F35 or Rafale? The UK and France talk.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Thread Starter
F35 or Rafale? The UK and France talk.
The Mail on Sunday is reporting that the UK and French Defence Ministers have had talks about the purchase of 150 Rafale M should the UK government not proceed with the F-35 . This being the Plan B discussed earlier. Gets us back into the proper carrier business, but at a price.
Comments?here 2nd story.
Comments?here 2nd story.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Marham
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is long overdue and has been a long time coming IMHO. The US government assumes that the UK will back down to all pressures and tow the American line, this has to stop.
Should the US look at this as an idle threat, then the UK really should press the issue with the French and look to get some of our SHAR guys over onto French Marine units, flying the Rafale. I'm sure the French would welcome the chance to encourage some badly needed export sales.
JSF is a dead duck and we should be willing to walk away from it.
Should the US look at this as an idle threat, then the UK really should press the issue with the French and look to get some of our SHAR guys over onto French Marine units, flying the Rafale. I'm sure the French would welcome the chance to encourage some badly needed export sales.
JSF is a dead duck and we should be willing to walk away from it.
Last edited by Brit55; 26th Feb 2006 at 12:41.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anglo-US defence deals in jeopardy
Tom McGhie and Jack Gee, Mail on Sunday
26 February 2006
BRITAIN may consider buying up to 150 French fighter jets for two new-generation aircraft carriers scheduled to go into service with the Royal Navy in 2013.
If the Government went ahead with the £5bn deal, it would mean cancelling existing US contracts to supply aircraft for the carriers and could cause a major crisis in Anglo-American relations.
The unexpected verbal offer to buy the Rafale Marine jets came on January 24 when Defence Secretary John Reid met his opposite number, Michele Alliot-Marie, for crucial talks in London.
It followed well publicised difficulties between Britain and America on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project, dogged by a row over sharing technology.
It is understood that Reid said he would consider the French offer. Even agreeing to give the proposal serious consideration could be seen as a major snub to the Americans, whose relations with the French on defence are strained.
The French offer follows America's continued refusal to agree to the transfer of advanced technology on the JSF - the jet being built in the US by Lockheed Martin with co-operation from Britain.
The Ministry of Defence has already paid the Americans £2bn for development. BAE Systems, Britain's leading defence contractor, which is a vital partner in the project, was hoping for about £14bn in development and production contracts.
The MoD declined to give details of the French offer, but defence sources in Paris confirmed that a lengthy conversation took place.
The American refusal to share technology means that if one of the JSFs needed repairs, the work would have to be carried out in America.
It would also mean British forces would not have the right codes to arm the planes if they wanted to use them for missions not approved by the Pentagon.
There is growing anger at the Americans' obduracy over technology transfer. Britain has now made it clear that without 'achieving the appropriate level of sovereignty' over the JSF, it will consider cancelling the contract.
Washington's reluctance to give up the technology to its closest military ally is fuelled by fears that Britain might allow foreign firms access to America's most precious commercial and defence secrets.
Faced by the the refusal to share technology, Lord Grayson, Minister for Defence Procurement, said: 'There has to be a Plan B. We need to make sure we have done the work needed to ensure we have an option.'
The MoD still hopes that the Americans will change their minds. Meanwhile, it is looking at its options. Giving consideration to the French offer could strengthen the MoD's negotiating hand with Washington.
The 60,000-tonne carriers planned for the Royal Navy are designed to have powerful catapults built into the deck. This means they are not restricted to the vertical take-off version of the JSF. They could fire conventional take-off JSFs as well as modified Typhoon Eurofighters.
The Rafale Marine is already in service and is designed for use on France's new carrier - identical to those being built for the Royal Navy.
The decision by Paris to buy the design of the UK carriers for their own second large carrier makes the French option more palatable.
The French jets cost about £35 million each and would be cheaper, if probably unpopular, with the forces.
Gerald Howarth, Conservative defence spokesman, said: 'This shows the danger of the American refusal to give us the technology. They could drive us into the arms of the French.'
Tom McGhie and Jack Gee, Mail on Sunday
26 February 2006
BRITAIN may consider buying up to 150 French fighter jets for two new-generation aircraft carriers scheduled to go into service with the Royal Navy in 2013.
If the Government went ahead with the £5bn deal, it would mean cancelling existing US contracts to supply aircraft for the carriers and could cause a major crisis in Anglo-American relations.
The unexpected verbal offer to buy the Rafale Marine jets came on January 24 when Defence Secretary John Reid met his opposite number, Michele Alliot-Marie, for crucial talks in London.
It followed well publicised difficulties between Britain and America on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project, dogged by a row over sharing technology.
It is understood that Reid said he would consider the French offer. Even agreeing to give the proposal serious consideration could be seen as a major snub to the Americans, whose relations with the French on defence are strained.
The French offer follows America's continued refusal to agree to the transfer of advanced technology on the JSF - the jet being built in the US by Lockheed Martin with co-operation from Britain.
The Ministry of Defence has already paid the Americans £2bn for development. BAE Systems, Britain's leading defence contractor, which is a vital partner in the project, was hoping for about £14bn in development and production contracts.
The MoD declined to give details of the French offer, but defence sources in Paris confirmed that a lengthy conversation took place.
The American refusal to share technology means that if one of the JSFs needed repairs, the work would have to be carried out in America.
It would also mean British forces would not have the right codes to arm the planes if they wanted to use them for missions not approved by the Pentagon.
There is growing anger at the Americans' obduracy over technology transfer. Britain has now made it clear that without 'achieving the appropriate level of sovereignty' over the JSF, it will consider cancelling the contract.
Washington's reluctance to give up the technology to its closest military ally is fuelled by fears that Britain might allow foreign firms access to America's most precious commercial and defence secrets.
Faced by the the refusal to share technology, Lord Grayson, Minister for Defence Procurement, said: 'There has to be a Plan B. We need to make sure we have done the work needed to ensure we have an option.'
The MoD still hopes that the Americans will change their minds. Meanwhile, it is looking at its options. Giving consideration to the French offer could strengthen the MoD's negotiating hand with Washington.
The 60,000-tonne carriers planned for the Royal Navy are designed to have powerful catapults built into the deck. This means they are not restricted to the vertical take-off version of the JSF. They could fire conventional take-off JSFs as well as modified Typhoon Eurofighters.
The Rafale Marine is already in service and is designed for use on France's new carrier - identical to those being built for the Royal Navy.
The decision by Paris to buy the design of the UK carriers for their own second large carrier makes the French option more palatable.
The French jets cost about £35 million each and would be cheaper, if probably unpopular, with the forces.
Gerald Howarth, Conservative defence spokesman, said: 'This shows the danger of the American refusal to give us the technology. They could drive us into the arms of the French.'
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hardly our fault, who the hell is going to buy a plane that has to go back to America to be repaired and which relies on a foreign power to give us the codes in order to fire the thing????
Bush has already shown what contempt he has for his allies, and to be honest if I was the British Goverment, I would be having a long hard think about telling Bush where to get off in terms of using this country as a home to his Star Wars Technology. Perhaps it also may be appriopriate now that we are moving in to a more European orientated defence procurement that we also started to become more self suffiecient in terms of Intelligence and review such sites as Menwith Hill, Croughton, Molesworth, Feltwell etc.
Bush can't have it both ways, treat your allies with contempt, and very quickly you will find they are no longer such close allies.
Bush has already shown what contempt he has for his allies, and to be honest if I was the British Goverment, I would be having a long hard think about telling Bush where to get off in terms of using this country as a home to his Star Wars Technology. Perhaps it also may be appriopriate now that we are moving in to a more European orientated defence procurement that we also started to become more self suffiecient in terms of Intelligence and review such sites as Menwith Hill, Croughton, Molesworth, Feltwell etc.
Bush can't have it both ways, treat your allies with contempt, and very quickly you will find they are no longer such close allies.
Last edited by Styron; 26th Feb 2006 at 15:41.
Blair has not been good at grguing the UK's corner.
From the RN website: Future Aircraft
The MOD considered all other options very carefully before selecting the JSF as the preferred aircraft for its new aircraft carriers. The other options included a marinised version of the Eurofighter (232 Eurofighters are ordered for the RAF) the American F18E, the French Rafale and an updated Harrier. But the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant JSF emerged as the best option.
Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that Rafale will be ready much sooner than F35B, or is partly to try to persuade the US to make more concessions on technology transfer.
From the RN website: Future Aircraft
The MOD considered all other options very carefully before selecting the JSF as the preferred aircraft for its new aircraft carriers. The other options included a marinised version of the Eurofighter (232 Eurofighters are ordered for the RAF) the American F18E, the French Rafale and an updated Harrier. But the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant JSF emerged as the best option.
Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that Rafale will be ready much sooner than F35B, or is partly to try to persuade the US to make more concessions on technology transfer.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think most of this story is a load of rubbish to be honest. For starters, we're talking about the Mail here (enough said!).
The notion that the MoD would want to purchase Rafales has always been regarded as nonsense, and this is probably just a throw-away story based on a "what if" conversation which was intended for political consumption rather than military need. Clearly, we wouldn't want to buy an aircraft which will (by the time it entered service) be heading for obsolesence.
More importatly, we're financially almost obliged to purchase a final batch of Typhoons that we don't really need (based on the current governmental figures and thinking) so they would clearly be the most obvious source of replacements for the F35 if (or when) it is finally cancelled.
It also looks like the beloved Mail has been less-than honest about the real facts; According to other reports from previous weeks/months, the problem hasn't been anything to do with the UK being denied access to the complete F35 package, but more to do with the prospect of export orders, and America's understandable reluctance to export technology to just any potential buyer. Ultimately, it seems to be a relatively benign argument about sales to other countries which may or may not ever happen.
It would be foolish to hurl accusations at the US Government, not least because we've shared a very (and I do mean very!) close relationship
ever since WWII, and the US has never seriously attempted to supply us with "watered-down" versions of their own equipment, so there's no reason to suppose that the F35 would be any different. Conversely, France's track record is less-than commendable; When you look at the way in which the Jaguar was consistently shoved aside in favour of their Mirage sales, the Concorde saga, the way that they shamelessly tried to persuade the US Navy to buy the Alpha Jet, the completely absurd Airbus A400 saga... why would anyone want to get involved with France again?
The Mail is also a bit wide of the mark to say that the new carriers will have built-in catapult equipment, as according to proper sources of information, the carriers will merely have the ability to be converted to catapult operations if necessary - a minor point but indicative of the way in which the Mail is trying to make a story out of nothing.
It's no secret that the F35 programme has been on the proverbial rocks for a long time, and most people think it's only a matter of time before we finally rid ourselves on any involvement in it. It's a hideously expensive programme for an aircraft that we don't need, and when we will ultimately have more Typhoons that we actually require (and a "navalisation" programme has already been studied) it seems pretty obvious where our future carrier force will eventually be sourced.
The notion that the MoD would want to purchase Rafales has always been regarded as nonsense, and this is probably just a throw-away story based on a "what if" conversation which was intended for political consumption rather than military need. Clearly, we wouldn't want to buy an aircraft which will (by the time it entered service) be heading for obsolesence.
More importatly, we're financially almost obliged to purchase a final batch of Typhoons that we don't really need (based on the current governmental figures and thinking) so they would clearly be the most obvious source of replacements for the F35 if (or when) it is finally cancelled.
It also looks like the beloved Mail has been less-than honest about the real facts; According to other reports from previous weeks/months, the problem hasn't been anything to do with the UK being denied access to the complete F35 package, but more to do with the prospect of export orders, and America's understandable reluctance to export technology to just any potential buyer. Ultimately, it seems to be a relatively benign argument about sales to other countries which may or may not ever happen.
It would be foolish to hurl accusations at the US Government, not least because we've shared a very (and I do mean very!) close relationship
ever since WWII, and the US has never seriously attempted to supply us with "watered-down" versions of their own equipment, so there's no reason to suppose that the F35 would be any different. Conversely, France's track record is less-than commendable; When you look at the way in which the Jaguar was consistently shoved aside in favour of their Mirage sales, the Concorde saga, the way that they shamelessly tried to persuade the US Navy to buy the Alpha Jet, the completely absurd Airbus A400 saga... why would anyone want to get involved with France again?
The Mail is also a bit wide of the mark to say that the new carriers will have built-in catapult equipment, as according to proper sources of information, the carriers will merely have the ability to be converted to catapult operations if necessary - a minor point but indicative of the way in which the Mail is trying to make a story out of nothing.
It's no secret that the F35 programme has been on the proverbial rocks for a long time, and most people think it's only a matter of time before we finally rid ourselves on any involvement in it. It's a hideously expensive programme for an aircraft that we don't need, and when we will ultimately have more Typhoons that we actually require (and a "navalisation" programme has already been studied) it seems pretty obvious where our future carrier force will eventually be sourced.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim, the US does NOT give the UK full-up versions of its kit, as this testimony from the head of Qinetic to the PSC makes clear:
Exchange in PSC on DIS last week, shamelessly plagiarised from RonO on Warships1.com:
"Mr Ferrero: I think there has been in the MoD in the last five years a concept that somehow or other ultimately we can buy technology from the world market, that in reality we are so close to the Americans politically that they will always sell us anything that we really need. I think that the MoD has now come to realise, through recent experience, that that is not actually true. Even to their closest ally, the Americans, are very restrictive on the way they transfer technology, and systems we have purchased from the Americans in the recent past have turned out to be the "export version" rather than the real version they are prepared to give to the Marines or the Army or the Air Force. That reality will have to guide everything that we do in terms of technology investment in the UK.
ferrero is the head of Qinetiq so he should know of what he speaks.
There's also a further exchange that made me laugh my asss off. There's been a study comparing spending by countries on defense against the resulting military capability. The UK claims to get great value for money by buying cheaper equipment from abroad rather than spending your tax money in the Uk with UK companies with a Uk workforce. Turns out that there's no measurable benfit in doing that. France which has exactly the opposite policy is just as efficient. Gordo gets it wrong again."
Exchange in PSC on DIS last week, shamelessly plagiarised from RonO on Warships1.com:
"Mr Ferrero: I think there has been in the MoD in the last five years a concept that somehow or other ultimately we can buy technology from the world market, that in reality we are so close to the Americans politically that they will always sell us anything that we really need. I think that the MoD has now come to realise, through recent experience, that that is not actually true. Even to their closest ally, the Americans, are very restrictive on the way they transfer technology, and systems we have purchased from the Americans in the recent past have turned out to be the "export version" rather than the real version they are prepared to give to the Marines or the Army or the Air Force. That reality will have to guide everything that we do in terms of technology investment in the UK.
ferrero is the head of Qinetiq so he should know of what he speaks.
There's also a further exchange that made me laugh my asss off. There's been a study comparing spending by countries on defense against the resulting military capability. The UK claims to get great value for money by buying cheaper equipment from abroad rather than spending your tax money in the Uk with UK companies with a Uk workforce. Turns out that there's no measurable benfit in doing that. France which has exactly the opposite policy is just as efficient. Gordo gets it wrong again."
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CVF is designed for but not with a catapult, there will be a 3 year delay to the CVF project if a catapult is required. So we could get an 'off the shelf Rafale' on time but then end up waiting for the ships.
Rolls Royce seem to have been pushed out of the JSF engine contracts, so reduced potential manufacturing revenue for this country, and you must wonder which other promised or expected manufacturing contracts will also fail to materialise.
I'm sceptical about the 'marinised' Typhoon comment. It sounds like a great solution, but that's underestimating the work required to marinise an aircraft. It's a lot more than a beefed up u/c and a tail hook.
Rolls Royce seem to have been pushed out of the JSF engine contracts, so reduced potential manufacturing revenue for this country, and you must wonder which other promised or expected manufacturing contracts will also fail to materialise.
I'm sceptical about the 'marinised' Typhoon comment. It sounds like a great solution, but that's underestimating the work required to marinise an aircraft. It's a lot more than a beefed up u/c and a tail hook.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lazer, the head of QinetiQ would say that, wouldn't he?!
Funny how successive governments have opted for "off the shelf" as soon as cost-saving became an issue. If it didn't ultimately save money, there'd be no point in doing it, by definition.
Feneris, that's indeed how it is - everybody assumed the catapult capability had been built-in either by proxy (assuming that the carrier design is a generic one-size-fits-all), or that it was there as a possible requirement, should we eventually buy Hawkeyes. But the longer the J35 saga goes on, you have to wonder what the real motives of the "catapult fall-back" were.
As for the Typhoons, by all accounts navalisation wouldn't be as big a programme as imagined, and a feasibility study has already been successfully completed. Clearly, when you've bought yourself more Typhoons than you need, asking France to sell us a last-generation design would be just a little too absurd even for the MoD.
Funny how successive governments have opted for "off the shelf" as soon as cost-saving became an issue. If it didn't ultimately save money, there'd be no point in doing it, by definition.
Feneris, that's indeed how it is - everybody assumed the catapult capability had been built-in either by proxy (assuming that the carrier design is a generic one-size-fits-all), or that it was there as a possible requirement, should we eventually buy Hawkeyes. But the longer the J35 saga goes on, you have to wonder what the real motives of the "catapult fall-back" were.
As for the Typhoons, by all accounts navalisation wouldn't be as big a programme as imagined, and a feasibility study has already been successfully completed. Clearly, when you've bought yourself more Typhoons than you need, asking France to sell us a last-generation design would be just a little too absurd even for the MoD.
Who is running this railroad?
The CVF is designed for but not with a catapult, there will be a 3 year delay to the CVF project if a catapult is required.
Chinooks that cannot fly IMC.
No live fire for Attack Helicopter Pilots.
25 Ship fleet.
Will the last person out the door...turn off the lights!
If we don't get the right terms, we might not buy JSF.
Silence
No, we mean it. Look at that naval Typhoon study.
Muffled snigger. Silence.
We really mean it.
Oh, go have another cup of tea and come back when you feel better.
We REALLY REALLY mean it....
Silence
No, we mean it. Look at that naval Typhoon study.
Muffled snigger. Silence.
We really mean it.
Oh, go have another cup of tea and come back when you feel better.
We REALLY REALLY mean it....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LowObservable
If we don't get the right terms, we might not buy JSF.
Silence
No, we mean it. Look at that naval Typhoon study.
Muffled snigger. Silence.
We really mean it.
Oh, go have another cup of tea and come back when you feel better.
We REALLY REALLY mean it....
Silence
No, we mean it. Look at that naval Typhoon study.
Muffled snigger. Silence.
We really mean it.
Oh, go have another cup of tea and come back when you feel better.
We REALLY REALLY mean it....
Bursts into uncontrollable laughter and rolls around on floor...
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Marham
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This story is a shot across the bow of the US Administration and hopefully, they'll take it seriously.
Tim M,
I think it's slightly ridiculous to suggest that Rafale would be obsolete by the time the RN would take delivery, it's an aircraft that can be updated at a much lower cost than the hunk of cr@p JSF is promising to be.
The study for Navalising Typhoon did not suggest that we should run out and do it, far from it actually. A lack of visibility from the cockpit whilst on approach was certainly an issue and I don't buy into using a camera on approach in any weather!
Having one airframe for most of your taskings (AD, CAS, GR) rings of putting all of your eggs in one basket and is something we should perhaps avoid.
Although I hate to admit it, buying the French jet might not be the end of the world and would certainly be better than being kippered like a good 'un by the Yanks!
Can't see how British industry is going to profit from the Harrier replacement programme either way with Rolls Royce being pushed out of the JSF picture.
Tim M,
I think it's slightly ridiculous to suggest that Rafale would be obsolete by the time the RN would take delivery, it's an aircraft that can be updated at a much lower cost than the hunk of cr@p JSF is promising to be.
The study for Navalising Typhoon did not suggest that we should run out and do it, far from it actually. A lack of visibility from the cockpit whilst on approach was certainly an issue and I don't buy into using a camera on approach in any weather!
Having one airframe for most of your taskings (AD, CAS, GR) rings of putting all of your eggs in one basket and is something we should perhaps avoid.
Although I hate to admit it, buying the French jet might not be the end of the world and would certainly be better than being kippered like a good 'un by the Yanks!
Can't see how British industry is going to profit from the Harrier replacement programme either way with Rolls Royce being pushed out of the JSF picture.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brit55
This story is a shot across the bow of the US Administration and hopefully, they'll take it seriously.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: globetrotter
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Brit55]This story is a shot across the bow of the US Administration and hopefully, they'll take it seriously.
Tim M,
The study for Navalising Typhoon did not suggest that we should run out and do it, far from it actually. A lack of visibility from the cockpit whilst on approach was certainly an issue and I don't buy into using a camera on approach in any weather!....
There seems to be little cockpit visibility difference between a Typhoon and a Rafale on first inspection. Also I thought the new 'smart cockpits meant that you never ever had to look out of them other than to admire the view.
Tim M,
The study for Navalising Typhoon did not suggest that we should run out and do it, far from it actually. A lack of visibility from the cockpit whilst on approach was certainly an issue and I don't buy into using a camera on approach in any weather!....
There seems to be little cockpit visibility difference between a Typhoon and a Rafale on first inspection. Also I thought the new 'smart cockpits meant that you never ever had to look out of them other than to admire the view.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navalised Typhoon was on the cards from the original design spec.
3 year delay for CVF if cat's req'd?! Yikes.
Cancel CVF if no JSF? You can never tell but I could forsee us having one not two carriers instead. Lots of limitations with that idea of course.
Alternatively we could accept that our days of needing our own organic maritime strike are numbered. Very expensive way to scare some Sierra Leonians into thinking we mean business. More choppers is the way ahead. Instead of being jack of all trades, let's be master of one. Leave the US to cough up the wedge for F/W off ships.
Can anyone conceive of a scenario where the UK would need that amount of strike power without the Yanks running the show? Maybe I'm getting old & cynical but I'm starting to get a bit tired of political d**k waving without a good focus on what it will actually be used for. Good luck to the French with CDG. Doubt the US will invite them to the party - therefore what's it good for? Bullying the Tahitians/Greenpeace/Brits/US?! It still takes more than airpower to win a battle.
3 year delay for CVF if cat's req'd?! Yikes.
Cancel CVF if no JSF? You can never tell but I could forsee us having one not two carriers instead. Lots of limitations with that idea of course.
Alternatively we could accept that our days of needing our own organic maritime strike are numbered. Very expensive way to scare some Sierra Leonians into thinking we mean business. More choppers is the way ahead. Instead of being jack of all trades, let's be master of one. Leave the US to cough up the wedge for F/W off ships.
Can anyone conceive of a scenario where the UK would need that amount of strike power without the Yanks running the show? Maybe I'm getting old & cynical but I'm starting to get a bit tired of political d**k waving without a good focus on what it will actually be used for. Good luck to the French with CDG. Doubt the US will invite them to the party - therefore what's it good for? Bullying the Tahitians/Greenpeace/Brits/US?! It still takes more than airpower to win a battle.
Scottish Beefer,Oh dear, here we go again.Here is a quote from a man who is more qualified than you or I to comment..............................................As we move to the future we need to build onthis flexibility to create an ever more Versatile MaritimeForce. That force will be shaped toward projecting powerwherever the Nation requires it. We will deliver this effectas part of the Joint Rapid Reaction Force through an abilityto strike from the sea and to exploit the littoral as anextension to the land battlespace, working seamlessly withthe Army and RAF, as well as our coalition partners inNATO and beyond. Here the Future Carrier, with its JointAir Group will be crucial, as will the assault capabilityoffered by the Commando Brigade with the newamphibious shipping.