24-36 months… I wouldn’t trust a schedule with a 30% uncertainty.

I wouldn’t trust one that had much less for something that complex. It is fairly established practice to do 3 point estimating for complex programmes, and that sort of span wouldn’t be particulary exceptional for the spread between 10% to 90% cases.

There is too much that can go right or wrong on such a programme. Even simple events like bad weather can cause you to miss your trials dates with a delay of a month before you can get the required range again

All input is welcome :p

I’m serious. Most aircraft are so international nowadays that putting a flag on one is tricky:

Concept?
Prime contractor location?
Biggest workshare?

Take the VH-71 example, there was a campaign against the AW designwinning the VH-71 contract because it was a foreign aircraft, and that a home-grown Boeing should carry the President. But IIRC LM/AW demonstrated that there was a bigger US workshare in their contract than the Boeing alternative.

admittedly 3x cavours would cost more to run

This is the killer. Despite what you might think from media portrayal, it is through life costs that matter. One of the main reasons the MOD got into the financial trouble it did was because it was purchasing equipment without any though for the cost of running it through life.

The only way we can afford QEC is because it is (relatively) cheap to run – e.g. smaller crew than CDG or Invincible, fuel costs comparable or less than invincible.

As for me:
Design Astute to use vertical TLAM rather the torpedo tubes

Go with CATOBAR QEC from the start (easy with hindsight of technology maturation) and thus buy a FW AEW from the start. No need for STOVL ramp because the gains from interoperability of aircraft with other than US and France are neglible.

there may be agreement that the US are a pain, but that is about all we agree on

Together Europe is a larger economic unit than US, but we are rarely together. Many countries put very little into defence and rely on others (in particular the US), politically we are divided, militarily we spend as much time competing as co-operating (e.g. Typhoon vs Rafale shows both)

Whilst continues, inevitably the US will continue to be top dog.

No European country is clean in this respect (including my own UK). All this competition and rivalry may not always be a bad thing, but we can’t if the US ten take advantage of it

If you watch the news report Prom you will see the navy clearly stating that radiation is not and was not the reason/excuse given for not allowing woman. The reason given was carbon dioxide poisoning of the foetus, its a weak excuse frankly. If a woman gets pregnant she is off just the same as the surface fleet.

I know what they reported. I know what has been considered in the past.

Maybe they came up with a resolution to the radiation issue a few years back and CO2 was the last issue remaining.

:shrug:

As to taking off if pregnant, the issue is that she gets pregnant just before the mission starts, and is then on for 3 months without necessarily knowing. Also, being taken off is a lot more difficult, and in the case of the V boats may not be possible.

Last I heard from sources in the region, Brazil’s carrier building ‘aspirations’ were to build …one for neighbour Argentina

Shout this loud, it might persuade people that more money needs to be spent on the RN

In other news (the bits that get less attention in forums such as this but are critical to the programme), I believe that the Conmbat Management System passed another round of factory acceptance test a little whiole back, and the datalink system (integrated with the CMS) passed its FAT as well.

So the wider combat & information system is slowly being pieced together.

They had originally said it would stay in the US for a while. I’d heard separately a rumour that it may come over for Farnborough. Wasn’t clear whether it would stay or not though