The Sealord said

one of the biggest issues is manpower

So true. You could make the case that the army alone is 20-25,000 men short of what is really needed. That will cost not far off a billion a year to start with 😮

In addition to the items listed by Sealord and Swerve for immediate procurement, you might also want to add;

MARS & its various parts
The Royal Marines really need an Amphibious Fighting Vehicle like the USMC for use with the improved Amphib capability
FSC (big money)
A proper Land attack derivative of Type 45 to assist Amphib capability
Housing improvements for all services
Medical improvement all services including battlefield
Decent pay rise for entry level soldiers
I still think we need a proper ground attack aircraft similar to the A-10.

It all costs money that no-one wants to cough up though

At least we all have something to look forward to in 2009 then. Presumably the pre-production airframes will come to the UK rather than stay in the USA ?

Although not specifically relevant here I think the potential of the EMALS system is quite exciting as the loads on the launch aircraft will be much less. You can also be sure that a similar system that assists with landings can’t be to far away either. The ability to programme the deceleration of an aircraft via a laptop to reduce the loads by varying an electric current is very interesting and will lead to lighter designs for naval airframes or increased airframe service lives depending on the doctrine that they choose to apply.

Despite the above yesterdays Times suggests that the RAF are indeed seeking ways to get out of Tranche 3 by substituting the Saudi aircraft. Italy is also looking to renegotiate

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/ext.php?ref=http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article2441602.ece

Would there be something in the smallprint about their required minimum equipment fit ? Reason is if I was writing the PFI requirement for HMG, I would ensure that these machines were suitable to be called into military service if something unforseen kicked off in the future regardless of type.

Clearly in WW1 there was a bombing strategy, but as to whether it could genuinely be described as strategic in the modern sense is a very moot point. I think that first of all strategy has to be defined within the limits of the WW1 capability. If you were to ask the RFC they would have said yes we had a strategy, whereas had you asked the same question of Field-marshall Haig he may will have considered it a more tactical roll in the much bigger picture.

I don’t claim to be an expert but as said above, surely truly strategic bombing can’t really have been said to have matured until WW2 ? Regardless its definately a great topic for academic debate and I bet someone has penned a masters degree on this contention.