BOTH?:D

In that respect, even the most
steadfast “Raf’fan” will acknowledge that you simply
cannot compare the efficiency of of patrol of Phoons
over that of a squadron of Blenheims save probably
the Lancaster

Good day N/D, Tay.

Hmm… A lancaster with 4 turboprops, Laser designator and half a dozen paveways inside…..I’m sold :diablo::D

Assuming that a buyer could be found, would it be such a bad thing to sell off Illustrious, for example?

Given that the Harriers have been retired anyway it could be the least worst cut option?

It certainly is a scandal though, imho we should try to return to 1990 levels of military spending & manpower. Was it really such an unmanageable burden then?

Could the Iraqis have used spares from their Mirages out of desperation :confused:

Still seems very far fetched.

If by vast percentage you mean about 5 million adults (or less than 2%), then yes :rolleyes:

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/religion_identity.htm

Well, for what it’s worth, and it’s only MY OPINION, but, if your in a race of any sort, the one who is FIRST past the post, winning line, is the winner.

Lincoln .7

Even if the ‘winner’ represents only 29% of the votes cast? FPTP means that essentially that largest minority rules the roost in each constituency.

I know that there has to be some point where a winner is declared, but it seems to me that the winner should have a majority.

I thought that this video summed it up nicely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

No problem, I found a few articles, but this one from the IMF mentions it:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2007/RES1017A.htm

“Higher biofuel demand in the United States and the European Union (EU) has not only led to higher corn and soybean prices, it has also resulted in price increases on substitution crops and increased the cost of livestock feed by providing incentives to switch away from other crops.”

As you just mentioned, with better technologies coming on-stream we will be able to produce biofuel from waste food, algae and other sources, but if we continue the policy of using corn and other food crops, it drives up food prices, reduces land available for food production etc.

Personally, I think that for general society, a Hydrogen based economy for vehicle fuel is the way to go, with Hydrogen derived from seawater using energy from renwables, nuclear, and eventually fusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy

For military aviation, Biofuel plants could produce the (relatively) small amounts required, as long as they don’t compete for food production.

not with one carrier!

LEts not get carried away, Is it likely that by 2020 we will only have 12 F35C (where did Dave come from by the way?) operating off the deck?

I think the plan is that as a matter of course the carrier will deploy with 12 aircraft, but with capacity of up to 40 as necessity dictates.

As for the split, whether there will be a joint force as happened with the Harrier is yet to be seen, but I imagine that with the specialist training that will now be required for Catobar operations it would be better to concentrate that skillset in FAA squadrons that share a pool of aircraft with the RAF.

The aircraft can then be rotated between carriers and land to get the most life out of the airframes.

As for the pilots going to fly with the USN, this happened even before the carrier decision. Airforces exchange pilots all the time, I once spoke to an RAF pilot who was flying the F-117. It is a cheaper way to keep some pilots on the payrole, we don’t have to pay their training costs and the USN gets a pilot without having to pay a wage or go through basic training.

Interesting scenario, but I can’t see it happening.

Admittedly the international community has shown little motivation to do take concrete steps against Israel (rightly or wrongly) over the last few years, that could change radically if they go Empire building and committing blatant genocide.

I doubt the US would be willing to bankrole such an endeavor, and it would seem obvious that the EU, Russia and China would be most displeased.

That said, the situation with Iran is a genuine cause for concern, and could certainly lead to a missile exchange. In such a situation I have no idea who (if any) would come out on top. I can understand how both nations must think they need nuclear arms to guarantee their security, but if the Iranians do get them then it could backfire on them spectacularly, and would likely start a regional arms race.