And with the C-17s.

Ja: I actually meant the RAF, not the RAAF regarding the Orions – I was specifically referring to the P-7, which was to replace RAF Nimrods, US P-3s and German and Italian Atlantiques. The Nimrod is a great aircraft, but to be honest, it is not in wide enough service to allow quantity to combat cost. I would be happy to see Nimrod MRA-4s in larger numbers, acting as both bombers and maritime patrol planes, but you need quantity as well as quality!

As for the Seahawks, I know the Aussie versions are very different aircraft, but I was not suggesting buying ex-USN versions. I was suggesting buying more of the RAN version.

As for the Pigs, I agree, they are getting long in the tooth, but there are enough lower-timed airframes to allow upgraded (zero-timed) versions to serve another 20 years. As for the Fullback, I disagree – integrating Russian kit would be very troublesome, in fact it would probably make the SeaSprog deal look like a walk in the park!

The point about the Cobras was because, if memory serves, around 40 were offered for pennies on the dollar in the mid-90s. They could have been upgraded, and been in service now – I do not buy into the whole ‘at the end of their design lives’ story, since whatever helicopter you buy will be needing replacement in 30 years anyway.

Sorry, I did not mean to suggest a Carlo Kopp pimped F-111, I was referring to a more modest upgrade, possibly including an AESA radar, but not Kopp’s SuperPig.

As for modifications to COTS or MOTS deals, I think the problem is the ‘solution’ mentality – they demand that an untried, untested system be used. The best solution is the evolutionary method, whereby the new systems would slowly be added, as part of an improvement process. This is especially true with modern databus equipped aircraft, in which newer technology can (with a bit of effort) be shoehorned in.

Nimrod: the real problem with the HC3s, if memory serves, was the ‘cost saving’ exercise, whereby rather than having a full digital flight control system, they had a half-and-half system, with both digital and steam-guage controls. The theory was apparently that this would be cheaper, but proved to be very expensive, too heavy, and far too complex, hence the disaster.

The story was that a few years ago, the RAF were offered a deal by the US, whereby the US Army would get the HC3s, convert them into MH-47s for US service, and a little while later, the RAF would be given brand new CH-47s. This was due to the shortage of CH-47s available for conversion apparently. Sadly, the deal never materialised, and they remain in limbo…

I still think that a fleet of 10 A-310 MRTTs would have made more sense! (Price would probably have been a little lower too)

I agree with Ja, the problem was not with the airframes, it was with the modifications to the design. With hindsight, and the absence of the OPV project, the best helicopter for the job would have been the Seahawk, since it was already in service. This would have meant that all the training and support was already in place, it would just need to be scaled up to support a slightly larger fleet of aircraft.

Hmm, the Kanimbla and Manoora were bought with substantial rebuilding in mind – they were not bought, then found to need rebuild. They were a means to an end, nothing more, nothing less.

As for the AWD project, they will be very useful, the only real major issue is the cost – a larger number of slightly smaller vessels could have been bought instead, such as the Spanish F100 or Dutch De Zeven Provincien.

The major issue with the RN future AEW is that it is not intended to be a purely defence-oriented platform, it is supposed to be able to fly out with strike packages, like the Americans go with Hawkeye. Basically, if the RN get any chance, they will go CTOL, and get the F-35C and Hawkeye! (In some ways, the current JSF and EH-101AEW debacle is almost similar to the CVA-01s P-1154 problems in the ’60s)