Jock Stirrup is going early:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10303009.stm

My main concern with this is we might end up with an orgy of spending on the Army at the price of the Air Force and Navy.

If you read the Sunday Times interview with Liam Fox he does use some very pro-navy language.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7149004.ece

That report was the principle one that I was on about.

slightly off topic (whilst i wait for my life changing spending cut to appear)- that channel 4 programme on the T45 Destroyer had it being attacked by Typhoons at the end (which was good to see).

My rudimentary grasp of RN battle simulation was that is was done by specialised Hawks and supporting twin engine types, rather than any old aircraft?

I believe there was some selective editing done during that sequence, there was a fly over by a Typhoon when Dairing made it’s first entrance into Portsmouth, I believe this is where the footage came from.

Has anyone got any further information on the current situation regarding the Sea Viper system. Have the French and Italian Horizon platforms had the same issues or is this another case of the UK running into problems with its own bespoke programmes?

The reports suggested that the problem was with the missile itself that only became apparent under the RN’s more stressful testing regime.

like this. vessel names, would Duke of York not be more probable that Empress of India?

Given the timeframe I would say so.

And in what alternate universe would the UK forces have all the equipment you mention in the area?:rolleyes:

Or is Churchill coming back and the UK military will have adequate numbers for the first time since 1945?:D:D

The UK ALREADY possess that equipment (except the FACs), since you selectively quoted me and left out the important bit I’ll spell it out in language that even you can understand: unlike Argentina it wouldn’t need a decade to build it up to counter the rather silly threat that was mentioned, just a couple of months to transport it down there.

And I’ll see your rolleyes and raise you:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Argentina invaded because of a belief that the UK wouldn’t fight, not because of a belief Argentina would win a war.

While this is certainly true I do believe the Argentine Government would have been a great deal less inclined to take the risk if the RN still had its CVs.

I suggesting that if CVF end up with the fighters the RAF want rather than what makes sense for a CVF – i.e. a very small number of F-35B’s (40 – 50) as RAF need them to provide CAS from austere airfields and strike missions, and then spend most of there time in land based operations, for the cost of 2 carriers the RN could have 5 more destroyers or 5 more frigates and the RN would get more use out of them.

But then if RN didn’t get aircraft carriers what are those destroyers and frigates going to escort? You’ve just made them pointless as you can do patrol missions with far cheaper OPVs, not to mention ripped the RNs teeth out.

I would rather see the carriers switched to CATOBAR and operate F-35C, or if they are out of the price range the F/A-18E or Rafales. If they are going with F-35B then I think they need at least 100 to fill the carrier decks and fulfil the land based operations. As I have said earlier while it will never happen I would be happy seeing the RAF buying 80 F/A-18E for the CVF’s and another 40 F-35B’s for land based operations.

To do what you are suggesting here would require the RAF to be constantly working on doing carrier quals, it would make more sense for a CATOBAR carrier fleet for the FAA to get the aircraft, the RAF aren’t really interested in constant deck qualifications and operating a small fully carrier capable airwing. The whole point of the ‘Joint force’ structure is to get a small force capable of doing both with less requirement for constant carrier qualifications.