1) If not already obsolete, the manned fighter will certainly have gone the way of the tank and the battleship within a decade or so, to be superceded by unmanned drones. Between now and then, the UK faces no plausible conventional opponent over which we would not have, in combination with our allies, unquestioned air supremacy, even with our current aircraft. So what conceivable defence rationale is there for UK involvement in the Eurofighter Typhoon? Or is the defence rationale supposed to lie in relationship-building with the other countries involved?
2) What is Trident II for? What opponent, positioned with conventional strength sufficient to need deterring with nuclear weapons, or with sufficient first strike capability, interest in disabling UK nuclear forces, and confidence not to be adequately deterred by air-delivered cruise missiles, is Trident II deterring? And if the answer is: "None today, but some opponent might arise during the period Trident II will be operational", is it really the case that such a threat would arise so suddenly and unexpectedly that we could not, if necessary, build or purchase (perhaps at greater expense than Trident II, but we would only be spending the money if it were needed, rather than just on spec) a nuclear delivery system offering as much deterrence as (or perhaps more than, since based on later technology) Trident II?
