Could we see a move back to think about developing a navalised Typhoon for the Tranche 3 airframes? Assuming my numbers are right – you would save money as long as the development costs to navalise Typhoon was cheaper than the cheapest option of providing the same number of fighters, as you have to buy the Tranch 3 Typhoons regardless of what else you buy. So if you keep development costs below say £4 billion (based on 80 x SH @ £50 million a piece) you would save money.

If you really want to go for conventional aircraft on carriers just get the Rafale off the shelf, it’s ready now and we could even pool training with France.

A crazy thought – if we purchased Rafales, might the French accept the T3 Typhoons as payment? 😀

Because the US gave them to Israel in the first place? :rolleyes:

Did anyone else hear that the PFI for the RAF tankers might be up for review?

It certainly would be a good move, certainly be a hell of a lot cheaper in the long term.

No, he shut down a rocket program that would cost 50% more than the shuttle (per launch) and carry half the payload.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/04/mr-obama-pitches-for-asteroids.shtml

Whether it’s the moon or Mars, the important thing is that manned missions continue to push the boundaries of what is possible.

I think there has also been a boost for this particular research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_specific_impulse_magnetoplasma_rocket

Which could reduce flighttime to mars to only 39 days!!! Here’s hoping! 🙂

My friends in the US are deeply opposed to it, it would be nice to have a rational debate about the bill though, given that the opposition in the media has for the most part been right-wing rhetoric.

another one!