I for one am happy to hear that the Brits may seriously consider an aircraft other than the F-35!
At $100 million a piece, I truly believe the RN has stupidly committed itself balls and all to an aircraft program which has been overly ambitious in capability and technology, whilst being unrealistic in true cost predictions and forecasts!
It’s ironic that after all these years the RN is finally going to get a larger and more versatile aircraft carrier (again), but potentially at the cost of losing its potential capability due to its one-eyed F-35 or nothing attitude!
I think that aircraft programs from here on – especially U.S programs are going to be more costly and drawn out – with more ‘terms and condition’ attached! This is what happens when only a few aerospace companies hold a monopoly (Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin)!
I for won support the Brits looking at Dassault Rafale and the US F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in place of the F-35 not as an “interim aircraft capability”, but as a substitute! But this has to be a serious consideration and not an ad hook RN & political exercise, so as to be seen to be considering other competitive designs!!

Regards
Pioneer

Ja Worsley – [the AH-2 Rooivalk] It was on offer to the Australian Army for their ARH competition, and was a leading contender untill the scandle forced the competition to start over, Denel at the time withdrew it from the second round citing that Australia wasn’t really interested in it otherwise they would have looked closer at it during the first round.

Personally I think the Rooivalk would have been a good choice for the Australian Defence Force (ADF)! The the fact that we purchased the Eurocopter Tiger, immediately negated any notion or sensibility of inter-operational capability with our two major allies – UK & USA!
I personally saw the Rooivalk put through it paces at an Avalon air show many moons ago – and was thoroughly impressed!
Talking to the flight crew and sales team, what probably sold me the most with the Rooivalk design was it’s true ability to operate in some of the harshest environments on the planet (the harshness of South Africa not being to different to the Australian outback!), for long periods of time, with minimal logistical support! Something the likes of the Tiger and Apache can not do! As a note, failing the selection of the Rooivalk by the Australian Army, I would have preferred the proposed Aussie tailored version of the A129 Mangusta over that of the Eurocopter Tiger!!

Secondly, I am somewhat surprised that the PLA/PLAAF did not cooperate with the South African’s in using the Rooivalk as the basis of their own combat helicopter!

Regards
Pioneer

And herein lies the biggest logical fallacy of all….

Argumentum ad MICC or arguments in support of ripping off American taxpayers and those of its allies.

Dwight D. Eisenhower warned his fellow Americans of the emergence and consequences of this logical fallacy in his last speech as the 34th President of the United States of America.

Pity no-one has taken heed and his message has been ignored….

…or has it?..

Agree agree agree 100%

Regards
Pioneer

As I think another switch in air group concept would put the political survival of the carrier project in jeopardy, the choice is probably rather straightforward: Rafale or Super Hornet.

Agreed Trident!!
The British Government(s) have real no idea what they want, let alone what is needed in their military – in my opinion 😡
I too think that the Super Hornet or Rafale are the only logical choice – save the whole ridiculous F-35 program!
I too do not think the British government would have the manhood to propose, let alone go it alone modifying and adapting the likes of a Sea Gripen, Seaphoon. While the likes of the MiG-29KUB and N-LCA are just fanciful 😮

Without getting political, I truly think the British as a whole, seriously need to take a look at it’s ability to play with the big boys, on the world stage! She can no longer afford it! and does not have the trade or influence in had fifty years ago.

Regards
Pioneer

Regards
Pioneer

That looks like a copy of a SM-1.

I think you are correct! Although I can find no reference to Iran operating the RIM-66/67 Standard!!
Did Iran purchase and deploy AGM-78 Standard ARM’s? – itself an adoption of the RIM-66 SAM

Well at the end of the day, apart from the Peoples Republic of China, Iran would have to be one of the greatest reverse-engineering / copier in the world these days :rolleyes:

Regards
Pioneer

Sea Control Ship (SCS)

The U.S Navy should have pursued the Sea Control Ship (SCS) concept! As time would show that the small and affordable carrier concept was both wanted and effective – By supporting and building such a cost effective light V/STOL aircraft carrier design, many other navy’s would have more than likely have pursued the purchase of the SCS design – aka Spain (Principe de Asturias), Thailand (Chakri Naruebet), the Royal Australian Navy (possible replacement for HMAS Melbourne) and the Italian Navy (possibly in place of the Giuseppe Garibaldi ), Argentina (as a replacement for Veinticinco de Mayo (V-2): Colossus class ), Brazil (as a replacement for Minas Gerais: Colossus class), India (replacement for Viraat: Centaur class),
Although granted I would have much liked to have seen a two-shaft propulsion arrangement for the US Navy’s SCS concept)

Supersonic V/STOL fighter – VFA

Complementing these cost effective SCS, would have been the fielding of the likes of the Convair Model 200 (or to a lesser extent – the Grumman Model 607 (as part of the US Navy’s VFA requirement) in the late 1970’s / early 1980 as a supersonic replacement for the Hawker-Siddeley / BAe Harrier series (and more importantly the ridiculous Rockwell XFV-12) – The fielding of such an advanced V/STOL supersonic multi role fighter-bomber would have even further enhanced the viability and capability of the Sea Control Ship principle! It would have also somewhat negated the urgency of the troubled (and very expensive) F-35B!!
In it’s CTOL (Model 201A) configurations, it could have also negated the need for the NACF (McDonnell Douglas F/A-18A/B Hornet) in the fleet fighter role.

Ship Based Heavy Gun System

I think the US Navy would have been wise to have fielded the Mk-71 8-inch (203mm) gun aboard its destroyers and cruiser, back in the 1970’s – starting with the intended Spruance Class destroyers, as up until this time so many navy’s – including predominantly the US Navy has operationally identified a strong need for a weapon larger than 100mm, 114mm and 127mm ship-based gun system!

Regards
Pioneer

Great picture of a loaded-out Eagle! But what weapons are these??

Regards
Pioneer

Well gents, I think it goes without saying that both the Greek’s and Turks have spent way to much time, energy and their country’s money building their military forces to face off with one another (as opposed to contributing to NATO!!), like they are compensating for something 😡

I think it is high time and fitting that Greece seriously consolidates its military and its military expenditure.

They can probably start by consolidating their equipment to ease what must be a logistical and operational nightmare!

These difficult financial times might also be a good opportunity for the EU to reinforce the pathetic Cyprus stand-off, which both Greece and Turkey continue to fight over like children!
But then again, as history continues to show, it is often times like this that one party might use such a thing as Cyprus as a tool to distract its peoples domestic and refocus their anger and concerns over.

Regards
Pioneer