Remember, the UK had a Secretary of State for Defence who thought you loaded mortar shells pointy end down…..you don’t need to be a ballistics genius to work out the pointy end of a projectile is the end that is fired out of the gun/launcher :rolleyes:

The high-low mix is interesting, it is true politicians will be tempted to build up numbers with mediocre ships (something the RN is familiar with anyway, think Type 42 and Type 21 which were recognised as pretty deeply flawed ships from day one but were built down to a cost and allowed the RN to build decent numbers up) but the reality is we have no choice. There will never be enough T45’s to replace our surface fleet on a 1:1 basis and any cheaper alternative will almost certainly have the same cost problem if we want a true high end combat vessel. There is also the point that the RN has a history of using high end resources where you don’t really need to and it’s been true for many years that good sea going patrol vessels of the type the USCG has always operated would be an excellent asset to the RN, allowing them to meet policing, fisheries protection, drug interdiction duties etc. without sucking in huge resources, the River class do seem a good basis for such a type in the RN, they’re capable of operating in heavy seas with decent endurance and are cheapish to buy and operate.

The RAF want full squadron strengh (8-12) C17’s, but the funding isn’t there, one plan was to slowly expand the force over a number of years, but they don’t have that option now with Boeing saying the line will close without more orders.

You can accelerate any thing to Mach 1, Mach 2 or more however in aircraft design cost effectiviness is the most important factor deciding an aircraft program`s future.
I do not know how feasible is to built one that flies supersonic and if we could still call it a dirigible it`s important always to see what is technically possible under the laws of known physics

I think an airship or dirigible must be expensive and unpractical to fly at high speed, the common jet offers too many advantages in price materials and operating costs that simply dirigibles have not become the main technological spear head in aviation.

There has been attemps to fly aircraft that flap their wings, aircraft that have air filled wings but they are either experimental or have not reach the technological level where they are practical enough to call them easy to build and operate.

Don’t believe the deranged rantings of the stressed skin Taliban on this, it’s no co-incidence that the stressed skin corporation of Wichita made a large donation to the Democrat Presidential campaign of FDR, followed shortly after by the conversion to stressed skin and away from the far superior dirigibles. Proffessor Satsuma Mandarin of Jaffa University, Orange County, has demonstrated conclusively in his seminal work “Aerodynamic advances in fabric covered structures and Lithuanian economic growth, 1930-1934” that it was only corrupt political games that killed the dirigible.

I’d assumed that’s what the two CVF’s are building for, to beef up the fisheries protection squadron? :dev2:

Taiwan could buy the FAA Sea Harrier F/A2 fleet, excellent radar and AMRAAM and V/STOL capable, and no doubt they’d get them for about 5 pence.