True a 155mm solution would offer synergy with army ammunition supplies. But no navy operates a split charge 155mm solution at the moment, many navies do operate 5inch guns and it is a proven solution hence why it does make sense for the export market.

At the moment I still see Merlin as the MASC solution with Cerberus and Searchwater 2000AEW.

The only way I see Hawkeye being operated by the UK is if we do some form of joint squadron with the French by co-financing at least a couple more Hawkeyes and then operating them as part of a common pool with the French keeping all maintenance and support in France where it already is. The French operate three Hawkeye as it stands and would like a fourth, that would give five Hawkeye which is enough to service Charles De Gaulle and whatever CVF is available at the time.

The Key questions would be:

a) Does purchasing a couple of Hawkeye and operating them with France cost less then refiting seven or eight Merlin as a MASC type?

b) Could they sort out the politics of it and operational practicalities between the FAA and Aeronavale?

Well Diesels might well be adequate to provide the power requirements of EMALS/EMCAT then again a smaller Gas Turbine can be compact.

I’m aware of the AAG program which as of yet isn’t in service, but I wasn’t refering to that.

I was making the comparison with current in service US MK-7 arrester gear engines that are less advanced then the British DAX-II. MK-7 isn’t much changed now then thirty to forty years ago when DAX-II was fitted to the old Ark Royal.

I should of made that more clear.

The Mujahadeen were trained to use the Stinger – as part of the process of distributing the MIM-92, the Americans initiated a training scheme which took into account the typical low level of literacy among the Muj.

I’m afraid that this is also a myth perpetuated about Mujahideen use of the FIM-92 Stinger during the war against Russia.

The Americans supplied the FIM-92 to Pakistan who then supplied it to the Mujahadeen. The training was provided by the ISI/Pakistan army who had been trained by the US.

Once trained in Pakistan Mujahideen fighters were supplied limited numbers of Gripstocks depending on how trustworthy the ISI regarded the particular Afghan factions. When it came to missiles themselves the ISI would only supply a couple to a faction at one time and then only give replacements when they brought back the empty launch tubes on a like for like basis.

This was to ensure there were not lots of missiles just washing around in Afghanistan and also ensure that the fighters did actually use them, despite that some accidently passed over the border into China and Iran who studied them for their own missile programs.

Arguably the most effective weapon supplied to the Mujahideen was the 107mm rocket, the Chinese even put the single tubed variant back into production to sell to Pakistan using American money who then passed them onto the fighters.

Agree, though not because of energy recovery (not sure if that’s actually planned, since storing that much electrical energy and particularly charging the “reservoir” so quickly, will be a challenge) but because of maintenance requirements. Is DAX-II a conventional hydraulic ram system or the famous water spray based one? If it’s the latter they may well have a shot, since AAG does have water brakes as well and water spray appears to offer many of the same benefits in reducing deceleration loads on the airframe.

This is all I know about DAX-II taken from Beedles site, I would love to know more:

Landing aircraft would engage the wires of a new type of direct action water-spray arresting gear built by MacTaggart Scott, these could engage aircraft at higher speed than possible with contemporary equipment. A unique feature of the device was its ability to halt all aircraft in the same run-out distance – regardless of weight and landing speed – thus simplifying flight deck operations. The new arresting gear was about one-third the weight and half the cost of the currently standard Mk.13 arrester gear. A single DAX II (sometimes referred to as DA-2) wire was experimentally fitted to HMS Eagle during 1966, and a full set of four to HMS Ark Royal during her 1967-70 major refit (a refit instigated after the cancellation of CVA-01).

The diagram below represents the concept:

That MacTaggart Scott is still around helps significantly going British in this respect also whilst they haven’t made a new set of Arrester gear engines in many years I presume they still provided technical support for the Clemenceau class and other carriers when Ark Royal (the CATOBAR one) retired through the 80’s, 90’s and maybe even now in respect of Sao Paulo’s recent refit. So they have been able to keep their hand in when it comes to arrester gear systems.

Actually on that note I am also tempted to email MacTaggart Scott about if they intend to bid DAX-II for the CVF build.

Interesting Buitreaux whilst I have always asumed that Brazil plans to build its own carrier in the future I didn’t realise there were any plans for a three carrier build with one going to Argentina.

Of course Brazillian shipyards are expanding and the current plans for technology transfer in respect of the Frigate replacement program so moving onto a carrier is a logical next step. Is there any documentation or reports about these plans? I would be interested in viewing them.

This also has significant implications for the UK’s CVF build, if it can be shown that the South Atlantic threat environment will increase for the UK with a new Argentine carrier it gives more ammunition to the Royal Navy about retaining both carriers.

In respect of the frigate replacement program in Brazil I think the UK should offer as part of the offset if the UK got the contract with Type 26 the building of at least a couple refueling tanker hulls, it would benefit the Royal Navy at a far reduced cost and help with technology transfer in respect of large hull vessels. Finally throw in the Type 22 Batch three as a sweetner and everybody is happy!