Cannot comment upon the two different strike aircraft, but perhaps the Lockheed is less expensive. American Aircraft are usually, as they are usually made in more numbers, and are of a proven design.

The Euro fighter is still in development stage for some uses I am informed by those who take an interest, and thus it is still an open ended, and increasing budget to a degree.

The Carriers we are told are now the size they need to be, to make up a creditable force, with the correct number of aircraft and helicopters being able to fly from its decks.
Smaller carriers carry less aircraft and are thus a less creditable force.

The problem is that an Aircraft carrier is a capital ship and needs many other ships to protect it. Think at the moment we do not have enough ships to protect more than two carriers (although not sure we can even do that properly if both are in theatre at the same time)

New type 45 destroyers are supposed to be protection vessels as I understand it, but they are still awaiting a comprehensive working weapons system, said by the press to be about 3 years away.

When it works and is installed, it is claimed that the type 45 will be the most high tech ship afloat.

The bigger question is. Can we afford to run any sort of campaign that will require such equipment to be purchased in the first place. After all there is no point in building such ships and aircraft if you cannot afford to run, and pay for them to be used in a war/conflict.

And somebody tell me why we need two full size aircraft carriers. Wouldn’t smaller ones be cheaper and just as effective for any operation Britain is likely to need to mount?

Agreed.

But in an attempt to look hip and modern Tony Blair got into bed with Microsoft, when perfectly adaquate and probably more secure alternatives exist for free (for individuals) or for a modest licence for corporates and government bodies.

This government is entirely ignorant when it comes to IT.

But I fear the Tories don’t have any more knowledge or experience in the field.

North Korea has nukes (a few) it has a delivery system which can hit South Korea, China, Japan and Russia. They have an interest in constraining it.

Iran does not have any, it might do in 5-10 years, it feels threatened by the US which has been threatening it with regime change, arming it’s enemies (both Saddam and terrorist groups) for decades and has bases in almost every neighbouring state.

Trident is designed to be capable of launching 16 missiles with up to 10 warheads each at multiple targets, with at least one Sub permanently at sea on the basis that it could respond if the Soviets had wiped the UK of the Map with hundreds of nukes. That threat is gone and a response to a threat of a single warhead attack from a rogue state does not need to assume that the UK is annihilated. So a flexible deterrent with the option of Nuclear bombs for Tornado, Cruise on both the SSN’s and the Type 45’s would be cheaper than a full scale replacement of Trident, and would be more “independent” of the US.

The Empire is gone and if there is war in East Asia it would be a bad thing but it is not our problem. We used to intervene in Iran to protect the route to India, well now let India intervene if necessary, fellow member of the international community, and nuclear power with aspirations of a seat on the Security Council. The answer for every problem on the planet is not intervention by plucky little Britain.

The UK intervened in Afghanistan 3 times 1839-42, 1878-80 and 1919, when we ran the largest Empire on the planet and had an obvious strategic interest in India. We have now been there longer than all of those interventions combined, we have more British as opposed to British Indian troops in theatre today than at any time of those 3 interventions and the UK force there now is bigger than the entire UK and Indian garrison of 1840-42. Does that make sense?

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: –
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: –

“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!”

As we have found out to our cost with the EU.

We have to be brought to our Knees, fishing destroyed, farming, industry sell offs, opem borders, community disorder, gold sell off,
safety storage of food mountains abolished.
everything Westminster does is NOT in our interests.

Don’t the words Foreign OR Domestic mean anything to our Generals.
Can’t they see what is going on, it’s plain and simple.

This ignoring any other structural deficit or permanent tax falls from the debt pumped economy.

Pray ask, the Chancellors, which budget will Labour appear to conjure this from. I’m not sure this is the half of it.

The ‘lie of the land’ Darling seems to have a way with words, that pierces the Brown smog.

Manage population properly -impossible in the EU. Reduce immigration by economic refugees, reduce demand for public services, reduce real housing demand, reduce energy needs etc.
Invest in real assets which displace imports, aid exports.

I think we should be happy with a few cruise missiles per submarine, spread them out over more subs than the current 4 boats

defence policy if i were in charge would be ever so different

for a start sea harriers would be back out of moth balls

some of the crazier spending projects would be replaced with cheaper pragmatic alternates

and i would force much more focus on the real teeth of the services

However, I do whole heatedly agree that now “does not seem like a good time to announce that the UK is stoppping its nuclear defence, and is open to nuclear blackmail”.

As to priorities, is not the highest priority defence of the Realm? This does not, and never has, meant manning the borders, and does need a more World wide perspective.

Highest priority does not, of course, mean highest spend.

In reality it often means that the people who need to be cut (i.e. the ones responsible for wasting all the money over recent years) are the ones who end up weilding the axe.

I agree that the only way to cut spending to acceptable levels is to target the big numbers, but an incoming government also needs to decide what policies need to go on the bonfire and be prepared to take on the vested interests whos jobs these budgets support.

Of course Labour are digging themselves in for a possible spell in opposition now and legislating to make their expensive policies binding on a future government. I think specifically of the Child Poverty Bill. Why after all these years are they suddenly making their wealth-redistribution targets statutory?

Labour seem to be setting all sorts of traps if you ask me.

Personally, I believe we should be looking at new ideas. The U.S.A. is investing quite heavily in robotic remote controlled aircraft, which can carry a variety of small weapons or CCTV spy cameras, as well as staying airborne for long periods. Should we not be considering these instead of the Eurofighter and the Nimrod replacement? We could probably purchase a 100 of these remote controlled aircraft for the price of one modern fighter, maybe even more. What about robotic ground vehicles instead of soldiers on foot patrol? Mass-produced they would probably cost no more than a reasonable car and be able to save many lives

We need plenty of lateral thinking; whilst I admire our military, they have rarely been very innovative – you have only got to look at the problems Churchill had to get them to accept the tank in the first world war, when they were quite certain that it would never beat the cavalry!

Once a review has been held, then is the time to decide whether we need Trident, not scrap it first before making a decision as to what we are having instead.