Many of them have been decommed/are in the process.

Should the Russian navy wait for them to be all cleaned up before starting new nuclear boats or something? :p

No of course not, as far as i’m aware, most former nuclear subs (US/UK etc) are sat about not really being decommissioned like a nuclear plant is.

All I was wondering is if the Russians intend to stump up their own cash for safe disposal/storage in future if they want to continue building them. Only seems reasonable, although its a damn clever ploy to have the enemy the subs were built to combat pay for them to be disposed of properly rather than causing massive environmental damage.

Surely the Venezuelans can not afford to give away F-16 airframes so easily?
Isn’t the type under embargo from the USA? Surely Venezuela needs to hang on to every F-16 and, more importantly, the spare parts that they contain, to keep their F-16 fleet flying?:confused:

Well either they’ll get them back, or the fleet is in such a state that it doesn’t even matter that they’re losing an airframe.

Considering any Israeli strike package would rely on F15’s, and a US strike package would start off with B2’s, B52’s, B1’s and F18’s from carriers it won’t be much use anyway.

When people say “Well the F22 would never get into that situation” they cant realise that in the real world, sometimes things don’t go according to plan. In Vietnam the US was convinced that they no longer needed cannons as they had got working A2A missiles, look how that turned out. Until I see F22’s in combat never ending up in WVR situations, I would consider it prudent to train for both, and expect to face both.

Its all very well saying the Falklands should be independent or have shared sovereignty, but that doesnt answer to how the Falklanders themselves feel. They clearly state they want to be part of Britain, nothing else, so forcing something else on them simply takes away their right to decide on their own.

It doesnt answer whether Argentina would even allow it. They seem intent on their flag flying over Stanley. Ive never seen any mention of what would happen to the Islanders, as the government always insists they dont get to choose what happens (implying they have no right to be there) but fail to say what the consequence of an Argentine takeover would be for them? They let them become Argentine, with all the rights that entails, but are deprived of their most important right and lose any power they really have. How can that be justified?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17437272

Hammond’s strong preference for the F35B is mentioned here. Don’t know how accurate that is.

Very interesting. Wasnt expecting anything like this at present, but it looks like it could be beneficial for both countries.

Would seem to be starting small though, just an autoloader now, but it could lay the groundwork for greater cooperation that Japan has only ever had the US for in the past.

If we do kick off defence trade does anyone have any ideas what may be traded each way?

… and that is exactly why I want the French leading the design!

Look at the current mess the RAF finds itself in.

– Needed to replace, or rather find a substitute for the capabilities offered by, the Jaguar.
– Need to replace Tornado GR4 in the near future.
– Need to acquire naval CATOBAR capability.

The Eurofighter has difficulty fulfilling both these due to poor design requirements – oh, but look, the Rafale can perform both roles very well.

If the UK had built the Rafale instead of the Eurofighter, we’d have already saved ourselves a bucketload of money and problems in interim upgrades to GR4s and in throwing funds at a money pit (F-35).

You are too stubborn to realise the French are significantly better at gazing through the crystal ball than us. Hopefully those running this UAV program aren’t as shortsighted.

I didn’t realise the Eurofighter was designed to replace every aircraft in the UK inventory but had just failed to do so…

Keep in mind the Typhoon wasn’t designed by one country or company to fill one requirement, so to say that the UK/BAE can’t design something when told what they mean isn’t exactly a great argument. Could just as easily point the finger at Germany and EADS.

You ask my opinion i’d say the multi-national collaborations dont work well, but bilateral coops could, once both sides have sat down and agreed what is needed from the airframe, design decisions should go from there, not what Dassault want and ignoring the UK since they’ll just mess things up as you seem to suggest is the reason you want the French in charge.

The Uk and France have successfully cooperated before on some top notch aircraft, no reason they can’t do it again and both benefit and keep the skills they need as in the past. So both sides should stop the dick waving and maybe listen to what mrmalaya above and start talking about the actual aircraft.

@mrmalaya: Well said