dark light

kev 99

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 601 through 615 (of 1,460 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: The Dawn of a new era…UK/France military cooperation #2380640
    kev 99
    Participant

    France is putting up 50% of the money for Neuron, & AFAIK the other partners accept that buys leadership. That’s unusual for European multinational projects, & is probably a good thing.

    I think bilateral projects can work OK as 50:50 partnerships, if both sides are committed to them, but as soon as you get into three or more relatively equal partners, things start fouling up. Better to have, e.g., three separate projects, with country A leading no. 1, B leading no. 2, & C leading no.3, & with no country having a competing national project.

    Absolutely agree, its important to have a leader on any project, anything that is run by a committee usually ends up as a compromise, and nobody really wants that.

    in reply to: CVF to CATOBAR #2022564
    kev 99
    Participant

    Why discuss it? CVF will NOT be an aircraft carrier. It will be a hospital ship.

    Based on what?

    in reply to: UK to ditch F-35B for F-35C? #2382718
    kev 99
    Participant

    I would suggest codeone mag revise his article, the switch from B to C variant does not mean the Queen Elizabeth class will get steam catapuilts at all, there is a very good chance they will be electromagnetic.

    in reply to: Ark Royal and Invincible #2023186
    kev 99
    Participant

    Surely though the original plan called for only operating one carrier most of the time, switching between the two to make sure we have all year round availability? Also logically, due to the length of time you want to keep the carriers in service for, and the demands that operating two carrier groups plus amphibious force would make on RFA, it would make sense to only operate both in either a major exercise or if we were at war.

    Yes, the current plan isn’t really that different from the previous one, CATOBAR is the real difference.

    in reply to: Navies news from around the world -III #2023421
    kev 99
    Participant

    Is it me or is that boat jinxed?

    It’s starting to look that way.

    kev 99
    Participant

    you mean the CVF is overpriced for the value it brings to the table ?

    I don’t know about Brazil but which equipment of the Indian Navy carriers was bought on the cheap ?

    Gorshkov was very much a bargain basement deal that went very badly wrong.

    in reply to: UK Defence Review Part III #2384429
    kev 99
    Participant

    I very much doubt we would have had such nonsensical strategic cuts had Labour remained in power.

    Funny, but with the noises the Labour Government had been making over the last 5 years I’d say they would have been just as bad, they’ve been slashing everything to fight in Afganistan for years, or worse; encouraging the MOD to order stuff they haven’t got the budget to pay for.

    Let’s not forget that Labour defence plans have been based on a 13 year old document that was never funded properly in the first place.

    in reply to: UK Defence Review Part III #2385100
    kev 99
    Participant

    But is it qualified for the Sylver? And if not, would be willing to have a qualified for the Sylver, at our expense no doubt. The French would I suspect much rather shift us 8 Exocets to go in Sylvers for the 19 surface ships, a total of approximately 152 missiles. Box launchers would avoid such integration expenses.

    Box launchers would add to maintenance costs for the T45, plus increase radar signature and top weight as well, although there is certainly margins for this.

    in reply to: UK Defence Review Part III #2385134
    kev 99
    Participant

    I also like NSM, nice sneaky weapon – in the Penguin class. A 125kg warhead isn’t really what I’d be looking for as a big ship missile (Compare: Klub up to 400kg!). Wonder if NSM fits into Sylver VLS. Exocet III does.

    I’ve wondered the same thing.

    in reply to: MRA4 dying a slow death? #2385457
    kev 99
    Participant

    Wasn’t this just about passing more stringent safety regulations?

    in reply to: MRA4 dying a slow death? #2385627
    kev 99
    Participant

    Why not study an A400M MPA variant.

    You have already asked this question and been given a perfectly reasonable answer by more than one person.

    in reply to: Ark Royal and Invincible #2023797
    kev 99
    Participant

    It stinks of political horse trading to me. MRA4 is seen by the RAF as naval, so the RAF is happy to give it up, & can say “look, we’re doing our bit!”. This is going to be the biggest, richest, country in the world with no maritime surveillance aircraft. Is everyone else wrong?

    Pretty much, sounds like the RAF have done everything they could to protect fast jet numbers and damn everything else.

    in reply to: Why cant U.K. surface forces Use tomahawks? #2023831
    kev 99
    Participant

    Because we didn’t buy MK41 VLS, even if we did we would have to buy more Tomahawks, we really keep a large enough inventory for our surface forces to use them as well as our boats.

    in reply to: UK to ditch F-35B for F-35C? #2386219
    kev 99
    Participant

    Surely MRA4 is the previous Conservative Government’s **** up, they ordered it in the first place.

    in reply to: UK Defence Review Part III #2386251
    kev 99
    Participant

    Seems like a real **** up, the navy gets most of its teeth pulled and the RAF won’t be doing ASW anymore.

Viewing 15 posts - 601 through 615 (of 1,460 total)