Hornet landing trials on the Foch.

Sorry AutoStick but what you have just written is just five shades of stupid!

Firstly F35C (the one we are buying now) has better payload and range capability then the legacy Hornet which was a primary requirement! It has FAR BETTER payload and range capability then Harrier GR7/9 as well as a better radar then Sea Harrier FA2.

Why is a lack of naval capability for Typhoon an issue? None of the Eurofighter partner nations wanted the capability so why compromise the design?!

So a Typhoon could launch from a STOBAR carrier with one engine…whoopy dooo! Now what is the combat load and bring back capability?! As for navalising Typhoon…it has disaster written all over it! Not designed for the role and frankly a money black hole if we ever did it!

In the end F35C offers a better capability then Harrier and British PLC heavily involved in its development! On the other hand Su-30 is not navalised in any form and offers ZERO offset to UK PLC!

F35C with ASRAAM, AMRAAM (and possibly METEOR) plus all the smart ground attack munitions offers a significant capability to the UK.
Certainly better then anything we have had before in carrier operations!

As an addendum it should be noted that the Aeronavale wanted legacy Hornet and the Rafale was forced on them…no criticism of the Rafale in the naval role but it is important to note when people talking about the Eurofighter nations failing to navalise the Typhoon.

Hmmm INS Koswari looks like handsome vessel, anybody know her weapon and system fit?

Actually the aircraft that would make the most interesting comparison is the Northrop F-20 Tigershark. Both aircraft share a similar size and performance profile. The development is similar in that both can trace their design back to older cold war jets (albeit the F-20 is far closer to an F-5 then a JF-17 to a J-7). They are both meant to be affordable multirole fighters with a BVR capability. Avionics wise they also make an interesting comparison as well with Western style MILSTD avionics in the JF-17. I would certainly be interested how the KLJ-7 compares to the AN/APG-67.

Certainly the JF-17 benefits from more recent developments in avionics, materials and aerodynamic thinking but nevertheless they make an interesting comparison.

Yes it is a rather bemusing procurement to say the least. With only six airframes availability is hardly going to be stunning. For the money spent there are several other choices I would consider available in larger numbers and offering significant capability. Even late build Chengdu F-7 offer significant capability for your budget conscious airforce.

Well back from my worst holiday ever (my motorbike suffered a major electrical failure in Italy and I had to come home to England in a hire car), so back to happier things talking about naval stuff.

Your right F-111buff26 that the RN escort fleet has been significantly sacrificed to get the carriers but if you look deeper the RN’s opinion on the matter is rather nuanced. It must be noted that the RN will outlast any current government and they are looking beyond 2020 in respect of fleet planning. The fact is British shipyards are now tied up with QE class and completing Astute class for the next few years, in respect of the escort fleet they are cutting out the remaining Type 42 and 22. Now I realise that the Batch 3 Type 22 are very good but on the flip side the RN will now have a consolidated fleet of 6 new Type 45 and 13 modernised Type 23. The Type 45 will now be in service for thirty to forty years and the Type 23 will start retiring according to current plans from 2023 through to 2036. With only the amphibious fleet and no carriers for the next decade the RN is out of the proper out of area game so the escorts available now consolidated over two classes is adequate.

Looking to the future British ship yards are only going to be able to build new frigate escorts after the QE class is finished. Of course how the future Type 26 is developed needs to be looked at. It needs to be made clear to the RN that there must be NO GOLD PLATED blue sky thinking conceptual future systems on the class! There must be NO COMMITTEES of officers and MOD hanger ons doing blue sky thinking about the design! It needs off the shelf systems (something UK PLC can provide), it must have growth potential and plug and play capability (much like the German Mekos), assuring affordability and export potential. It needs to be made clear to the RN that an affordable ship using proven off the shelf systems doesn’t mean it has to be less capable! On a side note the question of global patrol frigate needs to be looked at much like the Dutch Thetis/Stanflex 3000 class. The RN’s argument against them has been weakened! Modern diesels allow significant range and the performance to keep up with fast fleet units and basic systems can still be useful in a hot war alongside other ships. With data linking like CEC the radar picture from these simpler units are still of use and a gun for NGS is useful along with something like SeaRam or Phalanx for self defence. Actually a vessel like that with those systems would of been highly useful during the falklands.

So lets see how things work out in the future before we write off the RN yet.

To be honest I think this will go to an American manufacturer, I doubt the European players will put much effort in this time. Dassault were particularly put out by the last contest.

Silent Eagle or F35 me thinks…