EdLawIt is not just ruble/dollar exchange of past four years but tremendous wage growth in Russia that went against that fixed price contract of Gorskov.
You actually hit the nail on the head. The deal was a fixed price contract – when these go over budget, the supplier must take the hit on the overruns. Fixed price deals are a risky business for the seller, since the risk lies with the seller, not the buyer, but can be an attractive option for some governments. The point is that Russia made an offer to India, and now, despite the fixed price contract, demands more money. If Russia didn’t want to make a fixed price offer, then it shouldn’t have made it.
EdLawThere are some very simple truths here:
– $1.5bn for an interim carrier, including airwing, was very attractive, and it came with an attractive timetable.
– That deal is no longer what the IN are getting, and the carrier will now not be able to serve as an interim carrier.
– The Russians have upset the Indians over the deal.
– The MMRCA contest is a very big deal, and the Indian government might not be so keen to award it to the Russians, who seem to have been taking advantage of Indian customer loyalty.
– The American choices in MMRCA face problems of history, not just of sanctions, but also, importantly, the long standing American relationship with Pakistan.
In terms of carriers, it is probably true that buying a brand new European-built carrier would have been more expensive. This is also not the point, since a new build carrier would be able to serve for 50 years or so, and therefore is a very different proposition to a refurbished old carrier. In hindsight, the Indians would probably have been better combining the Project 71 carrier program with this carrier deal, and buying a semi off the shelf carrier design from Europe. They could have bought a conventional CdG design, probably for around $2.5bn, and done a deal on some naval Rafales. This would be more expensive, but have provided a new carrier, and one with total commonality with the new carriers building in India.
EdLawI agree entirely with Sealord, the capability/cost margin favours the more capable CTOL arrangement, given the relatively minor cost difference. I would just like to point out, however, that at no time have I contended that the carriers should be given C-13 steam cats. I have consistently supported the use of EMALS, even if it means giving that program a kick up the backside to speed it up. Given the likely delivery schedule of F-35s, it is unlikely that we would end up with much of a gap between F-35s reaching readiness and EMALS-equipped carriers entering service.
As for the F-35B for the US Marines, I agree wholeheartedly, it represents a massive boost in capability. The potential to field a two CVN & two LHA fleet, with a total of around 150 aircraft (48 fighters on each CVN, 24 on the LHAs) is pretty attractive, and given the ability to surge up to six carriers, this could allow for 450 aircraft to be surged! This may not be a day-to-day requirement, but when push comes to shove, the ability to surge deploy one of the largest air forces in the world is worth a lot!
In terms of UCAVs, I don’t see them as a replacement for F-35s at all, but rather as an accompaniment for them. For the UK, they are likely to be the only way the carriers are going to get a full airwing.
EdLawThe whole point of the reverse angle deck is to minimise overhangs, which reduces the deck pitching a lot. As it is, this ship would be stable enough for normal ops, just look at other carriers that operated successfully in the N. Atlantic.
As for the airwing, the mix is unlikely to be 10 S-2s and 10 F-18s, more likely four Trackers, twelve to sixteen Hornets, and a couple of Sea Kings. This size of ship should be able to accomodate a better airwing than something like the British Invincible class. For ASW, I would rather have a mix of heavily upgraded S-2 Trackers and Sea Kings, than just Sea Kings. The Trackers allow long duration surveillance, and then once you’ve picked up a target, then you bring in the Sea Kings to use their dipping sonars. In the pure ASW role, these carriers could carry a dozen Trackers and a dozen Sea Kings easily. In the strike role, they could carry up to about twenty Hornets – in some senses, they are the natural replacement for the old Colossus class carriers.
EdLawThe problem is that the radar-equipped (and BVR capable) AV-8B+ wasn’t available in this timeframe. You would be talking the basic Sea Harrier, with just a basic radar, and no BVR capability. In contrast, these ships, due to the deck arrangement, would be able to operate Hornets or possibly Phantoms, and thus would be very useful ships. If I were given a choice between having BVR-capable Hornets, or basic non-BVR Sea Harrier FRS-1s, then I think you know which I would choose! :diablo:
EdLawIn a sense it is sad that Dassault withdrew the Mirage 2000 from the MMRCA contest – it might have been nice to see India going into a joint Franco-Indian partnership. LCA could have been an M-88 powered Mirage-esque Delta, complementing more Mirage 2000s in the fighter and strike roles. Then for the newer generation type, the Rafale would be bought, all built under license in India. The Indian Navy would then have bought a conventionally powered CdG derivative, and Rafales. Potentially all these aircraft could even have used a common radar model, though in different sizes. From what I have heard, the IAF were very pleased with their M2000s, and very high reliability rates, especially compared to many of the Russian types.
EdLawIt’s probably just a chartered transport, flying cargo out to either Iraq or Afghanistan.
EdLawThere are limits on the V-22, such as radar size (which would basically have to be lowered from the ramp, as dorsal fitting was shown not to be pracitcal), endurance and altitude. The Hawkeye can stay aloft for many hours, carrying a relatively large radar, and at a good altitude. Don’t get me wrong, I am beginning to actually like the V-22, after years of problems, but the Hawkeye represents the lowest risk, and offers the greatest capability. The Searchwater-V-22 combo does come a close second in terms of desirability, but isn’t going to be cheap either (the airframe is at least $80m bare, and probably twice or three times that fully equipped with the radar systems).
EdLawScoots,
Thing is though Scoots, as I’ve alluded to, supporting amphibs and breaking other peoples stuff ashore in distant and exotic lands is all anyones carriers are going to achieve for the forseeable future.
Unfortunately, the operative word in this case is distant – most targets being hit ashore are quite a way inshore. As has been shown time and time again, carriers need to be held a safe distance offshore, in order to avoid being targetted by anti-shipping missiles, and avoid running into minefields, as well as the obvious air threats. In fact, that is one of the reasons for the US Navy switching away from conventional landing craft for amphibious operations – it is simply too risky to sit a large amphib a few miles offshore. These carriers are being bought for the purpose of force projection, and this means having the ability to strike targets hundreds of miles inland, or at long ranges over sea.
Lets face it – after another couple of decades solid-state DEW’s could’ve rendered manned strike aircraft completely obsolete. So what we’re doing is spending the least amount we possibly can for the vessels our current mission requires. Then we’re building in the capability for it to evolve in whatever direction the technology takes us at the halfway point of the carriers lifespan. Good conservative engineering if you ask me!.
The problem is that this sort of projection has been made since at least the ’50s, and certainly seems rather unlikely in the next 30 years or so. The ships, if built in CTOL configuration, are perfectly capable of operating the next generation of unmanned strike aircraft, which are highly unlikely to be STOVL. The simple fact is that todays missions dictate a set of requirements, and building the carriers to the cheapest possible configuration, at the cost of operational capability today, is not always wise. The UK is currently engaged in the GWoT (however much some people complain about it), and this means having the ability to project power around the world; this is not a far off requirement for tomorrow, but a requirement for today.
[QUOTE] Simply what we’re building with CVF is precisely tailored to what we expect to be using them for. That is, primarily, projecting tactical air power in support of ground forces ashore with secondary, simultaneous if necessary, roles of amphibious warfare element deployment and fleet ASW. [QUOTE]
Actually, the carriers are intended for power projection, with a secondary role of providing close support. The Harriers have been basically crippled when it came to the former, hence had to focus on the latter, but the new carriers are intended to redress the balance. The amphibious element deployment is going to be dictated by availability of Ocean and Ark Royal, which are intended to be responsible for carrying the amphib element; it is not intended to be a normal role for the new carriers. As for fleet ASW, this is not one of the major duties of the carriers, certainly not unless there is a sudden resurgence in the submarine threat.
To accomplish this task in the most economical way STOVL is an obvious choice as it dispenses with the recurring shipboard costs of CATOBAR ops, it obviates the cat-trap limits on the embarked aircraft and it fits in to the existing UK forces JFH training and deployment structure (however ill-advised it may be).
This is the problem though, the carriers are not intended to simply be replacements for the Invincible class, otherwise they would be in the same sort of size class as the Cavour class. The simple fact is that the new carriers are intended to re-introduce proper strike carrier capability, something lost since the last of the proper CTOL carriers left service. There are obviously problems associated with conventional carrier ops, but that is not a reason to put severe limits on the capability of the new carriers. Joint Force Harrier has been a way of addressing a desire to shrink the Harrier force, and allowed RAF and RN units to be reduced in number and size. It was a political expedient, nothing more, nothing less.
If, by the time other nations have developed broader aspect threat systems, and the UK’s Carrier Strike program is found to be in need of re-optimising, into a more traditional fleet carrier role, then the design is already setup to accept EMALS type gear and can be readily converted as such. At that point the ‘larger than necessary’ layout pays dividends as it allows for an uncompromised shift to full CVA ops.
The problem with that is that the carriers will only be fully operational in in the latter half of next decade. As it is, many nations around the world are getting Flankers, and high speed anti-shipping missiles; this means that the threat to the carriers is very real now, let alone ten years from now. The carriers are supposed to be fleet carriers, that is one of the reasons they are being bought, because the Invincible class has consistantly been found lacking in capability. Since the aircraft aren’t going to be ready in any decent numbers until around 2015, and nor are the ships themselves, and EMALS is targetted at about 2013 or so anyway, it would make sense to go down that route right from the start. There is no point buying the carriers in one configuration, and then having to alter them soon after, rather than simply building them in the most capable configuration.
…and that means that we’ve immediately saved all the money that would gone on fitting auxilliary steam plant, hundreds of miles of pipes, valves etc, personel, maintainance, training, attrition replacement, airframe fatigue etc.
You are missing my point, there should be no need to fit them with steam plants, piping and other steam cat gear. The EMALS program has been going for a few years, and is only slowed by the fact that the US Navy doesn’t need it at the moment. The current US Navy carrier build roadmap allows the EMALS to be slowly developed, apart from anything else because of their use of nuclear plants, thus steam cats aren’t as much of an issue.
With the only additional expenditure being perhaps the investment into MASC UAV’s (that we will require for conventional ISTAR anyway) and perhaps a few quid thrown at V-22 to see if we can get some form of ASaC replacement out of it!. Which, anyway you cut it, is £x00 million in savings over the years that we can use on much more critical requirements.
I agree about the use of UAVs for ISTAR, but they have yet to prove themselves fully suitable of taking on the AEW role. In terms of V-22s, they would most likely cost the same as, or more than, the E-2 Hawkeye, and have less capability. They are attractive only in sofar as they are much better than continuing to rely on helicopters, and the ability to recycle the Searchwater radar systems.
As for savings, they appear to be a little thin on the ground, but more importantly, they mostly seem to come from cutting capability. If you are going to be buying billions of dollars worth of carriers, destroyers, submarines and aircraft, trying to scrimp and save every penny at the cost of capability is a little unwise. The whole point of the carriers is to provide a major leap in capability, not just to replace the current capability. It is the reason why they are supposed to be around 65,000 tons…
As it stands the F-35B will have comparable range performance with an F-18C which, to the RN is a good leap up from that achieveable with the Harriers and, until the Super Hornet entered the USN, was pretty much good enough for the CVN force!. As discussed earlier payload is no longer a very meaningful indicator of the value of a strike type. Gone, thankfully, are the days when A-7’s would launch with a dozen Mk82’s trying to lay down enough explosive to cover a single target!. If the F-35B can do the same job today with 4 wing-kitted SDB’s from 20km standoff whats the value in being able to hump round all that dumb iron?.
This is exactly my problem – the US Navy has complained about the limited range of their Hornets for many years. The new aircraft should not just be compared to the aircraft they are replacing, but to the requirements, and to rival aircraft. Just aiming for ‘pretty much good enough’ is not a great aim, especially at the sheer costs involved. Why buy an aircraft that compares only with an aircraft that people already criticise for being too short-legged, when we can buy an aircraft with very good range? As for you misconstruing my reference to payload, it is more to do with the internaly weapons capabilities, as I felt I had made clear. The F-35C can carry a much wider range of weapons internally, and can carry them further. Precision weapons are nothing new at all, but payload/range issues are still very relevant; Hornets and Harriers aren’t using dozens of iron bombs to destroy single targets anymore than JSFs will be. :rolleyes:
EdLawI think the question has more to do with were the CVF’s will operate? If, Jonesy is correct and I understand him. The CVF is design to operate close to shore within the Littorals. So, if that is indeed the case the CVF’s would benefit more by the higher sortie rate of the F-35B. Also, that close to the target. Payload and range would matter less. Further, in any likely combat the RN would operate with Allied Carriers. Which, would provide deep strike, tanker, and AWACS support. Clearly, it has some shortcomings……..Yet, I do see the advantages too! Just think of the air support now available to the allied troops going ashore.:D 😀 😀
This is exactly the problem though. The UK is buying large carriers, and yet you need:
Further, in any likely combat the RN would operate with Allied Carriers. Which, would provide deep strike, tanker, and AWACS support.
This makes the whole thing rather worrying. The whole point of buying large carriers is to achieve independence of operations. If you require to be accompanied by an American or French carrier for protection, then that pretty much makes the whole project a waste of money. The carriers are perfectly large enough to operate a good airwing, complete with AWACS aircraft, and aircraft capable of deep strike. If all you want is an F-35B ship to operate close to the shore, then buy the cheapest LHD you can, or at most a copy of the Italian Cavour. The reality is that you don’t put a $15bn carrier battlegroup 20km offshore, there is a darned good reason why the US Navy sit their carriers a hundred or so miles offshore! With the proliferation of highly mobile anti-ship missiles, as evidenced by the damaged Eilat class corvette of the Israeli Navy off Lebanon last year.
EdLawI like the design, it just looks so wrong being backwards! It’s funny how we form ideas on ‘normality’ for aircraft carriers, and anything that challenges that, it just feels wrong!
I agree that there would be very likely to get sales – Australia would be very likely, as would Spain and possibly Italy. Brazil and Argentina might be possibilities, though costs might be a problem. Spain could well have bought two – the Dedalo was tranferred in ’72 (after overhaul for Spain in ’67), but was never going to be very useful for anything other than light helo operations. Spain bought six Perry class frigates, so might have been able to add a pair of these VSSs, to operate as a pair of small battlegroups (one VSS and three Perrys each).
One major possibility could actually be the UK! The Conservative government elected in ’70 on the promise of reversing the carrier drawdown didn’t do it, in part of course due to the sheer costs involved (also because Eagle was being used for spares to keep Ark in service). As it was, the UK settled on three small VSTOL carriers, as we all know and love(!). Instead, the UK could perhaps have bought a few of these VSSs in the late ’70s. If the US Navy was receiving VSSs from, say, the mid-to-late ’70s, then the UK might have ordered a batch of three to be built in the UK in the late ’70s. With the Falklands in ’82, the UK reverses its decision to sell one of its VSS carriers to Australia. The UK instead builds two more, one for the RN, and one for the Aussies, to replace Melbourne, or possibly to replace one of the existing three, which could be transferred to Australia faster.
This could see the UK having up to four carriers, Australia one or possibly two, Spain one or two, and even one for Italy. Perhaps even add Canada to the list. How many would the US Navy get? It might have been a popular ship with Reagan though, especially given how cheap they are – he had ordered a review of the possibility of bringing the Essex class back. He liked the Perry class in particular due to its cheapness, given the aim for the 600-ship Navy.
The biggest issue is what aircraft to use – are you sure Hornets could safely operate off her? Hornets are a candidate if they can operate off her, and would make it easy for Canada or Australia to operate them (since they operate Hornets in their Air Forces). The problem is that Hornets can’t really be available in any numbers until the mid ’80s (it only entered full squadron service in the US in about ’83). This makes Hornets for the RN a bit difficult for a Falklands conflict… This means that any ’70s build VSSs might be left without an aircraft potentially, since I doubt Phantoms could operate off them. Now, Jaguars might have worked, even as a stopgap (bought as the Jag M in the mid ’70s, and only ever intended as a stopgap, pending something better coming along). Then there are obvious questions about AEW – Trackers with Searchwater?
EdLawOne concern I would raise, though, is that despite the much reduced threat from Backfire bombers flying through the GIUK-gap, lots of nations are getting a similar capability. Many nations are now buying Flankers, which can carry supersonic anti-shipping missiles, so I wouldn’t write off the possibilities of British carriers having to face similar threats… I still believe that the Hawkeye has the greatest capability balance for the manned AEW role. However, I am a great advocate of the Mariner UAV, and its potential for long endurance radar picket duty, including the ASW picket role.
My problem with the idea of the STOVL CVF is the fact that fundamentally they are strike carriers, and yet have the least strike capable version of the fighter we are buying. The CTOL version carries a better warload, over a longer distance, and can stay on station longer.
ELP brings up the UCAV, and rightly so, since they should be ready for service by the time the carriers are fully operational. One problem is that one of the roles for the manned fighters at this time will be escort of UCAVs (not always needed, but sometimes). For this, the F-35C is far and away the most sensible platform. Another role that is not talked about much is the buddy refuelling role; the F-35C should be able to carry a lot of extra fuel, and therefore could make an attractive buddy tanker, whereas the F-35B will be much less capable.
Overall, my question is this: what does the F-35B do that the -C version cannot?
EdLawAirbus is successful company to the extent it is supported by Government of whole EU. It cannot do anything by itself. There is nothing wrong with Tu-204/IL-96 as an aircraft it is the investement in production/credit/global servicing that hinders there sale in large scale but that is going to change. but the bottom line is the same u cannot turn profit with Airbus no matter how many u sale.
This is total nonsense, Airbus is an independent company, that relies in part on governmental development loans, which are then repaid. Airbus is not a government department, and can make profit (in fact, it does, the A-300, -310, -320 and -330 programs have all been pretty profitable). It is not supported by the whole EU government, it mostly receives subsidy and loans from France, Germany, and to a lesser extent the UK. The problem for the Russian aircraft manufacturers in the west is in terms of quality control (look especially at the major problems the Indians and Czechs have had with Russian purchases) and after sales support (again, look at India). The simple fact is that Russian suppliers have had a poor record on spares support, with customers experiencing real difficulty getting hold of spares.
The bottom line is that Airbus can, and does, turn a profit. [/QUOTE]
how is PAK-FA and Galileo comparable.? If EU has to put PAK-FA comparable project into operations it will need alteast $300B and 100 years. Glosnoss budget is fraction of PAK-FA. ur comparing different scales. and still 14 are active.
http://www.glonass-ianc.rsa.ru/pls/htmldb/f?p=202:20:13759333992006660994::NO
You completely miss my point. The reference to PAK-FA is the fact that it, like Galileo, is a project that is not in service. Saying that Galileo is a failure compared to Glonass (a project started in the ’80s) is effectively saying that PAK-FA is a failure compared to the F-16 or Mirage 2000. As for fourteen satellites in Glonass still being operational, that isn’t really the point – the system is not fully operational, and will not return to full operation until 2009, and only with Indian help.
An-70 looks duplication of effort. U already have IL-76 from 40-60 tons class and u can also use IL-96T/An-124 and further new 20 ton MTA is coming.
The An-70 was to replace the 30+ year old Il-76 design, but basically Russia fell out with Ukraine, and therefore favoured the all-Russian Il-76. The An-124 is an outstanding aircraft, I do not argue with that, but it is not the point. Saying Europe cannot have strategic airlift is complete nonsense, they simply haven’t needed it until now (with all emphasis on a regional war). This is changing, and even now Europe has large numbers of smaller airlifters, airliners, and currently leases Antonovs.
As for the MTA, that project is falling apart, due in part to the Russians not playing ball with India, who were funding most of the project. The whole project now seems likely to be cancelled.
If Galileo is not launched by Russians than may be Chinese for a little more cheaper otherwise project will be canned due to increasing costs.
Actually, the European nations have come together to back the project properly just this last week, and the project is going ahead. The Chinese will not be launching it – they have yet to prove themselves in the satellite launch business. As I said, and you ignored, the satellites could perfectly easily be launched on Arianne if the need arose, but Russia is not stupid enough to cancel the launch just to annoy the Europeans.
ur surface fleet is as good as far as u have airsuperiority. if submarine is firing longer range missile with ur at disadvanatge.
This was exactly what the Russians tried during the Cold war, but Russia has never managed to challenge air superiority of NATO fleets. All it has ever managed to do is fly a few bombers nearby, but this is exactly what the NATO fleets got experience dealing with, and most new ships are designed due to the lessons learned. Lots of NATO navies are now deploying Aegis or similarly equipped ships, and there’s a good reason.
Money is simply not there for cost of weopons and the capability they provide.ur already very high taxed society. u cant do any more.
Actually, European nations have high levels of wealth, and can easily afford to increase public spending – yes, tax levels seem high, but they’re actually very reasonable, especially compared to some countries. As such, it is complete nonsense to keep saying that European countries cannot afford weapons. Perhaps you need to actually look at GDP figures and weapons costs – during the Cold War, lots of nations maintained 5% of GDP defence budgets, without sacrificing their economies. You seem to be completely unable to follow the fact that Europe has a massive advantage in both population and economy – Russia has a declining population, and a much smaller economy.
unnecessary forces?
i can create huge GDP with unlimited credit expansion and put higher tax rate over the top of that. these countries simply cant increase defence spending because of debt and already stretched Tax rates.
Actually, debt levels in western countries are relatively manageable, and public spending levels are such that defence budgets could be increased substantially. The fact that you don’t seem to follow is that Europe represents a massive political union, with a massive economy, so much so that it dwarves the Russian economy. Tax rates are actually quite reasonable in European nations, and have certainly been higher before.
EdLawAIRBUS is successful to the extent it is supported by government subisidies and bank credit. Can Airbus finish that basket case A-400M/A-350 with its own profits?. one other hand there are much better 250+250 IL-76 in operations. EU strategic airlift ability is close to zero. EU has technical ability but cost is beyond its means. there 14+4 Glosnoss Satellite in orbit how many Galileos are in Orbit?. and there is no guarantee that Galileo will be on time and budget and surely it will launch by Russians otherwise Satellites will be sitting on the ground:diablo:
Sukhoi alteast built RRJ without Government subsidies untill 2006.
Airbus, as with pretty much all aircraft manufacturers, the world over, has relied on government loans and subsidies, same as Embraer, Boeing, and indeed Ilyushin, Tupolev, Sukhoi and Antonov. The simple fact is that Airbus is a successful company – okay, many (including myself) disagree with their management methods, and project management in particular, but they are a successful company. In contrast, how many Tu-204s or Il-96s have been sold, despite overtures to gain western sales (western engines and avionics, and half the price of western rivals)?
In terms of Galileo, it is a project that has yet to be put into operation – how many PAK-FA are in service? Comparing a project in development to an established program is apples and oranges. Also, Glonass has been in a sorry state of affairs, after finally achieving global coverage in ’95, the system fell into disrepair, and it is likely to be 2009 before global coverage is restored.
With regard to strategic airlift, this is only a relatively recent concern for Europe, hence the A-400M project took so long to get off the ground. This is being addressed, and the overall strategic airlift available will improve a lot. Russia, on the other hand, has long needed its airlift capability, and therefore has inherited the old Soviet-era transport fleet. On the other hand, the replacement/renewal of strategic airlift in Russia has been mired in problems, with the An-70 cancelled after many years; now the emphasis seems to be on just re-engining old Il-76s. The money is available in Europe for strategic airlift, and is being spent, it just takes a while for the aircraft to become available.
As for your comment about Galileo needing to be launched by the Russian space launchers, this is a little misguided – the Russians had the lowest bid, hence the Russian launch. If Europe wanted, it could perfectly easily launch the satellites on an Arianne launcher, as they have with many other satellites. The Russian space program relies very heavily on selling launches – take that away, and the Russian space program could easily grind to a halt.
EU weopons are so expensive they couldnot afford to buy anything. where Club/Brahmos class weopon in EU Navies and that i am referring to tecnology of 1980s. EU simply cannot filed anything in quantitiy or the same technical ability. Is there anything on hypersonic missile fielding?
How on Earth do you come to that conclusion? Germany is fielding hundreds of cruise missiles, as is France and Britain. European nations have looked at supersonic anti-shipping missiles, but considering the fact that the Russian Navy surface fleet was largely a no-show during the Cold War, there wasn’t much need. There simply hasn’t been much of a surface threat for NATO countries, hence they haven’t had to buy into the huge range of anti-shipping missiles that Russia had. Russia faced a major surface fleet, hence put a lot of emphasis on anti-shipping – Europe placed far more emphasis on anti-submarine warfare, and rightly so.
It is quite simply untrue to say that Europe can’t afford to buy weapons – the money is certainly there (especially compared with the Russian economy!), but the need isn’t. Many of these countries could field supersonic or even hypersonic anti-ship missiles if they wanted to. Also, it should be noted that a lot of navies field the American Standard Missile, which is actually a highly effective supersonic anti-ship missile.
I suggest you look at the European economy, and realise that most of the countries are only spending between one and two percent of their GDP on defence at the moment. If they wished to, these countries could easily double, or even triple their budgets, without major impact on their economies. They just don’t need to at the moment, and are therefore rightly not wasting huge amounts of money on maintaining huge unnecessary forces.
EdLawI think we can all pretty much agree that, with the exception of certain people in the defence industry, the CTOL route yields the highest performance. It is pretty clear that costs don’t seem to favour STOVL, in that the aircraft, operating costs, and ship costs don’t benefit from the STOVL decision. For purposes of MASC, and likely future UAV purposes, CTOL is certainly favourable. There are concerns about aircraft safety – as one RN pilot put it, it is easier to stop the aircraft, then land, than to land, then stop the aircraft. :diablo:
Sign In
