I think the RN got out of the SSK business because they take too long to get anywhere outside home waters, & the RN decided that it’d rather have another sub or two capable of being used worldwide, than a bunch of NE Atlantic only subs, which would be unlikely to do anything except exercises. Since the demise of the Warsaw Pact, I think we don’t really have a role for SSKs. Note that the French made the same decision.

The RANs subs are for blue water and brown water ops in their immediate neighbourhood. It’s a pretty big neighbourhood, hence the big SSKs, but they don’t need something that can sail to somewhere on the other side of the world at high speed, & without having to tell everyone where it is by refuelling. Same for Japan (the other user of big SSKs), plus their aversion to nuclear-powered ships. They want regional subs, not world subs.

Well lets just agree to disagree:D

I think the RN should have kept them they certainly found use for them prior to getting rid of them and they certainly could have a place now.

Please don’t make statements you clearly know nothing about…

Here’s a test flight prototype being converted into a display outside CAC headquarters. Look at the armaments. That’s a JSAW type glide munition.
BTW dropping GPS guided munition does not make a plane 4.5 gen. The fact that J-10 can be used as bomb truck and wild weasel roles is much more important.

LCA being a light fighter has limited capacity to carry munitions. My question is how multi role it is in practice. Why go multi role on a point defense fighter?

The bomb fitted with a precision glide kit is a conventional 500kg munition with a LS-6 range extension package.

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/weapon/ls6.asp

Just a silly thought, and going in a slight off topic direction….Do Airbus build Boom recepticles?

If the A400M was to have a Boom recepticle then this might encourage the RAF to look at having a Boom fitted to their MRTTs. Having a fleet of 30 odd receivers rather than just the 7 or 8 C17s.

It wouldn’t do any harm to the A400M in terms of competing for C130J or even C17 orders from other Boom users.

Well considering the a330 MRTT for Australia are fitted with a recepticle I would say yes.

On another note we mustn’t forget the RAF E3D Sentry AWACS which are fitted with a recepticle as well as a probe and not only use it but actually prefer tanking off the boom. So thats 8 AWACS as well that can use it and of course the advantage of operating with coalition aircraft. For the minor cost of fitting it and training some crew (not all) it offers too many advantages. Also if we needed more tankers in the future we can quickly take them off the American line.

As for the RAF lease…

Its certainly crazy in all respects.

Also I think we should be buying our tankers with the boom as well it offers a handy capability which we lack at the moment.

Digital Camo makes sense on fast attack craft and (very) small corvettes that operate close into the coast. The whole concept is to move quickly out of the radar clutter of the coast lob off some anti ship missiles and quickly fade away, this kind of mission profile means they will operate within visual range of their prey so anything to make them harder to see will help.

Anything larger that operates in open seas then frankly it isn’t worth the effort. The main issue is to reduce their radar and IR footprint and digital camo isn’t going to help that. Also its far cheaper to slap on and maintain some plain grey paint on a large vessel.

Well they have been marketing such a system:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dQgSxpy5Wyw

Could be a variation on this set up.

RIP
also bad news for MAPO

Don’t think it would make any difference to MAPO.

There problem is the perception that they can’t meet orders and the power of Sukhoi at the moment.