A330MRTT able to carry out double-role of a transport & tanker is a myth created on the basis of ‘experts’ wrongly interpreting the marketing figures from Airbus. Like IL-78, A330MRTT can either be a tanker or a transport but can’t be both at the same time. But the advantage of A330MRTT is its easy conversion – almost as simple as carrying lower internal fuel, where as IL-78 will require removing the fuel tanks and re-equipping up the cargo bay for transport.

No the A330 MRTT does not need cabin or cargo hold fuel tanks, it can be both at the same time. Tanking is provided from the aircraft’s own fuel tanks. The fuel offload is larger then the B-767 and IL-78 with internal fuel only.

Airbus market the aircraft as being able to carry passengers and cargo as well as provide fuel on the same mission. Very useful if the aircraft wants to self deploy for an exercise as it can carry its own maintenance personnel and spares.

The reason India wanted the A330 for tanking is simple, it is one of the most common wide body airliners in the civil sector! Spare parts are widely available meaning the aircraft will have good availability. That translate into significant cost savings over the program life! India is starting to participate in global exercises with its fighters, currently an IL76 and IL78 have to be sent with the fighters to fuel them and carry spares and personnel. If an IL76 or IL78 suffers a failure getting support from the other side of the planet is difficult. With A330 MRTT the fighters deploy with the tanker which is also carrying personnel and fuel. If an A330 MRTT suffers a technical fault on deployment help and spares are close at hand!

You have to be rather careful with those 1968 figures John K, reduction in fleet numbers is not down to the introduction of Polaris.

Firstly the carriers fixed wing and helicopter came out of the huge World War 2 build program. A build program so big that we even sold a number of carriers off at bargain basement prices to anybody who was interested. After that many of the cruisers, destroyers and frigates can their history back to the WW2 procurement program.

Then look at the geopolitics of the time, actually the 1968 date you chose is rather a prophetic date for British defence policy and procurement strategy. Does “East of Suez” mean anything to you? If not I suggest some serious reading as you will find many of your arguments are rather sunk by that term. Up to that date the UK still had an Eastern empire beyond Europe, a significant fleet was needed from surface ships to all those diesel SSK to protect it! In 1968 Harold Wilson announced the UK would pull out of its bases in South East Asia and the Indian Ocean. Add to that all the countries that we had been granting independence, so sustaining a massive increasingly elderly fleet was nonsensical! The draw down of British presence East of Suez is the main reason for the fleet reduction (as well as other services) to concentrate on a European theatre of operations not Polaris.

“East of Suez” and the Suez crisis is also the main reason why the UK decided to maintain an independent second strike capability. During the Suez crisis Russia threatened to go nuclear against Britain and France. America wasn’t interested in helping and actually told us to stop as well. We were coerced into a climb down by two super powers. Gaining an independent second strike capability ensured that no country could coerce us like that again. It is not as many incorrectly think about maintaining a cold war capability to glass Moscow! It is about ensuring no country that has gained nuclear, chemical or biological weapons could coerce us as we have the unstoppable ability to retaliate globally at short notice with extreme force.

Every study made by the MOD and UK government over the decades since Polaris was adopted have concluded that CASD with submarine based ballistic missiles is the cheapest minimum second strike capability we can have. Its a case of don’t shoot the messenger because he is saying things you don’t like!

I respect that you think it is overkill and a financial drain on our defences, personally I think it is a worthwhile investment but we can beg to differ. But please respect that I am only telling you what has been concluded by people far smarter then me! I think you want to have a debate about complete draw down of deterrence, I respect that but all I am telling you is if we do want to keep them CASD with submarine based ballistic missiles was the cheapest solution.

The Fajr-27 did cross my mind, didn’t realise they were exporting them. Its the only source that makes sense albeit why didn’t they just go for a Chinese 76mm considering the fire control radar was already sourced from them.

So you feel like me that the engines probably came from Shaanxi, if the AK630 came from China. As for the missiles considering the high Chinese content I wonder if these are a YJ-82 variant. It is interesting to note that whilst the Wiki article states these frigates as having Kh-35U the wiki article for the YJ-82 states the ship has them installed instead. I wonder if this is a tubular box launcher for a folding fin variant of the YJ-82. China certainly makes a folding fin variant for their subs.

Well that gets us into a debate over is it worth having nuclear weapons at all. If the decision is yes then a Second strike capability is the only worthwhile option and Trident is the cheapest solution.

I agree losing an MPA/ASW capability is insanity for an Island nation like ours. I do think the spinning bow tie exercise that was MRA4 should never of been instigated but done is done! I hope in the future the capability with an affordable off the shelf platform is looked at. Replacing Trident has nothing to do with funding for Nimrod.

Personally I think we should maintain a nuclear capability, CASD with ballistic missiles is not a gold plated solution. It is the cheapest solution if you want to maintain second strike.

If the UK considers a land based or cruise missile based solution then I would argue dropping nuclear all together as anything else is not worth it without vast expenditure.

Going for a ballistic missile, submarine launched continuous at sea, Trident based successor is one of the view sensible things the government has done.

CASD with Trident is the bare minimum, most affordable solution! Anything else and you might as well just give up nuclear weapons!

If there was a cheaper solution available it would of already been selected and before people say “Look at France and America they have cruise missile based systems” it should be pointed out that those are tactical systems (always a bad idea) and they have strategic sub launched ballistic missiles to fall back upon!

Many studies have been made over the years looking at alternatives and submarine launched ballistic missiles always win out as the cheapest most effective solution.

The whole point about nuclear weapons is you have an unstoppable threat of turning any city in the world into glass within thirty minutes with our instant sunshine devices!

For cruise missiles you need a huge fleet of submarines and a vast number slcm. As there is no system available off the shelf with the range capability we would have to develop a new one at great cost. Along with the large fleet of submarines it would cost more then Trident successor. Just using our current attack fleet would offer no deterrent as it just wouldn’t be enough slcm to guarantee they get to the target.

Land based ballistic missiles were counted out in the 1960’s, firstly we would have to develop the missiles from scratch or adapt Trident successor to silo launch (and if you do that you might as well stick with Submarines). Secondly the only places suitable geographically and geologically for the silos is in the middle of some areas of outstanding natural beauty in the National Parks and National Trust Land! Good luck trying to persuade the public on that one. Also the launch sites would be the obvious targets for a first strike. Remember whilst America and Russia operate silo based missiles they have a second strike capability with their submarines and they are huge countries!

What about TEL based ballistic missiles then? Again we would develop the system ourselves and it would be Greenham common all over again with a new generation of Lesbian hippies running around as huge TEL vehicles are pretty hard to hide in a country as small as ours. Again they are vulnerable to first strike.

The recent idea of placing the bombs into storage and taking them out if the threat increases is absurd! You still have to build the submarines, train the crews and maintain them but now it is all vulnerable to first strike! You might as well just get rid of the capability altogether!

CASD with Trident successor is the cheapest most effective way to maintain a minimum second strike capability. Something which is all the more important now Nuclear weapons have proliferated beyond the Security council powers.

Personally I don’ think the manufacturers of air to air missiles operate in isolation of developments in stealth technology. The biggest threat to stealth is radar combined with ever cheaper but faster computers that can better interpret the information they are being fed.

Remember stealth does not mean invisible to radar contrary to what the press and general public think.

Air to Air Missile manufacturers can make models of stealth aircraft coated with radar absorbing materials stick them on a pole and spend all day and every day testing their seeker technology. Alas us enthusiasts in the defence aerospace blogosphere will probably be the last to hear of their results!

No sorry that’s enough! You have officially jumped the Shark on this one! You have been soundly debunked, carrying on does not help my blood pressure!

If you want to live in a fantasy world fine but don’t drag me down the rabbit hole as well!