The big question that remains is whether the F-35B decision will stand. There have been rumours that the decision will be modified, to call for a mixed purchase of -B and -C models. If that happens, hopefully the RN will have complete control over their own -C fleet, with just the -B models being in a joint force. The RAF has been eyeing the -C model as a GR-4 replacement, so hopefully there will be a mixed fleet.

The best case scenario for the UK will be a larger JCA (JSF) purchase, which might be more likely now there is a proposal for a UK production line. If the UK does not agree to purchase more than the 150 JCAs, then there is little chance of a UK line, but if the order is increased, then the chances improve dramatically.

I agree, though a lot of the problems in developing the Types 22 and 42 were due to trying to size the ships to chanding launcher sizes, whereas if the UK had simply fitted the missile to the launcher, i.e. design Sea Dart to fit the SMs launcher.

As for Asroc, though not guided, it did have a very short flight time, which meant that steering was not really necessary. The Ikara took up a lot of space, meaning that ships really had to be built around the system – just look at the modified Leander class! Also, Asroc was adaptable, allowing Harpoon missiles to be used instead, allowing for a very flexible loadout.

The subs are certainly reported as having 650mm tubes, in addition to the normal 533mm ones, supposedly for deploying frogmen. The story about the Popeye Turbo seems a little suspect to me, it seems far more likely to me that Israel has simply appropriated the SS-N-21 Sampson design, and are just using them as the long range missile. I doubt Russia would be too bothered, as long as the Israelis do not start offering the missiles for export.

Hmm, I have a horrible feeling they retired the last Sea Eagle, and so the RN would not seem to have any air-launched anti-ship missiles. I still feel the FAA might have been better off waiting a couple of years, and simply buying AV-8B+s, using the RAF GR-7 airframe.

The trouble is, pilots always have a tendency to call their aircraft the ‘best in the world’ – even Tornado F-3 pilots, despite their aircraft being about as manouverable as a truck… Again, a case of poor procurement – they might have been better off buying F-16s! (Or, like the Canadians and Aussies, buying F/A-18s)

I believe the whole issue of the F-16s replacing the A-37 Dragonfly is a little misleading – they may technically be replacing them, but not one for one. The likely scenario is the replacement of all three types (F-5s, Mirages and Dragonfly), with one or two types. A smaller number of F-16s, supplemented by a follow on to the A-36 Halcóns, perhaps KAI A-50s…

There has always been a perception, all around the world, that new equipment means an arms buildup, which is not always true. It really just serves as an excuse for the neighbours to get their own new equipment. All’s fair in love and procurement!

“This” might be, or actually “is”, because the chilean navy has operated for decades with british designs (Leanders and Countys) to their full satifaction, and with brit built destroyers and cruisers for decades before that. Island hopping has little to do with it, specially after Argentina and Chile have settled ALL of thier mutual territorial claims peacefully, and after Argentina has cast in law a PEACEFULL enforcement of its OTHER territorial claims, which do not pertain Chile at all.

The FAA FRS.2 may be gone, but the RAF Gr.7/FA.2 will remain in service and operational aboard RN flattops.

Why do I have this strange deja vu feeling ???

I’m happy for the guys, too. Of course I also admired their ingenuity (ingenousnes?? english language = difficult language) to keep those Countys in service and well updated and upgraded for so long. Guess personnel shortage to heat the boilers was the final nail in their coffin.

But after reading your rationalle for being happy , I must confess I do not fell happy about you feeling happy. You seem to be happy about bringing South America out of military balance, and you seem to be even happier about the fact that the proccess is fueled with second hand ships that would land on the scrapyard otherwise, but make a few bucks this other way. The dealers view about a starting arms race in South America. As an inhabitant of South America, I’m not happy anylonger.
And about the part were you mention the “impeccable” use of force record, let me remind you that Chile is probably second only to Paraguay as for total time periods ruled by military regimes in South America during the 20th century, yet alone mention that Pinochet ruled the country for 17 years in a row (and hasn’t really retired yet…). Of course he did never jump upon british colonial territories in the region, but by the contrary he helped the UK to mantain them. No wonder he awakes some symphaties over there.

King Jester

The Chilean Navy has a lot of experience using British designs, as have a number of other S. American nations.

I do think it a little naive to assume that and laws calling for ‘peaceful enforcement’ have any real meaning – Argentina was in ‘peaceful’ negotiations over the Falklands, before they invaded in 1982. Just because the current government does not express any desire for armed conflict, does not prevent any subsequent government from overturning this.

As for the aircraft operating from the British carriers, they are not F/A-2s, those are the aircraft being retired. The GR-7s, which are going to be upgraded to GR-9 and GR-9A standard, will continue operating from the carrier force, but they lack BVR capability.

As for bringing the region out of balance, that is simply not true, the entire region is seeking to improve their own forces – just look at Brazil, who have gained new frigates, and a new carrier! Perhaps your condemnation should be on France for selling a carrier?

In terms of Chile having had many years of military rule, this is true of a number of nations in S. America, but unlike Argentina, they did not invade British territory – why should the UK not reward Chile for its help during that conflict?

As for the Falklands being ‘colonial territory’ as you put it, how exactly do you come to this position, the population are British! The Argentines had no legitimate claim to the islands, merely their proximity, and the claim that somehow a Spanish claim should have become their own.

Every country has a right to its own motives, but to claim that the ships would have been scrapped otherwise is simply not true – the ships are actually relatively new, and a number of nations were very keen to get them!

Hmm, I would certainly cross the Charles bridge, though not by tank – if I remember correctly, there was a very very good Chinese restaurant at one end of the bridge.

I am not so sure how an upgraded Mig-21F would fare against Mig-23s and others, though certainly some work was underway around that time for western upgrades of Mig-21s – the US was trying to upgrade Chinese Migs. I think a better L-39ZA derivative might have been reasonable – the idea of neutrality is not to have the ability to win, merely to dissuade the enemy from attacking, by making any attack as costly as possible.

Demanding that all aircraft fit in the hangar simply limits the total number carried – the hangars are no larger than those of the US carriers, there are simply fewer planes! I would rather have 100 planes, with 50 on deck and 50 in the hangar, than have just 50, but with all of them in the hangar!

It is a bit like the arguments about British carriers in the Pacific at the end of WW2, where Brit carriers could withstand kamikazes. This was interpreted by the Brits as meaning armoured flight decks were better – but as some noted, it actually simply meant that Brit carriers had tiny aircraft complements. The RN did actually recognise that, and as such, the cancelled Malta Class copied the American method, using a simple armoured box hangar, giving about twice the aircraft capacity.