Royal navy buys Hornets not JSF...

[Baff1 0]

There is such a thing as total war.

We haven't had one in our lifetimes, but other countries have.

What has happened before will happen again. When it does, it's time for the nukes.

Just becuase you can't win, doesn't mean you can't lose. And while the lesser of two evils doesn't necesssarily count as a win, it's still an improvement on the greater of two evils.

Primarily our nukes are there for the deterance factor, but should it all kick off in Korea for example. It would be time to drop one.

Edited October 25, 2010 by Baff1

[Ulanthorn 10]

Tell me the name and place of such a "total war" after 1945.

There was only a "cold war" and since then a lot of what the US called

"campaigns". the "war" word was first used again after 9/11 for something that can barely be called a war in the sense of international law. The war on terror is a outlier and the last nail to the coffin for a once proposed liberal world order.

the somwhat ironic fact is that the last decade of war and the cost of it is the reason for the biggest "wave" of military fund reduction since the 90's...we cant afford this war anymore.

Edited October 25, 2010 by Ulanthorn

[max power 21]

I think if Russia invaded the Netherlands, the bulk of the response would be through trade embargos, diplomatic missions, and massing forces around the borders of the Netherlands before any kind of nuclear war was even tabled. There may even be direct action in the Netherlands in the form of conventional battles. If Russia was not invaded in a counter assault I wonder if nuclear weapons would even be considered.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Max Power

[Baff1 0]

Tell me the name and place of such a "total war" after 1945.

.

Korea.

The Congo.

Ethiopia.

Millions dead...WMD... civilians targeted for mass destruction... genocide.. ethnic cleansing...

Where was Pol Pot from? Cambodia? I don't know the history of that one, but that might fit the picture too.

---------- Post added at 02:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:33 AM ----------

I think if Russia invaded the Netherlands, the bulk of the response would be through trade embargos, diplomatic missions, and massing forces around the borders of the Netherlands before any kind of nuclear war was even tabled. There may even be direct action in the Netherlands in the form of conventional battles. If Russia was not invaded in a counter assault I wonder if nuclear weapons would even be considered.

Hard to say really.

I think nuclear weapoons would most certainly be considered, but there are no guarentee's they would be used.

[spooky lynx 73]

Nuclear weapons? Would be used? Seriously doubt in it. Nobody wants to make useless hazardous wasteland anywhere, especially now, when human population grows but all kinds of resources decrease.

As for the Hornets, I was surprised that Royal Navy again wants to have full-scale planes but not STOVLs only.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In a further blow to UK jobs the Republican controled US congress has decided to cut out the Rolls Royce engine for the F35.

House votes to kill funding for JSF alternate engine

February 16, 2011

By Deirdre Shesgreen

WASHINGTON--Amid intense political pressure to slash federal spending, the House voted Wednesday to nix $450 million in funding for an alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, handing a major victory to Connecticut-based Pratt & Whitney.

By a vote of 233-to-198, the House adopted an amendment--backed by veteran Democrat Rep. John Larson and sophomore Republican Rep. Tom Rooney--to strip funding for a second, back-up engine, made by Pratt competitors' General Electric and Rolls Royce...

http://www.ctmirror.org/story/11560/altenghousevote

House Votes Against F136 JSF Alternate Engine

Feb 17, 2011

By Michael Bruno michael_bruno@aviationweek.com

Amid a heated debate about federal deficits, national security and domestic employment, the U.S. House of Representatives voted against continuing the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter midday Feb. 16.

The move is a reversal of sorts***—a similar vote in mid-2010 indicated broad support among lawmakers for the F136. But with newly empowered tea party lawmakers and other budget hawks having made the House more fiscally conservative since then, the 233-199 vote showed newfound resistance for a congressional prerogative opposed by the White House and Pentagon leadership.

“While we are disappointed at the outcome, the debate to preserve competition will continue,†GE says in a statement issued shortly after the voice vote. “GE is deeply grateful to many House members, including leaders of the House Appropriations Committee and Armed Services Committee, who voted to continue funding the competing JSF engine. These members demonstrated strong support for the core principle of acquisition reform—competition.â€

Earlier this week Defense Secretary Robert Gates loudly lobbied lawmakers to help end the F136 (Aerospace DAILY, Feb. 15). He warned that if Congress did not do so, he would use other legal opportunities to kill it himself. The program has limped along since funding started to run out last December, and the fact that the federal government has been sustained through continuing resolutions (CR) of 2010 funding appropriations opened doubt as to whether Congress’s earlier mandate still had authority.

The vote was on an amendment by Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) and others to a new CR bill. The House started debating the amendment to strike $450 million for the F136 in fiscal 2011, as well as several other amendments to curb defense spending, late Feb. 15. The majority of other amendments have not been adopted at this time...

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2011/02/16/awx_02_16_2011_p0-290550.xml&headline=House%20Votes%20Against%20F136%20JSF%20Alternate%20Engine

As allways follow the links to the original articles

Opting instead for the US only Pratt & Whitney engine.

Along with the decreases in technology transfer, the fact it will not be built until long after the Aircraft carriers, and the decreasing customer numbers it makes the JSF look like a complete white elephant.

As I said early on; a navalised Typhoon has always looked the better option for the UK.

Kind Regards walker

Edited February 17, 2011 by walker

[dm 9]

As I said early on a navalised Typhoon has always looked the better option for the UK.

Apart from the fact IT DOESNT FUCKING EXIST :j:

Kind regards DM

[walker 0]

Apart from the fact IT DOESNT FUCKING EXIST :j:

Kind regards DM

Hi DM

Yes I agree the JSF does not exist it is a complete fantasy aircraft. Hence why the UK will have Aircraft Carriers built, but not have these fantasy JSF to fly from them.

It therefore makes far more sense to navalise the already existing existing real aircraft the Typhoon.

Kind Regards walker

Edited February 17, 2011 by walker

[hellfire257 3]

Or buy the Rafale, which was a competitor to the F35 in the market.

http://aviamagazine.xs4all.nl/news/readnews.aspx?id=164

[walker 0]

Hi all

It apears that Rolls Royce its Partners and the UK governement have spent about 3 billion dollars on the project only for it to be axed.

Pissed off walker

[dm 9]

It therefore makes far more sense to navalise the already existing existing real aircraft the Typhoon.

You really do live in la-la-land dont you.

Rock has already explained, with comments from people currently involved in the eurofighter project that "navalising" the typhoon would involve re-building a HUGE portion of the fuselage. A task which is neither simple or cheap.

Navalising the Typhoon would take longer and cost more than buying JSF, how hard is it to get that into your head?

[walker 0]

Hi all

This also comes as Eurofighter anounces that the Eurofighter Naval version is now being developed.

http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/efworld/ef-world_1-2011.pdf

Kind Regards walker

[da12thMonkey 1943]

It therefore makes far more sense to navalise the already existing existing real aircraft the Typhoon.

You think that funding the development and flight tests of a navalised Typhoon (which as stated numerous times; equates to a completely different airframe to the RAF's Tiffys) on our lonesome, makes financial sense when we'd only ever buy a handful? Have you been living under a rock while all of the MoD's current procurement programs have been slashed?

Even BAe know the UK can't afford it. They've been courting the Indian Navy with the idea; but it's more of a ploy to secure Typhoon for MRCA by suggesting that it's possible to have a common Indian Navy and AF jet - the Indians haven't been daft enough to take the idea seriously.

Christ, we're having enough trouble funding Typhoon Tranche 2 in the UK...

[walker 0]

Hi da12thMonkey

As I pointed out Eurofighter are already developing the navalised version. The JSF on the other hand is an expensive white elephant that does not exist, and the bloody aircraft carriers will be built long before the JSF, if it ever exists. As to customers for the naval Eurofighter the Indians certainly want it.

The difference is that the JSF is just a fantasy airframe where as the Eurofighter is in service.

Naval Eurofighter: An Aircraft Carrier Version Under Development

By Eurofighter GmgH on Friday, February 11th, 2011

The development of carrier aviation during the 20th century led to a dramatic paradigm shift in military capability. For the first time, navies had the ability to exert their influence far over the horizon – supporting land campaigns and allowing hostile fleets to be engaged from beyond the range of a battleship’s guns. From Pearl Harbor to more recent conflicts in the Falklands and the Middle East, the carrier and its aircraft provide commanders with an unrivaled ability to project military and political influence; several acres of sovereign territory which can be moved close to potential trouble spots at short notice.

Historically, carrier aircraft have been highly specialized and designed specifically for the role. In the majority of cases, there is little or no commonality between the aircraft operated by a nation’s air force, and the different aircraft performing the same role in the Navy. Design decisions taken in order to optimise an aircraft for carrier operations can lead to trade-offs elsewhere – such as additional weight and low-speed handling characteristics that compromise performance in other areas of the envelope.

A classic example today is the F-18 in all its versions, heavy, slow and not capable of facing the most advanced threats emerging around the world.

For a number of years, Eurofighter GmbH and its industrial partners have been studying the feasibility of adapting Eurofighter Typhoon for the naval role. These studies have included the assessment of required design changes, piloted simulations to refine the aircraft’s handling qualities and discussions with key suppliers. The studies indicate that these changes are feasible, and would lead to the development of a world-beating, carrier-based fighter aircraft...

http://www.defencetalk.com/naval-eurofighter-an-aircraft-carrier-version-under-development-31926/

As Always follow the link to the original text in full

This is along with the Defense Procurement review ordered back July 2010 where the Naval Eurofighter was put back on the table due to the increasing cost and slipping delivery dates for the non existant JSF.

All in all it makes far more sense to pursue the existing Typhoon over the non existant JSF.

Kind Regards walker

Edited February 17, 2011 by walker

[dm 9]

All in all it makes far more sense to pursue the existing Typhoon over the non existant JSF.

All in all, navalised Typhoon exists just as much as JSF does [according to you] i.e. -> it doesn't. Navalised Typhoon is just as much a fantasy as JSF apparently is...

What you fail to see with all your "its better becuase its not american" crap is that the navalised Typhoon exists only on paper and the internet. No real work has been done, and as Rock has said (and you have ignored time and time again) navalising the Typhoon will NOT be cheap, quick or easy.

If you think JSF is a waste of money, the money-sink black-hole that navalising the Typhoon will be, plus all the contract-breaking payouts that would have to be made, will dwarf it.

Edited February 17, 2011 by DM

[rksl-rock 1300]

Hi all

This also comes as Eurofighter anounces that the Eurofighter Naval version is now being developed.

http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/efworld/ef-world_1-2011.pdf

Kind Regards walker

As Da12thmonkey already pointed out its part of the sales pitch to the Indians.

Anyway after reading the magazine I've just rung a friend at BAE Systems EuroFighter and asked him. His response was

"If its a real engineering project its news to me".

He was the engineering design team leader for the empennage when i worked there. Hes now in charge of 5 design teams, still on Typhoon.

But since its an offical EuroFighter publication and not a random opinion piece I enquired further. So I rang another guy I know in International partnerships/sales support, his response was:

"Its speculative PR.

...

At this stage its just an expansion option we're offering to the Indians should they commit to the Typhoon for the MRCA. Just like the option of thrust vectoring...

...

Without the MRCA order any sort of Navalised development will stay in the realms of PR hype. There just isn't the money to develop it.

...

And to be honest I doubt it will ever happen. Right now we're doing everything we can to get export sales so we can keep the production lines open past 2015.

In this case I think the best phrase to cover this is "Don't believe everything you read in the press". This is sales propaganda. If the Indians bite then maybe it will happen. But I can promise you, it wont be cheap. The extra cost, I suspect, will make the Rafale seem very cheap. At which point i suspect thge Typhoon won't be the Indian's first choice.

All in all, navalised Typhoon exists just as much as JSF does [according to you] i.e. -> it doesn't. Navalised Typhoon is just as much a fantasy as JSF apparently is....

Actually the JSF F-35 has all three versions flying. In some cases, there are actually several airframes of each type. So it does actually exist. ;)

Just to emphasise DM's point here: The navailised Typhoon does not exist. At all. Not even a mockup. its just a few illustrations right now and a 350 page engineering report from 2005.

So F-35 is actually real and the Navalised Typhoon is not.

Edited February 17, 2011 by RKSL-Rock

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Hi da12thMonkey

As I pointed out Eurofighter are already developing the navalised version.

Quoting the article; this is the grand sum of naval typhoon's development:

For a number of years, Eurofighter GmbH and its industrial partners have been studying the feasibility of adapting Eurofighter Typhoon for the

naval role. These studies have included the assessment of required design changes, piloted simulations to refine the aircraft’s handling qualities and discussions with key suppliers.

Besides a few bits of artwork and simulation there is no physical development on any of the changes required to make a Typhoon carrier capable.

As to customers for the naval Eurofighter the Indians certainly want it.

Any sources on this? Everything I read from Aero India 2011 was dismissive of the idea of India actually funding development of the navy version without UK involvement.

India's 'request for information' on a navy Typhoon stems from when the UK was looking at it in the July procurement review. If we'd have gone for it India might be more inclined to participate; but as it stands they'll be going it alone - a less attractive prospect.

Its appearance at the show was as much about rationalising interest in Eurofighter for MMRCA:

If Typhoon wins MMRCA then India will have the indigenous skills to develop a navalised version," says Paul Hopkins, BAE Systems' vice-president business development (air) India. "This is a perfect opportunity for the nation to add aircraft with both land and sea capabilities."

It's a marketing ploy as much as anything.

The difference is that the JSF is just a fantasy airframe where as the Eurofighter is in service.

But a navy Typhoon would be a COMPLETELY different airframe to the current Typhoon; it's no less a fantasy than JSF in that respect. At least JSF has a flying prototype in carrier configuration.

Quoting the .pdf again:

In any discussion of a navalised Typhoon, the differences from the land-based aircraft are the natural focus. However, one should also focus on the similarities. A key design driver for a navalised Typhoon has been to maximise commonality between the two variants. Design changes are minimised, allowing for many spare parts and test equipment to be shared across a customer’s air force and navy fleets. The sensors, systems and weapons available to both variants will be common, allowing for a reduction in the aircrew training requirements. And in addition, the two variants will benefit from a common upgrade path – new capabilities will be available to both the air force and navy in similar timescales.

Spare parts, testing rigs, weapons and avionics. There's no mention of the airframe itself having any commonality; just the parts inside it. The article itself dodges the question of what differences between the types would be - suggesting to me that they would be extensive and costly.

One massive departure from the in-service Typhoon stated in the article, is that a navy version would require a TVC engine to allow for a reduction in the aircraft’s approach speed and the resulting landing loads. As it stands, TVC for land-based Typhoon is an option, not a requirement; and as yet the member states of Eurofighter have been reluctant to fund development of TVC because of cost.

If we could afford to develop TVC for Eurojet ourselves, surely we'd be equally able to fund the F-136 option for JSF; which is your current excuse for shit-canning JSF for the RN.

This is along with the Defense Procurement review ordered back July 2010 where the Naval Eurofighter was put back on the table due to the increasing cost and slipping delivery dates for the non existant JSF.

Which was superseded by the Strategic Defence Spending Review of October 2010 where the MoD reorganised its commitment to getting a variant of the JSF. Between July and October they clearly realised that the navy Typhoon was a non-starter and have dismissed it outright.

Press for the navy Typhoon at Aero India stated that it was now squarely aiming at India for its sole market now.

We've even seen quotes from people who work on Eurofighter in this very forum courtesy of Rock; declaring that navy Typhoon wasn't a prospect for the UK. This conversation with Rock took place in August; again after the procurement review.

Edit:- took me ages to write this and Rock makes a much better one right before I finish... :(

[walker 0]

Hi DM

Well as the US has started cutting the UK share of that contract, the contract breaking is all down to the US. The UK cannot be held responsible for the failure of the JSF project, that is down to US and the internal failures in the project that are causing costs to spiral and promised delivery dates to slip.

Even the US Air Force is sceptical that the JSF can be delivered and a recent report highlights that less than 50% of the code for its software has actually been written and is not expected to ready for at least another 4 years and that is only for US release. The UK is sitting at the back of the queue and assuming that the JSF does not have anymore major failures like the cracked airframes in the test aircraft that were reported this year the earliest we could now expect a JSF is 2020.

And this for a white elephant that has already reached 50% cost over runs, who knows what its costs will be by 2020, assuming it will be ready by then. The JSF is just too expensive for not much bang for your buck.

It just makes far better sense to use this opportunity created by the US decision to dump Rolls Royce, to switch to a tried and tested airframe like the already existing Typhoon. More importantly the UK is already committed to buying Tranche 3 of the Typhoon and switching that to a navalised version would nicely fill that commitment as well as save the UK Billions of pounds on the JSF white elephant.

Kind Regards walker

Edited February 17, 2011 by walker

[Pyronick 21]

@walker: The USDOD and the US air industry has been trying to kill off as many European contracts since the Marshall plan.

Independency of external suppliers and licencors has been the priority of the United States military since the end of the Second World War. The (west of) EU is slowly reforming in to a single military bloc, it's aerospace industry is rapidly growing. It's obvious the US is doing everything to push it's own aerospace industry.

I haven't been following new developments around the extermination of external arms industry since 2006. But I do know the US has killed off most of the American-Dutch projects done by Stork Aerospace during the takeover by Candover. And a couple of years later they tried to deliver a final blow when the Dutch government declared they had doubts about the JSF.

I'm pretty sure the same is happening to Rolls-Royce at the moment. And that's why I'm glad to see the UK, Germany and France willing to cooperate more in the arms industry.

The Eurofighter may or may not cost more in maintenance, but the UK is already familiar with it. Not to mention they simulate their own economy.

[dm 9]

switching that to a navalised version would nicely fill that commitment as well as save the UK Billions of pounds

:j:

And where do you think the money to navalise the Typhoon comes from? Its not as simple as just slapping a different coat of paint on it. Huge segments of the aircraft need to be re-designed. And for a small order that would shoot the unit costs through the roof.

Tell me, are you really that dumb, or does your blind hatred for the us just lead you to post dumb things?

[walker 0]

Hi DM

I do not and never have resented or hated the USA, heck I even based a company there, but I do however resent your aspersions, which you seem to cast around with gay abandon in place of logical or reasoned argument.

I have however said as have many others that the JSF is a white elephant. If you are involved in its development then either grow a tougher skin or get out of the kitchen, even US representatives and Air Force Personnel think it is a waste of money. So I am not the only one saying these things.

I am from the UK my first duty in matters of national interest is to the country I was born in, and to ensuring its economy and security come first.

If you think that the UK does not rate this, then say it.

If the USA and the Lockheed consortium are failing to live up to their end of the JSF bargain and breaking their contracts, then it obviously makes sense for the sake of UK Jobs, the UK economy and UK security to take our money and invest it in the products that give the UK the best possible results.

I also understand that Canada want to swap to the Eurofighter because of the jobs it is set to loose due the USA and the Lockheed consortium renaging on contracts that were due to go to Canada.

Paul Hopkins, Vice President Business Development (Air) at BAE Systems has said that much of requirments for a Navalised Typhoon are already there and that BAE and the rest of the Eurofighter group are actively engaged in its development for Tranche 3 of the Eurofighter Typhoon project.

Hense the interest from India.

BAE INTRODUCES A NAVALIZED TYPHOON OPTION

While the competition between six international aircraft manufacturers moves on, some of the competitors are already looking a step further, positioning their respective platforms addressing possible interest from the Indian Navy. The Super Hornet F/A-18E/F from Boeing and French Rafale from Dassault are already operational on board U.S. and French carriers, while the MiG-35 could be matched with the MiG-29K model the Indian Navy already operates. That leaves the Lockheed Martin F-16IN, Saab Gripen and Eurofighter Typhoon in a disadvantage.

Well… Things may change quite soon, according to BAE Systems. The company has anticipated this, highlighting at its display a navalized version of the Typhoon, utilizing few of the Tranche 3 features, such as thrust vector nozzles, conformal fuel tanks, and spoilers at the leading edge wing roots, designed to minimize landing speed. Unlike the Super Hornet and Rafale using catapult launch which requires significant strengthening of the landing gear and airframe, Typhoon is considered for ‘ski-jump’ equipped carriers only (like QE2 and India’s future indigenous carriers).

According to Paul Hopkins, Vice President Business Development (Air) at BAE Systems, simulation tests of a ‘navalized Typhoon’ show the aircraft can takeoff and land with full mission payload, including two ‘Storm Shadow’ cruise missiles, four BVR missiles, two short range missiles, a centerline fuel tank and two conformal fuel tanks – something no other navalized aircraft can perform. A navalized Typhoon will be new built aircraft, fitted with strengthened airframe and landing gear. The British decision to switch from STOVL F-35B to F-35C conventional take off Lightning could pave the road for reconsideration of use Navalized Typhoons by the Royal Navy, on QE-2 aircraft carriers...

http://defense-update.com/wp/20110210_naval_typhoon.html

As allways follow the link to the original text

If the Lockheed JSF consortium can not cope in a competetive environment then they are not a suitable aircraft supplier for the Royal Navy to use.

And for the UK a Typhoon option would also mean exports, both to India, Canada and any other countries that decide the JSF is too much of a white elephant.

Regards walker

Edited February 17, 2011 by walker

[dm 9]

which you seem to cast around with gay abandon

Its the internet, home of gay abandon ;)

in place of logical or reasoned argument.

Kinda like what could be said about your naval Typhoon fantasies then?

I have however said as have many others that the JSF is a white elephant.

Never doubted that (infact, find where I said it wasnt and I'll give you a cookie). Show me a modern development/procurement project that isnt...

If you are involved in its development

Nope.

I am from the UK

So am I, what of it?

matters of national interest is to the country I was born in, and to ensuring its economy and security come first.

And the billions wasted on JSF and the cost on top of that in navalising the Typhoon would be money well spent? Out of interest, how much do you think it would cost to navalise the Typhoon?

If you think that the UK does not rate this, then say it.

We haven't rated in the aviation industry since Labour raped the TSR-2.

Paul Hopkins, Vice President Business Development (Air) at BAE Systems has said that much of requirments for a Navalised Typhoon are already there and that BAE and the rest of the Eurofighter group are actively engaged in its development for Tranche 3 of the Eurofighter Typhoon project.

Ooooh, the head of PR said it, so it must be true :j: On one hand we've got all the internet/press PR, saying naval Typhoon is mere seconds away from being ready. On the other hand we've got Rocks' contact, who is a project manager on the Typhoon, and he lol's in your general direction. I know who I'm inclined to believe...

Do you believe everything you read on the internet? If you do, I've totally developed a cure for cancer, I've got various health services interested, but I need a backer. I'll have my Nigerian bank manger email you the details if you're interested. ;)

[Pyronick 21]

:j:

And where do you think the money to navalise the Typhoon comes from? Its not as simple as just slapping a different coat of paint on it. Huge segments of the aircraft need to be re-designed. And for a small order that would shoot the unit costs through the roof.

Tell me, are you really that dumb, or does your blind hatred for the us just lead you to post dumb things?

The biggest problem with a navalized version of the Typhoon is that the UK would be the only interested party.

France still relies on it's own aerospace industry, which I think on the long-term could be dangerous to them. Especially when competing with companies like the Russian UAC, the (West-)European EADS and the US Boeing and Lockheed-Martin.

Unless France, Italy or Spain (or India, even though they have other aspirations) with it's relatively small naval airforce will join this project, I don't think modernizing is a good plan at all. Not in these times of austerities. I doubt that the likely inevitable budget increases could never be justified.

They way it looks to me, the EF Consortium would be better off selling more regular Typhoons to armed forces of upcoming economics like the Balkan (incl. Greece and Turkey), Baltic states, Scandinavia, Brazil, South-Africa, Canada, etc.

As for TVC, I wouldn't count on it. Since the Tranche 3 project has been postponed, I'm afraid this just adds to the already expensive must-have feature list.

And the billions wasted on JSF

Don't forget those billions were also used behind our (people and governments outside of the US) backs to kill off contracts like the F-136 and various Stork Aerospace projects (mainly VSTOL and software) in favor of Pratt & Whitney and Northrup-Grumman. Edited February 18, 2011 by SgtH3nry3

[KilKenny 10]

F-35B, silent Hornet and now... the navalized Typhoon. Oh my.

The ability with which the US&UK defense industry has managed to sell, not one, not two, but THREE different vaporwares to British governments, is staggering.

How much has the British taxpayer already spent on these vaporwares over those past years ?

And what do you have so far ?

Nothing...

How is it that everybody on this island seems to have his eyes riveted across the Atlantic, when proven solutions already exist less than 50 miles off their coasts ?

Make the future british and french carriers sister-ships.

Put Marine Rafales on them (there might even be enough money to develop the navalized two-seater version).

And let's start builing a european defence industry together.

But i'm fearing most Royal Navy senior officials would rather rot in hell than buy french gear.

Really it is amazing how thousand-years old atavisms can still ruin some pretty smart peoples' reasoning.

Which is not the case for some RAF pilots :

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/11/09/334383/flight-test-dassault-rafale-rampant-rafale.html

I'm not saying it's the best plane ever, but IT DOES EXIST, in this navy version... and is available for quick production and partnership. Has this option been seriously considered, ever ?

Edited February 18, 2011 by KilKenny

[Tankbuster 1733]

But i'm fearing most Royal Navy senior officials would rather rot in hell than buy french gear.

Really it is amazing how thousand-years old atavisms can still ruin some pretty smart peoples' reasoning.

I fear you're right, but the Marine Nationale are not all that keen either.