Honestly, I would cut the Juliet Hercs from the budget and switch to a high-low mix of C-27s and A400Ms. The C-130’s too big for small airfield work and small for modern armor.

None. By the time the B/C fully replace the A-D models in Navy/Marine Corps service, they’ll be held together by chewing gum and tinfoil.

They had the option of EJ200 for Gripen NG. That possibility was examined, & determined to be technically feasible (the engine fitted without significant airframe modifications, just like F414), but F414 had commercial, industrial & I think logistical advantages. I think it was cheaper, & it already had some Swedish content (design & manufacture of components) which IIRC GE was willing to increase, so Volvo Flygmotor adds a bit more to its small share of every F414 sold worldwide. And it’s the most similar engine to the RM12 (Swedish-modified F404 assembled in Sweden with many Swedish parts) of current Gripens.

Yep. The F414 produces a bit more trust than the EJ200 and Volvo has an existing relationship with General Electric. From a technical standpoint the GE F400 series and the EJ200 series are basically interchangeable. If a customer insisted on a Gripen NG or Super Hornet with a EJ230/270 (if they ever get funded) or a Typhoon with a F414 it would be an non-issue from an engineering standpoint. There might be some political reservations, but it could be done fairly easily.

With the problems now surfacing with F35C tail hook to main wheel arrested recovery problem, I think it would be a good time for Saab to promote the Sea Gripen again.

Problems aside how does the capabilities of these two a/c match up?

Completely different class. SeaGripen is a lightweight fighter for ships in the 25k-45k range. Its max takeoff is about half that of the F-35C or Super Hornet. That being said, compared to Harriers or upgraded Skyhawks or SuEs, its a quantum leap in capability. If the F-35C is cancelled, the RN/RAF will go with Super Hornets or Rafales.

Not if you’re the AMI, which would quite like to see Italy have no naval air power, if it meant the real enemy, i.e. the MM, was stripped of its fighters.

The RAF has a similar attitude. It loved showing off its ability to bomb Libya with Tornados flying all the way from England – using our entire tanker force for a single small raid, with a response time of several hours. 😡

CdG’s aircraft, meanwhile, were putting bombs on target 20 minutes after takeoff, & could be back & refuelling & re-arming soon afterwards. They could also loiter, waiting for targets.

And change roles just as easily. A Rafale on CAP sees something, a strike package or a RECON flight could be there fairly easily.

Air Forces usually have the same problems as the Armies they descended from, they’re designed for large scale continental wars and have trouble thinking beyond that.

This sounds like a bad joke.. How is it even possible this hook-thing wasnt discoverd untill now??
Being able to land on a carrier deck should be priority No.1 for a carrier based fighter in my book…

This is why we have test programs. What works on paper or in a computer sometimes has surprises in the real world.

A “navalized” Thphoon would be an entirely new, somewhat Typhoon shaped, aircraft and I just cant see the UK dishing out that kind of money for the small amount of airframes that would be required when 2 suitible aircraft allready exist.

Plus such an aircraft already exists. The main difference in divergence from the common ancestor program to the Typhoon and Rafale is the French need for carrier suitability.

What kind of refueling system will the navy variant use?

Navy/Marine Corps only uses house and drogue on tactical aircraft. You can’t buddy refuel with a flying boom…plus the USAF begrudgingly while the boom is superior for refueling large aircraft, fighters can’t take an offload rate any higher than what what probe and drogue offers.

Any plans to retrofit any of the Nimitz class with EMALS?

Would be rather difficult and extremely expensive to do so. Nimitz-class are steam driven ships with some of that steam diverted to the cats. You’d have convert them to electric drive ships and harness all the steam for electric power then have a way to store that power.

I think the question is, what is the overriding reason to not have women on submarines. The health concerns have been dismissed, so as far as I can see that only leaves male sailors not keeping their penises in their trousers. Not enough of a reason to ban women from submarines in my view.

The health concerns are far less than the space concerns. The living space on Subs are far less spacious then on surface ships. On a vessel where people have to hot bunk because there isn’t enough room for all the crew, you don’t have the space to partition. Basically you have two options.
1) design new subs for gender partitions.
2) Create gender inequality in berthing conditions with the women having the senior enlsited/ junior officer staterooms and all the men relegated to the large bunkroom regardless of rank.
3) Just shove the women into the current berthings requiring them to shower and change with their mostly late teen-early 20s male counterparts.
4) Somehow do an all female crew.

If they are willing to accept shared accomodation, showers ect, then it shouldn’t be a problem. Doing physical things with other crew members is not permitted on subs or ships anyway, so I don’t see how it would be different with women onboard.

Might not be permitted but it happens anyway.