Do the Scottish want the nuclear weapons? If not, how was it democratically decided to place them in Scotland?

So what? You are also currently British, you are represented in our national parliament meaning nuclear weapons are not being imposed on Scotland. It was a national decision. Personally I think they should have been placed in the South West but that is immaterial, until a referendum that goes for independence you are still part of the family and defence is a national decision.

No the SNP totally hates nuclear weapons, you only have to watch footage of their conference. Joining NATO is nothing to do with giving tacit support for nuclear weapons. It is all about making the idea of independence sound less scary for the Scottish public, it is exactly the same with other issues. They don’t really want to keep the pound or the Queen but will say otherwise for the referendum.

It is politics.

In the end whilst it is no secret here that I support CASD via Trident I also feel this is a decision for the whole nation. A decision to retain or remove our nuclear capability should be made by all of us via our elected parliament in Westminster or a national referendum. If parliament or the nation via a referendum decide to drop our nuclear deterrent whilst I will be personally unhappy I would nevertheless respect the will of the nation. On the other hand I highly resent the SNP (and their CND cheerleaders) via a referendum of only the Scottish population of this nation effectively dictating what should be a national decision.

In the end the cost of the Osprey plus an only a moderate performance advantage over a helicopter based solution is the main barrier for non catapult carrier nations.

Remember the Osprey isn’t pressurised so it can’t particularly take advantage of an increased altitude, the main advantage it has is its speed allowing a faster transit to station and I presume an increased endurance/payload capability. Considering only the US operate the type any nation wanting it have to stump up the cost to integrate into service. Is that worth it over adapting an already in service medium to heavy helicopter?

Look Freddy, you keep posting articles to support your point that the F313 is some form of budget suicide WIG but those articles are from disparate sources and make no reference to the Iranians. You are seeing correlation but forgetting that doesn’t mean causation, unless those articles directly reference Iranian aerospace developments they are not relevant.

The F313 is a laughable mock up and it is starting to leak out now that heads have rolled in Iran over it. It is not a WIG, if you can post an article citing Iranian developments in the area we can review that, until then you are frankly wasting our time.

Hmmm I wouldn’t say the Vikramaditya will be little better in capability then Viraat but to be honest we are splitting hairs here, the ship is hardly a stellar example of wise procurement. I would also say that it meets the core need for an INS Viraat replacement so I don’t think saying:

Vik doesnt meet IN needs

is entirely fair Jonesy. They have sunk the money now so they had better make best use of it, I think it will be interesting how the INS Vikramaditya and her airgroup will operate with the new P8I Poseidon.

Anyhow, in respect of Steam Plant demanding data JSR is a bit silly. It is a well established fact within marine engineering that steam propulsion is more expensive to maintain and operate. Even the last bastion of steam propulsion in the civilian world LNG carriers are starting to move away from that form of propulsion. It is getting very difficult to find suitable trained people to maintain steam plant, the engineering watch keeping for a Gas turbine ship is 25% that of a Steam powered vessel. Here is a book for you to read, a bit old JSR but it has all the key data about steam plant vs gas turbines…even some nice equations to sink some numbers into if you are so inclined.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CYTATdjKCAgC&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=steam+vs+gas+turbine+propulsion++cost&source=bl&ots=249Z1UMxD4&sig=Rzz-YqjSPrdD5YoYAyVCsS32tLs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Sg2OUrOQEI_J0AWRtYGQAg&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=steam%20vs%20gas%20turbine%20propulsion%20%20cost&f=false

I have a hunch that the US Naval Institute knows slightly more then you JSR about the details of marine propulsion :very_drunk:

I have come across a few RAF cargo/refuelling types who are of the opinion that we should of adopted the KC-135 (RR Conway powered then re-engined to CFM56), it would of been very handy in a number of situations. For example Black Buck would of been far easier with the KC-135 vs the Victor.

Imagine this picture with the tanker carrying RAF markings:

The Americans have deep pocket, whilst it caused consternation when first announced I think this is a very happy solution that offers significant possibilities and cost savings. The Americans were apparently VERY interested in what project HELIX offered so now we are part of the Rivet Joint program there is a good chance those capabilities will find their way onto Rivet Joint/Airseeker.

The electronics inside the RC-135 are rather hot, the gloss white upper helps maintain internal temperatures at a reasonable level. A different colour would involve certifying it and that costs money that could be better spent elsewhere. The Daily Fail tried to raise a stink over it but frankly it is a very good idea to stick to the US colours, they look very nice and similar to the old transport command colours. Also as pointed out the letter font is proper and not the PR type driven mess that the rest of the fleet has to suffer.

Frankly ZZ664 looks really handsome in the grey white gloss IMHO.