The only thing that is really sad is that euope is still divided and this way we will never have a EU defence industry that can compete with the US, Chinese or Russians.

I don’t like the F35, but everybody knew this would be the outcome.

The f-16’s won’t last forever, but i think there were cheaper options that would invest more in a future for the EU defence industry then this move. You don’t need an F35 to drop a bomb on a terrorist camp in the middle of nowhere, nor for some air policing. Belgium is not the only EU country to blame on this front, plenty of that to go around,

Great interoperability! Those F18’s landing on the QE, fantastic!

Wait, i was just dreaming , but I bet the winebottles were interoperable 🙂

I think it goes back to usage. The A-10 is obviously the go-to-aircraft for the CAS role and the U.S. has been in active combat since 2001, the best alternative is to keep the aircraft. How many of them are in service? Would it be enough to scale back the numbers to a squadron or two and keep the rest in reserve (AMARC) for when the active airframes wear out? What about the F-15C/D? Talk about a one-trick pony… I love the F-15, but think that CONUS defense missions can be handled by the F-22, F-16 and even some naval units. The F/A-18E/F is no slouch itself. Retiring the F-15C/D, a platform that has had little to do in the recent conflicts, may be a better idea.

I agree, cutting the F15C/D or the older F16 block 25 aircraft would be alot more logical. The US has way to many fighters.

I hope the A10 survives.

Everything is possible if there is the will, up to a point. Right now we would STILL be able to go on an independent road, even if costly, because we STILL have a defence industry that can support us in that endeavour. But once that will be gone, then, as i said above, that’s it. We’re done.
I don’t even see it that way in reference to the defence industry, THEY will shrink too, they would have lost our huge market, and they will be in true competition with us on the world market, and we would be in a much better position because we would not be politically subdued to them, hence more confidence from a lot of buyers to buy from us, especially countries that do not want to become dependent to US will, and i’m sure many other countries currently US aligned would love to “switch” too.

You will find in life that actions that result in increased future costs and destruction existing economic relationships and money invested for sole reason of misguided political goals will fail for those very reasons. Europe’s defense market is not anywhere close to the size of US industry. The massive shrinkage that would result from from abandoning defense ties between US and Europe would be very large for Europe. You talk of political will to achieve goals but what you propose is a low cost of the shelf solution of replacing F35 with less capable planes. If Europe had the will to develop a 5th generation aircraft that would support your idea but they don’t have that will at this time and what you propose is simply a protectionist proposal that would weaken Europe for short term economic gains of not buying american. Gains that would then turn to dust rapidly as US congress enacted a similar policy.

I’m also sure no other countries want to buy overpriced under performing European military systems when they can buy cheaper and better military systems from the US.

[/QUOTE]

LOl That’s alot of cheap US commercial reasoning.

The EU defence industry is perfectly capable of developing it’s own defense systems without having to buy US made weapons as it has proven with the gripen, rafale and typhoon. Off course all noses have to point in the same direction, something that’s not always the case here.

US being cheap must be the joke of the decade, the F35 is the world most underwelming, overpriced “low budget” plane ever made. you can get really cheap EU alternative which fit perfectly in todays operations of our forces. So far It’s hasn’t proven a single thing except that it can ruin a country financially if it puchases it.

Developing your own systems means you poor you hard earned taxmoney into your own industry instead of that of another country, thus creating jobs here and not there.
That’s how we made airbus in the past to give you a nice example.

That way you can talk to the US on equal terms. You can still work nicely together and retain your independence

Every ship has to decommission sometime, but it’s not a sad day. I’m a big fan of the Big E and i’m very happy that her legacy will live on in the next big carrier CVN-80. Enterprise is by far the most known Name of any big combat vessel, not in a small portion thanks to Star Trek. The US Navy without a carrier named Enterprise would just not be the US Navy.

I’m glad this end the long run of naming carriers after politicians, i really hate that.

I hope the same aplies for the Brits, 1 of the new Carriers should have been named Ark Royal.

$149.5 million per unit is a steal ?

I don’t think so. I’m not comparing it to the price of F-35s, but the Gripen’s USP has always been that it was a fighter that brought good capability at an affordable price.

The gripen is indeed a good allround modern fighter for smaal airforces which see their number plummet due to the high cost of modern fighters, which nobody needs at the moment. And it looks great too :).

I wish belgium would do the same and opt for gripen instead of a few F35’s, we would get a decent fleet by replacing our F16’s on a 1 on 1 basis instead of 1 on 2.

Ten times better than HMS Too-Small-To-Fit-Anything-Else.

The RN remembers the mistake of the Type 42, which was built barely big enough to carry its initial weapons & sensor fit. The Type 21 was much the same. It looked enviously at the Spruance class, ships with room for growth – which were ridiculed by some as under-armed for such large ships when built, but that spare room proved its worth.

I’d rather have a ship with space & weight to take more kit than a crammed-to-the-gills-and-with-topweight-problems-as-soon-as-you-put-anything-new-aboard ANZAC class.

But the RN has a history of just building new ships instead of updating older Hulls with new weapons, of course in this period of crammed budget updates are cheaper then new build.

I hope it is true. Axing all carriers with aircraft was the single most stupid political decision i have seen in 20 years. As if afghanistan would be the only battlefield left on the planet. Fires can erupt everywhere.