Oh for bloody hell’s sake of course it is!!!. Thanks for not making that more painful than it already is Dazza!. Apologies Mantog!.

Now slinking back to the navy board wincing slightly!!!

Sentinel is the RAF moniker for the E-3. There was a bit of a display yesterday at Cottesmore marking the handover of 3Sqdn’s GR7’s to 801sqdn FAA and their transition to being a Typhoon sqdn.

There was a couple of 4-ships of GR7’s displaying along with, IIRC, a pair of Typhoons. Cotts is just down the A1 from Waddo so could’ve been these you saw?

Thats why its known as a ‘rule of thumb’ surely!. Don’t think anyones suggesting that an aircraft carrier MUST be able to operate (note difference from ’embark’!!!) one aircraft per thousand tons just that it generates an approximately sensible figure, if we’re talking bout pure-carrier designs, when you apply the rule.

On this carrier design, apart from the two fast-jet types idiocy as noted by Scott, they seem to have it right for the roles the ship is obviously being optimised for i.e modest sea control, light strike, ASW and the usual peacetime taskings. Be interesting to see how it contrasts in eventual costs terms with the Italian ship seeings the capabilities of the two ships will probably be comparable.

Nic,

If the whole problem with JSF is getting access to the source codes to allow us to make our own mods it will matter little whether we get the 35B or 35C variant.

The only thing that would happen if we considered opting for the CATOBAR variant would be swift offers of deck training and assistance from the flat-toppers in the USN as we’d be bringing the unit cost of their aircraft down a ways too!.

Perhaps if we did go with the Rafale solution we could get the French to acquire some Euro-Goshawk derivatives with us (they currently do deck quals with the USN?) and form a joint training sqdn using who’s ever deck was convenient and available. Know a few RN/RAF drivers who wouldnt have objected to flight training in the south of France!!!.

Sens,

That relies on the CIA being able to take a clear, concise and coherent picture from a source in Whitehall back to Washington.

I’ll tell you now that the last time a clear, concise and coherent picture came out of Whitehall there were V2’s landing all around it!.

Don’t kid yourself that divining a politicians intentions are a simple matter. The US may suspect that this is a bluff, but, the fact that the option exists, with some credibility, might just be enough to shake loose the kind of access BAe are looking for.

There is a chance the US will call us on the bluff. In which case the politicians will either fold or call Paris – not even the CIA would be able to predict that one!!!.

The ESSM is certainly not out of place on a primarily AAW vessel. The extended range of the missile allows it to protect the HVU as well as the AAW vessel when the escort is close guard position. Additionally it does the HVU little good if the AAW escort takes hits itself and leaves the HVU exposed to subsequent missiles. The ESSM is promoted as an excellent anti-missile defence and given the widespread take up of the system I suspect it probably is. The ability to quad pack is just outstanding, a 48cell Mk41 with 40-44 SM-2 and the remainder as ESSMs is a hefty load when one remembers that US VLS’s are usually also carrying a proportion of VLA and LACM.

Daniel

Daniel

OK this point is now being taken out of context.

This has crossed over from the Type124 thread whereby the point questioned was how necessary ESSM was on a Saschen when it was restricted to a ‘mere’ 32 cells.

As observed above there can be little objection to a few, perhaps as many as 4, cells being given up to ESSM, for 16 missiles tops, as a backup to the SM-2s, but, the primary mission of that vessel is AREA AAW and it absolutely MUST devote the furthest extent of its resources to that effect. Cleaving off a whole 25% of your available VLS cells for what is basically a PDMS designed for ownship defence is absurd in my opinion.

For that vessel, again IMO, you need as many of those cells loaded with SM-2’s as possible because even 28 might not go far in a serious attack if your set for shoot-shoot-look-shoot!. Hell they always have two full RAM launchers to cope with leakers!.

laptop

happiness or popularity?

First, you haven’t to light on your radar everytime except in combat situation, you can listen too. Second, if you have to send a higher discrimination platform, it’s better it remains unseen… which is harder when your target is more discrete than you are.

Otherwise nobody -and not MoD either- would build stealth ships.

And yes, PAMS and SM2R have still to intercept a high supersonic missile in trial

Sea Dart could intercept high supersonics without much trouble. Be in little doubt that SM-2 or Aster is at least equally as capable!.

Yes there are limited circumstances in which being discrete will be advantageous to a warship but, really, they’re very few and far between. A T45 can be as stealthy as you want but, if its escorting a 60k ton CVF, its odds on the enemy wont be fooled that a trawler is close-consorting with an aircraft carrier!!!.

What signature attenuation does for warships is reduce their vulnerability to active radar seeker heads on antiship missiles………or rather it increases the efficacy of softkill measures when compared to the lowered profile of the ship they’re screening.

Proof of this is that the Type23 is actually a very effective signature-attenuated design. No-one believes this because it doesn’t look like the accepted image of a ‘stealthy’ ship. The fact remains though its signature manipulation characteristics are very, very effective.