How about Silent Vulcan??

I heard anecdotally that they were very stealthy anyway – range could be greatly extended and RCS reduced through new materials etc :confused:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/

Interesting…so they are anticipating on using a multi-million dollar VTOL UCAV to counter the dreaded T-34/85 @1:23? 😀

A thought

Absorb the RAF into the Navy – standardise on a single fighter bomber for the FAA – some squadrons trained in carrier ops, others land based in the UK.

Single supply chain, training, weapons.

If you are against this, Lincoln, I presume you would be against building churches close to the site of the Virginia tech shootings or the Okhaloma bombings? Both of these attacks were carried out by Christian people. And anyway, is building a mosque an insult to the Muslim Americans who died in the attacks? How close is too close?

As long as a religion or any other organisation does not infringe on the freedoms of others then I don’t have a problem, but if they do then this cannot continue. Consequently, I also think that the State must not have an opinion on religious matters, to endorse one or the other leads only to oppression and favouritism.

I think we could learn from Voltaire:
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

In any case, the contracts are that BAe are to manufacture the rear fuselages of the F-35s, any breech of this would entail huge penalties.

Hopefully the Defence Review will look at the five ‘formation reconnaissance regiments’ – basically excuses to keep the old toffee-nosed cavalry regiments in existence – and decide that most of them are superfluous. And the Household Division could be returned to brigade size.

IIFC, each of the guards ‘regiments’ is only about a battalion in size now.

Given that they have standard combat duties as well, why reduce them specifically?

Any further reduction in any of the Guards would mean disbandment.

@ Seahawk –

The RN hasn’t only used harriers until today :rolleyes:

Supersonic cruise missile: first you’d have to develop one, and be aware that politically you cannot have the same missile armed with nukes and conventional warhead.

Scalp, Storm Shadow, Tomahawk or even BramHos based nuclear missiles are not going to be feasible, because the US, France, Russia and India would never allow the UK to have a nuke mounted on missiles they use for all sorts of conventional tasks, with the risks connected to it.

The United States deployted the TLAM-N nuclear tipped Tomahawk cruise missile without getting conventional and nuclear versions mixed up, so I don’t really see how this is any different.

4) UCAV with missiles/nuke bombs. You’d have to design, produce, acquire and sustain both systems

I wasn’t being entirely serious about that one, but your points are valid 😉

5) Build a new vessel in collaboration with the french: possibly the same as following US on the current path of collaboration, with the added problem that, while UK has different time needs than US with replacement of Ohio (which will lasts longer than Vanguards since more submarines meant less usage of each of their hulls). There would be savings? Probably not at all. We’d also have to acquire and use french missiles.

If the UK and France both required an SSBN and went for the same design, splitting the development costs 50:50, wouldn’t that be a saving over the UK designing it’s own submarine?