Here we go again.

There is nothing wrong with flogging a dead horse as long as it is entertaining.;)

So, without using the words extra range (35C’s advantage I believe is about 150nm which we get back carrying Storm Shadow)

Which ever way you cut it the B takes a range cut, the C would quite happily carry the Storm Shadow too which still gives it a longer range than a similarly equipped B.

and smaller weapons bay (there is exactly 1 weapon in UK inventory that this will stop being carried internally!), what are we losing by going STOVL instead of CATOBAR?.

Which makes the ludicrous suggestion that the UK air dropped munitions inventory is not going to change for the next 50 years. The fact is that it will and the majority of new western ordnance will be built for the A/C’s internal bays (see kongsberg NSM as an example).

Hawkeye capability?. The E-2 is a very useful capability to have, but, for the use CVF is going to get its not an ideal solution. Steam cats and an arresting engine come at a steep old price – especially when your carrier doesnt run on steam turbines like the CVN’s do. Why is leaving out something we dont need ‘cheap’?.

Define need, the very defence review these ships came out of declared very explicitly that there is no direct military threat to the UK, the carriers themselves are not ‘needed’, the fact is that not having Hawkeye is sacrificing a capability. The french ships will get catapults so there is no technical reason why the UK version can not. However I would love to see a cost breakdown between the 2.

Its not totally off topic re weapons in Afghanistan, If the Typhoon is deployed there they are the threats it has to face, its not beyond impossible that one could slip through and cause an incident that cast the Typhoon in a bad light… and that could only help manufacturers of other competing aircraft!!.

Blimey I sound like a conspiracy nut..;-)

You certainly do. The Taliban have a aquired and attempted to use a very small number of MANPAD’s, however uneducated locals were completely inept at using them and they hit absolutely nothing. If the Typhoon cant deal with what are now aging MANPAD’s then the program needs killing now.

Like your reponse otaku 😉

Same here.:)

Does anybody else find it strange that we have a Jon and a Jeff both posting the same nonsense?:rolleyes:

Well let’s look at it case by case. GBI (NMD) is an ICBM-sized and priced (probably more) missile that would only fit on battleship-sized ships nor would it be cost effective against short/medium range ballistics missiles. For the same reason it wouldn’t work for the Army.

And there is the problem, is this all necessary, especially considering what the US is actually doing at the moment and the junk some of its troops are having to take into combat. Take GBI for a start, it no longer has a role on the US mainland after the NK’s showed the world that they cant build ICBM’s or nukes.

The whole purpose of this stuff is based around a pretty specific scenario and I am really not convinced that it is worth it. For the record I really dont care what the Russians are doing, if they really feel the need to spend their oil money on fancy new strategic defence/attack systems that will do little if anything to support their foreign policy objectives then thats fine but it is no reason for the US to go down the same route.

I think it’s more a case of these programs almost being adequately funded vs. being drastically underfunded like many other programs. How do you figure money is being wasted when they can’t even do the amount of testing desired to prove various systems?

Note the word various. There is the basic NMD, Airborne Laser, KEI, THAAD, PAC-3, SM-3, modifications to existing standards………it it all really that necessary? Surely some of those projects could have been rolled into one?

Russian MANPADS sales to Syria & ATGMs to Iran didn’t come with end-user agreements, as so rudely dicovered by the US in Iraq & the IDF in Lebanon.

Dont read too much into that. Very few modern systems were found in Lebanon and even less in Iraq (it is actually still disputable as to how many with zero not being an impossible figure.).

Why? The navy went to Lockheed, not the other way around so where’s the conspiracy?

Because quite often in such cases the contractor will ask very nicely if they can have such commisions first.;)

I have to say that if ever a project needed canceling it was this one. Spend the money on something useful like linguistics training for deployed troops.

That petition does not really seem to know what its asking for, however there are two themes that I think I can pick out from the poorly worded text.

1) China should use restraint.

This is a regime that slaughtered its own population on the streets of its capital in order to retain control and regards national unity as one of the central tenements of its security scenario…………so good luck with that.:rolleyes:

2) There should be some kind of negotiation on Tibets status.

See above.:rolleyes: