Now why would the Swede’s go and build a plane to take of from an aircraft carrier. Do they seriously think there are buyers out there? They cant sell to the Chinese. The only potential buyers out there are the Indian’s and the Brazilian’s. The Brazilian’s seem to be going the Rafale way(anyway the Foch isnt go to be around for to long). The Indian’s are looking for aircraft other than the Mig-29k’s but they would more likely go in for the F-35 or the Rafale or a variant of the PAK-FA. What do the Swede’s hope to prove with this plane. Unless they win the Indian MMRCA competition(which would open the doors for carrier capable planes for the Indian navy) there dont have a chance in timbactoo of getting a customer 🙂

Alternate for F-35B customers with small carriers ( which granted would need fairly extensive reconstruction) i.e. Spain, brazil, India, Italy and Briton. if the f-35 turns out to be a pig like many speculate why not! like I say its about time somebody competed with boeingmart (see what i did there :rolleyes:

we use the lightning pods on our hornets, the sh irst in the center fuel tank is for carrier landings and to free up a pilon
i would have to google to see whether we are going to use a pod or go with the tank
as per the usn, the sh block 11 has twice the capability as a block 1 and 3 times the capability of a 18c+
im only a pleb but i’d rate the rafale close to a sh block 1 with its current radar etc
as soon as france can put decent radar and weapons on the rafale, it will give it much more capability, dont you think,
if it gets brazil and uae, in 5 years time it will be a totally different plane, heck it may even be more capable that a sh

I don’t no where you got these idea from! ok the SH has a AESA radar and a wider range of weapons, but the rafale from everything I have read beats the SH hands down in terms of performance with greater range, rate of climb and thrust to weight ratio and will almost certainly be the more agile! and with a AESA radar lurking over the horizon in what world is the super hornet a better plane?

because there isn’t enough troops in theatre to keep the ground they have taken. but we cannot or will not send enough to do the job properly.

What points have not been answered pray tell?

lol thanks swerve! i knew it was sumthing like tht!

Lord redreidy,

The pointer is towards rationalisation of cost vs the weapon system that is getting fielded. I would be obliged if someone could list of the British priorities. Some time back (couple of decades and before), Britain was an important center for finance, trade etc. It is not as important now. There were many other merits worth protecting. I am not suggesting if you should and should not protect yourself or arm yourself with Russian Weapons. What value Falklands have when you have meekly surrendered Hong Kong (of better value)? I am trying to debate figuratively. All i am trying to elicit is why does UK needs all these weapons. What war you are practicing for future?

Pray, tell me where do you intend to use your SSBN’s.

well one would argue that the main point of a SSBN force is not to use them. the point in acquiring them was to deter nuclear warfare aimed at the uk and other nato nations by assuring mutual destruction. some argue this is no longer a issue, but would it be better to maintain this ability for a time it may be needed again or lose it and be found wanting when the time arrives? also having the nuclear card can bring you to the top table in the diplomatic world and force certain nations to respect you as a major power! as for SSBN’s im sure no one would argue that these are the most effective form of nuclear delivery. In a ideal world no one would have the big bombs but if one nation did I would want mine to have it to!

I was under the impression that London is still a huge financial centre as far as I am aware there can be more than one in the world. I am no economist but I am pretty sure there are more than enough reason for Briton to maintain a ability to protect herself. things like north sea oil, channel shipping lane, British overseas territories, NATO, UN and EU duties and overseer’s operations seem to be enough reason to me to maintain the strength of the British armed forces. plus planes ships and tanks are cool :D! but beside that im not suggest we should go looking for a war but war sometimes jumps out of no where I don’t think any 1 foresaw either world war 10 year preceding them.

as for the Falklands vs. Hong Kong argument I believe the difference there is that the people of the Falklands wishes to remain British citizens and we will defend the right for them to be so, also threes the long standing speculation of oil in the region. As for Hong Kong I have extremely limited knowledge on the subject . Did we not leased it or sum thing along those lines and beside I believe the people wanted to be part of china.

BTW imp not totally against buying cheaper I think in a ideal world I would be buying a high low mix of fast jets for the RAF, but hey this probably will not happen and besides the Euro fighter is a more than capable jet. in my opinion the best all round in the world and in the current climate, where it looks like we will have a single type fast jet air force, personally I am glad it is the Euro fighter not the SU-27 or any of its variants

I would say the tiffy is a complete air to air fighter rather than just a interceptor. and has the attributes to contest in all area’s