I wonder if when the MoD publishes the new rotary strategy later this year they might plan on reducing the number of Wild Cat’s for the Army and plan on the AAC buying a larger utility helicopter with the savings from a reduced Wild Cat purchase? For example on PPRUNE Military in the Save the Puma thread one poster categorically stated (with zero proof so likely he was wrong) that AAC will get the AW149 in the next ten years.

I think the best thing about the Rafale win is that with other platforms winning recent competitions it keeps the field open – I would almost put tenner where my mouth is that by 2015 Gripen NG, Typhoon and Rafale gain extra export orders, some of them at the cost of the F-35 and that Super Hornet International Road Map and likely the Silent Eagle never get out of the power point presentation.

Nice one for Rafale, hard luck for Typhoon.

Now, Dassault just need to keep India happy and not bollox up their chances before March…They seem rather good at messing it up at the last minute.

Whats this about 80 additional MMRCAs? I’m aware of these additional units would be the one selected for the MMRCA, but this is new to me. But if India don’t want another 80 MMRCA (Rafale in this case), but of other aircraft that took part in the competition, then surely Typhoon is a no-brainer, isn’t it not?

Congratulations to Dassault, bit sad that the Typhoon lost due to the economic impact on the UK (though I secretly hoped that Gripen NG would win). I have to say EELightning that you comment about Dassault bolloxing up the final contract might be seen as sore losing, and I would have thought that the way that the Indian’s have structured the competition would mean that they would avoid problems like we had with say the FRES UV!

As for the additional 80 MMRCA I suspect that someone has done a cost benefit analysis and concluded that 80 new MMCRA is only marginally more expensive than upgrading the Mirage’s. Though I again hope if it is a new type its Gripen NG. Hope that’s not to unpatriotic!

I was labouring under the impression that with modern super-sonic sea skimming AShM that CAMM would be in effect a point defence missile system as it would get a single chance to safely kill the AShM.

Presumably it makes no sense to mix Aster 15 and CAMM on the same platform as they have similar engagement ranges, so if the Type 26 gets Sylver VLS for Aster it will have to be Aster 30?

I regret mentioning Lewis Page, as it seems to have caused the moderator to do a bit of a clean up and that was not my intention.

Not sure why I am offended on behalf of Jo but C-Seven you really need to learn to read an article before opening your mouth and calling someone a troll, as obligatory points out the Taurus has done very much more than be photographed on a Eurofighter sat on the runway.

“Well I don’t think any of us are in doubt that Prince of Wales will get the first catapult set”

Not to be rude, but since i was the one saying it all along since months ago and was pretty much insulted and accused of having no clue, i can’t agree. Plenty of people here had (and some might still have) the full certainty that QE would be converted, and PoW mothballed.

Not to be rude as well (see Mod’s we are all polite her 🙂 ), but I think you find the point that people were making (I certainly think I posted said point) is that while you could fairly accurately guess that PoW was going to get the first set of cat and traps, as the Governments official line was that no decision had been made you could not state as emphatically as you did that PoW was going to get the first set of cat and traps.

I suspect that David Downs is going to get a bit of a carpeting as he is basically saying that far from there being a study to decide which carrier and which catapult system will be selected, which is due to report in 2012, he’s saying it’s a done deal. Now the MoD is going to wonder what the hell they are paying Carrier Alliance for if their option study is just going to have one option 😀

While I can see Argentina not really liking the idea of financing UK industry, does Argentina really think that there will be a conflict with the UK in the near future that would make Gripen NG a poor choice?

I can see a strong argument for Super Hornet…

While it would be expensive to operate Super Hornet’s over their current fleet, I imagine that the US state department would fall over backwards to get that deal in place and Boeing might even offer substantive local manufacturing rights, plus it has the bonus of only needing a small purchase of say 36 Super Hornet’s to give a massive increase in capabilities. Main issue surely is the need to buy new missiles for Super Hornet’s which would significantly increase the costs?

Answering Musashi’s point, I think it depends, mostly on if the UK really thought it would make any difference. All the evidence suggests that the US would ignore us and make the sale regardless of UK pressure. Hell the US state department want’s us to hand the Falklands over to Argentina and I can only see their opinion gaining more momentum if a significant oil field is found off the Falklands.

Can I ask a stupid question – given that Argentina has enough aeronautical infrastructure and expertise to make the Pampa, why hasn’t it developed its own single-engined light fighter? It’s not like Argentina needs a twin-engined super-cruising omni-role fighter with an AESA radar for basic air sovereignty missions, I would have thought a single engined light fighter would fill the role in reasonable numbers and be an export winner.