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.