They do… Mitsubishi-built SH-60/UH-60s and AgustaWestland MCH-101/CH-101s.
11 per ship, to be precise.
Ok, let me be more precise: fixed-wing combat aircraft, the likes of which there are no indications that Japan plans to acquire.
I hope EU taxpayers won’t have to pay for this rather expensive Rafale promoting through some stupid EU fund or bill.
You don’t seriously think France would intervene in Libya to promote Rafale do you? :confused:
Nobody would accuse the French of being starry-eyed idealists in this or any other matter (well, maybe France) but there’s self-interest and then there’s stupidity. Intervening in Libya with the aim of garnishing Rafale’s service record would be the latter. And another thing the French aren’t is stupid.
No, I think that’s just standard conspiracy theory rubbish.
Probably, it’s just frustration talking for the most part. It’s just ridiculous that New Zealand’s capabilities in this area currently outstrip ours when the Kiwis don’t spend even a tenth of what we do on the military. In light of recent events, its only by virtue of the Australian public not knowing or caring about defence matters that the government hasn’t been roasted alive on this score. I do hope we’re able to pick up Largs Bay.
China Daily – Think Tank: Japan is an aircraft-carrier power
Wake me up when they have some aircraft to carry. :rolleyes:
With the recent disasters both at home and throughout the region, heads should be rolling in Australia over the state of the nation’s amphibious capabilities, i.e. non-existent. I’ve heard rumours that the RAN deliberately allowed the readiness and serviceability of the existing fleet to degrade so as to increase pressure on the government to fund a third Canberra-class LHD. Recently there’s been talk of setting up a joint disaster response force with New Zealand, yet between the two nations the only vessel available for such duties at the moment is New Zealand’s HMNZS Canterbury. :rolleyes:
And here I was thinking that USMC’s contribution to fiscal sustainability might include abandoning the maintenance of aviation capacities overlapping those of USAF/USN. :rolleyes:
Indonesia already operates handfuls of Flankers and F-16s and would necessarily have some support infrastructure in place for those platforms. If they’re looking to beef up their capabilities, why not simply acquire more F-16s or Flankers and round up an operational squadron or two? Beyond that they’re investing in the KF-X program. I don’t see where Typhoon fits.
EDIT: Informally approached Britain? Sounds like they’re after the Tranche 1s.
Thanks for the info. So… is there a shot of an F-89 intercepting a Bear in this book? 😀
My money is on an all-Euro shortlist. 😎
Aviation Week is reporting that the shortlist will be announced early next month.
That’s how it’s sold to the treasury/public. 😉
What’s the point if there’s no prospect of an aircraft at the end of it? Sure, it’s “good for British jobs” for BAe to land a contract to polish rivets or whatever on the F-35, but what’s the broader significance of that? It seems to me that the only reason for the nation to invest in maintaining such domestic industrial capacities is insofar as those capacities confer self-reliance in the design, construction and support of functional platforms for the military. Subsystem-level work is all well and good to bridge between major projects, but if there are no such projects forthcoming, i.e. if self-reliance is something that’s been thrown in the ‘too hard/expensive’ basket, then what’s the point? Obviously British industry can keep going as long as it stays in the black, and best of luck with that, but I’m not sure why anyone not associated with those companies should care what happens to them at this point.
For the folks trashing RAND here: the concept is discussed in two paragraphs of a 300 page document. Here’s the text:
It may also be that tactical fighter aircraft are not the optimal
platform for providing air defense in locations so far from the nearest
viable air base. An alternative, or supplement, might be a larger aircraft
capable of carrying a large number (e.g., 20 or more) of extremely
long-range (e.g., 200 nm) air-to-air missiles. Such an aircraft could
engage Chinese fighters while still beyond the range of their missiles
and then withdraw before it could be engaged by any of the survivors.
An aircraft such as the B-1, which has a payload of 75,000 lb
and supersonic dash capability, would be one possibility for providing
this capability. A stealthy aircraft like those that were considered for
the USAF’s now-canceled Next Generation Bomber program would be
another, particularly if the air-to-air missiles it carried had active seekers,
and a more survivable aircraft, such as the F-22, could provide the
target cueing so that the bomber would not need to disclose its position
by activating its radar. The missiles themselves could potentially be
based on existing airframes, such as those of the Patriot MIM-104 or
SM-2ER RIM-67 (which would have significantly longer ranges when
air launched instead of surface launched), perhaps coupled with a small
second stage for the terminal engagement.
Well to truly realise the possibilities offered by an SSGN you’d have to equip the boats with something other than Tomahawk: a shorter-range, supersonic cruise missile. The idea being to launch from within the target’s outer defences thereby – in concert with the missile characteristics themselves – minimising the adversary’s opportunity and capacity to react.
It provides another “first day of war” option against a peer or near-peer adversary besides the B-2s/NGBs/F-22s, the latter of which may well be limited by basing constraints.