I agree and I am saying a major refit every six years 🙂

Less major refits require dock time as well.

Physically rather big. The Yakhont uses a duct underneath the airframe to breathe, while the Brahmos uses an inlet style of intake on the nose.

The nose style of intake allows the missile to be more compact, but it has a catch on its own, for the same reason why jet fighters don’t use nose inlets anymore (e.g. MiG-21). That’s because it can potentially limit the size of the seeker array and components. Note, its also a factor in the obsolescence of the Talos.

So so wrong.:rolleyes:

Never said it was (particularly with The Messiah in a lifeboat watching the Titanic sink with the passengers still onboard). I said “They’re still trying to figure out a way to get KEI to sea ” Which they are.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/missiledefense/Docs/KEI_06_FINAL_081606.pdf

Which means two guys having a half meeting once a month and chatting about how it could theoretically be done. It is never going to happen.

Interesting that the USN is suggesting they need more Aegis vessels, how many do they need exactly?

They need very few.

DDG1000 is dying for a multitude of reasons, The aegis evolution has resulted in the type remaining very modern and capable, how many other navies can shoot down satellites and ballistic missiles?

Weapons development has not gone the way people thought it would and there is currently nothing on the horizon that requires larger VLS cells.

Finally why does a fleet already loaded out with Tomahawks, 5inch guns, fleet carriers and the USMC with helos and Harriers need anymore strike capacity?

Sorry but I latched on to this bit.

The short answer surely is no, Finland does not need aircraft carriers because they do not operate an ocean going ‘blue water navy’. They operate a coastal navy that generally stays well within the cover of Finland’s land based air power. Same goes for Sweden and to a lesser extent Germany. It has to be agreed that Germany is patrolling further afield these days but they generally have the benefit of allied air cover either from land or from another country’s aircraft carrier. In the case of China? I believe they have plans to build aircraft carriers as they wish to operate a long range blue water navy.

So you are right to a point, you don’t really need an aircraft carrier unless your navy regulary operates far from land and requires organic air cover and I think this is the point Obi Wan was making. I also think he made it quite well and I would like to add that, barring any previous history you two may have, that your attack on him was a little uncalled for. Sorry.

Wrong, you can operate far from land without carriers. You decide to have a carrier if you intend to take your fleet and put it near somebody elses land who has their own airforce and a large one at that. this is why the RN did not need fleet carriers in the late cold war period as its operational sphere was the GIUK line, it was not going to be leading the charge round the North Cape. Why on earth does Germany need allied air cover? I was not aware that you average failed state has access to a powerful AShM launching airforce?

Why is it so difficult for people to look at what individual navies do rather than just make broad sweeping statements about needing aircraft carriers?

In the naval sphere there has been an Indian move away from Russia. All the latest Indian classes under construction use the LM2500 or DCNS RMPS for propulsion, Israeli radars and missiles, and L3 IPMS’s. It is Fincantieri and L3 who are consulting on the IAC with the Russian’s nowhere to be seen.