47685815_2251852721526283_3330545910240247808_o.jpg

Sweet!!

Are these the VTOL versions or not sherif ?

 

Sheriff probably knows better, but I understand these are F-35A's Mick, the F-35B is the STOVL variant. We have the B variant as our F-35s are a replacement for the Harrier whereas the Aussies have bought the F-35 to replace their F-18s

We've got the Turkeys!

Nice pix, dont worry Arthur if Jeremy gets in he will sell the carriers and their A/C to the lowest bidder

 

Wots he got to do with any of it?

Defence procurement in the UK has always been ludicrous

Ok thanks Nick. 

18 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

Wots he got to do with any of it?

Defence procurement in the UK has always been ludicrous

We ought to be putting more money, R&D into fighting the information war, but we've already lost that to the Russians so I guess it's all academic. Doesn't matter how many aircraft we have or whether they go up and down vertically or not.

Anyway, nice pic!

5 hours ago, BluBear said:

We ought to be putting more money, R&D into fighting the information war, but we've already lost that to the Russians so I guess it's all academic. Doesn't matter how many aircraft we have or whether they go up and down vertically or not.

Anyway, nice pic!

Give it a few months, and Russia could be our new ally!

No, Not VTOL .. we are getting 78 of these up front with another 30 or so later. 120 mil a piece. And they wont be operational until 2020 earliest. Plus 12 new submarines being built in France ... go figure.

 

Ok thanks sheriff, your submarines might be a bit late mate ! ?

On 12/14/2018 at 7:13 PM, fruitbat said:

Give it a few months, and Russia could be our new dictator!

Fixed that for you Kev ?

2 hours ago, BluBear said:

Fixed that for you Kev ?

I think the correct terminology is Britain would be Russia's useful idiot!

God help us if it happens.

If they've got money to spend or money to launder we seem to be a useful idiot for anyone at the moment.

Whilst i don't disagree there's truth in that, I don't think it follows that if you have bad friends, you get rid of them, just to get even worse friends instead.... 

S Arabia is a case in point. Horrible government, in a region of horrible governments. Cutting off selling arms to them would be a massive hit to our defense industry but probably viewed as 'morally' (although morality is a completely subjective human construct) correct in today's society.

Would it change S Arabia's policy's in anyway, of course not, they'd just buy of USA, Russia or China instead. Its a loose/loose situation either way.

I've thought for a long time now, that politics and F policy is not about choosing the right thing, but choosing the least reprehensible option...

 

I still don't understand what we've got these carriers for.

Are we going to take on China?

Is it to ensure we retain a seat on the Security Council when we become merely a small island off the coast of NW Europe at the end of next March?

Is it because the RAF got a new but already obsolete fighter and now it's the navy's turn to get a new toy?

Defence spending? The last bastion of state socialism in the western world!

Expensive deterrent to the Argies?

Argentina? Surely not.  Didn't we build RAF Mount Pleasant to deter them?  At a cost of £500m thirty years ago.

btw;  I spent a week in a bivvy on Mt. Pleasant a long time ago. It's not much of a mountain and it wasn't very pleasant!

Infact, it must be one of the few, wild places that have been improved by having a major military base built on it. 

I always had a sneaking suspicion that we were encouraged to built those carriers so that when the USA send a battle fleet off to do some battle fleet stuff they can take our chaps along with them so it becomes a “coalition” battle fleet. 

Politically expedient ?

14 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Is it to ensure we retain a seat on the Security Council when we become merely a small island off the coast of NW Europe at the end of next March?

The only reason we still retain a seat on the security council, is the fact that we have nukes on submarines, and have the potential to wipe out individually most countries in the world, if we were so inclined.

The security council is a joke anyway. Russia and China veto or abstain on any resolution that might set any precedent, that they can't smack down there own populations to keep the current ruling elite in power in both countries.

 

Er......we don't you know.   Not perhaps a very known fact but we have the ability to nuke the world right up to the very moment Washington switches off our leased Trident missiles.

In the near future, are we really going to have the hundred billion+ in the coffers to renew our Trident fleet?

 

Get a Room you gits!

He is right you know, this should be a “Hot Topic” ?