You know my initial answer to the question was yes as France needed a carrier fighter as well and the M4000 wasn’t carrier capable. Then I considered that if funding had been sunk into procuring the M4000 rather then M2000 the Aeronavale might of had more clout in getting their preferred choice for the F-8 Crusader replacement. The preferred choice of the Aeronavale was the F/A-18 Hornet, the Rafale was forced on them as a French and joint solution. If the French airforce had got M4000 only in several different variants the Hornet might well of won out for the navy.

In the end when we talk about Monino we need to leave our preconceptions coloured by our experiences of Western museums like Duxford or The Smithsonian at the gate.

Monino hasn’t exactly gained its collection in the normal manner and the general public can’t access it in the same way. Many of the aircraft there were literally dumped at the gate when they ran out of airframe hours or suffered significant damage. Add to that unusual prototypes that were thankfully saved rather then scrapped they have a very large collection many of which kept outside.

If they didn’t have some form of preservation program believe me many of those aircraft kept outside with the massive temperature and humidity variation between summer and winter would not be in as good a state as they are!

To me the priority for the for the museum staff is keeping the collection in a reasonable state rather then how glossy or accurate the paint scheme is. Preserving aircraft outdoors as any museum curator will tell you is a struggle, considering the location and size of the collection the staff of Monino should be commended for their efforts.

I suggest anybody who wants to comment on aircraft preservation should first read the book “Restoring Museum Aircraft” by Robert C.Mikesh:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Restoring-Museum-Aircraft-Robert-Mikesh/dp/0764332341/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346421685&sr=8-1

It properly explores the issues faced by museums when it comes to static display of aircraft. One thing the book makes clear is the ideal situation is keeping the aircraft indoors, in a temperature/light controlled environment and off its tyres on stands. Now that isn’t realistic for Monino and they are forced into a situation of ensuring general preservation of the aircraft in their care even if it means they look a bit worse for ware to our Western eyes. There are certainly types there that I would like to see given a bit more care especially the Bartini Beriev VVA-14.

Agreed, it comes over as a bit petty.

I havent been keeping the tail checks, but by now the number of MLU´s airframes should almost double those 20 unit´s.

Yeah I was wondering that myself when I typed the comment Sintra, the source I used on MLU numbers was a couple of years or so out of date.

That would leave Portugal with the Alpha Jet as their only form of fast air. They would no longer be able to maintain QRA over their airspace. It would in effect put them out of the jet fighter business much the same as NewZealand when they retired their Skyhawk.

More believable is a fleet shrink, 20 Portuguese F-16 have been through MLU. So that’s 25 which could be divested of. Romania could then pay to put those airframes through MLU.

Spearfish!. If its not a high value target then FASGW(H) from the embarked chopper or the main gun (especially if we end up with the OTO127LW) if the tactical environment allows.

Spearfish? That is a heavy weight torpedo only used on the submarines and needs a 533mm torpedo tube.

I presume they well pull the 324mm launchers for Stingray off the Type 23 as they retire for ASW.

w.r.t to Mistrals. Link from what TR1 earlier posted. I didn’t see it posted earlier, so posting it now.
Btw, the more details come out on Mistrals, its disappointing… the only comforting fact (but a very valuable one also) is the time saving of probably 6-7 years. Other than that, there is absolutely nothing that Russian design bureaus or shipyards could not have achieved. There is not going to be any revolution in shipbuilding in Russia due to the Mistral contracts as some members pointed out in another thread, which I still disagree.

Russia pay a premium for the two mistrals and we see the French off-shore the work to Russia itself and gets the job done at probably a fraction of the costs (btw,where is the revolutionary ship-building technology transfer? ;)). But it is ok as Russian yards are getting the work. But then, this is the price to pay for short-sightedness and not investing in what you need at the proper time. If there was a proper plan, timeline and investment, the profit that French are reaping over the Mistrals could have been invested in Russia itself.

Btw, it looks like French & DCN is having a golden age. From the Indian RFI for LPD, it looks as if it was made with Mistral in mind and I’m sure Mistrals will be the LPD for Indian Navy and I hope it it!
So finally India-Russia-France are going to operate the same LPD. 😀

I fully welcome the Mistrals for IN, because India simply doesn’t have any design or fabrication capability at present or had any in the past to further such a platform, where as in the case of Russia it was the opposite and the reason why I believe it was a bad deal for Russia (except for time saving).

Well considering the first Mistral hasn’t started construction yet in France let alone the licensed built vessel. It is too early to judge what kind of benefit Russian ship building will get.

People forget that Russia and France have already developed a defence procurement relationship be it components for tanks or targeting pods. When Russia was casting around for a Western designed vessel with technology transfer I would say that prior relationship with France regardless of the cost was going to stand the French in good stead when it came to getting the contract.

I don’t disagree that aspects of the Russian ship building sector are actually competitive but there are also sections that are woefully out of date when it comes to facilities and how they do things. Just looking at the Gorshkov/Vikramaditya refit they were forced to use a yard that specialised in Submarine construction and a floating out basin that lacked suitable cranes. If Russia intends to build a follow on carrier to the Admiral Kuznetsov around 2020 the skills gained, technology transferred and facilities modernised to build the Mistral will really help out in that goal.

The deal is done lets see how it pans out before writing it off…