Isn’t it perfectly reasonable to assume that two navies in close proximity, who might in the near future be in open conflict with each other, would have similar levels of training and professionalism (almost certainly higher in certain areas, than European navies who do not have the same training needs)? After all if one side or the other neglected training then they are placing themselves at a distinct disadvantage. How this professionalism might stack up against other non-peer navies operating in different parts of the world would be difficult to establish for most of us here, we could maybe look at what information is available on their training, and possible first hand accounts of what observers saw in joint exercises and exchange, but I put money down that it would be virtually impossible to find an impartial assessment.

The Royal Navy likely lacks the critical mass of ships to train it crew and officers as much as they would like, but we are recognised as being top tier in minesweeping, ASW and submarine warfare (the US for example sends their officers on the perisher course), of course we now face the prospect of being behind China in experience of fast jet carrier operations given that we are gapping our capabilities for nine odd years just as China gets ready to launch their first carrier (making aspects of our institutional experience less than the new boys on the block when it comes to naval aviation).

Hi Fedaykin,

Sorry to hear about your holiday, I don’t suppose you know when the MoD plans to start modernising the T23’s?

Presumably they will spend several years, if not longer as XO’s before they have any chance of being captain, so any rough edges will be rubbed off.

Has everyone seen this post, apparently its from Jeff Filmore:

http://www.pprune.org/members/361984-submarine-jeff

I was wondering, as the US just agreed to pay to treat areas contaminated with Agent Orange, and today China warned the US to stay out of its disputes (which China claims is provoked by other parties not them, in this respect they sound like North Korea) it seemed to me only a matter of time before Vietnam sees the advantages of getting closer to the US, and US sees the benefit of getting closer to Vietnam.

http://www.euronews.net/2011/06/17/agent-orange-clean-up-starts-in-vietnam-50-yrs-later/

Hi Fedaykin,

Would it not take about the same length of time to bring a P-3 into service as Marshall’s plan for C-130 MPA (given that we would likely want to update the avionics and sensor systems of any P-3 taken out of storage, likely to similar standard to the P-3K2’s used by the RNZAF)? I thought that in either case they would have to be qualified by the MAA regardless, as I thought the MAA is qualifying all new additions of the RAF regardless of if they already been certified in another service (given that I though we are going to certify our Joint Rivets for example)?

Isn’t the $5 million a black hawk a bit of a urban myth? I thought the $5 million was for a basic airframe without engines, advanced avionics or defence aids needed in Afghanistan, and that when you added them in they came in at significantly more.

Take the Sweden sale, it’s $546 million for 15 UH-60M 4 T700-GE-701D General Electric Engines (30 installed and 4 spares), 15 AN/AAR-57(V)3 Common Missile Warning Systems, AN/APR-39 Radar Signal Detecting Sets, AN/AVR-2B Laser Warning Sets, Aviation Mission Planning Station, transportable operations simulator, communications equipment, spare and repair parts, tools and support equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, logistics, and technical support services, and other related elements of logistics support.

Disentangling support costs from unit costs is bit of a fools game, and you can read what you like into the costs, but assuming that half of the $546 million is for helicopter (and essentials like engines and avionics) then this works out around $18 million a helicopter or roughly £11 million a helicopter, and since you really cannot disentangle unit costs from support costs its not unreasonable if we had brought Blackhawk’s they would have had a significant price tag once you factor in simulators, spares and a 10 year support contract.

http://www.asdnews.com/news/30860/Sweden-_UH-60M_BLACKHAWK_Helicopters.htm#ixzz1OQw8a2Qs

I remember watching the vote live on TV at the UN, and then being very frustrated that we did not immediately see Tornado’s heading south to protect Benghazi, I figured the way things were heading it was going to be an epic fail, then out of the blue the French launched their Rafale’s and got the job done. It peeved me off that it was not the RAF leading the way.