A43 is 5.4 metres overall height, but I was actually referring to the width, where the difference is significant.

F-35B – you’re proposing a rocket being launched from on top of another one. If the cell has a separator strong enough, & firmly enough fixed, to protect the lower rocket from the heat & blast of the one above, how do you remove that separator between launching the upper & lower missiles? If you have a cold launch system like that for CAMM, how do you remove that between launches?

Maybe some kind of fibre glass or composite divider that can just be shattered or something. sliding it out the side of tube i don’t think would work unless there is enough space between tubes.Maybe some kind of fold up thing that moves to the side? Or wait for it just had an idea when the first missile blasts out it can have a piece of wire that yanks the divider out and drops it as soon as it clears the launcher. Maybe it could have wire that can burn through. Not sure of issues around piping inside the launch tube but pipes could be worked down the side as the diameter issues are around fins that have gaps between then round the tube.

Is there ever the thought of stacking missiles inside a long launch tube? Like instead of quad packing you could have dual packing on on top of the other. It would require a long VLS but if you had strike length tubes of 7 meters 2 missiles with a length of 3 to 3.5 meters could be stacked. Probably need to allow for some kind of splitting device in between. If quad packed as well this would be 8 missiles a tube! Probably not likely to be considered but for missiles of sea wolf size it would be an idea to fit more on a ship. Since we have never seen a ship emptying all its tubes or go to war how significant is it to pack loads of missiles on a boat? Apart from war with China, Russia or the few other big countries will each ship ever need 50+ missiles each?
Any one know how empty ship magazines got during the Falklands? This is the only conflict i can think of where there was lots threats from the air and the main defence was ship borne missiles? The missiles there would have been Sea Dart, Sea wolf, Sea cat, Sea slug? and blow pipes, rapiers and stingers on the decks. (last 3 not really relevant)

Pfcem, why the shouting? 😉

And what the hell is kool aid? :confused:

I asked this question myself one time and did a bit of research on it. I turns out Kool Aid is a drink from the USA. The term Drinking the Kool Aid is a reference to become a firm believer in something, to accept an argument or philosophy wholeheartedly or blindly (taken from Wiki)
Here is a link about it on wiki.
It seems to be pretty accurate i think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
Kool Aid was also something that the people who lived in a commune called Jones town in Guyana used to drink. They would practice pretend mass suicide on the instruction of there leader Jim Jones. He was the leader of a ting called the peoples temple Then one time they poisoned the leaders decided it was time for a mass suicide and they poisoned the Kool Aid with a range of things. Turns out they all drank it and about 900 people died. The term was then that all the people just drank the Kool Aid because someone told them to. This led to the phrase being used to describe people that will follow and believe anything no matter if there is any truth in it.
Here is another link to the story on Wiki, or do a google search there is lots of info on the topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown

It is more recognised term in America i believe.
Basically Pcfem is saying the KC-30 supports believe anything Northrop Grumman and EADS tell them even when it’s not true. They will follow the KC-30 is the best argument no matter what. This sounds a bit like Pcfem with his KC-767 is the best talk. Pcfem STOP DRINKING THE KOOL AID. lol:D;)

I’m not sure where the suggestion comes form the NG and EADS spout a load of lies that can’t be believed. The suggestion that everything Boeing says and does is 100% true and honest is a bit hard to believe as well. As far as evidence goes things like the Boeing’s F-15 winning the competition in South Korea even though the Rafale came out on top in the evaluation suggests some thing’s up. Come to your own conclusion on this. Also the fact no other manufactures are going to bid for South Korea’s second aircraft purchase apart from Boeing as they think it is a done deal and would be wasting money even putting forward an offer suggests something isn’t right. Whether it’s only down to South Korea’s or something Boeing has done we don’t know. If anyone can suggest a competition EADS or NG has won that is a bit dodgy please suggest away. Also any other Boeing competitions that seem dodgy let us know. The world of defence products is a murky place.
What i find that favours the KC-30 is it won the last time. The lease deal doesn’t really count as a competition. Also the A330 now that it has been fully developed with a boom and is a proven product has won the last three tanker competitions against the KC-767. The A330 is also winning on the commercial front against 767. i know the 787 is taking the 767’s place but the A330 is still regarded as a world leading aircraft with more room for future development where the 767 is seen as being at the end of the road. It is up to the USA not us to decide and whatever the outcome there will be arguments for the next 50 years as to what is the better tanker. The fact the seems to be missed is that the KC-X, Y and Z are all meant to be the same aircraft so it is important to find the best aircraft to replace the KC-135 and KC-10 and it to also be good at hauling cargo as the cargo fleet is cut. We may well see a different aircraft being purchased for the 3 tanker replacement sections depending on the outcome of KC-X and how well the aircraft picked performs and how the deliveries go and costs end up.
On a separate issue i feel that Boeing seems to just be running on products it inherits from companies it buys and doesn’t seem to go to much effort to develop items itself. If Boeing really wants this order and the future KCY and Z it could spend some money developing an aircraft that offers the US air force a huge leap in capability and that is cheap enough for them to purchase. According to Boeing they know what they Air Force wants so they should be able to deliver an aircraft that is a clear winner over anything else out there.

Also about the Fuel offload numbers that were posted are these just the off load or do they include what the tanker used its self? if they are just off load they can’t be used to prove anything. For all we know the aircraft may of been flying distance and staying in the air for hours using the spare fuel for them selves. This is what i see future combat tanker duties being like. you will have an aircraft that will be in the air for hours on a track providing lots of fuel but also using lots of fuel it’s self. It will then transfer the remaining fuel to the next tanker going to the track. the idea of 24 hour tanker coverage for different tracks is how things are going and have been for a while. For Iraq and Afghanistan the tankers are going round a track and anyone who needs fuel goes to these tracks in the sky tops up and goes back to it’s mission. The tankers there fore stay until they are empty or until the are relived and in the future will pass there fuel to the next tanker so they go home empty.

Take cover incoming S**** coming my way.:)

I am surprised the Type 23’s don’t have any CIWS gun. I always just guessed they would have goalkeeper or Phalanx. The Type 22 batch 3 has Goalkeeper (i think just 1). I must say if i was on the C1 or C2 i would like it to have a CIWS on board you never can enough defence and they are not that expensive. Even just take the 4 from type 22 and refurbish them and put them on the C1’s. I think the Type 45 is getting the Phalanx from the Type 42’s which in my opinion is a good use of resources. There will also be 6 goalkeepers to come from HMS Invincible and HMS Illustrious. As much as i have faith in CAMM you also want to have more than 1 form of defence.
I’m guessing as to if C1 is built first it will be called the Type 25 class? Or will the RN go for type 25 for C2 and the general purpose escorts designation Type 83 for C1? It will be interesting to see.

With the lack of Type 45’s the C1 and C2 will need to perform more roles. The Falklands/south atlantic patrol ship has always normally been a type 42 so maybe we need a bit of quality air defence for these type of roles. The RN is going to have to operate these ships without Type 45’s sometimes in they may have to support a small task force so i would like C1 to be fitted with Aster 15 at least. I don’t want them to even come near to approaching the cost of a Type 45 though. The cost of C1 will have to be under £500 Million to even think about getting built and i imagine the C2 will need to be under £350million to make it worth while having 2 separate classes.

I Hope the C1 kind of turns out a bit like the Air defence FREEM ships. Cheaper than a type 45 but still capable. Though it’s main role has to be ASW. The C2 i hope will be general purpose with enough power to deter people when they no it’s coming. a bit of jack of all trades master of none.

The main worry i have is if the Tories get into power we won’t see any increase in defence spending and most likely a cut. they aren’t so bothered about protecting jobs as Labour are. With Labour we know these ships will be built and if they are built in the number’s talked about we could see the Royal navy back to a good strength. I don’t trust the Tories and as bad as Labour are they have tried to keep defence and haven’t cut the money. It ‘s the MOD the problems are at. That place needs areal shake up and at least half the staff laid off. The British used to run the whole of India (administration staff like what they MOD is) with less than half the staff of the MOD. It just shows how much waste there is. This is also why we are seeing every project delayed and over budget. I have a feeling a lot of people here think things are going to be a lot better under the Conservative government but i don’t see it and don’t think it will happen.

Goalkeeper on Invincible

Is that picture of the Mk41 launcher with missiles in it to scale? i must say the size difference between Aster 15 and Aster 30 looks like nothing. How can Aster 30 have such long range compared to Aster 15 when it’s not much bigger.
I have heard that the Type 45’s are going to be filled with Aster 30 only.
My ideal load for the C1 would be to have some Aster 15’s in the launchers and some CAMM quad packed there as well. As far as i am aware both these missiles use different ways of seeing there target and this would be an advantage i would think. I don’t think they will Carry aster 30 especially not to start with. More likely in a possible upgrade or to use some sort of extended range CAMM. I think we will see either 32 or 48 cells on the boats with for a 32 cell launcher 24 being for aster 15 and 6 being for CAAM. (CAMM quad packed would give 6×4=24)
The main issue is to see how well CAMM performs and what role it will take. If it’s really capable and just as good as Aster and can intercept all targets then fine but we don’t know yet.
Also could Aster 15 have it’s fins modified seeing as it has the Pif-Paf things for maneuverability. Maybe then it could be quad packed. Wiki (i know, i know) says that it has a diameter of 180mm. Not sure if this correct and if it is this must be at the top of the missile before the fins.

I found these nice pictures on another website that will hopefully give us an idea of what the Royal navy needs to be better than.
SAMS comparison

CIWS comparison

Anti-submarine

Overall comparison (not mine personally)
Overall ranking
This is very difficult. There is no clear-cut across the board winner, but the Takanami is probably the most capable overall. Having said that, it’s much bigger and probably more expensive than the others and is certainly not the best in terms of air-defence or anti-surface warfare.

The much-upgraded Adelaide is certainly very potent but disadvantaged by older sensors and the OHP heritage – the ship itself simply isn’t that modern. The Formidable however is extremely modern and has some very advanced systems and design features. The Type-054A is certainly up there.
If we look at a few other considerations we could easily be persuaded away from the raw weapons stats that put the Takanami up there as the best overall.

This is not my opinion it was taken from another website. The comparison is mostly far east ships but these are where the navies are growing the most and this is where i think the Royal navy needs a bigger and more permanent deployment.

I suppose this radar is an AESA.

In the past, Russian radars were considered to be inferior to western ones. What is IAF’s general assessment about Russian radars.

This looks like sergeri’s new computer mebob from the the compare the mercat advert. lol

Found this info on the Skyhawks. Looks like BAE has about 6 of them and provides visual targets for german Airforce
Since 1991 BAE Systems (former Tracor Flight Systems Inc.) has had a contract with the German Air Force to fly visual target missions for German F-4F Phantoms and the new German Typhoons (Eurofighters).
http://www.a4skyhawk.org/9e/bae/bae.htm