one thing that is quite laughable is that argument about russian bombers… to get to Denmark they only have to pass through or just beside several of:

– Baltic states airspace
– Polish airspace
– German airspace
– Swedish airspace
– Norwegian airspace
– all of them

so, unless they use some space cruisers right out of star wars, methinks they’ll have some trouble long before getting even close to danish airspace… not to speak about the reason that may motivate Russian to go especially after Denmark (they may have much more interesting targets to attack elsewhere long before getting there)

is that rally such a unlikely scenario for Su-24, Su-34 or Tu-22s? By non-European standards, you are talking about a fairly short distance. The Baltic nations are reliant on other NATO partners for air defence, Sweden is rapidly on its way to being an air force of around 60 Gripens (OK as a low cost, middling capability fighter), while a fair portion of Poland’s fighter force is left over MiG-29s.

But is the larger issue simply that those Su-24s, Su-34 or Tu-22s don’t actually have to get to Denmark, only close enough to launch stand off munitions like Kh-55.

And how can Denmark’s security be seen as distinct from that of the region on which it is economically dependent? Perhaps the Danes can see that to “defend Denmark” means being an effective member of a broader alliance that can effectively protect the security of its collective members.

It’s still a high price–175 million each. More expensive then an F 35.

And the F-35 is still in (costly) LRIP.

I don’t live in the UK, so………is the Mail Online a “real” media outlet? And who is “Monocle” magazine?

Seems like nothing more than list of stereotypical images of countries from a UK perspective.

Just my $0.20 worth.:D

Well then the choice are:
1. Soryu based SSK design or,
2. Baracuda based SSN design.

Aussies politically will have to decide with the choice. Go diesel with a design that the availability still in questions (unless Japanese did make their mind on Arms export), or SSN design that meet their plan capability and I do believe open to export or licensed production.

Japan has changed its policy on military technology exports: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203479104577123710031180408.html

Besides, any Aus – Japan deal on submarines will be “co-operation” not exports per se.

Aus won’t go for SSNs. Without a large nuclear industry to leverage off, it will just be too expensive to put the necessary support infrastructure in place. You need to remember that Aus only has one functioning nuclear reactor, which is officially there only to produce isotopes for industrial and medical use :confused: and for “research” ;).

Article says “The 4200-tonne Soryu-class boats are the only new conventional submarines of the size and capabilities set out in Canberra’s 2009 defence white paper for 12 new submarines to take over from the Collins-class subs from the late 2020s.

Until the Soryu became theoretically available, off-the-shelf submarines included only German, French and Spanish designs of about 2000 tonnes”

However, displacement Type 214: 4,000 metric tonnes

Also, the av commentary point to the need for a different sub for a different job (than european designs). Doesn”t that mean export prospects [of a new Australian sub] would be limited?

Are you sure about the displacement of the Type 214: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_214_submarine

After Collins I can’t see the ADF buying another boat off the drawing board from a designer with no real experience in large diesel electric boats that are subject to the usage cycles and issues encountered in true long-range blue water operations. The Collins class was “saved” by local Aus industry assisted by the USN. Also, I can’t see the ADF wanting to be the the sole operator of a small class of unique boats unless that’s absolutely unavoidable.

Teaming up with the Japanese would enable development and support costs to be apportioned over a reasonably large fleet of boats, and provide opportunities for co-operative support. It’s a lot easier to haul parts between Aus and Japan by C-17 as required, than deal with a supplier on the other side of the globe.

As for limited export potential, I suspect the DoD realises that the only other potential operator of a 4000+t blue water conventional submarine may be Canada; and they aren’t in the market currently.

USN is all about ships, not airplanes or ballistic missiles.

They only tolerate airplanes as a means to an end, which is more big gray floaty things. Many in the Navy would be happy if they still flew F4U Corsairs and AD Skyraiders.

Make no mistake. The yacht club rules the USN.

The USAF really liked some of their yachts though: F-4 and A-7. And while the F-14 may have been a Navy yacht, it was a far better one than that hand me down from the USAF, the F-111B

Rafale is a carrier-capable aircraft too and yet it doesn’t need wunderbar EPE engines to meet basic performance standards for a fighter aircraft. Nor does vanilla Hornet for that matter.

But the USN has pursued the GE 414- EDE (enhanced durability engine – low fuel use) not EPE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F414

As for comparisons with Rafale and classic Hornets, here is an alternative view from a military force that actually has hands on experience with the SH: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007psa_apr/gaddis.pdf

You’ll find the RAAF is pretty positive about the SH as well.

To be fair, Americans using advanced engine technology to compensate for terrible aerodynamics is beginning to be something to be something of a habit: -229/232s for ‘flying brick’ F-16s, F414 and then EPE for Super Hornet, F135 for F-35 and now (possibly) ADVENT.

Indeed, when one considers that said engine technology is a function of money and that said airframe design is largely a function of foolishness, one could say this is almost the quintessential American endeavour — overcoming stupid with money.

Almost sounds like a trolling attempt.. 😎

Every design is a compromise between competing objectives: range, maneuverability, takeoff distance, airframe life, payload, signature management, survivability, complexity/simplicity of support, cost of construction and operation, and the list goes on, and on, and on. If US companies are able to build power plants that give airframe designers the ability to overcome some of those unavoidable compromises, why is that to be criticised?

The designers of the EF, Rafale, Gripen had to make just as many compromise decisions; they just chose a different requirement balance point for their designs. Compare the Gripen and F-18F in terms of the ground attack capability they offer their operators right now.