April 1?

Nope it was May 1st I believe. I think it was taken down because reports were clarified a day or two later that the Uk was working with the US at the UK’s request to assess the possibility of integration and NOT because the US wanted to buy it, which the first report was written about.

That does beg the question, why aren’t we building more ships like Largs Bay for export?

Or here’s another suggestion: Rather than every other post in this thread being a “Merge the threads” post, why don’t you just start posting some new here and that other thread will fade into insignificance.

You really need to study up on it. I mean….wow! You are so wrong. Not only were they looking at another design, but they were even talking nuclear power again. I do agree that money has killed the prospects for a second cv, but they most deffinately were looking at a design more compatible with their requirements. Just on an aside…..I come into contact with Navy pilots and even a few exchange pilots every day (Im about 2 miles from NAS Oceana) and (this is only casual conversation mind you) I( have yet to meet the pilot that thinks CVF is a good design.

So they pulled out because their propulsion requirements may have changed, which obviously would make CVF unsuitable. From that its hard to draw the conclusion that CVF is therefore no good in CTOL ops, only that it doesn’t have nuclear reactors.

How much knowledge of the CVF design do these pilots have? What is it they fly? Seeing as the only detailed designs floating about are the British ones in STOVL regime I find it hard to believe that these pilot friends of yours can glance at them and decide it’d be a terrible CTOL carrier.

Is that the right URL?

Found the original link, but no direct mention of T26 cooperation in it anywhere i’ve seen.

Anyone have any information on the helicopter pilot that lost his life? Type of aircraft, did it go down etc?

RAF definitely positioning itself to beg for another C17 or two with this move to provide logistical support. I could have sworn a couple of months ago we were buying extra transport planes because we didn’t have enough to support Afghan as it is.

Pal, you perhaps don’t see it, as you seem to be unfortunately blinded by ultra-nationalism (which is highly regretable for a Brit, as in my experience the vast majority are highly educated and very humanist peoples, usually far away of such pathetic beliefs as ultra-nationalism) but there’s a big difference between the islanders seeing themselves as British, subjects of the Queen etc, and considering the land they are on, obtained through very regretable means, as British! They are entitled to and have all the rights to consider themselves British (i don’t think anyone can argue with that), but they cannot ever lay claim on that island as British.

We may be talking here of H-31 totting Flankers and all this “fun stuff” , but like i said the only reasonable option is for all sides to sit and talk, and reach an amiable agreement. It’s not just the argentinian “aggressor’s” fault for this situation as you so desperately try to present (and perhaps believe-sadly). It takes two to tango. (no pun intended!)

I sincerely hope that the UK and Argentina will find a way to put and end to this issue and foster mutually beneficial collaboration from then on. South America has a great potential for growing, and such a collaboration will be a win for both countries.

Interesting point of view, but if you believe him to be ultra-nationalistic you clearly don’t know the British well when it comes to this issue. Argentina forced the UK to spill blood it shouldn’t have needed to spill, therefore people feel strongly on the issue, that’s not ultra-nationalism.

What I would ask you is, what settlement do you believe can ever be reached? Argentina has stepped away from any negotiation Britain has ever offered unless it includes complete sovereignty transfer. It also refuses to acknowledge anything about the future of the Islanders (what exactly would you do about them?). The issue arises here in that Britain cannot abandon the Islanders (one of the only groups of descendants of British Colonialism who WANT to be British), or negotiate sovereignty now given the history of the Islands and the war that was caused entirely by one side.

Maybe my dictionary is wrong but a “bully” is someone that uses his superior strength to intimidate those who are weaker forcing them to do it’s will. Hardly the case, not even on paper, empty threats are just cheap talk and even kids know it.

And how do you believe the Argentine government would treat the Islanders without the British military behind them?