Does the Harrier count as a cold war fighter?
I vote the Harrier as it’s British, nimble and proven in combat.

If the Harrier doesn’t count then I vote for the Phantom.
Those iconic cold war pictures of Phantoms intercepting Russian Bears.

Fighter? Yes
Interceptor? Not really

Shallow minded comment by shallow minded person… British aid for 2009 to India is less than one billion pounds.. still might sound a lot .. until you examine where it actually goes. 70% of it is actually used to prop up British interests in India… for example companies that trade with UK or ogranisations that are of benefit to UK… it would be like USA saying look at the bilions of “Aid” we give to Saudi Arabia… when in fact it has nothing to do with aid but self serving economic and strategic interests.

Other 30% is actually used for charitable work, like health and enviromental help for locals… on total scale its peanuts… and it only serves to make British feel better for robbing that country blind for hundred years… or have we forgoten where the “crown jewels ” (like star of INDIA) came from and how were they stole.. i mean “acquired” me ol chap ???

In real terms India could give a toss what UK does with its aid.. though such public over-beat up of non issue might cause Indians to pause and rethink some of their procurement decisions in future… like Hawks.. or Typhoon chances in MMRCA….:rolleyes:

LOL, everytime India is mention some tit usually comes up with MRCA as if the world revolved around it. Oh, and please don’t waste your time informing me about the MRCA in your reply as the Indians usually do, because I don’t care!

Why is it that Britain seems to be the only nation held to account when it comes to past history and empires? What about France, Spain etc?

As a British person I feel no guilt whatsoever towards the empire and if that is the attitude that Indians have of the situation then we should stop the aid and point out that your people wouldn’t be starving if you spent your money more wisely.

Oh and Britain invests in India too, it isn’t just us giving aid in return for investment. And if you were to compare the wealth gaps when Britain ruled compared to now, you’d see that your argument about it being our fault your people are still starving is complete crap.

And I don’t give a damn if you reduce your emissions to be honest, in the end if global warming s happening millions more Indians will suffer compared to Britain. You want to be your own nation, fine, sort it out yourself. (And it’s quite funny that India is now the ONLY major polluting nation not to make any kind of commitment, in fact most developing have been pushing for tougher limits because they’re the ones that will suffer most.)

Because a lot of the countries we conquered are largely populated by whiners, no surprises that India is one of said whiner countries! The Indians have a class system, they don’t care about the lives of the inferior Indians. Again, Indians, I’m not interested 😎

C-130 = Logistical capability to put troops where your policies are. So I’d have to go with that, at least in terms of importance for Australia’s “power”.

In a defensive sense, F18E, it combines longer range with a strike and fighter capability, since the best way to defeat an attacker is often to reach out and hit them first!

Technology has everything to do in what forces achieve victory and which end up defeated.

The age of European imperialism saw how Europe conquered the world, thanks to better technology, all the wars you are refering are wars where both sides had relatively same level of technology and one used better the strong points of its weapons and avoided the weakness it had

now if your statements were right then, the Guatemalan Air force will defeat an F-22 wing or simply China needs to keep its fleet of MiG-21s with pilots well trained and they have assured the victory against any other air force in Asia

The reality is an F-35 and F-22 wing of the USAF will sweep an air force like Chile within few hours, and for the same reason the Germans defeated many countries in Europe in 1940, simply no country had a way of defeating the BlitzKrieg

Actually I’d argue that it’s not what you’ve got, but rather how you use it. Some countries when being attacked seem to either not use most of the capabilities or use them extremely badly, by not making them survivable and not using them against suitable targets.

I was expecting it to get a bit far fetched given all the capabilities required, though I admit I didn’t expect the proposal of a class of 6 light escort carriers as an option for a frigate replacement!

C1 – Type 45 hulll with ASW focus and less of the expensive AA kit. No ABM, if it comes it will be on the T45’s.

C2 – Smaller hull than Type 45’s for escort duties.

C3 -Large OPV design, hopefully with a hangar.

😎

Your doubting is all wishy washy. Why don’t you have some articles to back that up?

And really, arms sales are a totally different level from their national politics. The Chinese aren’t buying a lot from Russia nowadays but the national relationship between the two remains very close. As for the Indians they appeared to have settled whatever issues they had on the carrier.

I don’t think this issue will have anything whatsover on the MRCA. That project will be ultimately be judged purely on the aircraft and manufacturer support merits.

The world doesn’t revolve around articles…

honestly 😉

Just tallied the results so far; it’s damn close. Three more people to vote!

BTW, PPP mate, I don’t think you voted in your post.

Very true, here’s my vote: 🙂

B. TLAM – High commonality with the RN sub launched version

A. Scalp Naval – Will only have very limited commonality with the RAF version, therefore is almost a 3rd type.

Having the high end air defence capabilities is a bit overkill, especially if its role is mainly land attack and ASW. There would be more benefit in using the money for more VLS cells.