No need Neptune, I was just surprised, in part because the only real weapons that needs the Strike length are the Tomahawk and SM-2 Block IV, and I did not know they had looked at fitting the Tomahawk for so long (or Block IV either). Mind you, they are very capable ships, so it probably should not be a surprise. It might make sense to reduce the SM-2 loadout to 24, add 8 Tomahawk and carry 32 ESSM (to offset the reduction in SM-2s).

Now, to persuade the RN to drop the Sylver launcher, and fit the far more versatile Mk41 instead…

I agree, though I suspect that one M-class would probably cost as much to run and crew as the four BAMs! It would be interesting to see how these vessels compare to the Baynunah class of the UAE, they seem to be pretty well equipped, at were reported at about $80m per unit (though unit costs on ships are a little hard to compare, since they can include different things, like weapons, training, and, given the current oil price, just filling the fuel tanks would probably double the price!)

It really looks good, though I have often wondered about the old proposal for the Antonov An-77 for the RAF (unsolicited bid back in the mid-90s), which would have been a westernised version of the An-70. I think it was to use CFM56s, though I may be wrong. It would have carried a bit more than the Airbus A400Ms that are currently ordered – and a nice low unit cost to go with it! You could probably buy 50 in place of the 25 A400Ms, then the RAF might not have such a stretch in the transport fleet! (It might have made a good refuelling tanker – some more to replace the VC-10s would be good…)

It looks good though! I always felt the Hun was underestimated after newer jets came on the scene – in all the Vietnam coverage, it is always an Phantom, Skyhawk or sometimes the odd F-105.

Ron: have I said something to offend you? Your replies seem quite hostile, and I fail to see any reason for this hostility.

ITAR is a set of government regulations, authorising control of exports of defence materiel – defence articles and defence services listed on the United States Munitions List. The regulations are in Title 22 (Foreign Relations), Chapter I, (Department of State), Subchapter M of the Code of Federal Regulations. What was agreed was a technology transfer, not the actual waiver itself, which is not a matter for the President, it is a matter for congress, but the point is that this is a sign that the Bush administration may support the request for an ITAR waiver. If such a waiver is given, then the authorisation of technology transfer becomes a much easier process – ITAR is indeed not a mechanism for technology transfer, but it is a process that makes such transfer either difficult or impossible, and the removal of such a barrier will allow flow of information.

Neptune: they may be able to outrun the ship, but its helo will probably catch up… :diablo:

I suspect that if terrorists hijacked a container ship, you probably would not want a patrol vessels boarding party to try and take them on! I would probably figure on sending in spec ops (for Spain, I think its GEO – ‘Grupo Especiale Para Los Operaciones’, though I may be wrong).

Laid down 10th July ’44, launched 2 April ’46, commissioned 1 October ’47, it was somewhat delayed by the end of the war, but she got there in the end… It probably could accept Rafales, though as I mentioned, she did have terrible seakeeping (the massive deck overhangs meant she rolled terribly in high seas).