Very impressive video – thanks very much!:)

Aegis, or a system which could provide a similar capability was a core requirement. PAAMS was found to fall short which only left AEGIS, which thus only left SM-2/ESSM.

Hi, I’ve tried to find some good, official info on this for ages – would you have any links to any of the information publicly released about why the Australians considered that PAAMS fell short; and why not the APAR plus SMART-L combo, rather than Aegis?

Cheers.

Cheers for the answer. So does France plan to phase out the Gazelles when the Tigers have missiles operational, or keep them as a nice cheaper option for when the Dreaded Austerity hits over there too?

Whilst trawling around last night I can across mention of BAe working on a stealthy ASTOVL design with enclosed cockpit in the early 90s….

???? somebody supposed that this was because of concerns over laser weapons (although this feature has not endured).

Everything that I read at the time about the canopy-less virtual cockpit was that it was primarily for the very substantial signature and drag reduction – no reason that it couldn’t be laser protection too, naturally, but I doubt that that was the main driver.

I guess the feature was dropped since once you go in that direction… well you might as well just not have the pilot in the plane at all eh?

I’m not too savvy with all these sites – which one’s Matej’s?:)

I have to thank you as well CockneyJock for the great pics – what a thing for you to be able to document!; almost enough to bring a sentimental tear to the eye eh?:)

So is that a misquote in the article (it specifies F-35B)?

Am i right in thinking the last PoW ended her days in the Far East at the hands of the Japanese?

Has the name been used since WWII?

Yup you’re right – she was the last PoW (according to ‘Ships of the Royal Navy’ anyway). Sunk alongside Repulse due to not having one of those useless things called carriers anywhere near….

Chox: In addition to the apparent inconsistency in your argument that Kev 99 has repeatedly pointed out, there seems to be another:-

You stated that investment in CVF has compromised the UK’s ability to defend herself. I pointed out that our home defence is fine (though our other power projection assets have been compromised), and your refutation of this was that I was writing nonsense: our defence has been compromised (though you didn’t deign to go into any more detail).

However, in reply to Kev 99 you point out that we’re unlikely to be attacked by anyone (as proven by history, apparently…) so could actually, safely, pare our defences down even further – therefore our defence hasn’t been compromised (by CVF or anything else), no?

Words are slippery beasts so ambiguity is always certain – would you mind explaining how the above isn’t as logically incoherent as it appears to be, cheers? And please don’t tell me to read it again – I am an unusually attentive reader.

Since you have demonstrated your fondness for viewing everything through the lens of the ’70s, would you mind explaining why you keep ignoring the preventive flight over British Honduras back then, in terms of it (not) being excellent evidence for the exceptional utility and cost-effectiveness of carriers? Just another diplomatic failure that should never have reached that stage, I suppose?

The main problem with your meta-argument about the UK’s place in the world, re our military strength, is that it seems far too fragile a position to be in. We hope that nobody attacks us, or our widespread dependent territories and allies, or our absolutely – strategically! – essential trade routes all over the globe (the down-side of being an island nation that was once an empire). Further, since practically every war represents (almost by definition) a breakdown in diplomacy, it isn’t quite intellectually fair to dismiss as evidence for carriers’ utility any wars that are (in your perception) a result of diplomatic failure (in addition to dismissing ‘wars of choice’…).

So the fragile position that you advocate the UK perching on top of also requires perfect diplomacy to be carried out forever too. The history that you are so fond of will quickly point out how unrealistic that hope is.

You have the weapons for when any of the above ideal states fails – due to diplomatic/Intelligence incompetence, or wilful and opportunistic unpleasantness on someone else’s part. Again, history will endlessly scream that my choice of the word ‘when’ rather than ‘if’ is the only correct one.