Flex is right, there is (almost) no air moving over the wings, thus no lift. The aircraft is only moving in relation to the conveyor belt, not the air, and thus there is no pressure differential acting on the wing surface. A small amount of air would indeed be moving, but very little in real terms. It is the same as they do for car testing, with the rolling roads – you can ‘drive’ at 70mph, yet have the doors open, since there is no real air movement. The engines would create airflow behind the aircraft, and suck in some air, but nowhere enough to compensate for the lack of forward movement. Even a Fieseler Storch would probably not be able to take off that way, and it could just about take off in a gentle wind!

As Sealord says, it is not entirely believable that the UK government did not know what the risks of the mission were (if they genuinely did not know the risks, then they really should not be in government). The UK needs to be prepared to fight the battle that is happening, not the battle they would like. A very good start would be to make an urgent purchase of additional CH-47s and A-10s (they really would prove useful, and not break the bank). If some piece of equipment is not available, then it must be bought, not simply deploy without it – taking a page out of the Canadian book might be the order of the day!

The problem is that the submarine threat did not disappear, it just became harder to find… Instead of needing to track Russian nuclear subs, the threat is now Kilo class subs (among others) operating for unstable regimes, in dangerous areas. The problem this creates is that Russian nuclear boats were being tracked in open oceans, whereas the diesel boats nowadays are sitting still (very quiet) in places like the straits of hormuz, which makes hunting them a lot harder.

If BAE really wanted to offer a T-50 rival which is supersonic, then a cheaper version of the Gripen would probably work – Saab actually proposed this a few years back if memory serves. The reality is that supersonic flight training is not as important, the important part is realistic training – if you train a fighter pilot in a sluggish trainer, then strap them into a powerful fighter, you will get big problems. The T-38 is very realistic, since it is effectively just a lightweight fighter, so progressing from a lightweight fighter to a heavier fighter was not a great leap. Any replacement for the T-38 should be a good performer, and the Goshawk and T-50 seem to be the main options currently available.

I was thinking more in terms of a lightweight radar, nothing too advanced, perhaps even a simple Sea-RAM system (which uses the Phalanx units radar), and a small surveillance radar. Longer range targetting would probably have to come from a UAV, but that is not a bad thing. The basic problem is this – navies do not want ultra-cheap patrol craft (not very military), and coast guards are often low funding priorities, so cannot afford new ship like this one.

The niche this vessel is supposed to fill must be defined, and baby-LCS is probably not a bad option, and the most basic step would be to fit Netfires and Sea-RAM, at least giving some level of offensive/defensive capability. Add in something like the Bluefin-21, and you have at least some mine hunting capability (okay, not much, but some).

Perhaps the best solution is to persuade the US to allow purchase of ~40 CH-47Ds under the CHAPS program – 40 more Chinooks would certainly boost the UK’s transport helicopter capability. In terms of fixed wing, perhaps they could do something similar, but with A-10s – ~40 A-10s upgraded to A-10C would certainly boost the UK’s forward based airpower! All at a bargain price!

It really should be UH-72 if memory serves (the Arapaho is ARH-70, with Merlin being VH-71), though out of sequence numbers are not uncommon nowadays. Personally, I think they should have gone for the AW-139, which would have been better for some missions, including SAR (hurricane season being a good reason to emphasize SAR capability), due to the larger cabin.