Some conspiracy nuts were trying to tell me this was a missile. I didn’t believe their conspiracy theories. I though I saw the faint outline of wings and a tail, the shadow, and ghost image seemed to verify and the scale seemed to be of an airliner.

It’s surprising how many people will fail color separation tests of similar difficulty to spotting the wing and tail outlines against the cluttered background in the original pic.
Most people have not taken these tests and so they do not know of this very slight deficiency, so you will have a hard time convincing them that what they cannot see is actually there. Although not 100% applicable in this instance, this page shows what I mean: http://www.toledo-bend.com/colorblind/Ishihara.html

Apparently certain MPs didn’t like the fact that the missile had been used to kill various terrorists and accidently various innocent people who happened to be near by.

“”Since the armored threat was eradicated, Javelin has seen extensive use against alternate targets such as buildings, bunkers and light armored vehicles,” added Howard Weaver, Javelin JV vice president. “We have received strong user testimonials on how important Javelin was in the recapture of Fallujah from insurgents.”

http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_news/pressreleases/05pressrelease/052505_Javelin.htm

*Shrug.*

Some time ago I found a design of a CTOL Conte di Cavour and a ADS with very much Fincantieri design.
I would very much like some 25.000 ts carries like BSAC 220 (designed by Bazan some ten years ago)with Gripen-Na but I am afraid we will never see that.
Here is the CTOL Andrea Doria and the Fincantieri ADS

Thanks a lot, that CTOL Cavour design was very nice.

Actually I seem have been wrong on that. While the project is listed among NOBLE’s abandoned projects, I missed a line in the mil.no document that says the project was handed over to the Navy and Army SOCOMs in 2004. If it is now a strictly SOCOM project it would also explain why mil.no doesn’t seem to have any info on recent developments.

These bits from the NATO project white paper (dating june 2003) seem to indicate that they had hoped on a NATO collab in order to make a multi-service solution for CAS helicopters and jets, attack boats and ground troops. (The CRV7 pod fits on existing Hellfire ground launchers from KDA Protec.) As we know from this thread, this collab obviously didn’t happen.

3.4 Potential for collaboration
As outlined above several nations are looking for similar capabilities, and some have already started talks in order to find ways to develop LCPK. The potential for cooperation should be very high, and the benefits from this could improve the solutions at lower cost, and also lead to interoperable tactics & concepts. A NATO led CDE project on LCPK could avoid duplication of effort and facilitate synergy between participating entities.

4.5 General outline of type and level of support for each contributor
NOBLE and Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace have both the financial and the technology needed to fulfill the project with the basic CRV-7 versions.

In the role as an air to ground missile fired from helicopters, the project needs support in creating a tactical concept, as well as carrying out experimentation. The Norwegian Armed Forces are not in possession of armed helicopters.

Support from other nations will also be needed for further exploration within the other potential development areas (seeker/platform/munitions).

4.6 Contingent fallback if support reduced
Due to the minimum support needed from the initial part of the project, the fallback would be negligible if any support is reduced. But the air-to-ground role from helicopters will depend on support. If such support is reduced, NOBLE will recommend changing the priority to the Army and Navy, using the missile in surface-to-surface role.

4.4 Timelines
Phase 3 from November 2003 and out 2004 may include industrialization of the first versions. Simultaneously it may include development and integration of other seekers and platforms. Development of LCPK capability in alternative types of munitions in cooperation with other nations could also have a significant potential for a continued LCPK project.

4.7 General outline of cost
Phase 2, development of laser and GPS seeker, including live firing tests of five laser and four GPS guided missiles costs approx US$ 2.000.000.
Phase 3, industrialization will cost approx US$ 2.140.000.

Based on a production line of 2000 missiles the cost is stipulated to be $ 10.000 each.

http://www.act.nato.int/transformation/cde/white%20papers/lcpk.doc

Apparently there are only 10 team members in the NOBLE lab so I would hazard a guess that their role in the chain is to be a think-tank and hand over larger projects to larger organs once the concept and initial testing is done. I’m not in the “know” so your guess is as good as mine.

http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00041/LCPK_Avfyring_41857a.mpg

Here’s a video of a CRV7 with a LCPK guidance kit being fired from a light terrain vehicle. The seeker head was planned to combine a laser seeker and and a GPS-jammer seeker. Both seeker methods were successfully test fired by 2004.

It was a norwegian project dating from 2002 to enhance old stocks of various NATO dumb rockets and they were also thinking of making kits for 122mm rockets in use with eastern european NATO members. Abandoned in 2005.

http://www.act.nato.int/transformation/cde/white%20papers/lcpk.doc
http://www.mil.no/start/aktuelt/nyheter/article.jhtml?articleID=73881

From http://navy-matters.beedall.com/

Update 17/6/2006. A report by Robert Fox in the Evening Standard of 12 June 2006, stated:

Under next year’s Comprehensive Spending Review, the Treasury has warned that the defence budget will have to be cut, threatening a number of major projects including plans to build two aircraft carriers.

Chancellor Gordon Brown also wants £1bn taken from defence and given to the budget for homeland security, according to Whitehall officials.

‘It is a major defence review and cut under any other name” said a senior official of next year’s spending plans, which have already completed their first stage.

…. Ahead of the spending review to April 2008, defence chiefs have already been told that ‘at least one major procurement programme has to go’. The most obvious candidate, say several senior officers, is the plan to build two 60,000-tonne aircraft carriers, due to be commissioned in 2012 and 2015.

… Labour’s blueprint for defence and foreign policy in the Strategic Defence Review of 1998 first introduced the plan to build the aircraft carriers as a vital tool for overseas operations. The programme was due to go to final construction contract in October but this will almost certainly be postponed.

Sorry I didn’t mean that you should keep it totally clean of ground forces and their influence (the need for ground attack as you say), but it’s an aviation forum and I just wanted to have the main focus (not necessarily all focus) on the airforce and navy issues – differences in R&D, force compositions etc.

No offense taken. I think you will find the total amount you quote includes the extras that Totoro was describing.

Aye you are very most likely right, apologies. I said flyaway cost in my post because I figured Burbage would use as low cost as possible when talking to the press.

I see now that it would have been stupid of him to do that as the full programme cost will be made public when the defense budget for the procurement year is presented – would not be nice to have an old newspaper article come back and bite you with a “L-M boss lied about price” headline – so yes he is most likely talking about the full package cost.