The Bruges Group spearheads the intellectual battle against the notion of "ever-closer Union" in Europe and, above all, against British involvement in a single European state.

EU military control

The end of independence: The implications of the “Future Rapid Effects System” for an independent UK defence policy

Dr Richard North 

Contents

A Crisis in the making

The centrepiece of secretary of state for defence Geoff Hoon's strategic defence review, announced recently, was a new military system about which very few people know anything. The system is the "Future Rapid Effects Systems" (FRES) and, on the basis of its introduction, Hoon is confident that he can dispense with 19 mainly Shire infantry regiments.

Before discussing FRES in detail, however, it is necessary to set a political framework into which this system fits, and this is best illustrated by recent comments from Javier Solana, the EU's "foreign minister, talking to a meeting of Italian Ambassadors. He told that that "the US must treat the European Union as a full partner in an effective and balanced partnership", and "The European Union has to show the US that it is worthy of that title."

These comments were important because they illustrate a mindset in the EU which, despite the inherent anti-Americanism, displays an intense jealousy of the US. The outward manifestation is an almost child-like determination to prove that "Europe" is at least as good as, if not better than, the US, in every possible way.

It is that ethos, as much as anything, that has driven the EU to commit £3 billion or more to the Galileo satellite navigation and positioning system - despite the provision by the US of their "free-to-all" GPS system. Much the same thinking drives the determination of the EU to maintain its own space programme, and to fund Airbus with such generous subsidies.

But this thinking is also driving the EU military procurement programme, to the extent that anything the US has, the EU must have too. This is most obvious in the pursuit of the A400M large military transport aircraft, despite the availability of proven US designs, which are undoubtedly cheaper and in many respects better.

However, this drive to match the US now seems to be pushing the EU - and the UK in particular - into making another blunder in military procurement, of Eurofighter proportions in expenditure terms, and drive UK defence up a cul-de-sac from which it may never recover. That "blunder" is FRES.

Nevertheless, despite it having formed the centrepiece of defence minister Geoff Hoon's recently announced Strategic Defence Review, very few people know anything about FRES. All we know is that Hoon is relying on it as the technological fix that will enable him to cut back on human resources - like soldiers. By this means, he thinks he will have bundles of cash left to give Gordon, to spend on the bureaucrats running schools 'n' hospitals, to say nothing of the 3,500 office chairs in the Department of Defence, at a cool £1,000 each.

That so few people are aware of what FRES actually is can hardly be surprising. Two years ago, Gregory Fetter, a senior land-warfare analyst at Forecast International/DMS, observed that it was "too early to try to figure out what FRES will look like ...It's like trying to grab a cloud of smoke."

And, as late as March of this year, Nicholas Soames, shadow defence secretary - in a debate in the Commons on defence policy - noted that defence contractors had been "anxiously awaiting a decision from the Government on the future rapid effects system battlefield vehicle that the Chief of the General Staff requires to be in service by 2009, but for which there is not yet even a drawing".

Small wonder that, in the report of the defence select committee published recently, the committee expressed concern that the proposed in-service date of 2009 "will not be met".

So what is FRES?

The quote from Soames actually give some clue. He calls it a "battlefield vehicle", but it is more than that. It is a whole family of vehicles that are intended for the Army of the 21st Century, equipping it for its role as a rapid reaction force. It will enable it to deal quickly and effectively with trouble spots around the world, with maximum efficiency and the minimum expenditure of manpower. At least, that is how the propaganda goes.

For that, the government is preparing to sink around £6 billion into buying 900 vehicles, with an estimated budget for the total costs of ownership over the expected 30-year service life of almost £50 billion. That is a staggering £6.7 million average cost to buy each vehicle and an unbelievable life-time cost per vehicle - yes, each vehicle - of £55.5 million. To say that it would be cheaper to drive our troops into battle in a fleet of top-of-the-range Rolls-Royces hardly begins to illustrate the extravagance.

Whatever the merits of the vehicles - and these will be discussed shortly - the point is that FRES is not a British, or even European idea. It is copied from a US military programme known as FCS, or "Future Combat System". This is an armoured vehicle family designed as a "system of systems", operating in a network, fully equipped with the latest in electronics, combat systems and weapons, all inter-linked through satellite communications. And because the Americans are having it, "Europe" must have it as well.

Furthermore, although Hoon is highlighting it in his own defence review, FRES has very much become a "European" project. Such are the vast development costs that no single European nation can afford them, so it has become another of those joint programmes of which the Eurofighter project is the model.

Already, the European skills at designing just what is needed are coming to the fore. A fore-runner of FRES was the tri-nation programme to develop what was known as the MRAV - the " multi-role armoured vehicle", funded by the UK, German and Dutch governments and managed by the European armaments agency, OCCAR (Organization for Joint Armament Cooperation).

In a mirror image of the Eurofighter project, the French were also originally involved, but they pulled out to produce their own vehicle called the VBCI. Perhaps this was just as well for, after the expenditure of untold millions, the tri-nation consortium produced a prototype which they named the Boxer, only to find that at 33 tons, it was too heavy for airborne rapid deployment.

But the European involvement has not yet ended - not by any means. Despite honeyed words from the DoD to UK manufacturers, the leading contender for building FRES is a German firm, Rheinmetall DeTec. Should its designs be accepted, the outcome will undoubtedly be the formation of another European consortium to build it, as national sensibilities would not allow British forces to be equipped with German-built machines. And, with costs already escalating, we have another Eurofighter in the making.

So where does this leave us?

Here a political element comes in. Effectively, we are committing ourselves to enormous expenditure to buy "state of the art" but wholly unproven equipment, primarily to allow British armed forces to take part in what will almost certainly be an EU "rapid reaction force". The bulk of our new spending on procurement for the Army is being designated to that end. Effectively, to play a leading role in this force, we must have FRES. That is solely because FRES is what the US "rapid reaction force" will have and if the Americans have it, we (the Europeans) must have it too.

However, no one seems to be addressing the question as to whether FRES is actually a good idea - or necessary. Certainly, it may be suitable for the US, which is wealthier and can afford both new technology and maintain its existing force levels. Here, if we have to cut back out forces, in order to buy the technology - as Hoon is doing - we may have the worst end of the deal.

But even in the US, there are serious voices being raised, warning against the over-reliance on military technology in battle zones, noting that doctrine and tactics are equally important, if not more so, and that the human element is the vital factor.

On the UK front, we are getting into an even more serious situation where the costs of military "assets" is now so huge that we cannot afford to use them in combat zones where their loss might be threatened. Where an Iraqi insurgent can buy an RPG7 in a Baghdad bazaar for $20, it is a brave military commander that will risk a machine worth nearly £8 million, when it can be taken out with one round loosed off by a teenager.

Not for nothing, it should be noted, are US forces now patrolling the streets of Baghdad in Vietnam-era M113 armoured personnel carriers. They might not afford as good protection as the proposed FRES - or its US-equivalent - (although neither will protect from an RPG7) but at least they are affordable, and available.

Whether the Europeans will learn this lesson is debatable, and unlikely. Certainly, it looks like Hoon has bought into the European dream - that anything the US has, we must have too. Furthermore, he seems willing to bankrupt our forces to pay for it. There seems nothing now that can stop us lurching into another blunder of Eurofighter proportions.

Implications for European integration

What makes FRES particularly worrisome, however, it not so much the risk that we are going to end up with another expensive white elephant - although that is bad enough - but that it is forcing us down the road of European defence integration.

Basically, as preciously indicated, because the system is so hugely expensive and is beyond the capability of the UK to fully find and develop it on its own, it had the choice of tapping into an existing programme - and the only other game in town is the US "Future Combat System" - or collaborate with European partners.

Therein lies the crunch. Seemingly, without there having been any open debate on the issue - and certainly none that we can see in Parliament - a decision seems to have been made that we will throw our lot in with the Europeans, which means that the US and EU member states will be developing rival systems.

Several issues devolve from this. The first is one of inter-operability - whether the two rival systems can work alongside each other, and whether even they can communicate with each other. Again, there seems to have been no open debate on this issue either but, if the systems cannot be integrated on the battlefield, it means that British forces can no longer operate alongside US forces in any meaningful way. Multilateral operations will be only be possible alongside forces with similar - i.e., compatible - equipment, which would mean that we are locked into working only with our EU partners.

Secondly, although our forces will be almost reliant on highly sophisticated equipment, we will not have total control over its manufacture, or even critical sub-systems - such as the satellite navigation and positioning systems - on which the operational system depends. Nor indeed will we necessarily have control of critical components of the system itself, such as the software codes that makes it work.

As an indication of the sophistication of these types of system, the US FCS is estimated to require 34 million lines of software code, five times more than the Joint Strike Fighter, which so far is the largest defence undertaking in terms of software to be developed.

An analogy is buying a desktop computer - which has an operating system like Windows - but having no access to the operating system and being unable to repair it if it goes wrong. That is fine if you can get a "man" in to fix it, but not so good if it drives combat-critical systems which are under the control of other national political systems, which may or may not allow the release of vital data - or hardware - when it is most needed.

One must no forget, in this context, that the Belgians refused to supply ammunition to British forces during the first Gulf War and, while we were able to circumvent that bit of unpleasantness, it is wholly a different matter when we are relying on unique source codes of huge complexity that can only be obtained from one source.

In short, reliance on our European partners for this technology - albeit on a collaborative basis - could mean not only that we can only operate with their forces, but also that we lose our ability to operate independently, if our partners disapprove.

All of this - without a single debate on the implications - seems to be bringing Mr Monnet's dream of European integration to fruition in a manner that he could not even have imagined. When, in 1950, he persuaded French foreign minister Maurice Schuman, to launch the European Coal and Steel Community, his idea was that by integrating the two industries (then) essential to making war, he would deprive individual member states of the independent means of making war.

Over fifty years later, his dream seems to be coming true, as the equipment different armies of the EU member states is becoming so integrated, and nations so dependent on each other for that equipment, that no single member state will have the ability to conduct military operations without the permission of the others.

That may be all very well and good, but should not we have had at least a debate about it before Hoon committed us to yet another massive round of European integration?

Fortunately, it is not yet too late. No procurement contracts for the system have yet been awarded so, before we are finally committed to spending huge amounts of money and going down a road from which there is no return, we should have that debate. If we are going to surrender the independence of our armed forces - and our nation - we owe ourselves that.


NEWSLETTER
 

Sign up for our mailing
list and receive our
latest news, comment
and events.


The false reasoning behind the EU's climate policies
Climate: What we know and What we do not

action/implementation suggestions
Switching from EU/ Single Market to EFTA/Single Market membership
Hugo van Randwyck 

David Cameron can deliver a new relationship with the EU but not through staying in the EU but by exiting
The charade behind a 2017 EU referendum
Robert Oulds 

Prophetic predictions from the 1975 referendum campaign
Conservatives Against the Treaty of Rome, 1975
Philip Vander Elst 

The Strength of British Influence Within the European Union
Forever Closer Union?
Luke Stanley 

A self-aggrandising EU vanity project
The EU's new army of diplomats
The Rt Hon. Lord Lamont of Lerwick 

Opinion Poll on an alternative to the EU
71% said they would prefer Britain to leave the EU and join EFTA
Robert Oulds 

A Metaphoric Analysis of European Integration
Monoculture
Josef Filipowicz 

The Passing of the Bruges Group President, Baroness Thatcher
Tribute to Baroness Thatcher

The Solution to the European Union's Crisis of Legitimacy
A European Supra-National Identity
Luke Stanley 

The European Free Trade Association and the European Economic Area
The Viable Alternatives to EU Membership
Hugo van Randwyck 

A Wildcard in the Future of the European Union
Is Hungary the New EU?
Jeremy Stanford 

The Minister for Europe's misleading claims
Rebutting the Government’s pro-EU propaganda
Robert Oulds 

Government misuse of funds to support the euro
Role of Honour

This country will be better off out!
Solutions for the EU
Barry Legg 

Eurozone contagion: George Osborne has made a very bad bet on Dublin
There is an Alternative
Barry Legg 

Britain should re-realise its historic mission in Europe
The UK should lead in dismantling the Single Currency
Robert Oulds 

52% wish to keep the Kroon as Estonia's national currency
Another light goes out
David Wilkinson 

Financial market regulations and the threat to the City of London
EU Financial Market Regulation: A Strategy of Raising Rivals’ Costs
Professor Roland Vaubel 

David Cameron’s acquiescence to the EU, or, We Told You So
A Cost Too Far
Robert Oulds 

Micro guide for citizenship classes
Democracy and the European Superstate
Jacob Campbell 

Integration continues apace
Euro-Creep
Robert Oulds 

Reform Treaty Analysis
EU to take control over Britain's energy policy
Dr Lee Rotherham 

The EU Constitution: Revived
European Parliament report on the Reform Treaty
Robert Oulds 

It doesn't take a treaty
How the EU uses Article 308 to force ever-closer Union
Robert Oulds 

The European Emperor wears new clothes
Not a Mini-Treaty
Professor Roland Vaubel 

Fraud, mismanagement and waste
EU Unfit for Purpose: So EU Court of Auditors report indicates

Ralph Harris 10th December 1924 - 19th October 2006
Lord Harris of High Cross - A Tribute
Dr Helen Szamuely 

Trafalgar: The forgotten meaning of the battle
What Nelson won Heath surrendered
Professor Christie Davies 

Political correctness - The European Union dimension
WARNING: The European Union and Political Correctness
 John Midgley   

Feds under the beds
The Founding and Future of the European Union: The importance for America
Sally McNamara 

Putting the boot in
The EU and Sport: EU Commissioners are the new Referees
Chris Heaton-Harris MEP 

Paying the grocery bill
Marks & Spencer and tax harmonisation - The Advocate General's Opinion
Damon Lambert 

Losing friends and alienating people
A Bad Constitution - Bad for Europe and Bad for America
Sally McNamara 

A slow coup against political democracy
The EU Constitution – an analysis
Dr Anthony Coughlan 

Europe's last chance
The Bottom Line
Robert Oulds 
Dr Lee Rotherham 

QMV vs Democracy
Summary of Qualified Majority Voting in Successive European Treaties

A need for freedom
Circle of Barbed Wire
Bernard Connolly 

Coming to a cinema near you
Fahrenheit E1 11
Robert Oulds 

Westland Mark II
Defence integration - by stealth?
Dr Richard North 

Stealing our glory
Sport: the Marathon to Integration
Dr Lee Rotherham 

Better off Out!
What is the point of the European Union?
Lord Pearson 

History, integration and the Euromyth
Shame and Disgrace, Greed and Failure: The Roots of the European Obsession
Professor Christie Davies 

A good walk ruined by the EU
The golf-ball as a symbol of integration
Dr Helen Szamuely 

Freeing the UK from EU Control
Exit Strategy
Marcus Watney 

A global future
The Global Free Trade Association: Preserving and Expanding the Special Relationship in the Twenty-first Century
Dr John Hulsman 

Thinking outside the box
The Alternatives to the EU - Options for Britain

10 Euro myths busted
Busting the EU myths
Roger Helmer MEP 

The unspecial relationship
Britain's Entrapment by the French: The Triple Anniversary of 2004
Professor Christie Davies 

The EU and high taxation
Time for a new tax agenda
Damon Lambert 

The EU will do more damage to football than Sven ever could
It's that game again
Dr Helen Szamuely 

EU military control
The end of independence: The implications of the “Future Rapid Effects System” for an independent UK defence policy
Dr Richard North 

Sell-out in Brussels
The Brussels Agreement on the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe: A "user-friendly" analysis
Dr Richard North 

Time for feasible alternatives to the EU
The people have spoken
Dr Helen Szamuely 

A manifesto for a continuing transfer of power from Member States to the Union
The “Constitution for Europe” - abandoning our independence and our sovereign constitutional rights
Leolin Price CBE QC 

The policies of the EU's integrationist Juggernaut for the next 20 years
Building a political Europe
Dr Richard North 
Dr Helen Szamuely 

A Constitution to regulate European history to death
But does God support the EU Constitution?
Dr Helen Szamuely 

Time to change the road Europe's on
Stairway to where?
Robert Oulds 

Squabbling partners: Negotiations on the EU Constitution
A new fog of uncertainty
Dr Richard North 

France's axis with tyranny
The headline says it all
Dr Helen Szamuely 

EU Constitution referendums to tear the EU apart
The EU Constitution: Threat or Opportunity?
Dr Richard North 

Positive rights, negative outcome
Human Rights, Human Wrongs
Robert Oulds 

The EU's Great Game
Galileo - implications for the United States
Dr Richard North 

A wounded thrashing tiger
Byzantine Europe
Robert Oulds 

The EU's need for manly courage
Europe's "civic virtue" Or Where do we stand on the ethical foreign policy?
Dr Helen Szamuely 

A board ripe for takeover
No more heroes
Robert Oulds 

Its the economy, stupid
Lines, Herrings and Missed Opportunities
Robert Oulds 

Europe and America
Just how wide is that rift?
Dr Helen Szamuely 

Time for Divorce
Freeing Conservative MEPs from the EPP: The strategy that should be at the heart of IDS' European policy
Martin Ball 
Robert Oulds 

Better off out!
The benefits of EU membership are self-evident - aren't they?
Roger Helmer MEP 

Estonia's EU accession referendum campaign
Estonia faces the EU propaganda barrage
Roger Helmer MEP 

Different notions of federalism
Federalism in the USA and the EU
Roger Helmer MEP 

The EU Arrest Warrant
A Question of Justice
The Rt Hon. Lord Lamont of Lerwick 

EU nation building vs democracy and accountability
Intellectual mind games
Dr Helen Szamuely 

The concealed threat to civil liberties
The EU Constitution and civil liberties
Robert Oulds 

The EU sees the USA as the real enemy
"Engagement" with the axis of evil a.k.a. the European common foreign policy
Dr Helen Szamuely 

Estonia's new fight for freedom
Estonia at the Crossroads
Roger Helmer MEP 

New Europe and the EU Constitution
It's the constitution, stupid ... I think
Dr Helen Szamuely 

The de-stabilising effects of the euro
The Begg Report - rebutted
The Rt Hon. Lord Lamont of Lerwick 

The signing of the EU accession treaty
Agreement in Athens
Dr Helen Szamuely 

Saying 'No' to EU enlargement
Help make Estonia's EU accession referendum fair
Robert Oulds 

Blair's word and the Beano
Tony Blair, the euro and Europe: Can he be trusted?
Robert Oulds 

Peaceniks, the EU and Saddam
Well, what were those marches about? (And will they affect anything?)
Dr Helen Szamuely 

Positions and progress
The Convention on a European Constitution - Where we are now
Gawain Towler 

The myth of a single European view
Old Europe and New
Dr Helen Szamuely 

Tax Harmonisation
Stealth Taxation - The ECJ way
Damon Lambert 

Souls for Europe
The EU's propagandist use of Europe's Churches
Graham Eardley 

A critical view of enlargement
What exactly are we enlarging?
Dr Helen Szamuely 

MEP selection questions
Your chance to select the Right Conservative candidates

Keep it short and simple!
Europe Yes, Euro No: Winning Soundbite or Walking into a Trap?
Robert Oulds 

Spyglass - A critical view of developments at the Convention on the Future of Europe
Summits and Climbdowns
Dr Lee Rotherham 

Labour's four proposals for a federal Europe
The Dashwood Text on the Constitution of Europe
Gawain Towler 

Hain and the Government unveil their federalist agenda
Hain's federalist agenda exposed
Robert Oulds 

A score of prominent Conservative politicians reveal their blueprint for a democratic EU
Conservative Eurosceptics Tell Brussels How It Is: Top down is the wrong way up!
Robert Oulds 
Dr Lee Rotherham 

The European Union will crack
How the European Union Fudges Reality
Professor Kenneth Minogue 

European socialists show their anti-Americanism
The USA - friend or foe?
Roger Helmer MEP 

Spyglass - A critical view of developments at the Convention on the Future of Europe
Lobby fodder
Dr Lee Rotherham 

The emerging European superstate shows its impotence
The impotence of the EU superstate
Roger Helmer MEP 

New development in Sweden's fight for the Krona
Keep Sweden out as long as Britain stays out
Margit Gennser 

Enlargement will mean a more centralised Europe
EU Enlargement? Yes but....
Roger Helmer MEP 

Britain's youth are firmly eurosceptic
The propaganda is still ineffective
Dr Helen Szamuely 

The euro's rise offers no reason for Britain to scrap the Pound
The euro's rise strengthens the case for Britain to keep the Pound
Roger Helmer MEP 

The European Commission is up to its old tricks
"Anonymization" - the new cover-up
Dr Helen Szamuely 

Events disprove the claims of the euro-luvvies
Hard times for the euro
Roger Helmer MEP 

Germans want the Deutschmark back
Euro disaster hits Germany
Roger Helmer MEP 

Clarke's real passion is for intensifying our bonds with the EU
Response to Kenneth Clarke's misleading statements on the euro
Dr Brian Hindley 

Another ill thought-out EU Directive will add more costs to business and hurt those who need help the most
Corporate Social Responsibility: An Unacceptable Directive
Graham Eardley 

Spyglass - A critical view of developments at the Convention on the Future of Europe
Part-time Federalists?
Dr Lee Rotherham 

EU interference unwarranted
Hungarian elections run their course
Dr Helen Szamuely 

How membership of the euro will damage Sweden's economy
Sweden’s Second-Best Solution
Margit Gennser 

The European Union fails the Candidate Countries
Enlargement remains a weak option
Dr Helen Szamuely 

The EU attempts to undermine the Centre-Right FIDÉSZ Party
Hungarian elections unaffected by hysterical EU warnings
Dr Helen Szamuely 

Time for strong leadership
Communicating with the young: How to enhance their Euroscepticism
Robert Oulds 

Baroness Thatcher has dramatically moved forward the boundaries of the European debate
Statecraft
Robert Oulds 

The British Governmnet and the Brussels bureaucracy are destroying British fishing
Brussels illegal fishing policy: Enforcing the destruction of the UK's fishing fleet
Robert Oulds 

Brussels plans to codify its left-leaning authoritarianism
The Charter of Fundamental Rights: The creation of an authoritarian EU superstate
Robert Oulds 

The European Commission uses the the 9/11 tradegy in the United States to increase it's own power
The EU-arrest warrant: A threat to civil liberties
Robert Oulds 

Who wants what from a United Europe
The end of the affair?
Dr Brian Hindley 

The Road to Nice - Flexibility and Enlargement by The Rt Hon Lord Hurd of Westwell CH CBE PC
Response to Douglas Hurd's "Road to Nice"
Jonathan Collett 

Speech by Jonathan Collett to a meeting of the Society for Individual Freedom on Tuesday 13th April '99
Euro-scepticism: Past, Present and Future
Jonathan Collett 

The devastating consequences of Euro membership on Britain's independent fiscal policy
Time for the Truth: EMU and Tax Harmonisation
Jonathan Collett 

An article originally published in The Times, December 1, 1998
When will we learn? Britain's fundamental rifts with Europe
John Laughland 

A speech to the Political Action Group for Europe on 23rd May 1998 by the Senior Partner at Gouldens City Solicitors
The Pros and Cons of Economic and Monetary Union
Jeremy Nieboer 

Bernard Connolly explains why Tony Blair should retain a floating currency and resist the temptation to raise taxes.
"No such thing as the right exchange rate"
Bernard Connolly