Yes, they did.

As for anything else, and as any other developing country in the world, they are making provisions to cut up to the very last piece of flesh from the bone of the so called “first world”.

They will just play France, Italy and United Kingom each against the others to gain a badly needed bunch of contracts to sustain an overwherlming unsustainable naval yards complex.

Because the harsh reality is that the rapidly filling gap in financial and economic capabilities between developed and developing countries will mean in a quite short time, unless breakneck reversals in trends, that even the technological and military capabilities will be evened out.

Not because developing countries will gain new and exotic capabilities, instead quite the opposite: most of developed countries will lost their owns since long accoustomed capabilities, because they will become no longer affordable.

So the only hope is a European rationalisation of naval shipbuilding and other defence industries? Either we all swallow our national pride and co-operate, or we get picked off one-by-one?

Re the nuclear deterrent. No-body ever mentions the elephant in the room – the Uk will maintain an independent nuclear deterrent as long as FRANCE does the same. There is no way UK politicos will allow the French to be the only uclear country in the EU. Indeed, the other EU countries would not be too keen on that either.

You mean a decision on the UK’s nuclear deterrent is a matter for the French?

It seems as if the Falklands War has been a disaster for the Royal Navy. The war itself was won, but the requirements of that particular war and the deficiencies it exposed seem to have dominated fleet planning and ship design in the navy since then, with the unfortunate result that there are too many largely single-purpose big ships. This type of fleet can be sustained only by a wealthy superpower, which Britain no longer is.

The Royal Navy would be better off, IMHO, aiming for a fleet of 3 to 6 ~30,000 ton capital ships that are multipurpose carrier/LHA/LHD type ships, along the lines of the BPE/Canberra class. They may not have the ‘sortie generation rate’ of the CVFs, but (a) they would not be as expensive; (b) there would always be at least two available; and (c) if you really need to invade some serious opponent’s country, then send two or three of these ships to provide the required air power.

Just a thought….

My worry is Gates retires at the end of next year, it is looking like there will be a major shake up in next year’s budget for the US military and Gates has demonstrated a willingness to be ruthless in his cuts in the past. If there are a lot of cuts he will likely re-structure the F-35 programme, which IMO is either cancel F-35B or cancel F-35C, I think C is more likely as it is not as far along as B, the USN has publicly stated that more F/A-18’s are a viable alternative in their attempt to get funding for their Next Generation Air Dominance fighter and thereby dug their own hole

Especially as Boeing are proposing to include aspects of F-35 tecnology/capabilities in the future development of the F/A-18E/F:

First casaulty of the SDSR 946 jobs at BAE Military Air Solutions and Insyte:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100909/tuk-defence-giant-bae-axes-946-jobs-unio-45dbed5.html

According to Flightglobal.com

“….Over 650 of the at-risk jobs are at BAE’s Brough, Samlesbury and Warton plants in north-west England. These respectively face reduced business on manufacturing the Hawk advanced jet trainer, in machining parts for Spirit AeroSystems and in supporting legacy fast jet products the Harrier, Hawk and Tornado.

The remainder of the possible cuts will be made at Chadderton, Greater Manchester, as a result of reduced large-aircraft business on the Nimrod R1 and Vickers VC10, and at Farnborough in Hampshire.

Some 55 positions are threatened at the latter site, with BAE citing the UK government’s December 2009 decision to reduce the number of Harriers in service, and the pending completion of capability upgrades to the GR9 variant aircraft…. “

… I am not English teacher but that suggests that the options are two carriers, one carrier or no carriers but the BAE and it sub-contractors getting a programme of work equivalent to the carriers. IMO this is likely to be either a design based on the BPE/Canberra’s or frigates……

If – big ‘IF’ – the CVFs were cancelled and two or three BPE/Canberras were ordered instead – cost about £1 billion each? – would that imply that much of the current amphibious fleet could be dispensed with, in light of the amphibious capabilities of the BPE/Canberras? So potentially, three new LHDs – able to operate a number of STOVL fighters also, like the USN LHA/LHD fleet – could replace the two CVFs, Ocean, Albion, Bulwark, and maybe a couple of Bays? Sounds like a good deal.