Okay, I had just never heard great reviews of the C-212 – personally, I would have liked to see refurbished DHC-5! I guess the question is really what you want to do with the aircraft, if you want the ability to drop supplies to small units, a larger number of C-212s may make some sense. With the new Abrams coming on line soon, it would be good to see them developing aerial support tactics, dropping fuel drums for refuelling purposes, to allow individual tank units to be supported (an Abrams carries about 1900 liters, so one C-212 could probably drop enough fuel to half-fill four tanks, and since you aim never to have less than half fuel left, that would be adequate).

The other possible explanation for the ‘missing cells’, given the lack of alternative vents for the hot exhaust gasses from the launch cells, is that there is the worlds largest coffee maker hidden under there! If you want a regular coffee, launch an ESSM, but for the extra steam needed for espresso, you need to launch an SM-2! :diablo:

Did you not realise, those are not Coast Guard type stripes, they are go-faster stripes! :diablo:

The trouble is that now ‘patrol’ can mean anything from an OPV of about 500-1000tons, all the way up to a 6000ton ship for patrol duties like the Absalon, and even into the lower end of the LPDs like New Zealands new multi-role vessel under Project Protector. Mind you, if you look at the new European ‘frigates’ which are larger than the older destroyers, it sort of explains this ambiguity!

Weight wise, I suspect the An-124 newer version would just about be up for the job, it is supposed to increase the capacity to 150 tons (Challenger 2s minus the bolt-on armour come in at around 75 tons if memory serves), up from 120 on the existing version. To be honest though, nobody (arguably even the US) has the air transport capacity to genuinely move MBTs by air – it physically could be done, but not in enough numbers or with enough support to make it worthwhile. Transporting MBTs has always seemed a slightly odd way to measure strategic airlift – I can understand specifying the ability to carry helicopters, or even artillery, but MBTs just do not strike me as candidates for air transport!

Trojan horse? :diablo:

It is even worse, they would say ‘the chances of being attacked by 128 aircraft are zero, in fact, our ships have never been attacked in the last X years, so we do not need any missiles at all’… It is so good that the media feel they are the guardians of the public ‘good’!

As for the newer Sylver, I seem to remember them mentioning a Sylver 70, which would have the ability to launch the surface version of Scalp/Storm Shadow, though I am not sure how far this has progressed. It is a great pity they did not go with the Mk41 though, since it is a much more flexible launcher – I suspect you could even fire an Aster 30 type missile out of it, though I do not know for certain. Personally, I see no real advantage to going for the naval-Scalp missile (technically it is a French product at the moment, so Scalp is probably more accurate), compared to going for the Tomahawk. The Tomahawk has been in service for a long time, it has proven itself, and has a good unit cost (that has actually halved over the last ten years or so), whereas the Naval-Scalp is totally untried and tested.

I think the suggestion was that when time comes for follow on batches of Type 45s, they would become the ‘Medium Versatile Surface Combattant’, with more emphasis on ASW and land attack.

Does anyone know how well the OPV(H)s cope with the weather around the Falklands? It can certainly get rough down there!