Reading the Tea Leaves

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by NEO_CON, Jun 16, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Fair enough.

    Now....Basra.......when would be handy for you to relieve the lads? Do you think you could take over before the World Cup Finals?
  2. If this happens, the RN is completely fcuked.
  3. I wonder how much of the JSF tech-transfer argument was actual genuine concerns by UK MoD and how much was preparing the ground to cancel JSF and blame the US because we couldn't afford it anyway? Now HMG can cancel JSF and CVF and blame the US.

    Why is 'operational sovereignty' such a big deal for JSF but not for TLAM, C17, ASTOR, C130J and most importantly Trident?

  4. The termination of the JSF by the UK program would not be good for the US either. I not sure what would happen to the whole program It would end up being a big expensive mess.

    The US does not have the option to buy French fighters.
  5. Regarding JSF - failure is not an option, either side of the pond. The Navy/RAF want JSF!!
  6. Haven't the Russkies got some nice navalised Sukhois?
  7. No JSF, no RN carriers.
  8. Considering the complete and utter inaccuracy of all your other predictions and/or insights into the defence world, I'll take this one with a pinch of salt.

    And this too is utter wibble:
    Nevertheless, I suspect Dear Gordon was planning to cut the CVF programme regardless of JSF or not. Let's face it, RN has never wanted the CVF 'lite' that Dear Gordon is prepared to fund - and will probably choose nothing rather than something too small and too ineffective. If so, all that gets dumped from the wider JSF programme is the STOVL version. Thus leaving the UK (RAF) to pick up the slack with standard versions. Don't believe everything you read in the Evening Standard.

    I do like this exchange rate (From one of neo_com's links):

  9. I am happy to be wrong . I promise to stop drinking tea and switch back to drinking coffee.
  10. So the problem is with the Americans refusing to let us maintain parts of (what will be) our own systems, and as usual MoD funding?
    I don't understand the US stance on this, since our respective nations have traded military hi-tech secrets since WWII.
    Has nobody considered smiling, saying yes and agreeing to the US stipulations, and then reverse engineering the kit once we have them?
    I think we still have the odd bright person knocking around.who could manage it
    Given its what the rest of the manufacturing planet does, it shouldn't be a problem-so long as nobody admits to it, nobody will lose face.
    Bloody labour again, trying to do defence on the cheap.

  11. Britain traded military hi-tech secrets since WWII, America has not. Everthing we get we have to pay for, even then it's only what they want us to have.
    Were as our authorities hand over everything at the first available stage, they never learn.

    As for the cost, if Labour would stop expanding beurocratic quango's by a billion a year, we would have tons of money.
    After all we at this very stage as a country, have never been taxed at such a level before.
    What do they do with the extra cash, have great office parties and burn 50's on the fire ?