Forward basing the F-35B (or the AV-8B) may not be survivable:

“Pentagon officials note that the increasing accuracy of tactical ballistic missiles in the hands of potential adversaries makes it increasingly less likely that the Marines can use the STOVL model as they’ve envisioned: either from amphibious ships right offshore or just behind the battle lines, to provide quick close air support. Such locations would all be in range of those missiles.”

From: Air Force Magazine

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Features/modernization/Pages/box111510stovl.aspx

Sounds like Pentagon political smokescreen talk. F-35B unfeasable because enemy missiles can threaten a Wasp operating close to shore? Sounds like some USAF or USN general trying to partially remove organic fixed wing from the USMC.

Same goes for TBMs threatening a USMC staging area. If they can blow up forward based F-35Bs, they can also blow up bases with helicopters, ground vehicles and troops. Maybe the USMC should convert to airborne troops, that way they’re safe from TBMs…

Looks like someone has realized that current tactical aircraft numbers will be reduced regardless of who’s in power over the next decade – and they want to make sure the cuts don’t come from the USAF or USN.

Well, if India wants to side with Russia. It will be her undoing…………..Which, I doubt is the case.

That’s a bit dramatic! Are you suggesting this South Ossetian/Georgian event will lead to WWIII? (In which case we will all be undone anyway, courtesy of MAD.) Somewhat of a pessimistic outlook, isn’t it?

First, nice idea planeman!

C.)
A.)
B.)

I know we’re supposed to make our own choices and not second-guess future MOD decisions, but the main reason for this choice is the existence of, and expensive investment in the T-45/PAAMS, with all the issues of logistics, common training and so on. I interpreted the the main thread saying “Area air defense – joint primary role” in the way that you would want a 100km+ SAM system. Maybe I read that wrong, so I added another vote for a shorter ranged option.

Like Wanshan says; “When a warship is ordered it’s a frigate, when it’s commissioned it becomes a destroyer, when it goes to war it becomes a cruiser, but if it gets sunk it’s demoted to a corvette.”

Pic taken from Norwegian P-3 on the 31st; the Nansen-class Roald Amundsen alongside the Kuznetsov heading for Murmansk.

Just a general comment on these big defence projects and how the Ministry uses their purse, not in response to any of the posts on this last page.
Now military industry is like the dodgy local car mechanic. “Oh, the flux alternator popple axle is about to break and I need to replace it, and it’ll cost you another five grand. Yes I know I told you I’d fix the car for just five grand but this was unforeseen…”

Now in some other trades in our free market, if you as a company manage to draw up budgets that consistently end up being so far off the target as BAe’s budgets on the Daring, Astute and so on, it will be your head on the block and you will find yourself hard pressed to get further jobs. You might have to finish the project without getting more money from the employing body, paying out of your own company’s pockets to get the job done lest you lose massive face if the employer takes you off the project and brings in someone else to finish it, or sues you for contract breach.

The problem for the UK MoD, of course, is that BAe is the only car mechanic, plane mechanic and boat fixer on London’s side of the channel…

Some say the MoD is tight-fisted. Well in some cases that may be true but I also say well done for at least trying to put the foot down and not throwing tax payer money at BAe every time they go over budget.

If people in are really worried about the long-term safety of various European countries (including Russia’s safety), then just looking at defence spending isn’t enough.
At a fertility conference being held these days in Oslo it’s been revealed that with current fertility rates of 1.4-1.5 in Germany, Russia, Spain and Italy and other European countries, their populations will be halved within 44 years. The UK is doing better with 1.8, but you’re still looking at a decline, just not that dramatic.

Immigration does nothing because studies have shown that the majority of the immigrants will fall in with the fertility trends of these countries.

I have no links to this yet, the conference will end on the 5th, these are just the main points that have been reported in the press.
In the face of a population halving within a mere 44 years, the issues of 2.5% or 3%, 180 or 200 Typhoons, 3 or 5 Sachsens, will seem like fairly small issues to me. More important is the issue of making it possible and attractive for a career couple to foster two children and still keep their jobs as well as having the rest energy and free time that western people want.