What is the alternative? Fact is aside from the US and China, no country has both the technical and financial resources to develop a new aircraft from A to Z. The factors that drove the FEFA and Eurofighter (which the UK had the ability to develop unilaterally) have become even more stark today. And treacherous or not, that’s not the French govt’s fault.

Sure co-developing it with Brazil, Russia or India would be good option for France but I doubt if the sentiment is reciprocated.

Brazil is no hurry to acquire a next generation aircraft let alone develop one.

India has a similar agreement with Russia because it was either that or the purchasing the F-35, with all its technical locks. The AMCA is intended to develop the country’s aerospace sector as much as its intended to deliver a fifth generation aircraft. I don’t see India being satisfied with an arrangement where France develops A-Z of the aircraft.

Russia already has a fifth generation aircraft in development and stealth bomber in the pipeline. Even if they agreed to collaborate on an aircraft program, given their considerable technical and scientific prowess, how are you any better off with them than you were with the UK? Instead of French politicians giving something away to the Anglo-Saxon world, they’ll end up giving it away to the Slavic world.

Personally, I think Cameron and Sarkozy had the right idea. The UK and France have more in common with each other than they do with any other country. The UK felt its interests and global stature would be better served as the US’ sidekick while France felt a similar result could be had by a leading role along with Germany within a united Europe.

Generally the world finds American actions and decisions easier to swallow, if there’s a ‘coalition’ involved, so Britain became a useful entity to have around but ignore in crunch time. No surprise that the UK feels let down. Germany on the other hand appears to have no interest in the world outside of the Eurozone. They’re willing to play along with the Eurocorps/EUFOR/EUBG farce but have no long term commitment to such programs. Leaving France feeling let down.

A Franco-British agreement makes perfect sense. Both countries are fast being eclipsed by new actors on the stage, but would still like to continue being great powers with the ability to independently exercise clout overseas, as illustrated by their insistence on maintaining a nuclear arsenal in the post-Cold War world. Their military requirements are very similar, just like their militaries. Remaining on the cutting edge of military technology has been straining their budgets for a while and collaborating on future R&D is possibly the best compromise they can make between maintaining sovereign capabilities and cost effectiveness.

Good post. It isn’t about whether or not a single country CAN go it alone. France can, Sweden can, Britain, Germany the USA can but is there the political will?

When I see these anti-independence Scottish politicians on TV, that’s the very word that springs to mind. You can bet that when independence does come along, these rats will be queuing for roles in the new government.

Seriously Al if you don’t react then the idiots will get bored. They are usually English, they usually couldn’t care less if Scots choose independence or not, it seems most would support it. They are taking the p!ss, ignore them.

I don’t have any issue with the English or the Scots or anybody else for that matter wanting or not wanting independence. What offends me is the lack of respect for another persons opinion, culture or nationality. Just because a Scotsman or woman might not wish for independence as you do, doesn’t make them a traitor. It works both ways.

My only real issue about all of this is the nationalist accusation of Westminster bullying. I am no Tory supporter but until the Scots say yes to independence and I grant you it is looking ever more likely, Scotland is still a part of the UK.

If Westminster keeps quiet the SNP snipe is ‘see, Westminster doesn’t even care’, but if they say anything the SNP snipe is ‘see, Westiminster are bullying the Scots again’.

Nobody is bullying the Scots and Westminster does care, although they might have a funny way of showing it sometimes. The SNP are bullying the unionists however. In the eyes of the SNP Scottish Unionists are a ‘parcel of thieves’ and ‘cabalists’. Fair play I haven’t heard him use the word ‘traitor’ yet but soon enough folks, soon enough. And this bullying has hijacked the whole debate. The SNP think they own it and maybe they do but is bullying by any other name really the way to start the journey to independence? I suppose it doesn’t really matter if you do not recognise it as such.

The risk to the Unionists is indeed English interference but we are still allowed an opinion on UK affairs even if we don’t have a say in affairs outside England. We shouldn’t have a say in affairs outside England for that matter but is barking and snapping at them any time they state a case a way to begin relations with a new foreign neighbour?

The risk to nationalists is that in order to stop the bullying or the smug condescension of the SNP pollsters, some people will resort to telling them what they want to hear in an attempt to get rid of them. Nobody likes a politician, English or Scottish and they will vote however they bloody well like.

I don’t know if the imminent break up of the UK is a good thing or even inevitable. I am sure it will all come out in the wash, Scotland are more than capable of running their own affairs but I doubt they will be any better off economically and the power and influence they hold now will count for nothing after the nationalists get a yes vote.

England could benefit economically with or without North Sea oil revenue. Lots of UK admin work will come to England, ship building and maintenance, the ability to set our own economic goals without having to worry about Scottish voters hopes and fears would make England more flexible.

Wales will go their own way eventually, NI will rejoin with the republic and even Cornwall will go their own way but I have heard now that the people studying ways around the so called ‘West Lothian Question’ now want to see a break up of England itself. I can’t see any economic, constitutional or legal reason for doing this but I can see why the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish want it.

This is the real danger of the West Lothian Question for the English. Whilst they still have some influence in English affairs, the Welsh, Scottish and Irish politicians would like to push this agenda because, if they are successful, their smaller economies won’t have to compete with the relative English behemoth. They will only have to compete with smaller regional economies more the size of their own. Bite sized chunks, easier to digest. Some might call it divide and conquer.

I couldn’t possibly comment.

Cutbacks strike again. Red Arrows converting to Tucanos maybe??????????

I must admit that I am too feeling very confused by the outcome of this defence review. Although I obviously welcome the switch to F-35Cs, I would have preferred a split-buy to axing the B-model completely, since this will combine with the early retirement of the Harrier to leave the UK without fixed-wing carrier aviation for a number of years. The cancellation of the MRA4, while arguably deserved given the incredible delays, cost overruns and mismanagment, is also a head-scratcher – this decision should have been taken much earlier, when there was still a financial saving to be obtained. By now, the vast majority of the money is irretrievably gone and abandoning the project will not unspend it – and then there is the future: either the Nimrod is not replaced and the UK loses the capability for good, or *more* money will have to be spent on a substitute.

A more sensible alternative would have been to get rid of the Lynx Wildcat and the Puma upgrade, for which a decent, almost off-the-shelf solution (also by AgustaWestland, curiously enough) exists: the AW139/149. Possibly the weirdest decision though is the early retirement of the Sentinel which by all counts appears to have proved a superb asset in combat, all while continuing with the controversial acquisition of Rivet Joints. Although the saying that it is dangerous to plan for yesterday’s war applies, the Sentinel arguably has far more relevance to contemporary conflicts and might partially offset the loss of the Nimrod in certain roles.

They would argue that by not operating it they are saving money. Still a mistake though I agree.

Then he’ll be at the back of a very long queue filled with Liebour politicians (the ones to really blame for this screw up), if your desire is to make those responsible answer for the ridiculous state our armed forces will find themselves in.

I have said it elsewhere but why are we sending billions of pounds overseas as “aid” while our nations defence is being left as capable as a one legged man in an @r5e kicking contest. Stop sending our money to line the pockets of corrupt third world governments…:mad:

Now you see, part of me agrees with you but two wrongs do not make a right. How the hell is starving British Armed forces of yet more cash and resources going to heal the wounds made by the previous government? In real terms the armed forces were just about the only department to see year on year cash starvation whilst all other departments had cash thrown at them by the Labour government.

old thread here

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=102272

this is a new one since the old one is too big. and yes, if the F-35B didn’t work out, who in their right mind would opt for the F-18E over the F-35C?

Seeing as the review is treasury driven and openly so, my guess would be the bean counters.

My main concern is that any further delays in the F35(x) project as a whole could be used as an excuse to scrap the British requirement completely. Build the carriers to appease the shipyards then try to sell them off, likely at a fraction the cost it took to build them, driven by the logic that you would save money by not operating them.

In short I don’t think that the choice is really between the F35B/C and the F/A-18E/F, the choice is between having a Royal Navy fast jet capability and not having it.

I would rather buy the F/A-18E/F, off the shelf, as-is than chase a ‘rubber’ F35 of any variety. You might also get a decent sized air wing for your money.

Personally I am not sure but according to Navy Matters steam boilers could be included when they where looking at CATOBAR designs back in 2003 but it did not sound straight forward or cheap.

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-25.htm

……………and the F35B is straight forward and cheap? Or at least more straight forward and cheaper?