It’s Jock Strap himself, apparently he thinks ‘carriers were only really being bought for use in a world war, but even then a power such as China or Russia could take them out within minutes.’…

He may have his own agenda, but he’s still correct on this point. One point that has come out of this SDSR exercise is that Britain has been poorly served by its generals, admirals and air marshals over the past decades. The debate over CVF shows that the admirals in particular are living in the past: it’s nothing more than a warmed up CVA-01, which even in the ’60s was beyond Britain’s means.

….. a new class of littoral assault ships carrying 200 – 300 light forces, 4 helicopters (either 4 Merlin’s or in extreme cases two Chinooks and two Apahce’s), 2 x CIWS, CAMMS, 4 x Sigma A2 30 mm guns (with 7 LMM’s) and a 155 mm gun for shore bombardment….

Sounds like the Danish Absalon class??

…..
Or, when we do build something with export prospects (e.g. the Bay class), nobody is interested because we’ve clobbered it by mismanagement. Well, maybe Australia will buy one. The RAN requirement for a logistics ship to support their LHDs seems to describe a Bay or something very similar, e.g. a Rotterdam/Galicia. ….

Isn’t the Bay class based on the Rotterdam/Galicia design?

…. But as for need for Nimrods, i challenge everyone to give solid evidence of why they aren’t needed, with the certainty that there’s no way they can do it.

It’s the other way around Liger, you have to show (a) why they ARE needed, and then show (b) why they’re needed MORE than other things are needed, so they get higher up the priority list; because that’s what it’s all about these days: Britain can only afford to do some things, not everything, so whatever ends up in the lower end of the priority list – taking military, industrial, economic, political etc. factors into account – will have to be cut.

…..
THe Nimrod MRA4 is a bit of a tricky one. If the criteria being used is capabilities me must have now, it would appear to be a “Nice to have” item and could be vulnerable especially if the Rivet Joint platforms are deemed to be more important, but the opposite is also true so I think the RAF will get one or the other even if we have already paid the bulk of the costs for the former.

If the MRA4 is to get the chop, then something else will have to be acquired to provide at least a basic Maritime Patrol Aircraft capability, presumably one of the twin turboprops on the market. So rather than a saving of X millions, a saving of, e.g. 75% of X, with the other 25% paying for the less capable alternative.

… I would like to see the so called C3 programme actually begun in the timeframe of the SDSR as I see the need for a multirole patrol vessel for the RN higher than the T-26. I would prefer the RN to seek a OTS solution to this requirement as there are many platforms available that would meet the requirements of the RN with minimum alteration. The most complicated capabilty need, MCM can be left as the MCMVs still in service can cover this role, but the C3 must be able to adopt this role whether it is built fitted for but not with or plug and play. I think we need ot see the C3 as a “Colonial Gunboat” with a helicopter with a medium multipurpose gun and passive defence systems as its basic configuration. Its prime offensive tool will be the on board helicopter, equipped wiht the follow on the Sea Skua amongst other hardware. It would be nice to beef up its defensive capabilites when required especially its AD but these are all within a cost/benefit equation and should not impact on the inital programmes costs or the numbers….

I strongly agree. It’s getting to the stage where it’s the number of hulls in the water that counts, not whether or not they’ve got all the latest bells and whistles. No more than £100 million each for ~100 metre OPVs/corvettes/light patrol frigates – call ’em what you like – but they can provide presence, and deal with many of the low-intensity tasks.

Did the Iraqi government hold a competition to select a fighter?

The report of the same story on the Flight International site:

DATE:23/09/10
SOURCE:Flight International
Lockheed, US government strike deal on next F-35 order
By Stephen Trimble

The US government has reached an agreement with Lockheed Martin on the structure of a fixed-price contract worth more than $5 billion for up to 32 more F-35s. The agreement is necessary before the Department of Defense signs a contract for the fourth lot of low-rate initial production, which orders F-35s projected for delivery after 2012.

The agreement ends a negotiating process that was extended by about four months to satisfy demands by the DoD for a fixed-price contract. Lockheed previously delivered the Joint Strike Fighter under a “cost-plus” structure, allowing the contractor to be reimbursed for cost overruns.

Lockheed’s $5 billion cost estimate for the new contract means the average cost for this batch of F-35s, excluding engines, is more than $156 million…..

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/09/23/347737/lockheed-us-government-strike-deal-on-next-f-35-order.html

CVF is a 50 years worth investment for the future of the UK, of the Falklands, and of the UK foreign policy as a whole. As such, nothing of the promises you make is enough to downsize the case for building the carriers. Then again, no one can make promises that downgrade the case for aircraft carriers, actually.

I’d also have to counter on the “status quo” thing: the Falklands are british and must stay british for a whole lot of reasons, first of which is the Right of Self Determination that is the base of the whole UN building from when it was conceived.

The Falklands population decided they are british and they want to stay british. This ends the question, no matter any assumption of any kind about “status quo”.
Also, Argentina unilaterally pulled back by a previous agreement with the UK for joint exploitation of the oil and gas reserves around the islands.

Now, to come and claim the islands is absurd to say the very least, and to complain about oil exploration carried out by british firms is equally useless. Argentina should have staid in the agreement and should have collaborated with the Uk over the oil thing.

Argentina has no right to claim the Falklands. And there’s no need to negotiate nor talk about it, until Falklands population continues to side with Great Britain.
When the Falklands inhabitants will ask to come under Argentina’s legislation, it will be negotiated. But until that does happen, the Falklands are rightfully british, and as italian that i am, i totally support the british position.

Rather than spending massive amounts defending the Falklands, and distorting British naval strategy in the process, surely it would make more sense to negotiate a solution with Argentina, including a deal to share oil revenue, and if necessary, attractive lump sum offers for the 3,000 or so inhabitants to re-locate to Britain.