Britain can shake off US and become a drone superpower, says defence boss
Military drones offer the quickest route for Europe to rebuild its arms industry and reduce reliance on US weaponry, according to the boss of a key UK defence supplier.
Peter Dilnot, the chief executive of GKN Aerospace parent Melrose Industries, said governments should prioritise investment in unmanned aircraft, because they take much less time to develop compared with traditional military equipment such as fighter planes.
Mr Dilnot said European authorities were already stepping up drone programmes, which have played a central role in the Ukraine conflict.
He said: 'Quite a lot of the development is uncrewed aircraft and cycles for those are a bit faster. If you don't strap someone to something you can speed up the development cycle. Because of what's happened, quite a lot of that is going on underneath the hood.'
Mr Dilnot said Donald Trump's recent stance on Ukraine had given the European defence sector a new impetus, as he said that companies such as GKN 'will step up' production.
GKN is a supplier for military programmes such as the General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper hunter-killer drone, for which it produces composite tail sections and lightweight landing gear.
Mr Dilnot said: 'I wouldn't describe it as a war footing, but there is an urgency around this. It will take time.'
Time will also be needed for Europe to reduce its reliance on American hardware, he added, particularly given that the vast majority of the West's defence spending is on US equipment.
He said: 'Much of European defence spending on procurement is actually on US platforms. You can't change that overnight.'
US programmes are the cornerstone of Melrose's defence business, led by the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter, whose European customers include the UK, Germany and Italy. It also works on the Boeing Apache attack helicopter used by the British Army.
Meanwhile, despite increased tensions between Europe and Mr Trump, Mr Dilnot said he saw little danger of the US pulling the plug on defence exports.
He said: 'Unless there's a major breakdown between Europe and the US that goes beyond the tariff element, then it would be an act of self-harm for them.
'It's the inverse of everything that Mr Trump is driving towards. What they want is for other countries to be spending more on their kit.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
39 minutes ago
- Spectator
Who started the Cold War?
Over a few short months after the defeat of Nazism in May 1945, the 'valiant Russians' who had fought alongside Britain and America had 'transformed from gallant allies into barbarians at the gates of western civilisation'. So begins Vladislav Zubok's thorough and timely study of the history of the Cold War – or, as he nearly entitled the book, the first Cold War. For the themes that underpinned and drove that decades-long global conflict – fear, honour and interest, in Thucydides's formulation – are now very contemporary questions. 'The world has become perilous again,' writes Zubok, a Soviet-born historian who has spent three decades in the West: Diplomacy ceases to work; treaties are broken. International institutions, courts and norms cannot prevent conflicts. Technology and internet communication do not automatically promote reason and compromise, but often breed hatred, nationalism and violence. Historians tend to be wary of drawing direct parallels between the present and the past, and Zubok is too wise to arrive at any glib conclusions. The bulk of this concise, pacy book is a narrative history of the postwar world and the great superpower rivalry that defined it. Yet, as we face a new period of strategic realignments, it's inevitably to the dynamics of the Cold War we must look for a mirror of our times. There are many surprises – one being that Joseph Stalin and his entourage had been expecting their wartime alliance with London and Washington to be followed by a period of cooperation. 'It is necessary to stay within certain limits,' recalled the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov. '[If you swallow too much] you could choke… We knew our limits.' Stalin, unlike his rival Trotsky, had never been a believer in world revolution and indeed shut down the Communist International during the war. Zubok argues that the Cold War was caused by 'the American decision to build and maintain a global liberal order, not by the Soviet Union's plans to spread communism in Europe'. Yet nearly four years of nuclear imbalance between Hiroshima and the first Soviet A-bomb test fuelled Stalin's paranoia. And a bloody hot war in Korea could very easily have escalated into a third world war had Douglas MacArthur been given his way and dropped nukes on Pyongyang. Stalin's successor, Nikita Khrushchev, revived international communism as a fifth column weapon against the capitalist world as the Cold War got into full swing. The great power rivalry became the wellspring for every post-colonial conflict, from Cuba to Angola, Mozambique, El Salvador and the rest. Zubok argues that the Cold War was caused by 'the American decision to build a global liberal order' But what is surprising is that, despite propagandists' eschatological framing of the conflict as a fight to the death between rival worlds, there were always pragmatists at the pinnacles of power in both Moscow and Washington. Khrushchev and Richard Nixon, vice president at the time, had heated but cordial man-to-man debates in an American show kitchen at Sokolniki Park in Moscow. Even the arch-apparatchik Leonid Brezhnev became 'a sponsor and a crucial convert from hard line to détente' early in his career, writes Zubok. And the great Cold Warrior Ronald Reagan was a surprising champion of jaw-jaw over war-war. Some of Zubok's assertions are puzzling. Rather than the USSR simply 'running out of steam', its collapse was 'triggered by Gorbachev's misguided economic reforms, political liberalisation and loss of control over the Soviet state and finances'. But that formulation suggests that it was Gorbachev's choices that crashed the ship of state – and raises the possibility that had he not embarked on his reform programme the fate of the USSR might have been different. But Yegor Gaidar, Yeltsin's economic reformer-in-chief, demonstrated in his classic 2007 study Collapse of an Empire that the implosion followed the iron laws of capitalism. The leaky bucket of the Soviet economy had been kept artificially full by high post-1973 oil prices but began to drain fatally after the Saudis collapsed prices a decade later. The USSR could not feed itself without buying US and Canadian grain for petrodollars. Gorbachev or no Gorbachev, the economy was doomed once the oil money dried up. Where Zubok gives Gorbachev credit is in the relative bloodlessness of the loss of the Soviet empire, a world-historical achievement that has long been ignored by modern Russians. Today, Gorbachev is reviled by his countrymen as a traitor and a fool who allowed himself to be taken in by American lies. Yet it is he who is the truly vital character on which any useful comparison between the first and (possibly) second Cold Wars hinges. The first Cold War was, as the Harvard political scientist Graham Allison has argued, born of the 'Thucydides Trap', whereby war emerged from the fear that a new power could displace the dominant one. But Gorbachev envisioned a world where competition for influence and resources would be replaced by cooperation. Rivalry did not have to mean enmity. Zero sum can be replaced by win-win. Sadly, neither Vladimir Putin (who is merely cosplaying as a superpower leader) nor Xi Jinping (who actually is one) have shown anything like Gorbachev's collaborative wisdom. But we can only live in hope that The World of the Cold War is 'a record of dangerous, but ancient times', as Zubok puts it, rather than a warning for the future. Often seen as an existential battle between capitalist democracy and totalitarian communism, the Cold War has long been misunderstood. Drawing on years of research, and informed by three decades in the USSR followed by three decades in the West, Zubok paints a striking new portrait of a world on the brink.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Imperialism still overshadows our intellectual history
Peter Watson begins his survey of the history of ideas in Britain with the assertion that the national mindset (which at that time was the English mindset) changed significantly after the accession of Elizabeth I. His book – a guide to the nature of British intellectual curiosity since the mid-16th century – begins there, just as England had undergone a liberation from a dominant European authority: the shaking off of the influence of the Roman Catholic church and the advent of the Reformation, and the new opportunities that offered for the people. He describes how a culture based largely on poetry and on the court of Elizabeth then redirected the prevailing intellectual forces of the time. This affected not just literature (Marlowe, Shakespeare and Jonson) but also helped develop an interest in science that grew remarkably throughout the next few centuries. The 'imagination' of Watson's title is not merely the creative artistic imagination, but also that of scientists and inventors and, indeed, of people adept at both. The book is, according to its footnotes, based on secondary sources, so those well read in the history of the intellect in Britain since the Reformation will find much that is familiar. There is the odd surprise, such as one that stems from the book's occasional focus on the British empire and the need felt today to discuss its iniquities. Watson writes that the portion of the British economy based on the slave trade (which must not be conflated with empire) was between 1 per cent and 1.4 per cent. He also writes that for much of the era of slavery the British had a non-racial view of it, since their main experience of the odious trade was of white people being captured by Barbary pirates and held to ransom. While this cannot excuse the barbarism endured by Africans shipped by British (and other) slavers across the Atlantic, it lends some perspective to a question in serious danger of losing any vestige of one. Watson does not come down on one side or the other in the empire debate, eschewing the 'balance sheet' approach taken by historians such as Nigel Biggar and Niall Ferguson; but he devotes too much of the last section of his book to the question, when other intellectual currents in the opening decades of the 21st century might have been more profitably explored, not least the continuing viability of democracy. Earlier on, he gives much space to an analysis of Edward Said, and questions such as whether Jane Austen expressed her antipathy to slavery sufficiently clearly in the novel Mansfield Park. But then some of Watson's own analyses of writers and thinkers are not always easily supported. He is better on the 18th century – dealing well with the Scottish enlightenment (giving a perfectly nuanced account of Adam Smith) and writers such as Burke and Gibbon – than he appears to be on the 19th. He gives Carlyle his due, but cites an article in a learned American journal from 40 years ago to justify his claim that Carlyle's 'reputation took a knock' in 1849 with the publication of his Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question. Watson says readers were offended by the use of the term 'Quashee' to describe a black man. They may well, if so, have been unsettled by the still less palatable title that the Discourse was subsequently given, which was The Nigger Question: it appeared thus in a 1853 pamphlet and in the Centenary Edition of Carlyle's works in 1899. That indicates the Discourse did Carlyle's reputation no lasting harm at the time, whatever it may have done since. In seeking to pack so much into fewer than 500 pages of text, Watson does skate over a few crucial figures. Some of his musings on empire might have been sacrificed to make more space for George Orwell, for example. A chapter in whose title his name appears features just one brief paragraph on him, about Homage to Catalonia, and later there is a page or so on Animal Farm, which says nothing new. Of Orwell's extensive and mould-breaking journalism there is nothing – somewhat surprising in a book about the British imagination when dealing with one of its leading exponents of the past century. Watson emphasises scientific discovery and innovation, and the effect on national life and ideas caused by the Industrial Revolution. These are all essential consequences of our intellectual curiosity, and he is right to conclude that the historic significance of Britain in these fields is immense. He includes league tables of Nobel prizewinners by nation in which Britain shows remarkably well. But these prizes are not the only means by which the contribution to civilisation and progress by a people are measured. There are notable omissions. Although Watson talks about the elitist nature of 'high culture' – such as Eliot and The Waste Land – he does not discuss how far the British imagination, and the British contribution to world civilisation, might have advanced had we taken the education of the masses more seriously earlier. We were, until the Butler Education Act of 1944, appalling at developing our human resources, and have not been much better since. It is surprising that there is no discussion of British music, one of the greatest fruits of the imagination of the past 150 years. And there is no analysis of the role of architecture, which, given its impact and its centrality to many people's idea of themselves as British, surely merited examination. The book shows extensive and intelligent reading, but trying to cram so much information and commentary into one volume has not been a complete success, or resulted in something entirely coherent.
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
'No Kings Day' protests expected to draw millions of people across 1,800 cities
The protests are planned in cities across all 50 states and Puerto Rico as well as several countries abroad, including Colombia, Germany, Italy, Malawi, Portugal and the United Kingdom, according to organizers This weekend, millions of people across the United States are set to attend over 1,800 "No King's Day" protests in response to President Donald Trump's military parade in Washington D. C. on Saturday. The demonstrations are planned in cities across all 50 states and Puerto Rico, as well as several countries abroad, including Colombia, Germany, Italy, Malawi, Portugal and the UK, according to organisers. These protests are expected to be the largest demonstrations against the Trump administration since he took office in January. The aim of these protests is to counter Trump's 250th anniversary U.S. Army parade scheduled to take place in the nation's capital on Saturday, which coincides with his 79th birthday. The event, which officials project will cost between $25-$45 million and cause upwards of $16 million in damages to the city streets, will see hundreds of military tanks and aircraft roll through the streets of Washington, D. C, reports the Mirror US. Protest organisers said: "On June 14-Flag Day-President Trump wants tanks in the street and a made-for-TV display of dominance for his birthday. A spectacle meant to look like strength. But real power isn't staged in Washington. It rises up everywhere else,". "No Kings is a nationwide day of defiance. From city blocks to small towns, from courthouse steps to community parks, we're taking action to reject authoritarianism-and show the world what democracy really looks like. We're not gathering to feed his ego. We're building a movement that leaves him behind." Organisers stress that the demonstrations will remain peaceful and have cautioned participants against bringing weapons or instigating altercations with any objectors. The most significant protests are anticipated in several major cities, including Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, Houston, New York City, Philadelphia, and Phoenix. The organisers have clarified that there will be no protest in Washington D.C. to avoid potential conflicts with the MAGA movement. "We want to create contrast, not conflict," Leah Greenberg, co-executive director of Indivisible, one of the partnering organisations for the protest, stated. "The choice to hold No Kings events in every city but D.C. is a deliberate choice to keep the focus on contrast, and not give the Trump administration an opportunity to stoke and then put the focus on conflict." In the meantime, anti-ICE demonstrations that started on Friday in Los Angeles are continuing into their sixth day with no apparent conclusion. President Trump has ignited a fierce dispute with California Governor Gavin Newsom following his decision to send 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to LA to address the pro-immigration protesters. The Pentagon revealed the deployment of troops to the city came at a cost of $134 million. Their arrival on Sunday was met with widespread criticism, with many arguing it disrupted the previously peaceful atmosphere. California Governor Newsom's office responded by filing a motion to block Trump's decision to send in troops. Nationwide, over 25 cities have been the site of anti-ICE protests, according to NBC News. In a separate event, thousands are expected to attend a mass in Chicago on Saturday, where Pope Leo XIV will deliver an address to young people in his hometown. The Women's March movement is also organizing a protest, dubbed 'Kick Out the Clowns,' with over 320 events planned and more than 13,000 people set to attend. On their website, the group stated, "June 14 is our chance to reflect the absurdity of the MAGA regime and the clowns who lead it." This latest wave of civil unrest echoes the widespread protests seen in 2020, including the 'Black Lives Matter' movement against police brutality and systemic racism, as well as the 'Women's March' in response to the #MeToo movement during Trump's first inauguration in 2017.
