You could just have edited your post.

As long as they don’t cut MRA4 numbers, we couldn’t expect much better.

I think we may have gotten off fairly lightly in terms of cuts to defence. We aren’t losing many capabilities, and no key ones are going.

There is a rumour or two…I hope very untrue of

…a reuction 6 MRA4 and a capability holiday with a pretty immediate withdrawl of MR2 followed by mothballing of Kinloss.

…Harrier to go before arrival of F35

Govt have been very clever with this, who can oppose this deal? If you do then your going against what the “boys in afghan” the media and the public at large have been crying out for more Chinooks, its so Orwellian I could cry.

Hilarious videos. What has to be remembered is that promo videos are made and shown by people who think chunky gold bracelets are the height of taste, to men who think wearing an ultra-tailored uniform means their nation has world beating armed forces.

EF one is cheesetastic. :rolleyes:

But a legal defense for what? War is legal. One nation attacking another nation’s military is legal.

Well not really. Chapter 7 of the UN charter allows for war in the event of “crimes against peace”.

This is defined as…

“starting or waging a war against the territorial integrity, political independence or sovereignty of a state, or in violation of international treaties or agreements” (UN Charter)

So attacking another state without due provocation and the agreement of the security council is i’m afraid ilegal under international law. There by hangs the question over the invasion of Iraq.

It has been proposed to clarify the “pre-emptive” issue with regards to Chapter 7 but this is yet to be agreed.

The UK MOD is considering 2-4 more C17s so this will be great news! Even more time for whitehall to prevaricate and delay ordering the transports we need…”its ok the C17 will still be in production next year, we can wait.”

WOW! I clicked on here to read about the first F35 training squadron??? Instead i find a xenophobic “who won ww2” pissing contest! excellent.

Can I suggest everyone reads “Why the Allies Won” by Richard Overy. Excellent book which lays out this argument analyticaly and with evidence.

The war could be boiled down to…

UK knocked Italy out of the war
USSR did over Germany
USA beat Japan.

Each supported the other in each effort but the essential main efforts are those.

The UKs greatest contributions to whole war effort are probably
1) Code breaking at Bletchley Park
2) Staying in the War in 1940 which allowed the liberation of western europe to happen later on.
3) Battle of the Atlantic which allowed the build up of the liberation force and the direct material support of the USSR.
4) Knocking Italy out of the war and safeguarding North Africa.

As for lend lease…any decleration of “if it weren’t for us you’d be speaking german” etc is nonsense. The UK could make enough weapons for its own defence. remember the UK had enough surplus tanks to supply the USSR (matlidas and valantines) in 41-42.

But thats the point the UK could produce enough for just defence. In order to fight offensives around the globe and launch a liberation army the UK needed lend lease from the USA. They could not produce enough to build an assault army as well as fighting offensives in Africa, Italy and Burma.

One last point to mention is that in 1940 the USSR was on ‘the other side’….makes the defiance of that summer seem all the more dramatic really.

We already have Sylver, together with missiles which need it, & CAMM can potentially be quad-packed into it, minimising the space taken up.

There is one very good reason: exports. Being able to fit four CAMM into an A50 could be very attractive to some customers, potentially boosting sales of CAMM, Aster, & Sylver, to the benefit of both MBDA & DCNS.

I would go as far to say that NOT using sylver would be an utter waste of money, the adaptability it would create by using one VLS system across the fleet would be enormous.

The Victors were pretty damn impressive as well, but there’s a lot of other things I’d much rather see the money spent on.

I always rated the Victor over the Vulcan. Carried 15 more 1,000lbs for a start.

Agree with the earlier comments on the parent/child hangar concept. Looks like another BVT folly similar to the midships light davits on the Venator design that occupy massively useable space to accomodate a couple of light RHIB’s, for ships boats, when the whole stern end is a garage stuffed with the things.

Do I not like that! The moment you change your mind about UCAV desgin or size you have a very nice garage for the Captain to take his car to sea I suppose…

why not just increase the size of the main hanger??? But then you can never trust any type of architect to be practical.

I would guess if that is a VLS in the centre and judging by its height its “A70” dimensions and therefore intended as a space for LAMs. Again, why have a seperate space? surely that means you are limited in future to that number of LAMs, surely you keep all the VLS together?