European Defence Planning: Concorde, Franco-British Politico-Military Relations and the Cold War, 1956–68
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cold War tensions between the superpowers marked the years 1956 to 1966, where the United States, Britain and France prioritised European defence against Soviet aggression. Despite being envisaged for civil aviation purposes, the Concorde aircraft was the Franco-British alternative to US proposals concerning the introduction of a supersonic bomber within the Inter-Allied Nuclear Force (IANF) to protect against Soviet attack during the Cold War technological race. This offers a unique case study for the examination of Franco-British bi-lateral partnership in the context of European defence. This article will concentrate on three main themes. The first investigates how Concorde was considered as a viable component for the IANF. Subsequently, the loci of US, British and French policy decisions will be explored with regards to constructing supersonic aircrafts. Lastly, the article considers how foreign policies influenced the shift from a military-use Concorde to a more commercial option. The historiography on Concorde focuses on its commercial impact, and how it affected the Franco-British partnership. Considering Concorde from the defence perspective allows us to analyse the divisions between the US and French grand design ideas – the IANF and Europe puissance – and how they provoked further friction in the Franco-British military relationship.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".