Or because the F-35 has a very different capability in terms of C4ISTAR, an aspect which is usually ignored in public forums and open media but which is critical to effectiveness

And also because the workshare gives the UK a greater proportion than her investment and costs, which means that when you offset the UK tax take from F-35 against UK government costs it is much “cheaper” overall than Super-hornet or Rafale where our workshare would be minimal.

So we get a better (for what we want) product for less money and retain UK skills.

In what ways is the C4ISTAR capabilities of the F-35 so different/better than other naval fighters?

Could you give us some figures to show how the F-35 will work out cheaper than the alternatives for the UK?

…. 2 to 4 passengers?

Why would you attack an enemy where he’s strong? If you want to attack a US CBG, use submarines, missiles, mines, asymmetric methods.

Trident:

I understand your point, but to my mind it still seems jarring to announce both a new carrier and a missile system which, if it worked, would effectively render the carrier obsolete. The conclusion I draw is that the missile system probably does not work as well as the Chinese would like us to think. They hate the ability of the US to dominate the seas close to China, so why not put a few doubts in their mind? Doesn’t mean the things will work, and I suspect they won’t.

The way I would see it is that the carrier allows China to project power in the China Sea area, not against the US but countries with which China has regional disputes, while the missile is intended to deter the US carriers from interfering.

Lads, let’s face it, it’s not really about defence, it’s about status – mine is bigger than yours, or I want to sit at the big boys’ table. As the Chinese have said recently about their ‘new’ aircraft carrier, these are symbols of power, not necessarily realistic elements of a national defence. The problems arise when a country’s power symbols get out of step with the reality of its standing in the world. Britain has been trying to maintain some sort of global status by hanging on to the coat-tails of the US – a humiliating very junior role, IMHO. The only realistic option for Britain in the future is some sort of European defence force – maybe the recent Anglo-French agreements about sharing carrier resources and other matters is a step in this direction, but there is still far too much wasteful duplication within Europe on defence.

(OK, putting on my tin hat and taking cover…)