‘Share aircraft carriers’ is such a nonsense term. We will both operate carriers which can fly both countries fast jets.

Nothing different than what happens between the US & France. You will not get a french crew manning the QE or vice versa.

What the deal does do is put to bed any nonsense that a new British CVF won’t be built.

British Defence Secretary Liam Fox writes in the Telegraph.

‘A closer alliance with France will be good for Britain’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8098950/A-closer-alliance-with-France-will-be-good-for-Britain.html

The aim of the summit, therefore, is to strengthen the relationship at all levels: joint training, bilateral co-operation on the acquisition of equipment and technology, improved inter-operability, and greater information-sharing.

Some of the writing in the comments section staggers me, though it shouldn’t really what with the Telegraph pandering to the Tory right of centre view.

Liam Fox is apparently a traitor now 😀

3. India is in a much rougher neighborhood than the UK, therefore they will probably keep spending a high percentage of GDP on defence

And that, at the end of the day is why India spends a lot on defence. Not willy waving (though i’m sure some absolutely see it that way) but because they don’t enjoy the luxurious geographical position the UK finds itself in right now with all the security benefits that brings.

Then there is the argument about the poor and living standards and why should India spend all this on its military whilst people in its country are starving.

All I’d say to them is that at the height of the Empire, the east end of London was a neglected slum.

‘Future Force 2020’

Crikey, we really are reinventing the 10 year rule, its all over their fact sheets! Except this time we’re carrying it out whilst AT war, rather than after it 😮

it is true that if you read the actual document it seems that the “first” carrier is to be retrofitted and that “one” of the carriers will be held in extended readiness (although this is the preferred option, they also mention selling it, but are keen to frame this choice as one for the future).

Cameron made it sound that way too in the questioning after the statement.

The only thing i’d say though is Cameron definitely didn’t seem to want the 2nd carrier. Anything can happen in 9 years, hardly worth worrying about it.

The good news seems to be a return to REAL carrier aviation for the first time in 42 years, less of a hit on the surface fleet than feared and the retention of all the amphibs bar possibly Ocean?

Story in the Telegraph
‘One of the Navy’s new £3 billion aircraft carriers will never carry aircraft and will sail for only three years before being mothballed and possibly sold’

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8072041/Navy-aircraft-carrier-will-be-sold-after-three-years-and-never-carry-jets.html

Frankly, how anyone knows what the situation will look like financially in 9 years time is beyond me! But it does look like no naval air for the RN for a decade.

On the positive side, looks like just 5 surface ships are gone and the RN will retain Albion/Bulwark & the Bays.

Geoff, I was more under the impression that he said we have sufficient basing rights and overflight rights to cover a gap ‘at the moment’