Dr Sarah Ingham is the author of The Military Covenant: its impact on civil-military relations in Britain.

Once voted Britain’s favourite painting, The Fighting Temeraire  (1839) can be found at the National Gallery in London’s Trafalgar Square. It is an ideal home for Turner’s symbolic masterpiece, depicting a mighty warship being towed to a breaker’s yard as the sun is setting.  

Last month, President Macron gave a speech alongside Le Téméraire. One of France’s four SSBN submarines carrying the country’s nuclear deterrent, it was docked at the Île Longue base, a “cathedral of our sovereignty”.  

France current nuclear arsenal comprises around 290 warheads, also delivered by Rafale jets, both land-based and carrier-based. This number will increase. The national nuclear doctrine would shift to “forward deterrence”, offering a loose arrangement to extend France’s nuclear umbrella to other European nations.  

Macron also reminded the assembled Marine Nationale submariners, perhaps not without the French equivalent of schadenfreude, that in 2017 he warned that “peace dividends were not more” – and had boosted France’s defence. No “corrosive complacency” which puts France in peril for le President. 

Made shortly after the start of the US/Israel campaigns against Iran, the Finisterre visit came at a busy time for Macron – and for France’s Armed Forces. Within days, the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier with its 20 fighter jets sailed towards Cyprus where RAF Akrotiri had come under Iranian attack.  

“When Cyprus is attacked, Europe is attacked” declared the President, visiting the island. He forgot to add, “and Britain is humiliated.” Reports suggest that France had also sent eight warships and two helicopter carriers to the Eastern Mediterranean and Gulf region.  

Meanwhile, HMS Dragon, stuck in Portsmouth and under repair, was coming to symbolise all that has gone so calamitously wrong with Britain’s defence.  Although RAF crews in their Typhoons, F-35s and Wildcat helicopters are intercepting missile attacks in Cyprus and the Gulf, these 21st century “few” cannot redeem such massive failure.  

Were Lord Nelson to see the current state of the Royal Navy, his shock would surely be shared by Vice Admiral Pierre-Charles Villeneuve, commander of the enemy fleet at Trafalgar. The victory in 1805, with HMS Temeraire playing its heroic part, secured Britain’s naval supremacy for the next 100 years. 

Competition and conflict between Britain and France have resulted in a score draw. In the strategic context, both are post-colonial nuclear powers with a global outlook and permanent members of the UN Security Council. Both have Armed Forces with centuries of military tradition behind them, forged not least by fighting each other.  

France is, in corporate-speak, Britain’s peer competitor, but recent events are highlighting its defence superiority.  

Defence procurement in Britain is currently synonymous with wasting time and money. The current defence crisis raises many questions, not least why France is apparently getting more bang for its buck – or should that be plus bang pour l’euro?  

NATO’s former longstanding target of spending 2 per cent GDP on defence is a rough guide to an alliance member’s commitment to investment in national security. In 2024, Britain spent 2.28 per cent and France 2.04 per cent. In 2024/25, Britain spent £60.2 billion on defence: last year the Ministère des Armées’ budget  was €61.8 billion. (£53.7 billion at yesterday’s rates) 

France’s Armed Forces’ regular strength was almost 200,000 in 2025: in January, Britain’s was 143,560. France has one aircraft carrier to Britain’s two, but in most other classes – frigates, destroyers, corvettes – it has more ships. A database for military geeks suggests the Armée de l’Air et de l’Espace has 988 active aircraft, the RAF 640. 

An in-depth study by Britain on how France’s Armed Forces are getting more for less is now urgent. Le Crunch last month was the final, thrilling, match of the Six Nations. Le Crunch Nouveau is French vs British defence.  

President Macron alluded to the “reordering of US priorities” in relation to NATO. Should the US leave the alliance, it will be like the current exodus of the world’s wealthiest from Britain: celebrated by most in Labour, disastrous for the national bank balance as the capability gaps would need to be plugged.  

Since the de Gaulle presidency in the 1950s, France has been determined to enjoy sovereign defence capability, and “strategic autonomy”. While France’s nuclear deterrent is independent, Britain’s nuclear programme is supported by Washington, but is still forecast to cost £133 billion to 2033.  

The French government is enmeshed in the defence sector through holdings in firms such as Airbus. Cheap energy from 19 nuclear power stations, helps manufacturing.  

The UK has signed up to spending 3.5 per cent GDP on defence by 2035. Were this politically possible, there seems little point if that extra estimated £35 billion a year will be frittered away.  

Defence must not become the new NHS, with money lazily chucked at it instead of radical reform. Otherwise, it won’t just be the Fighting Temeraire on which the sun goes down.  

The post Sarah Ingham: Le Crunch Nouveau is French vs British defence appeared first on Conservative Home.