Yes at this stage the only equipment deal breaker I could see would be if a nation was set on Aegis. Everything else of importance could possibly be integrated onto the vessel.

And for once we seem to be offering some pretty decent capabilities to begin with if the options are taken up. Other nations might be more willing to buy if our gun mount is of a more common calibre, 155mm might be enough for that even if it isn’t common in navies yet.

I think the main issue is that Europe is yet to be convinced of the need for ABM. Most defence thinkers in the EU believe its US paranoia, will Iran really lob a couple of MRBM at Europe? Really?? It does seem highly unlikely, not impossible but a very remote possibility. And then who else? Libya? more than remote. Syria? forget it. Russia? I should probably get a straight jacket for even considering it.

ABMs are very expensive and if you are going to spend that money there needs to be a real threat and one that cannot be removed by an exisiting method, which with Iran is not the case- if they really threatened the EU with MRBMs I really don’t think the major powers of the Europe would sit on their hands.

True enough. The story changes dramatically when you start to think about smaller missiles and shorter distances, where a theatre deployable asset like a ship could well be useful (and several nations are beginning to agree on that point, mainly focused around everyone’s favourite trouble nations, NK and Iran). Apart from that I wholly agree a system like GMD is pretty useless unless you want to annoy Russia (which I don’t really understand either, how can 10 ABMs threaten 700+ launch systems?). So as long as the deployable asset has the range to deal with threats all around the theatre of ops it is enough.

so apologies if this is already covered, but Liam Fox is saying that a Conservative government would keep a submarine launched nuclear deterrent and focus on anti ballistic missile shield for the UK.

IS this the right end of the stick?

Yes. I’ve been watching the graphics over the past couple of years of Iranian missile ranges slowly creeping into Europe. One of the most recent included parts of Italy. It makes sense to develop one since the US has bottled it due to Russian pressure. We’d get away with it because we wouldn’t be stupid enough to put it right in Russia’s backyard.

Plus it could be a good excuse to up T45 numbers a bit by seabasing it. Makes sense for the UK as well. If we had something with the range of an SM3, one or two in the channel would be sufficient to protect the entire country and can be deployed with task forces as necessary.

At least it is someone suggesting something new for a change rather than just squabbling over what not to cut. Financial crises don’t drag on forever you know (in fact it’s already over, the cuts now coming in are to make up for Labour’s stupidity over the last 13 years).

Id say pretty low……….

Why?

Just a feeling, an inherent dislike, a lack of faith in European manufacturers, a psychic vision…back up what you say.

I seem to recall one of the US companies performing tests (might have been X47) and saw a picture of it. No idea how successful they were though.

Seem the problem was a minor defect of manufacture on a missile batch :

http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=112629

@+, Arka

Any chance of a translation?

Weren’t they trying to slightly resize the flight surfaces to allow for use in the A2A slots of the F35? That might be causing a little delay.

At the end of the day, is it any different than not being invited to tender?
The A400 and its engine come to mind.

The point of the A400M has never been hidden. Europe are sick of relying on the Us for certain key products, so they’re going to build something themselves, and while they’re at it they’ll make a better and newer airlifter with decent export potential.