I believe Rheinmetal but not sure

Indeed your right, just checked the Rheinmetall website and there it is in the simulators section.

Didn’t know they were in that market.

Removed as part of the modification, the mods to the centre wing are too major for it to be reversed.

But for static display couldn’t the mods be bodged over?

BTW, what is it exactly that prevents Rafale from being launched off a STOBAR-type carrier? Insufficient T/W?

Nothing at all but it would seriously reduce payload.

Like the RN and CVF/F35B combo the Indian navy is another ideal customer for the MV-22 tilt rota with the single point tanker pallet that is in development for the type.

The MV-22 can get off the deck first carrying the fuel then the Mig29 can take off with a light fuel load meet up with the Osprey and take on fuel, the same goes for the RN F35B.

Not wishing to dig up old stories but the loss of a fast air capability in New Zealand is an interesting subject. Whilst the F16 is a great aircraft and a good choice for any airforce it was just too big a pill to swallow politically in country like NZ. I think there were many other types that would of been easier to accept and given good capability, in the end does NZ need a supersonic air superiority fighter (even the multi roll F16). It needed an aircraft that can support the army and navy with a basic air to air capability. For me the ideal choice would of been the Aero L159A ALCA. It is cleared for pretty much every weapon carried by the A4K Skyhawk then in service meaning they could of avoided having to go for an expensive new weapons package, it has a useful air to air capability with its Grifo-F radar and Sidewinder. Finally the Czech airforce had and still do have plenty of spare airframes that they would have sold at a song. They could also of had a few converted to L159T1 two seaters to replace the aermacchi.

You know as you are on my ignore list what ever petty rant you have just typed out is pointless….

Ho hum.

I doubt that much has been spent, nothing was ever ordered. Most of the developed sub-systems will go into the Warrior and FRES Scout.

How dare you suggest that I ‘don’t know the honoured names and the history of ships like Hermes or Ark Royal’.:mad:

In response it seems that you do not know anything of Royal Navy history beyond aircraft carriers. Those built thus far have not been named as capital vessels. CVF is a capital vessel and should be named as such thus the names are appropriate.

Well I’m not going to bother with argument.

Firstly plenty of money was spent on FRES as a program up to this point.

Secondly if no carrier was a capital vessel up to this point then there should be no issue with using a non monarch based name now. Finally its very easy to say another poster knows nothing and you certainly don’t like it when someone suggests it of you! I certainly am well versed in RN history and I suggest that you show a greater degree of humility. YOU WERE very happy to call ME a PETTY REPUBLICAN for just EXPRESSING AN OPINION!

All I can say is GROW UP!

CVF’s pushed back 1-2 years

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3860143&c=EUR&s=LAN

In a second change in naval procurement plans, Hutton announced that the MARS program to build a fleet of new tankers for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary have been deferred while the MoD looks at alternatives.
BAE, along with design partners BMT Defence Services and the South Korean yard Daewoo Shipbuilding, had been competing with overseas yards to build a new fleet of tankers…

I don’t like the look of that part…looks worryingly like yet another thing which is going to be put out to tender in a stupid wasteful PFI contract just to keep the initial capital spend off the books!

The fact is the government have utterly wrecked our armed forces over the last ten years…rather then the steady drumbeat of orders for all three services instead we have delay and deferment until its cancelled, transferred to PFI or purchased in smaller numbers at an increased cost….Or even worse the capability just taken away without replacement!:mad: Remember the report that stated the minimum number of AAW destroyers in the fleet should be 12! FRES has now been cancelled….what an utter waste of time and money!

On another note I was never happy with the chosen CVF names felt like a political choice to me. Queen Elizabeth II and Prince of Wales? We have far better historical carrier names. I would of preferred the first of class being called Hermes and the second in class Ark Royal to ensure the name is kept in the fleet in time for the current Arks out of service with any Ocean replacement being called either Eagle or Invincible again to keep that name in the fleet.

Entirely possible, but these may be hard to come by based on the strength of the Chinese shipbuilding industry. The delays that current Russian surface programmes are experiencing (and these are not exactly ambitious units) shows the problems they are having.

Yeah more then possible that there will be some non domestic workers at the yard. I would think Chinese workers would be less likely, Chinese ship yards are flat out at the moment pumping out civilian and military ships meaning plenty of work.