Why not announce it publicly? Its a standard pilot exchange program.

Please quote me where I said I supported the B variant overall. Simply stating a fact (e.g. price) is not a declaration of support – only children think like that.

No, I’d like you to tell me how much the only system currently available (and likely to be available in 2014) would cost to integrate into the QE-class. Please stick to the issue at hand rather than dodge around it.

Given I didn’t even say I supported the B-variant I am even more bemused! :confused:

Lol you are so funny, no information from you no details and a complete change of opinion that you then deny despite being qouted multiple times!:D 😀 :rolleyes:

I have already provided a source with the price of EMALS and the expected availabilty date (you have not provided any sources:rolleyes: ) and you ignore it.:D 😀

Oh and here is another source stating that the CVF’s are to be able to be back fitted with catapults, with EMALS being the preference .:rolleyes:

I disagree………the odds are the Japanese will acquire the Raptor. As politics in both countries will not except a non US-Type.

I have seen nothing from the US side to even hint that there is a vague consideration to letting Japan have the Raptor, indeed there only seems to have been flat refusals.

You seem very excited about that. I thought it was common knowledge that the difference in the variants was estimated around that.

I note you still haven’t told me what the savings for the current carrier config are over conventional landing and take-off. Is it because you don’t have any figures or sources for that, or are you trying to think up a vaguely plausible figure that suits your position?

I’m not sure I said whether I did or did not. A lot of people bitch about the fact they were combined at all. Sorry if I assumed you weren’t one of those people that wanted a return to how things were but your posting seemed to suit that profile.

I don’t believe I made a fuss about C being more expensive than A at all. Indeed if anything I was originally bemoaning the people who were making a fuss about the supposed lack of auxiliaries and aircraft when neither need to be ordered just yet.

Unfortunately you make it all too easy.

Lol you ‘profile’ people.:D :rolleyes:

BTW according to……….

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-25.htm

Each EMALS unit should cost $26.5 million, less than one F-35, whilst they could not be delivered before 2015, it would make little difference with the first CVF not being delivered before 2014 at the earliest. As the vessels are being fitted for but not with catapults anyway it should take little effort to install them at construction.

Exactly! The whole reasoning behind going for the F-35B was more than a little questionable, and is now pretty clearly wrong. The F-35C would be a much more useful option, and arguably would make for a pretty good Tornado GR-4 replacement. I just wonder if you could either add another hardpoint on the larger wing, or possibly add a couple of the stealthy external bomb carriages.

As for the costs, the plan had been to buy the 150 F-35Bs (probably down to 135 or less now), the 232 Typhoons, and have the FOAS project to replace the Tornado GR-4. Now, the plan is to buy the Typhoons and F-35s, but FOAS was cancelled, so the GR-4 lives on… The money must be found to actually buy enough aircraft to do the job – it is all very well and good saying “where’s the money going to come from”, but if it needs doing, it needs doing!

As for the MARS ships, I strongly agree with the idea of them being built elsewhere – pretty much anywhere within reason. The cheaper they are, the better! Though I would certainly want to give them some decent self defence kit, e.g. SeaRAM or similar? The Falklands proved that every ship that goes near the danger zone must be able to defend itself, at least in an emergency.

Very well put all round. I hope that the UCAV program ultimately leads to a GR4 replacement of sorts but I am not holding my breath, if the Typhoons get well supported they should be very good A2G machines (although I have yet to see anything conclusive about where exactly Saudi Arabia’s 72 are coming from), in theory Strike command should be left looking very capable, but we will have to wait and see.

I don’t think you would know what civilized discussion would be if it came up and struck you on the back of the head. :rolleyes:

You didn’t answer my question. You claimed that a less capable aircraft was being purchased for “relatively small” savings. As I said, what sort of figure do you consider “relatively small” and how did you come by that estimation?

Now you’re just being silly. One could argue the RN could have lived without the Queen Elizabeth class and made do with a pair of Cavours or something.

You said that the RAF could live without the B-variant’s capabilities. I pointed out that the RN can live with B-variant. It’s so simple even you should be able to get it.

So no figures and no logic, I really am not surprised.:rolleyes: Here are the facts laid out simply for you,

The RN and the RAF are getting an aircraft of reduced capability in order to save a small amount of money on the construction of the carriers, the issue of V/STOL for the RAF is very limited and it would not harm the RAF not to have it, the Navy on the other gets a much reduced capability.

The figures for you,

F-35C range- 1400NM F-35B- 900NM

Then there are the massively reduced weapons bay sizes, the C can take 2000lb bombs the B only 1000lb.

However I have no doubt that you will persist with you silly little argument that such a sacrifice is worthwhile becouse it saves a whopping $1 million per airframe!:rolleyes:

Switching from BC/AD to ‘before zero’ and ‘after zero’ makes perfect sense. Since this calender system is taken up by plenty of non-Christians and has become more or less universal, i think the terminology should follow suit and become universal as well.

Besides, with Christ appearantly born under the rule of Herod, that would mean that he was born no later than in the year 4 Before Zero. The BC/AD designation are inaccurate because them early Christians couldn’t count. And since Christ, if born at all, was most definately NOT born in the year zero, i guess the current calender system is neutral enough to be non-offensive to those not of the Christian faith. I know i’m not offended by being born in the year 1974 (although it a year as good as any for re-starting the calender).

I can’t help noticing that lots of people spend a lot of their time searching for stuff to be offended by. The anti-PC-crowd, islamists, all a bunch of thin-skinned nags.

The calender has always been wrong, turns out it took a while for Christians to get a grip of leap years.;)

clarify:confused: I was perfectly clear, atleast to the point I wanted to be…

No you were not, your post appeared to be deliberately insulting to Americans and America, now you claim that was not your intention so either you are lying or you were not clear enough.