I would agree with NPCP - the gist is that our defence procurement could be simplified. What does '174 kinds of weapons' mean anyway? He gives the counter-example of the USA operating 27 kinds of weapon - but there are 175 types of aircraft operated by the US army, navy, coastguard, air-force so presumably the comparison is with a subset e.g. front-line attack aircraft, tanks only. Is a transport or a training helicopter actually a weapon (OK, I know you can probably bolt on a gun and claim it is). On this basis you could infer that 'one European helicopter' means 'one attack helicopter' and not 'using Apaches for training, attack and troop transport'.
Even if there is a degree of parochialism I'm sure it's true that a degree of co-operation could improve capability hugely. And which has done better: the Eurofighter or the Rafale? France may have chosen its own aircraft, but it would have been surely better off staying at the party. What if the Eurofighter had ended up with the best features of the Rafale and vice-versa? Perhaps even more foreign exports as well.