As I understand it, the Northrop proposal is to build a new airframe – only – with everything else being off the shelf. The cockpits & what they call the ‘in plane training system’ from BAE, same as offered in the Hawk, existing engine, etc. That should make it relatively quick, cheap & low risk.

But yes, it’d still be higher-risk & likely to be later than M-346 or T-50.

I wonder if Northrop could revive Mako? 😀

Swerve, do you think this will be the point where BAE decide to go back to the drawing board and update the airframe of the Hawk – if they want to continue to build aircraft, the trainer/light fighter market has to be competed in? Cant let the South Koreans and Italians have it all?

I’d put money on it, it would be a shame though because it would mean they won’t have a hanger or the legs that would enable the chance to free up some taskings from the escort fleet.

Agreed Kev, really is a bad design for the UK without a hangar – I think it was stated before the Uk really needs a 100m OPV to be able to do the things we need them to do. The tasking we have at this stage borders on insane. I really wish they would have done a 6 ship order and split the building with 3 at Portsmouth. It would keep the yard open while we find out what the hell the scots are up to. 6 x 100M opv would make a massive difference to the RN and give them room to breath with the surface fleet.

Canada’s Joint Support ship costings a lot more than the UK’s ships and only 2/3 rds the size

I wonder if the Canadians should be following our lead for once, save the money and use it for Ice Breakers/ frigates.

It is well known that Europe needs more tankers to replace old types and to take the pressure off the US if the US was to let the KC-10’s go a European tanker force of KC-10’s would be a good start

I have to agree here – that or NATO takes them on. We knew that was a major issue and here is a ready made solution. NATO purchases at least 15 of them and operates them along side the E-3. That being said I wouldn’t mind getting some of these for the UK – if they are dirt cheap :).

Possible other sales?

South Korea wants some KC-46/A330’s but not until 2017 – well here they are they can get in cheap and buy some to begin training etc and then buy their new ones later on.

Would have to agree, Brazil, India or Australia. That being said I would imagine that with the recent purchase of Largs Bay and the two Canberra’s being built, some will argue that this is one to many big ships so to speak, but it will come down to price.

From left field though, what about Vietnam? They have bought from Netherlands recently (sigma), they have a large coastline – could be useful for humanitarian needs and the issue of China and territory disputes.

It came up in a freedom of information request recently, it is a sensible solution in all respects. Eventually they can make a decision down the line of they want to add the capability to all six. Personally I think it is sill the recent talk about adding strike length silos to the T45, the money is far better spent getting as many capabilities on the T26.

I agreed completely. I see no need for the Type 45 at this stage adding strike capability, it would be nice and I would suggest that moving to the MK41 would be ideal as long as we can integrate MBNA missiles. I like the idea of the RN type 45 going to sea with the SM-3 🙂 but its not really necessary.

Getting the T26 to sea with everything it needs is the first concern I would say. I do think we need more sea based options for Land attack and by arming the T26 with strike length silos we give ourselves a lot more options.

The 052D looks great, 8 of those on top of what they already have will be impressive. It must be nice for the Navy architects to be able to make changes and see the fruits of those changes rather quickly.