Antiradiation missile-aagain which type..currently operational are Kh 31P (Su 30) and Kh 25 MP from the Mig 27s..I am sure IAF wouldnt want those in the rafale..so what are the options? I am not sure whether AGM 88 is available or that IAF is interested in that.

There may even be enough interest from all parties for MBDA to develop an anti-radar missile with the meteor motor.

Rumor has it that the decks of the UK carriers aren’t strong enough for the F 18 and that they would need strengthening should the F 18 been selected for an interim solution while the Rafale wouldn’t need it… I don’t know if that’s true but that would be quite… interesting.

*If* that were the case…

You can expect to hear a Subpar Hornet acquisition any day now.

We’d find out about the need for extensive (and expensive) re-design on the carrier decks shortly afterwards, but of course the mantra “we must stick by our* decision” will emanate from Downing Street.

*even (especially!) if its the completely wrong decision!

Edit: As a Brit I think we could do a lot worse than buying Rafale, a VERY lot worse indeed.

Far be it for a thick paddy to lecture you on the Queen’s English… but surely you mean “an awful lot worse indeed”. 😀

(Also, agreed in general – I’ve said elsewhere, a Rafale purchase is a no brainer. However, it would bruise some British egos by affirming France were right all along with the ECA.)

At $100 million a piece, I truly believe the RN has stupidly committed itself balls and all to an aircraft program which has been overly ambitious in capability and technology, whilst being unrealistic in true cost predictions and forecasts!

I’m not sure it has been overly ambitious in terms of capability.

Indeed, I feel it has been very under-ambitious in terms of capability – this under-ambition was required to allow the STOVL version to continue to exist within the same program as the conventional and CATOBAR variants.

• They will not get the tax revenue from oil. This is largely composed of VAT & other duties (which are applied at point of sale) and corporation tax (which applies at head offices which is typically London). All they would get I think is PAYE from staff
• They will lose the subsidies from England that they currently get
• They would lose the influence over international affairs that UK has
• They would have tax raising powers, but no control over interest rates and thus monetary policy (a problem which you may have noticed is destroying the economy of PIIGS)

1. Why not? If they are an independent country, they can apply their own duty per barrel of crude. Apply their tax up front for the unrefined product.

2. Yep.

3. Ha. What influence? Most of the world hate the English.

4. Pardon? Why would they have no control over interest rates? Are you assuming they would stick with the pound?

Currently Scotland is with 13.4% budged deficit

even if we add all income from natural resources it will still be around 6.8%.

Really? What is the basis for your numbers?

And after that comes the question what to do with HBOS and Royal Bank of Scotland.

I’d love to be able to say; “burn them to the f**king ground for all I care!” 😀

They were rescued with money from all UK taxpayers, so who must be in control of them? After all their assets accounts for around 1400% of Scotland’s GDP.

On a more serious note, since they hold significant credit in both England and Scotland, then it would be in the best interests of both countries to ensure RBS and HBOS keep functioning as going entities.

It would be a damn good excuse to break them up though – which is something I would be in favour of. I think the governments would be in favour of it too – the economy would be less sensitive to the whims of the bank if they were smaller.

with Scotland set to separate from the UK in 2014, how will its future armed forces look like?

(Assuming they actually do break away – which I completely support)

They won’t.

Unlike the English, the Scots don’t feel the need to go around the world actively pissing people off*, so don’t need a large army/navy/airforce.

*Well, OK, many of the Rangers fans do. 😀

in the alternate no STOVL reality, are you suggesting that the US would have produced its own Harrier replacement or left it to BAE?

It would probably have been cheaper to build a number of Nimitz class carriers for the USMC than to insist on the F-35B.

It would also probably have been cheaper to build smaller CATOBAR carriers (say, 1 fwd cat only) for the Marines than to insist on F-35B.

As the saying goes, there is more than one way of skinning the cat.