The author of that article seems under the impression that everything Iran procures must be for sinking super carriers else must be a joke and worthless. The idea that Iran might do 😮 recon 😮 or want to patrol its shores doesn’t seem to be considered, not the idea that Iran might think about threats other than a full scale US invasion 😮

The Iranians using a weird aircraft comes as no surprise though 😎

Sounds like a good idea if it is truly green (and not just “green” on paper by damaging the environment in a different way!). I’m not too sure about the extensive use of a nuclear powered ships though, if one of them gets hit with a decent size munition its going to make one hell of a mess.

I said: SIMILARLY EQUIPPED units.

I think you are missing the point. I’m interested in comparing the fuel economy of e.g. Leopard 2 versus M1A2, Marder versus Bradley etc. much like the fuel economy of US cars versus European cars and the per household energy use in the US versus in Europe. In Europe, for example, energy prices are higher than in the US (due to fuel tax among other things) and so there is a bigger incentive to be fuel efficient, which results in a more awareness of the need for energy efficiency and more fuel efficient cars and better insulated housing (less heat loss).

Besides, you are overlooking the fact that US troops overseas are also (to a substantial extent) resupplied from US bases in Europe where equipment and ammunition have traditionally been stored with a view to Soviet/Russian threat > Germany (close to 55k-60k US personnel there) + UK (close to 10k US personnel there) > equidistant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_military_bases_in_Germany.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations_in_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_military_bases
http://oilprice.com/Geo-Politics/International/The-Afghan-Problem-Logistics-Re-supply-Growing-Violence.html
http://www.nato.int/docu/logistics/html_en/logistics07.html
http://www.nato.int/docu/logistics/html_en/logistics03.html
http://www.nato.int/docu/logistics/logistics-e.pdf

Just tax I think. Still, its going to go up with the rise in VAT to 20% in Jan! There are no army forces in the UK, just airforce. Any army in the UK will be either small numbers of specialists/higher officers or those there for exercises.

In any case, in terms of fuel they could just buy it from the nearest willing supplier in the nearest willing country. No need to use American fuel, its all the same stuff!

In ~1992, there was a report comparing USMC and US Army airlift needs. It compared similarly-equipped & manned combined infantry/armor units, and found that the US Army’s list of “required equipment” would use ~30% more airlift than the USMC’s list.

The main difference was not in the combat equipment, it was in the other stuff…
the USMC would bring basic tents with folding cots while the Army wanted ones with floors, heating & air-conditioning units, and metal bunks with matresses;
the USMC would bring a minimal field kitchen while the Army wanted a “portable mess-hall” (specialized tents to eat in, full-up stoves & dishwashing equipment, etc);
the USMC would bring the absolute minimum of administrative personnel & equipment while the Army wanted to bring the full admin sections with field offices;
the USMC planned for minimal R&R gear while the Army wanted a field gym, etc;
the USMC had basic shower-tents & field latrines while the Army wanted trailers with showers & water heaters, other trailers with proper lavatories, etc.

The difference was summed up as:

I think it would be fairer to say the USMC goes to fight a short war, the US Army goes to fight a long war, but they both certainly go to fight a war.

I guess all that does make a difference… I would not be suprised about those types of things in the UK or Germany or Japan but was suprised that those porta-cabin barracks had pizzahuts and mcdonalds in afghanistan.

No wonder people are still trying to develop autonomous cargo airships powered by solar panels.

I believe he is referring to the bases in the UK, which have a crispy creme and cheap fuel amongst other things IIRC.

Oh, that is a catch.
When is Rafale production expected to close ?
(assuming no more orders)

2023 if the French order the full 286 aircraft, but its quite possible that the French will not order the full amount. Even based on the 2023 figure, the line won’t be around when MLU F35 production takes place so the UK order is going to need to be in one, around the time we would make our main F35 order. Of course if the Rafale were an amazing export success then its line would stay open for longer, but its failed to sell so far, and so the chances of a long term Rafale line are slim. The fact that the French can’t shift it, even with the extremely generous deals they are offering buyers, also suggests its a bit of a paper wonder and a procurement we’d be better off steering clear of. F35C offers the ideal solution for the RN IMO, and Typhoon for the RAF, though obviously F35C will be a part of both. SH is also none too good an idea, considering it will leave service before the F35.

Which version to cut? The F35B, no question. The USMC fast jets are “nice to have”, but a bigger carrier/airwing fleet would be better, and it would force the two to depend on each other. The F35C is the most important version in that most of the US power comes from the CVNs, and the aircraft from them are equally capable of being land based. In fact, an all F35C fleet for the USN and USAF would be great, but its not really economical, so keeping the F35A and F35C makes sense. As the Superhornets leave service, it might be a good idea to standardise on single USN type (F35C), easing logistics on carriers (sea force being where logistics is going to be the hardest) and driving down the cost of the SH replacement.

Another guy with an agenda. We’d be better off leasing extra Typhoons, at least we would have workshare and help our own domestic industry. With regards to price, when we send billions off to the USA, that does not come back to the treasury, and this need to be considered when talking about the real cost of large government contracts.

In some aspects, yes. The APG-79 flies or should i say scans rings around the pulse dopler CAPTOR and the pylon configuration plus the radar makes it bit more suitable for some missions than the Tornado GR.

Reforming 800 and 801 with leased supers (probably block Is though) at Oceana or Cherry Point and putting them into CVWs wouldn’t be a bad idea. You’d have a veteran corps of aviators and crews by the time the F-35C and the QEs come into service.

Typhoon has an AESA coming so that doesn’t really come into it. We aren’t in any urgent need of AESA equipped aircraft.

As for leasing American aircraft, then paying for the pilots and giving it all to the USA for their use for a decade doesn’t really have much benefit for the British taxpayer. Would be a great idea from the view of an American taxpayer though, we buy an airwing from your industry, then give it to you, saving your taxpayers money and giving your people jobs. The current situation where we send the pilots to get training and experience, and the Americans pay for the aircraft, is a much better idea 🙂

No thoughts on a name. Hopefully there are no major issues that crop up and cost even more, probably will be though. On a side note, I can’t believe we awarding contracts to the US whilst they continue their assault on our largest defence contractor (BAE), and one of our largest companies (BP).

Also, will it still have the QQ Tigershark?

The best form of defence is offence, so a good defence would be to give the Argentinians something to really fear. The best, and easiest idea, is a blockade until they give the islands back. That doesn’t mean blocking all traffic, just declare all shipping to/from Argentina within a certain distance of Argentina as a target, and start sinking a couple, the insurance costs alone will do 90% of the job for us. Maybe mix in special forces raids on some of their most important infrastructure. Another idea could be to start taking out their power stations, once their population starts to suffer they’ll soon see the error of occupying our territory. Hydroelectric ones are an ideal target, and they have 12 for us to destroy. When the Argentine civilians start seeing consequences of their government actions against us, they will soon decide that the Islands aren’t worth it.

They could be used for attacking the Falklands, reality is though, they’ll end up using them for peacekeeping and in natural disasters, both of which are really in our interests.

I was about to ask about rapiers and it would not be a disaster- in less then 18 hours the RAF could have another gaggle of 4-6 typhoons there and maybe a squadron of SAS-so no real strategic problem

Or a transport plane full of marines, paras or the like with heavy weapons and another with food and ammo. As is, the current base set up means the Argentines will pay a very big price in military lives in launching an attack on the Islands.