something friendly aircraft could counter, especially if they're stealthy, or semi-stealthy and that stealth technology still works. Or make it stealthy enough to fly fast & low and ambush enemy aircraft or GBAD. Currently, drones don't seem that effective in that role. Or there have been Ukrainian strikes on bridges into Crimea, which may not have been very effective given bridges are hard to destroy.. Plus those attack drones tend to be large, slow and easier to shoot down. Which also seems to be the role Ukraine has given to their remaining aviation, ie videos of a Mig over Odessa trying to shoot down drones and missiles.

Soo.. I think there is still an important role for aircraft, especially if GCAP becomes a Tornado or F-15 like system, perhaps with fighter and ground attack variants. But multi-role, and capable of carrying more than an F-35. Most drones & missiles are subsonic, so for air defence, need something that can carry enough weapons to deal with incoming swarms, plus the ability to carry a decent amount of glide bombs to go on the offence. Which is something Ukraine v Russia has been demonstrating, namely fancy high-tech missiles are all well and good, but quantity has a quality of its own and Russia has been pounding Ukraine's defences with a LOT of cheap & mostly dumb bombs.

[Dave@Home]

Re: Nervous pilots. - frigates

"The invention of the tank in WW1 and its potential was appreciated only by the German high command, not the British or the French. "

Not true, they really didn't put any meaningful resources into development of the A7v, only building 20, and used more then double that number in Beutepanzers. It was only towards the summer of 1918 that they started to try and develop something actually useful, but by then they were so resource constrained they went nowhere.

Zaloga's German Panzers 1914-1918 has a nice write up, as does www.landships.info

[My other car WAS an IAV Stryker]

Re: Nervous pilots.

"Mind you, every nation seems to struggle with defence procurement. The Yanks are particularly bad --"

Look at my handle -- you're preaching to the choir! At Stryker HQ, I think I spent more time working on programs that got canceled rather than fielded, sometimes because the customer changed their mind, sometimes politics, sometimes for actual good reasons.

At my new(er*) employer (* been 8 years already), I started with some big things but transitioned to working on smaller-scale projects, and things are actually getting done, some as part of training/contractor facilities instead of mobile platforms. Probably less overall mission impact, but still contributory. I try to fulfill the contract while hoping to meet the actual needs of the customer(s). (And please don't blame me about wasted time/money -- usually it's the customer(s) that slows things down to a snail's pace, like not providing critical materiel.)

[Aladdin Sane]

As predicted 4 months ago, France have Franced their way out of another multinational military project.

[CrazyOldCatMan]

As predicted 4 months ago, France have Franced their way out of another multinational military project.

To quote Churchill: "the biggest cross I have to carry is the Cross of Lorraine"..

[Tron]

GCAP will have an S-build demonstrator by 2027.

'S' being styrofoam.

[JohnMurray]

Who ..

..needs enemies when you have friends?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Who ..

With friends like these, who needs amis.

[elsergiovolador]

United

in disagreements.

[fpx]

The EU and the rest of the world is painfully aware that all American tech has a kill switch that could be used against us when a certain President is offended.

There are innovations and expertise coming out of these bleeding edge projects that have benefits beyond just fighter jets, and there is some good in just talking to each other to get such projects off the drawing board.

However, in Ukraine, the only use for fighter jets is to fire weapons that were designed for air launch, far from the front line. Elsewhere, fighter jets are only useful against stone-age adversaries that can not afford modern anti-aircraft missiles. Keeping the meat bag safe limits what a fighter jet can do, in more ways than one. The number of missions where it is beneficial to have a human brain in the cockpit, rather than in a FPV VR dome half a world away, is shrinking.

[Like a badger]

Logically, if air power is now all about stand off, then we don't need high performance agile strike fighters (F35, FCAS or GCAP) we need something that's essentially a big airborne weapons platform, perhaps like a larger F15?

I'd hope that our military strategists would have this all in hand, but it does seem as though military procurement and development is so slow that by the time an aircraft reaches the frontline the original need has been usurped.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

>essentially a big airborne weapons platform

Ideally one with global reach, the ability to operate away from fixed airfields and with a kitchen onboard to make a cup of tea.

Gentleman, the Short Sunderland flying boat.

[ParlezVousFranglais]

Nothing solves global armageddon like a good cuppa...

[Peter Gathercole]

Look and you shall find @badger

Look up the F15EX. It's exactly what you said, an evolved Strike Eagle, and it carries the largest load-out of any aircraft that is not specifically designed as a bomber. It is expected to be used as a (manned) weapons platform directed by something like an F35. It is regarded as a rapid to develop stop gap until something better is available. Boeing still have the F15E production lines running, which allow them to pivot quickly to produce the EX variant.

It's quite helpful that in a relatively clean configuration, it is still capable of going toe-to-toe with most 4th gen. aircraft in the sky at the moment.

The projected flying and maintenance costs make it more like an F16 rather than an F22 or F35 to keep flying, so is relatively cheap, and there is minimal re-training of pilots and ground crew to take it into service.

[Like a badger]

Re: Look and you shall find @badger

Well there is that, but it's a US product, which makes it a non-starter for any nations that don't want to be subject to the arbitrary whims of the US president, and always at the back of the queue for spares, munitions, and upgrades. Moreover, it may be the best of the bunch of weapons platforms, but its design dates back to 1970, I'm sure half a century of progress and a clean sheet of paper would produce something quite a bit better.

[anonymous boring coward]

Re: Look and you shall find @badger

Or you could just have a couple of normal attackers.

[Aladdin Sane]

Since we're now in the age of the guided missile we should scrap all manned aircraft projects.

[Like a badger]

The youngsters won't appreciate the irony. Then again, are there any youngsters on these forums?

[nobody who matters]

The type of aeroplane is a fighter - therefore it is a 'jet fighter', despite the insistence of people over the last decade to increasingly twist it the wrong way round. Much the same as you would refer to a jet bomber rather than a bomber jet ;)

I still give you an upvote though, because I fully agree with what you have posted :)

[Rol]

Totally agree. Why put a billion Euro's of plane and their pilot in jeopardy when the same money spent on several hundred drones would achieve guaranteed success, as they fully command the airspace and hit all their objectives, likely including all the secondary and tertiary ones as well, if sufficient numbers have survived the enemy's attempts to swat them with missiles costing millions.

So, it's down to who can design the cheapest and most easily constructed drones, that a few factories can churn out in their ten's of thousands everyday when required, rather than who can squander the most resources on a plane that has to survive long enough in hostile territory to both deliver the payload and get the pilot home. A thousand cheap disposable drones would do that mission with 100% success.

[werdsmith]

Dassault will always want to be the project lead, and to be fair to them they do have a decent track record having developed the very decent Rafale.

Germany invented the jet fighter but really haven't done anything since the ME262.

[Aladdin Sane]

Well, their defence procurement was considerably constrained post WWII, but I'm guessing their involvement with multinational efforts like Tornado or Typhoon* doesn't count in your opinion?

_{The irony of these names and GCAP's initial name of Tempest being nods to former Hawker products is noted.}

[Like a badger]

The history of Tornado is more one of political posturing and wanking around over bragging rights and production work-share. Most of the design concept and work was British and done at Warton (the German proposal being a single seat fighter that didn't go ahead), the engines were RR (even having a Rolls-Barnoldswick number). Likewise the Typhoon, whose genesis was the BAe EAP - although to be fair MBB had been involved at an early stage. Of course, we shouldn't forget the European Combat Fighter, an Anglo-German fighter project of the late 70s that collapsed because the French joined, wanked around as always, and then flounced out of it because they couldn't have design leadership.

Regardless of the whodunnit, the relative success of both Rafale and Gripen suggest that the compromises and delays of international collaborations don't result in either cheaper or better products than one country doing its own thing with conviction. Reading the history of just about any collaboratively developed military aircraft it's the same old story of circular disputes about basic requirement, technology, cost, design location, manufacturing splits.

[Anonymous Coward]

German participation

>Most of the design concept and work was British and done at Warton (the German proposal being a single seat fighter that didn't go ahead), the engines were RR (even having a Rolls-Barnoldswick number).

While the wing sweep mechanism (which avoided the common issues of failures causing asymmetric wing sweep as seen on the F-14) was designed by Germany and Italy, not Britain.

Germany also designed the wing carry-through box, made from Titanium welded together using electron-beams (a welding technique also developed by Germany), both the HP and IP compressor stages of the RB199 engine, as well as the DECU 2020 digital engine control unit.

Germany also developed the Control and Stability Augmentation System (CSAS, including pitch and lateral computers, CSAS CU and PDU).

They also drove the MIL-STD-1553 integration into Tornado, and other kit like the the Emitter Locator System (together with Texas Instruments), the tactical data link (ODIN), and integrated FLIR or the RB199 Mk5 (the most powerful variant of the RB199) which went into the ECR variants so not used by the UK.

Calling this "mostly British" is little more than nationalistic nonsense.

>Likewise the Typhoon, whose genesis was the BAe EAP - although to be fair MBB had been involved at an early stage.

MBB had far more than just some involvement in the EAP (which wasn't even a completely new airframe but to some large extend was built on a Tornado ADV fuselage). At the same time, they also ran a highly complex experimental aircraft program with NASA and Rockwell around a completely new aircraft design involving thrust vector controls:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell-MBB_X-31

A lot of the data from that program went into the Typhoon project.

As for the other parts of Typhoon, out of the 348 total equipment subsystems, Equipment Design Responsibility (EDR) of 148 specific line-item subsystems was with Germany. This included parts of the FCS, the comms subsystem including Link16, the fuel management system, the integrated canopy system, the ECRS Mk1 AESA Radar, a Missile Approach Warner (MAW, GAF specific), the LP and HP stages of the EJ2000 engine as well as the FADEC, the Armament Control System (ACS) and others.

So yeah, mostly British I guess.

[Anonymous Coward]

the German proposal being a single seat fighter that didn't go ahead

Eh? Did it fly backwards?

[SCP]

No, that was the Ju 287 - a bomber.

[steelpillow]

"Germany ... really haven't done anything since the ME262."

Yeah, all that forbidding them to have a warplane industry any more was just flannel to hide their incompetence, right? And the fact that Panavia (Tornado) and Eurofighter (Typhoon) are based in West Germany is likewise just window dressing.

My, there are some prejudiced ignoramuses in this world.

[werdsmith]

It was a tongue in cheek facetious comment. This should have been obvious but I forgot this is The Register.

My that was quite a prejudiced and ignorant response.

[anonymous boring coward]

You forget that many are quite ignorant of the facts, so sarcasm might not work as intended in those cases.

[Aladdin Sane]

There also plenty who'd post said comment without a trace of sarcasm or irony. That's why we have things like the troll icon, or simply adding "/s" to the end of a post.

[steelpillow]

"It was a tongue in cheek facetious comment."

Glad to hear it. Trouble is, there are so many prejudiced and ignorant nutters around, even here, that my probabilistic reasoning algorithms hallucinated an unfortunately inappropriate token chain. <img src="dunces_cap.ico" />

[Long John Silver]

Good news?

A temporary reprieve for €100 billion from not being chucked down the drain?

[Anonymous Coward]

As usual, the problem lies with French intransigence

They will never accept being less than top dog when it comes to any large multinational project, which is why the EU will never reach its full potential.

The UK is much better off leaving that sinking ship and nimbly striking deals across the globe independently. Were it not for the hapless Starmer, a committed rejoiner who couldn't negotiate his way out of a wet paper bag, we'd be in a much better place.

[Androgynous Cupboard]

Re: As usual, the problem lies with French intransigence

Oooh, that Starmer - Brexit was going so well until he took over. What we need is a PM who was a leaver to the bone, no trade-offs, no compromise... gee, I wonder if we could get Liz Truss back?

"Nimbly". Never has a word been less apt.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: As usual, the problem lies with French intransigence

^ This is what a triggered Remoaner looks like!

For our American friends, below is an example of precisely the type of EU nonsense that prompted clear-thinking and pragmatic Brits to vote LEAVE.

The EU spent more than £45 million shuttling MEPs and their staff between the European Parliament's two seats in Brussels and Strasbourg last year.

Every month, 720 MEPs, their assistants, as well as interpreters and other staff, move 217 miles from the Belgian capital to hold a plenary session in the French city on the border with Germany.

Documents obtained by The Telegraph revealed some of the huge cost of travel, accommodation and food expenses, of what has been dubbed the bloc's "travelling circus".

They include €4.3 million (about £3.6 million) for a specially chartered Eurostar train for the monthly commute.

"You can wake me up at 3am and I can name 1,001 things this money is better spent on than shipping 720 MEPs and thousands of staffers across Europe," said Daniel Freund, a German Green MEP.

Despite periodic calls to reform the European Parliament so it has a cheaper single seat in Brussels, France has always rebuffed any suggestion Strasbourg could lose the lucrative perk.

The total cost of the travelling circus is much higher. The Parliament paper does not include how much other EU institutions, such as the European Commission and Council, spend on getting to Strasbourg.

In 2014, the European Court of Auditors said the monthly upheaval cost the EU €114 million a year.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/eu-spent-45m-moving-travelling-150436554.html

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: As usual, the problem lies with French intransigence

That's just silly, why don't the MEPs just buy a house in each city and claim them on expenses ?

[steelpillow]

Re: As usual, the problem lies with French intransigence

> why don't the MEPs just buy a house in each city and claim them on expenses ?

I am sure they do. But, since they are also entitled to travel and accommodation expenses, no questions asked, why should they stop and ask questions?

[Androgynous Cupboard]

Re: As usual, the problem lies with French intransigence

Sweet summer child. Yes, €100m is a lot. The House of Lords also costs about £100m a year. The UK civil service costs £500,000m a year. Governing is expensive, no matter who does it.

Meanwhile UK imports and exports are down 15% due to Brexit. We are, all of us, financially worse off than we were ten years ago. Everything is more expensive (relative to income). Services are worse. People are angrier. I feel it, I’m sure you feel it. The best we can hope for now is managed decline.

And our American friends aren’t interested. You might think the world revolves around the UK but it doesn’t. Everyone has has their own problems.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: As usual, the problem lies with French intransigence

Sweet summer child. Yes, €100m is a lot. The House of Lords also costs about £100m a year. The UK civil service costs £500,000m a year. Governing is expensive, no matter who does it.

The point you're missing is that the Strasbourg-Brussels caravan is entirely unnecessary. Every member state thinks it's stupid, yet France has veto power over any decision, so it remains in place. By the way, the €114m figure was from 2014. Adjusted for inflation, that's over €150m!

Of course, governments cost a lot of money. The question is, why fund a second layer of greedy second-rate politicians and unaccountable bureaucrats that are living the life of riley on the continent? More and more of the European populace are asking the same question which is why Eurosceptic MPs in France (FN), Germany (AfD) and Italy (Brother of Italy) are going gangbusters. In terms of managed decline, it's the EU that's on borrowed time.

Meanwhile UK imports and exports are down 15% due to Brexit. We are, all of us, financially worse off than we were ten years ago. Everything is more expensive (relative to income). Services are worse. People are angrier. I feel it, I’m sure you feel it. The best we can hope for now is managed decline.

These figures may as well be plucked out of thin air. If things are so terrible because of Brexit, why has GDP growth been the same for the UK, France and Germany since the referendum?

In terms of economic damage, the main culprits are the stupid Iran war, our insane support of Ukraine in its unwinnable war of attrition against Russia and the panicked response to the COVID pandemic where we basically paid people to stay at home for months.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: As usual, the problem lies with French intransigence

Sometimes some things are worth more than money…

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: As usual, the problem lies with French intransigence

Yeah, like sovereignty.

[Androgynous Cupboard]

Re: As usual, the problem lies with French intransigence

The 15% figure was plucked from the OBR Brexit page, not thin air.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: As usual, the problem lies with French intransigence

The 15% figure was plucked from the OBR Brexit page, not thin air.

I'm sorry, the OBR's analysis about the fallout from Brexit was debunked a long time ago.

However, as we show in point 3 of this paper, trade actually increased between the referendum and the signing of the UK–EU TCA. So the OBR’s assumption that trade will fall due to lower investment was already falsified by 2019 (see table 6). We have not seen a reduction in trade between the UK and the EU other than in goods that do not meet the TCA Rules of Origin requirements.

The OBR’s April 2023 Brexit analysis still references an OBR economic and fiscal outlook publication from November 2016 – well before the Brexit negotiations had started – to explain its 15 per cent lower trade estimate. In this 2016 document the OBR stated that:

‘we have not attempted to predict the precise end result of the negotiations. Instead, we have made a judgement – consistent with most external studies – that over the time horizon of our forecast any likely Brexit outcome would lead to lower trade flows, lower investment and lower net inward migration than we would otherwise have seen, and hence lower potential output.’

One would have expected the OBR to recognise that its old analysis is no longer applicable. But when the trade data so clearly contradicts its conclusions, a revision is clearly mandatory. With this, the press may start to correct the false narrative that Brexit has been a disaster for the UK economy.

https://iea.org.uk/publications/has-brexit-really-harmed-uk-trade-countering-the-office-of-budgetary-responsibilitys-claims/#Conclusion_and_a_warning

[anonymous boring coward]

Re: As usual, the problem lies with French intransigence

Like all Leavers you have a problem distinguishing between various large numbers.

You have no issue with losing billions, but get very upset at the waste of millions. Easily baited into a red-faced rage.

[SCP]

Re: As usual, the problem lies with French intransigence

Perhaps we need to adopt a Register unit for boondoggles - maybe the "Presidential Ballroom".

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: As usual, the problem lies with French intransigence

Like all Leavers you have a problem distinguishing between various large numbers.

You have no issue with losing billions, but get very upset at the waste of millions. Easily baited into a red-faced rage.

So smug, yet so wrong.

The UK's membership fee while part of the EU was £10 billion per year and it was only set to rise as more and more tin-pot states joined the union over time. Thankfully we don't have to pay a single cent towards this circus any more.

As far as red-faced rage, I'm afraid that most aptly describes the remaniacs that are still bitter about the largest expression of democracy in British history which happened 10 years ago!

[anonymous boring coward]

Re: As usual, the problem lies with French intransigence

The "tin pot states", like Poland, have already left UK in the dust.

You need to get out (of UK) more.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: As usual, the problem lies with French intransigence

Obviously never had to deal with the prize shits at Airbus Defence.

The French do what the French do and go their own way, but I can't remember them getting up to the sorts of games the Germans would inflict on their 'partners'.

If they weren't trying to rip you (or your product) off they were trying to just openly take all of their partners' workshare for themselves. Bunch of arrogant arses, luckily not very competent.

Had to set the lawyers on them a few times, plus take some fairly direct practical actions too.

Most people have learnt their lesson by now hence why they were left trying to forge an inevitably doomed alliance with the French, and now have nothing at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: As usual, the problem lies with French intransigence

Ah, brings back memories of a former life.

[_wojtek]

Re: As usual, the problem lies with French intransigence

> "They will never accept being less than top dog when it comes to any large multinational project, which is why the EU will never reach its full potential."

Same as the UK... ;)

[anonymous boring coward]

My money is on SAAB and the Canadians getting there first.

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad thing is about SAAB is that nowadays they'll probably just sell you a re-badged SA-102 Cavalier.....

[anonymous boring coward]

Funny, but that SAAB is no more. SAAB AB (the original SAAB that built aircraft) was divorced in 1990 from Saab Automobile (when GM came in to ruin stuff). I know it's only been 36 years, so can be hard to keep track of these fast-paced changes.

[Eclectic Man]

Breaking News: John Healey, UK Minister of Defence resigns

Just to add to the UK confusion: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cgqeg09p3p1t

"Forget, for a moment, the here and now about John Healey’s resignation. There is a bigger picture.

Successive governments have struggled to get a grip on defence spending. They spent less after the Cold War ended and failed to spend more as the world became more dangerous.

To its many critics, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) failed to spend well what money it got, botching procurement after procurement, delivering late and over budget.

Whitehall failed to resolve its internal tensions, both Number 10 and the Cabinet Office unable - or too weak - to manage repeated rows between the Treasury and MoD.

All the while, many analysts believe politicians failed to be honest with voters about the increasing threats the UK faced, and the brutally hard trade-offs needed to address them.

..."

See also https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/11/john-healey-resigns-defence-secretary-military-spending

So, well,, watch that space, or this space, but Healey resigning makes me think the UK may soon have both a new Defence Secretary and Prime Minister.

Interesting times, as they say.