Sorry, but we are talking about what is available and in-service NOW, not “might be in service 10+ years in the future”.

Fair comment but thats hardly resounding testimony is it?. A-10 was designed with two threat systems primarily in mind…Romb and Shilka. The concept was to be able to defeat both with a combination of manoeuverability, armour and standoff weaponry…in the day AGM-65. The threat environment has not remained static has it?. The point contended was that the survivability was laudable…within limits thats clearly correct…I just wanted to note those limits.

In certain scenarios, an example might be one where the risk of delivering a pilot into an irregulars captivity may be a big own own goal and very expensive politically, its quite feasible that the A-10 despite its admirable survivability may not be an optimal choice and, just with available right-now technology, armed UAVs may be a better option.

Just a thought!

Indeed TEEJ, A-10 has taken heavy hits in her service life including from Manpads.

If you don’t believe me Stan Hyd here are a few pictures of 81-0967 during the Kosovo campaign, took a hit from a SAM and returned to service a couple of weeks later:

I’ve always wondered about this and the pics are good illustration. If that green engine wasnt available at the damaged A-10s recovery base would that aircraft have flown again as soon as it did?. Is survivability all its cracked up to be if, on day 2, you are launching half the planes you did on day one because half came back shot to bits?

Good news for the pilots that their planes got them back of course, but, better if the aircraft didnt get hit in the first place and available the next day or, perhaps, didnt have a human component to worry about?

Nah cant see any one of them that looks like she could chuck a 4.5″ shell about like your standard issue Jenny….

😉

Yep Red Flag

See Red Flag 13-2 here: http://www.dreamlandresort.com/info/flag_units.html#13-2

Anything to avoid a tilt rotor eh?:);)

I think the Mantis type must have a use on the carriers but will it have enough power to do AEW?

Single engined Guardian UAV below seems to be able to drive a surface search set quite happily

Mantis having the extra motor should be better provided for in this regard and a mockup has been seen with a ventral radar can pretty much under the wing box. I do dimly recall that the BAE type was designed to be adaptable to different rated powerplants so an uprating to provide more installed power was a feasibility.

Originally Posted by thobbes View Post
I cannot fathom the obsession with submarine force, especially a nuclear one when the country’s key surface fleet and air defense is in such a dire state.

The reason is simple and the motive behind it clearer still. Sea denial…just what our fleet boats did to them in 82.

Cutting an SSK in two and welding in a reactor section is, as I’m sure the erudite posters discussing it are aware, is about 10% of the work towards developing an SSN capability. Putting together the infrastructure to support nuke berthing, developing and maturing at sea support procedures and simply learning how to deploy and handle SSNs in operational conditions, without a clear ‘mentor’, will take a generation from the kickoff if they had the money to do it today…even if they get a ‘me too’ from the Brazil programme its still a decade or more work just getting the support set up.

The ‘then what’ is the issue though?. Argentina goes through the challenge of developing and fielding an SSN and gets out of it a gen1 SSN potentially similar to a French Amethyste class boat….with later gen sensors.

Without meaning to sound flippant that buys the RN Astute hulls 8, 9 and probably 10. It then sets the Argentine submarine service against one of the top SSN operators on the world with an augmented fleet of state of the art boats!.

Tough call that one.

The islanders comment ….

Argentina claims the Falkland Islands form part of the province of Tierra del Fuego – an area that was not claimed as a part of the Republic of Argentina until after two generations of Falkland Islanders had been born and raised in our Islands.

There is no truth to Argentine claims that a civilian population was expelled by Britain in 1833. The people who were returned to Argentina were an illegal Argentine military garrison, who had arrived three months earlier. The civilian population in the Islands, who had sought permission from Britain to live there, were invited to stay. All but two of them, with their partners, did so.

We are not an implanted population. Our community has been formed through voluntary immigration and settlement over the course of nearly two hundred years. We are a diverse society, with people from around the world having made the Islands their home.

….which pretty much ends the debate either way. With the debate ended perhaps we can move back to the OP’s question?.

….and eventually a visit to the Falklands so it can have a go at 1435’s role. In the case of the Falklands I would still have the Typhoon but detach an F-35B flight so they can gain experience.

Agree with that, but, with a different slant….just as the Light Blue ran a Typhoon drag to MPA a little while back to prove out the capability…an F-35B drag down to Port Stanley followed by a few AD and Strike serials from the short strip would be a very useful evolution on a few different levels from commitment to FI security to RAF rapid-deployment and forward basing capability.