That is the real issue with the engine exhaust nozzle. The velocity of the gases are faster and much closer to the deck / surface that with the Harrier. The fear is that it will cause spalling of the concrete, burn the sealant between concrete slab, deform and damage the non-skid coatings on flight decks. Can you imagine the FOD problems? How about when landing in austere locations? Kicking up rocks and dirt, browning yourself out and depositing debris in intricate mechanics.

Which, by the way is why, combined with logistics, is why they operate from captured airbases or ships instead of austere bases.

My worry is Gates retires at the end of next year, it is looking like there will be a major shake up in next year’s budget for the US military and Gates has demonstrated a willingness to be ruthless in his cuts in the past. If there are a lot of cuts he will likely re-structure the F-35 programme, which IMO is either cancel F-35B or cancel F-35C, I think C is more likely as it is not as far along as B, the USN has publicly stated that more F/A-18’s are a viable alternative in their attempt to get funding for their Next Generation Air Dominance fighter and thereby dug their own hole

There has been a recommendation by a panel commissioned by congress that both the B and C variants be cut. Granted the one who brought it together was Barney Frank who is who is about as far left as you can go without getting into fringe groups. When it comes down to it though, the naval versions have a realistic alternative with an upgrade path that can be retrofitted to existing aircraft as well as a replacement roadmap for the super hornet. That makes those versions as vulnerable as anything. The A will survive, it has the best export potential and the Air Force doesn’t have a backup plan.

That would be the question. everyone seems to have a different set of numbers.

Why not co-op use them within the EU with Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands? (Co-opting crews and costs of running them would save quite a lot of money in the long run.) Quite frankly the best thing they could do is renew a global geopolitical alliance that includes India, South Africa, Australia, and Canada. Sharing the burden of one large carrier and one vtol carrier would allow the five to project quite a bit of influence around the world for common goals. Or maybe they could simply barter off the Invincibles – versus scrapping them – to Australia, Brazil, India, Japan, or Canada. They might want them for humanitarian relief rather than a military mission. Brazil or India may not want to buy them outright, but leasing isn’t a bad option if the UK could recall them in the future if necessary. Japan would need to use them without fighters I believe, but they should consider the notion as they are getting more involved worldwide in administrating disaster relief.

Sharing military assets requires all parties to be on the same page. If the Italians or spaniards aren’t you have problems.

No need to be snide – try to keep it professional.

The E-2C/D is not in the 747 class – more like an ATR. Newer AWACS platforms are trending smaller, like Aussie 737 Wedgetail, and the Saab Erieye. The point is the aircraft perform different missions even though they share the ability to detect the some of the same types of targets.

Not as much trending smaller as more countries are realizing the need for AEW&C capability and smaller more affordable solutions are being devised. Most can’t afford a widebody jetliner as a platform.

Commander ‘Sharky’ Ward pointed out that the Falklands would not have been won without Carriers and Harriers. He more or less said that if conventional Carriers with aircraft such as the Phantoms and Buccaneers had been sent, they would’ve have been much use due to having to take off and land during rough seas. Only the Harrier was/is capable of taking off in such conditions.

He mentioned that more than twice in his book where one of such occasions was training with the US Navy.

The the Royal Navy still had Phantoms and Bucs there would have been no Falklands war. One’s willingness to attack diminishes when you cannot only attack the Falklands, but the bases on the Argentine mainland. The Harriers could not.

But the STOVL F35B will NOT be able to do that at all, the Lift Fan generates way too much heat.

The thing that won in the Falklands was the RN having Aircraft Carriers, not that they operated STOVL Aircraft.

If CVA had been built there wouldn’t have been a Falklands War. There wouldn’t have been a weakness to exploit and it wouldn’t have been worth the Argie’s while. Civilians don’t understand it, but the more you seek peace, the more you get war.

What a mess… The more the USAF fumbles on the minute bureaucratic details of the KC-X bid, the greater the chance of the wildcard player to get in the courts the full cancellation of this bid… Amateurs! The longer it draws out the better the scenario looks for EADS and the worse it goes for Boeing…

Regards,

Hammer

Honestly, I would let them in just to prove they can’t do it.

As for the contract, both EADS and Boeing have learned that if they sue they can get the contract overturned. So if its an all or nothing contract, guess what what the loser is going to do? Give both a contract for 90 aircraft and let the saga end.