By the way, MBDA at DSEI was showing Fire Shadow used from ships, and in the video you can see… deck marked “Q”, with… modifications from the QE we know.
For example: no sky jump in sight (and ok so far), what would appear as a new, additional lift in the deck judging by deck markings (weird) and a number of superstructures and a big ass crane mounted aft, making it look almost like Ocean in that area, where the LCAC(L) are usually embarked.

Have a look at it yourselves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJDJm3eawcM

MOD hypothesis for modifications for improved Amphibious capability? MBDA being imaginative?
Why did they make a video with a QE model like that, when they could have used plenty of graphics already available?

The deck marking says ”O” not ”Q”!

It’s HMS Ocean.

Any info on names for said vessel yet??

Apparently an Aussie Admiral already let slip that it’s Jervis Bay.
Predictable, but it’s nice to keep that lineage with the RFA ships.

I wouldn’t suggest walking anywhere carrying a Argentine flag unless your ‘air strikes’ have killed every Royal Marine on the Falklands! :diablo:

To be fair, there’s only one RM on the islands – a WO responsible for training the FIDF to UK doctrine.

The posters in the PPRUNE Military thread … are all pretty much agreeing that the Merlin HC3’s are not SH versions of the HM1 but actually derived from a commercial utility version of the Merlin and are not wet built and therefore will require lots of costly work to covert to RN use

I’ve also been following that thread (some very interesting points raised within it), but it seems to me they are for the most part agreeing that the basic airframe is wet built, and that the components to change the parts that aren’t (particularly wrt to the folding main rotors) are readily available, and it’s a relatively simple job of changing them over.

Of far more concern to me is the reliability and load-carrying capabilities of the aircraft, which the majority of ‘thought-applied’ posters seem to share.
I do find myself questioning whether it might be less costly, and result in a better capability if we were to choose another aircraft, rather than take the risk of yet another cut-and-shunt semi-solution, which will may well be costlier than procuring another aircraft entirely.

The past few weeks have caused me to reappraise several years of being a big fan of a dark-blue HC merlin.

A couple of years ago (back when it was F3’s, HMS DC, and pre-uprgraded radar stns (and back when I had alot more time on my hands!)) I made a map overlaying the approx radar ranges for each asset we have down there. It would have made a truly terrifying prospect to any would-be Argentine aggressor.

It’s safe to say that it would be magnitudinally more terrifying now that we’ve upgraded the radar stations, switched a ‘legacy’ interceptor for the Typhoons, introduced a significantly more capable patrol vessel, and will shortly be introducing the world’s most powerful air defence warships to the southern sea-scape.

With that in mind, do you really believe that a handful of new tanker-transports are a ”rather big game changer”?

They may be shiny new aircraft, but it’s not a new capability. Argentina has barely any fighters to refuel from them anyway. The SE’s last I heard are grounded, and have been for years. The Mirages have also spent several years grounded (though they may recently have been approved again – i’ve heard conflicting reports), leaving Argentina with less than a dozen airworthy A-4AR, which they rather ambitiously call ‘mini F-16’. Hardly the strike-package to end all.

The only game-changer I can see in the next few years are if Argentina were to develop ballistic missiles. They have an extremely fine history of building rockets, and it’s well within their grasp.
We would simply have no answer in our current inventory (other than the rather marginal abm capability of the T45), other than to retaliate or pre-empt.

Anything beyond a single Scottish newspaper to confirm this? I can’t find anything. Having said that, £500m per ship seems astonishingly pricy, especially considering it’s future as the Navy’s operational backbone.

I don´t see how you´re reading that to suggest launching off naval platforms besides carriers.
That COULD be planned, but I only see a mention of launching from ¨land, sea, and air¨,
Which a platform not launchable from any ship besides a Carrier would fulfill.
What´s interesting to me is the ¨launching from air¨ bit, which would presumably be underslung or ramp launched from transport types…

“The outline requirement for the Novel Air System program is to look at development of a reusable long-range strike platform capable of penetrating and operating in defended airspace. A target range of more than 600 mi. is called for; another design driver is that the air vehicle be capable of being launched and recovered from a frigate-size ship. The last requirement would suggest a vertical take-off and recovery design.”

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,205560,00.html

The T26 UAV hangar beckons perhaps….!

(though I have to admit the idea of the UK pioneering a fixed wing naval UCAV that’s not carrier based did take me by surprise)