Well we a need for 2 commando carriers has been announced, so we might as well go back to 4 identical carriers, QEII, PoW, a new Ark Royal and then say Hermes or Eagle.

Ark Royal is too recent, I’d go back to Intrepid and Fearless or Hermes.

It’ll be good to see 2 more Commando carriers.

Imho Typhoon has to be excluded from the competition asap in Switzerland because of this.

Joke?

In my experience, the internet (and computer screens presenting text in general) sucks at sarcasm.

The fact that the documentary does go after both the Gripen and Eurofighter in a competition where the only alternative is the Rafale does seem a little odd. Couple that with the fact that the Swedish are probably the people that i’m least able to see bribing (see the transparency link above for a justification) and that the French are now so desperate for export orders they might end up giving Rafale’s away on street corners that I would guess at a bias in the documentary.

I’m interested to know who made the documentary now?

Either way, I don’t trust documentaries because the media in the Uk and i’ll bet in most of Europe now, tend to sensationalise and always come across with strong bias of their own on most issues. If i’m going to trust a media source it’ll be the BBC.

EDIT: Just realised right at the end of this that TMor happens to be French and has a link to a Rafale forum in his signature, that smacks of yet more bias to me.

…A year of Critical Thinking classes pays off.

Arthuro,

The SFO investigation into alleged bribes in Saudi Arabia was triggered by trouble-making left wing journos, whose methods and practises were worthy of a documentary – really astonishing gutter stuff.

And though a Rafale fanboy may be disappointed to hear them, here are some pertinent points.

1) The alleged bribes had absolutely nothing to do with the recent Typhoon deal (Al Salam) but rather with Al Yamamah (Hawk and Tornado) in the 1980s and 90s. The Typhoon deal is squeaky clean and entirely untainted.

2) Britain’s most senior law officer decided that there was so little evidence of any wrong-doing that there was no chance of a successful trial.

3) Because the Saudi deal was conducted on a government-to-government basis, with BAE acting only as a sub-contractor, any payments by BAE to Saudi were specifically authorised by the UK Government. If anyone was guilty of anything it was the two Governments. (That might be a heartening thought to the most Anglophobe among us, but it’s frankly not credible).

4) All payments were authorised and legal.

I suspect that there was low level corruption by EADS in Austria.

There is no evidence of wrong-doing by Gripen International, and anyone who has had any dealings with them would (like me) laugh at the idea that Gripen’s export successes have anything to do with bribery.

Jackoniko you are either ridiculous or naive…There are some crying evidence against BAE, some people of the OCDE were threaten in their physical integrity or were threaten to loose their jobs…There is an international inquiry over BAE, icluding the OCDE and swiss officials interviewed take this affair very seriously…keep dreaming:rolleyes:

The austrian former air chief was sacked for corruption, the former south african defense minister got 100M€…There are some evidences.
The saudi Arabian affair was quelled…Of course those smoke screen firms and complex financial links with tax haven accounts is for legal affairs…:rolleyes:
And the SFO (serious Fraud Office) official which is interviewed is pretty clear about corruptions facts…I love when you say it is free of corruption when the report inquire extensively about the typhoon saudian deal…

Obviously this report (plus all the prss release) is very well documented and stands at a high standard investigative jouralist work (with much more sources that you can ever dream of, it is out of your reach)…

So to debunk this you really need to do some work, because the journalists who made this report have some very serious arguments…And when an OCDE anti corruption official is interviewed and testify that he was threaten…hum it has its weight….

neither of you will ever see eye to eye, one is convinced Britain is squeaky clean, one is certain we’re all evil thugs. I have a feeling it is somewhere in between.

Having said that, Arthuro, a lot of what you’re saying seems to be based on one man’s testimony.

On top of that, nothing i’d seen reported actually related to the Typhoon deal itself being corrupt, just that the Saudis threatened to pull out if the investigation into the original Al Yammah deal wasn’t scrapped. It was extensively reported in the UK and eventually people stopped caring when they realised there was very little substantial evidence, just acts that looked bad as the govt. tried to save the Typhoon deal and keep the Saudi’s happy.

On top of this, why would the Swiss care, it’s not like it matters that much to them. Just because the companies that supply Typhoon and Gripen may or may not have been involved in corruption doesn’t stop others dealing with them on the level. I’m sure there is more than enough corrupt dealing that goes on in Switzerland thanks to Swiss bank accounts being oh so popular.

If you actually want some decent examples of arms deal corruption then I can find you some, the BAE deal in Tanzania would be a good one.

Personally I think Duncan is worse.

There were so many good names they could have used for the D class, they must have been saving them for numbers 7-12. Usually the RN is actually quite good on the naming front, the Vanguard’s and Trafalgar’s are the well named.

We need names for the C1 and C2’s now. And have all the Astute class been named yet?

One can take tradition too far, but that sounds like a sound naming convention to me

+1.

I’d like to see it on the new SSBN’s though personally, it has the right ring to it.

Failing that, replace HMS Diamond with HMS Dreadnought, worst current RN name replaced by the best RN name.

Side note: sorry to not join in, but i’m a Cider man. Bristol tradition.

Like it or not, there are genuine grounds for NATO countries to avoid Russian equipment, especially military hardware.

Recent disagreements with Russia over Gas prices, the war with Georgia, the Litvinenko affair with the UK come just off the top of my head. Arguments such as these could disrupt the flow of spare parts and/or production aircraft, and would give Russia even more political leverage.

It’s not that their hardware isn’t up to the job (in most cases), but these reasons, combined with EU tariffs and entrenched attitudes and preconceptions will, imho, prevent Western European nations from buying Russian military hardware.

I think the preconceptions do take a back seat to the fact that the gear is usually inferior and that Russia will use anything and everything to gain leverage, even at a cost to themselves. There is a reason why major developing markets are shipping from Russia to the West. India being the prime example here.

good thing the An-70 is Ukranian . . .

He was talking about Russian equipment generally, but you’re right.