It should be pointed out (yet again) that RAF personnel both pilots and maintainers will deploy onto the carriers to skill transfer and act as a training basis in the event of a crisis surge. This is also done to avoid the problems that Jonesy alludes to in respect of understanding naval procedures, there just isn’t the need to keep them constantly training for that possibility.

A QE carrier in a go to war scenario will carry a mixed airgroup more then likely incorporating personnel and aircraft from all three services. There has been lots of work the last decade upskilling the Army and RAF into the Carrier environment.

In many ways this placard revealed when the second Island was lifted onto QE sums up the planned operational nature of the class:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/qeclasscarriers/9156955821/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/qeclasscarriers/9156955613/in/photostream/

(As a side note when it comes to petty inter-service rivalry it was the Army that ran an office for a number of years with a number of officers sole employed to release negative press reports about the QE class and how it should be dropped, have a think about that when you consider the usual RAF vs Navy shenanigans!)

Indeed it has, for cost reasons the F-35B will be pooled at the same base. The main carriers operation skill set will sit with the small cadre of FAA pilots, in peace time it will be unusual to see more then six F-35B on a carrier anyway. The larger pool of RAF pilots will focus on land operations, they will occasionally run off the Ski Jump at the base and use the Simulator to practice carrier type landings. When the FAA deploy to a carrier for training there will be more then likely a few RAF maintainers and a couple of pilots to allow them to work in the at sea system of carrier operations. In the event of a war the RAF pilots are the surge capability for the carriers, considering even with the far higher work load of the Harrier it was little to no problem getting RAF pilots cleared for carrier operations I don’t see what the issue is. The quality of modern synthetic training aids like simulators are vastly superior and the experience of landing an F-35B is so easy they can even get Journalists with no flight experience to do it with a minimum amount of practice.

As pointed out over and over again the UK can’t afford a permanent carrier based strike group what we are doing as was done with Joint Force Harrier is have enough skills retained to be able to surge in the event of a crisis!

I don’t think China ever has put the J-10 for export sale aside from the engine issue production has been solidly for local consumption. China has had a huge amount of aircraft to replace and the J-10 has become the backbone of that process. The only noises about exports have come out of Pakistan and they appear to have stepped back from the idea for budgetary reasons (I also think the availability of the J-31 with a common power-plant to JF-17 has helped that along as well).

I vaguely remember the Argentine airforce had an issue with belly intakes due to the greater risk of FOD at some of their more remote airbases.

I would say J-10 production is pretty much solidly geared up to Satisfy Chinese needs as it stands. Once they can mass produce WS-10 at a level which can allow exports then maybe that will change.

The E-2C was procured by the Mexican Navy not the Army Air Force. Very shortly after the Mexican Navy tried to buy the Su-27 or Gripen but it was perceived as a power grab by the Army who threw all their toys out of the pram then as already mentioned the idea was quashed by the government.

If it is so then this is the most rational development I have seen in recent years. In the short term the F-1 can act as a stop gap whilst they build up to the FC-1 which is as far as I see it ideal for Argentina. Presumably the first few would be built in China followed by CKD production and finally partial local build of sub assemblies and systems not too dissimilar to what Pakistan have done. The FC-1 is a multirole BVR capable fighter with a useful range of different munitions integrated from AtoA, AtoG and ASuW. Partnered up with their KC-390 it represents an affordable and credible modernisation of their airforce. Adopting the multirole FC-1 has the advantage of allowing the Argentine airforce to draw down to a two jet only fast jet force of Pampa and FC-1 reducing maintenance and operation costs significantly. If the Argentine Navy could be persuaded to give up its silly dream of continued carrier operation the SuE could be retired as well in favour of the FC-1 which has a perfectly credible anti ship capability. The navy could operate the same jet in a common pool ironically not that dissimilar to what the UK plans to do with its F-35B force.

I have a hunch that recent years of very low serviceability of their Mirage-III variants has finally woken the Argentine Air Force up to the fact that they can’t be too picky.

Errr no JSR those countries had a rather wide set of choices except the UK for obvious domestic political reasons. Neither India or Saudi Arabia are under sanctions and every aircraft manufacturer that sells a modern training jet has proffered a solution to them. If you remember Mikoyan were highly put out that the Mig-AT was not selected by India.

That statement is odd even for you considering your predilection for anything made by Mikoyan that the Mig-At was heavily pushed as a solution for India and Russia clearly not having any sanctions on one of their largest customers. I am not even wasting time debating the Hawk airframe with you.

No MSphere the job of a LIFT is not to simulate the handling characteristics of late generation fighters and whilst the term as you know causes my teeth to grate Hawk has been acting as an excellent LIFT for the US defined 4th Generation since the 1980’s. It is acting as a LIFT for Typhoon, Gripen and Super Hornet now. The plan is to use it as a LIFT for F-35 and hopefully F-22 in the Future. I certainly wouldn’t say it is cutting edge in an airframe sense but as I pointed out that has its advantages on a cost and maintenance basis. Its avionics and glass cockpit certainly are state of the art and it is proven to be adequate for the role. I am of the opinion that BAE Systems should be thinking about a Hawk T3 but as the current variant is still a sales success I can’t see them rushing.

A LIFT as I went into fairly deeply a couple of posts ago is to simulate the workload not the exact handling characteristics. Hawk is arguably one of the best trainers in the world performing that role. Once a trainee has proven they can handle what is a significant workload operating a jet and flying tactically (it is not just about the pure mechanics of flight you see – there is navigation and flying in a tactical sense to learn) then they proceed to an OCU along with plenty of simulator time and convert to type experiencing the more aggressive handling characteristics of a high end fast jet. It should be also noted that the latest generation is designed with a safe flight envelope bestowing surprisingly benign handling characteristics.

Of course being British I am biased (living fairly close to where it is built also helps – 😉 ) but the idea that Hawk is not a valid LIFT anymore when it is more then admirably performing that task now based on the idea that “it is old so it must be inferior” does grate after a while. Also as I briefly alluded to the syllabus has a significant part to play as well! When India eventually stumped the money up and brought Hawk they started to send new students to Valley in the interim to train on the Hawk T1. The Indian Airforce found that due to the quality of the Syllabus even with Hawk T1 and its steam driven cockpit and fatigue restricted flight envelope produced qualified pilots of a quality that they could pass directly to the Su-30MKI OCU. In the past they would of been assigned to a more benign type like Jaguar before they would be risked with an aircraft with such an aggressive performance regime.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/india-satisfied-with-hawk-training-207824/