I have to seriously challenge that assertion Mig23, Airbus is an incredibly successful company, with thousands of sales. In contrast, the Tupolev Tu-204/214 and Ilyushin Il-96 have hardly sold anything, despite being much cheaper. The simple fact is that cheap labour is not everything – you need the build quality to match. This is what Embraer got right, they made the EMB-145 a good aircraft, and could build it cheaply, and they are now doing the same with the -170 series. Outsourcing may be a two-way street, but Russia is no China, and is not a rising giant, and is not suddenly going to start challenging Airbus and Boeing (Sukhoi Superjet possibly excepted, in part because of its affiliation with western partners). Also, Russia doesn’t benefit that much from outsourcing, with western airframers preferring to outsource to Eastern Europe, or certain parts of Asia. As for your earlier point about Russia being self sufficient on technology, so is Europe. Manned spaceflight is not much of an issue – Europe does have a manned spaceflight program, and launches astronauts, it is just cheaper to do so on Soyuz or the Shuttle. If Europe wanted to, it could have its own launcher, and indeed has expressed an interest in doing so, but there’s not much need. As for Russia, its launch program still relies on the old, reliable Soyuz, and seems likely to for the forseeable future. The simple fact is that Russia is still relying on developments from the ’80s, and even a number of their ‘new’ projects are no more than warmed-over ’80s projects. Not a great sign for the future…

Sferrin: On the issue of GLCMs, this is one area Russia really doesn’t want to go down. Europe is pretty well equipped when it comes to cruise missile programs, and could easily field thousands of cruise missiles. The unit costs of them can be kept down, and even the Eastern European nations could afford to field thousands of the missiles each. It also has to taken into account just how close the missiles would be now, making Russia itself a viable target, whereas during the Cold War, it was only really WarPac nations that were within range. There are also other systems, like Rattlrs, but also you’ve got to look at things like ATACMS, which can have ranges of 300km nowadays. Not a route that Europe would like to go down, but equally a route that Europe could comfortably afford to go down.

There is a strong movement within the RN to harken back to the CATOBAR days and to see an approximation of a USN supercarrier join the fleet that cannot be denied. There is also, however, a core of true believers in STOVL within the Navy too. Its seen as ‘our’ technology seeings as we made it successful in 1982 and, as I’ve alluded to in other posts, STOVL has also allowed us to pull some ‘unconventional’ strokes on opposition forces in various exercises. Retention, and development, of the technology wouldnt necessarily be viewed all that dimly in the service.

One thing that has to be said, though, is that STOVL didn’t shine in the Falklands, it sufficed, nothing more, nothing less. There were serious limitations, forcing the carriers to either pull back too far from the islands, for their own safety, thus leaving the troops without air cover; or staying close enough to provide air cover, and endangering the carriers. They did some things that CTOL carriers couldn’t easily have done, i.e. ops in bad weather, but their limitations were exposed quite badly. In a sense the success of the Harrier had less to do with the Harriers being outstanding, than the fact that the Argentine Mirages were flown at the edge of range, and with pretty poor tactics. Just keeping a technology on because it is British is a pretty poor excuse – heck, the UK invented the angled deck and Fresnel lens, so why can’t we go back to another UK-originating technology! :diablo:

The saddest thing was that one of the reasons stated for getting the new carriers was to be inter-operability with other Navies, i.e. the USN and MN. This makes the choice of STOVL all the more perplexing, since it completely rules out cross-decking with either force! The reasons originally stated for going for the F-35B version are no longer very good (earlier ISD, same weapons capabilities, more platforms etc…), since a lot of them have changed. It certainly shouldn’t be forgotten that the -C version now has so many advantages, i.e. range, weapons capability (including extra AMRAAMs for the fighter role, as was recently revealed by Lockheed), and general performance.

Part of the problem is that the F-35B looked really attractive to the RAF (less so to the RN right from the start, unless carrier size got cut) as a Harrier replacement. It was particularly attractive because it clearly was a Harrier replacement, thus leaving the Tornado GR-4 replacement to the FOAS project, i.e. more aircraft. Now that FOAS is canned, the F-35 is realistically going to have to serve as the GR-4 replacement, so F-35C is looking more and more attractive. For the Navy, the -C was always more attractive, in part because it meant a more flexible carrier (Hawkeye, UAVs etc all being much easier on CTOL carriers).

In a sense, it is just a matter of commitment – if F-136 were canned, but the UK goes ahead with F-35 procurement, CTOL becomes more attractive. Mind you, there were rumours that the RN really liked the V-22 Osprey that was being demonstrated on Lusty a few months back…

One thing to bear in mind is that the carriers may not be expected to routinely operate fifty aircraft, but hopefully they will be operating UCAVs as well as F-35Cs and Hawkeyes in the future. By the time the carriers enter service, hopefully they will be carrying 24-32 F-35Cs, 4 Hawkeyes, and another 12-16 UCAVs, along with a couple of Merlins for ASW. This would be a pretty respectable airwing, with up to 56 aircraft, and yet be entirely doable with the CVF (the UCAVs are quite compact).

Arguably if the UK were to try neutrality, or at least a passive foreign policy, based on self defence alone, you could cut pretty much everything. You would scrap half the Typhoon purchase, scrap the JSF purchase, and scrap most of the tanker and transport fleet. The Navy would lose all their ships beyond patrol vessels, no subs, no Trident etc… The Army would lose all but a few battalions, and instead rely on the TA for numbers (probably as few as 10,000 active duty troops, and 20,000 TA at most). However, if this were done, Britain would lose its status in the world, and probably lose its security council position. The simple fact is that some people in this country would be happy to see this happen, but the overwhelming majority would not. Britain has influenced world events over the last few hundred years, and has to accept the need to continue its role, especially to sort out problems with former colonies.

As for whether carriers are really needed, just take a look at Sierra Leone – without the carriers, that mission would have been impossible. There are dozens of examples of where carriers have proven themselves essential. Even Afghanistan was an example, admittedly it was American carriers not British, but in October/November 2001, the carriers were the only bases available. American carrier-borne fighters were the only fighters around, with the USAF having to rely on long range bombers. Anywhere in Africa would be pretty much impossible without carriers, anywhere in the Pacific would be difficult or impossible, and many other places too! Even look at Kosovo, where there simply wasn’t enough basing available, so carriers were needed to boost numbers, and indeed provided the only air cover when bad weather enveloped Italy!

It could of course be argued that if the US decides to try to ‘punish’ the UK for drawing down forces in Iraq, then the UK ought to ‘punish’ the US when it does the same thing in a year or two. Perhaps the UK should be talking about kicking the US off Diego Garcia, out of Lakenheath, etc… :rolleyes:

The reality is that the US should just remember that it does need help sometimes, and just throwing a hissy fit every time anyone else has different opinions is not a good demonstration of sound leadership. The UK is legally bound not to sell on US technology, and has a very long history of ageeing not to divulge US-sourced info. Just take a look at the F-117 program, which has even had RAF pilots, and the UK’s resulting lack of cooperation with European allies on stealth projects, because they had agreed with the US not to.

Also, to dismiss the concerns as automatically unfounded just because of the people not being party to the classified materials is unwise. The fact is that many believe that given the lack of an ITAR waiver, the purchase may not be wise is perfectly justified. It would certainly be sensible for the UK to scrap the plan to use STOVL aircraft, since a switch to CTOL would allow the UK to realistically talk of cancelling JSF procurement. Okay, Rafale may not be ideal, but the JSF is certainly shaping up to be far from perfect for the UK! This is especially true if the US decides to move the goal-posts again, and try ransoming operation of the JSF whenever the UK doesn’t blindly follow the US’ lead.

As for Basra, yes, it is certainly a mess, but pulling back to the airport was entirely necessary – defending the palace tied up too many troops, who couldn’t then be used for patrolling. By pulling back to the airport, patrols can go in to deal with specific threats, and more importantly, special forces can still keep an eye on what’s happening. It is actually something similar to what the American special forces community had been advocating (i.e. pull back, and let spec ops guys deal with the bad guys with precision). Not great, but considering the fact that there simply aren’t enough troops to maintain all of Britain’s commitments, there’s not much alternative!

The case for three percent is simple – it represents an acheivable aim, and allows for a target, rather than simply crying ‘more money would be nice’. Three percent allows for a suitable goal, and of course there must be a plan for implementation. One of the problems with the NHS was simply that they threw money at the problems, rather than saying ‘this bit of money is to do X, and this money is for Y, do not spend it elsewhere. The increased money should be divided, so that, say, 40% of the extra money goes to the Army, 30% to the RAF, and 30% for the Navy. Half of the money would be to fund exclusively new kit (i.e. more helicopters, more vehicles etc…), and the other half would be for capital renewal (i.e. new buildings, vehicle repairs etc…).

There most certainly needs to be a plan, but the new plan must be based on what is available, i.e. money, personnel etc… New equipment is needed, old equipment needs to be maintained, and perhaps most importantly, personnel need to be recruited and retained, so units can be at full strength.

GR.4 only lacks a phased array radar for truely all weather targeting.

The GR-4 is now to be fitted with an AESA as well, so this too will be addressed!