Replacement for the PR9?

I suspect it’s meant to do quite a bit more than just be a replacement for the PR9.

Dassault, BAE Systems to Spend €1 Billion on Drone

Good news but the article is a little short on details, I will await further information with interest.

There is a major flaw in your theory.

The US did indeed resort to scaremongering techniques to justify a defense expenditure to the taxpayers and general public.

When in the last 10 years has the US attempted to stoke up old cold war style scaremongering against Russia (because that’s who we’re talking about here) in an attempt to increase defence spending?

As far as I’m aware the only talking up of threats the US has been doing is against failed states/terrorist groups and Iran, not against Russia.

Russia does does not need to do that. The public in general is not against strengthening the Armed forces. Everybody knows that the Russian Army needs the money to modernize.

The interviewed General does not need to use typical US psycho-socio scarmongering-warmongoring-theskyisfalling preaching . If the Russian Defense budget needs to be increased, Putin/Medvedev will just sign a decree and no one will complain.

This bit doesn’t really make much sense, if he doesn’t need to do it why is he? What other purpose would a statement like the West will have 80,000 cruise missiles (lol) have? It serves no purpose whatsoever unless he’s using it a means highlighting a shortfall in the number of cruise missiles Russia will possess when compared to ‘the west’. I see this sort of thing plenty of times from members of the Russian armed forces, I’m not seeing it from too many people in the US or UK.

Riiiight, there is no crying about Russian subs and supposed nuclear armed bombers supposedly violating British airspace every time Russian planes go on patrol.

Both sides do it, have always done it, and will continue to do it.

Anwyays, what is wrong with the general mentioning the number of Western cruise missiles? Russia is not naive, it will plan for potential threats, no matter how remote the actual threat is.

Did you not read my reply? I already acknowledged the reports of strategic bombers, but as I have already stated you don’t see high ranking officers moaning in the press about numbers of Russian weapons in a bid to increase defence spending, it doesn’t happen. What this general is doing is nothing more than scare mongering in an effort to get more money to combat a threat that doesn’t exist, his figures are almost certainly highly suspect as well.

Seems to me there are two fundamental issues in this debate:

1. Quantity versus size – one super-carrier in operation or two or three medium-size vessels? If Britain’s single carrier is operating e.g. off the coast of Libya, then it can’t be in the Gulf or off the Falklands or in the North Atlantic at the same time. Of course bigger can sometimes be better, but how many times in recent history has an air wing of 40-50 aircraft – as opposed to, say, 20-25 – made such a big difference?

2. Naval fighter aircraft – the carrier debate usually comes down to the type of aircraft available and their requirements and capabilities, rather than the carrier itself. Admirals and Air Marshalls will always look for the best, with all the technological bells and whistles, but does ‘stealth’ justify the enormous cost of the F-35?

On the quantity versus size debate I’d say it’s been years since the UK has been in a position where it’s needed carriers in more than one place, other than 1 in refit and 1 active I don’t think it’s really relevent any more unless we’ve got Cold War 2 going to start.

Think of it this way: wouldn’t NATO Commanders be worried if Russia (or anybody else) had 80,000 cruise missiles in inventory? Cold war is not the worry, a hot one is.

I agree with the later part of your post. I believe the interviewed General is calling every precision guided weapon of some range a “cruise missile”.

Well a single country with that amount of cruise missiles might worry some people but this isn’t a single country we’re talking about, his statement is clearly designed to stir up fears over Western stockpiles and increase defence spending in Russia in a bid to match it. It’s a classic arms race tactic, only problem is this particular arms race has been over for 20 years.

They do :confused:

I don’t know anyone that relys on MSM for news, I only know a couple that even look at it, surely BBC use is far more common?

I agree for Spain and Italy (and for Thailand :D)
But Americans (US Marines Corps) use more than 130+ AV-8B Harriers, they might as well sell it to British 12 to 24 aircraft (without serious problems).

I agree
The Sea-Grippen was not the solution for a “small” flatop (under 35 000 tons and under 240 meters). In a near future (2030+…), medium UAV was expected to be more effective…

Same for a pure carrier…:dev2:
And an aircraft carrier can not be amphibious (lacking well deck aft…)

A British CVF 60 000 tons carrier can take :
– up to 32 F-35 + 4/6 helico (AEW/SAR/ASW) (in a pure “carrier” mission)
– Likely up to 40 helico (in a pure “helico-carrier” mission)

A Juan Carlos 27 000+ tons can carry :
– Up to 10/12 Harrier + 10/12 helico (in a “mixed” mode)
– Up to 30 helico (in a pure “helico-carrier” mission)

In terms of ability to carry a lot of helico/STVOL aircrafts, the difference is not really great…

But the cost of “purchase” and “operationnal cost” is totally different:dev2:

I’ll refer you to Steve’s comments.

In addition it’s almost certain that the CVF could carry more than the 40 aircraft listed if necessary.