Watch for a complete replacement of the Super Seasprites, Sea Kings and eventually the Sea Hawks with a naval version of the MRH-90s.

It won’t be perfect for all roles, but it will reduce the fleet type numbers.

The Super Seasprites will probably be sold back to Kaman for a relative pittance as part of a settlement, the Sea Kings are very long in the fang and subject to maintenance issues on a regular basis and the Sea Hawks will probably last longest (about 5-7 years) before being retired.

That leaves the Squirrels in the training role, something for which they are not long for this earth, as outlined in the accompanying media release.

Just for the sake of argument, why couldn’t the Sea Sprites be replaced by the A109? The MH-68A has done well in Coast Guard service, and is fully SAR capable, despite the fact that the USCG has removed the rescue hoists because they weren’t essential to the HITRON mission. At very least, the RAN would have a servicable fleet of helicopters for the Anzac class, perhaps even with the ability to deliver a torpedo (or two?) to limits of sonar range.

In reality, with 6 FFGs being replaced by only 3 AAW destroyers, the RAN will only need 8 direct Seahawk replacements, not 16. Perhaps the number of Sea King replacements will be doubled because of the LHD program, or perhaps not? It is hard to imagine a MRH-90 purchase encompassing replacements for the little used Sea Sprites.

Is it plausable to expect that the RAN will be “rewarded’ for the failure of the Sea Sprite program? It would easier to justify smaller, far cheaper helicopters in the A109 class as 1:1 replacements for the Sea Sprites.

When you look at a CVF or PA2 having all the destructive potential that a Cold War Nimitz could deploy, on a vastly more economical hull, isn’t the question one of why the USN are building expensive CVN’s when a suitably effective airgroup doesnt require them.

It can be argued that the current size of a USN carrier air group no longer justifies a 90,000 ton hull. Perhaps a 70,000-80,000 ton conventional carrier perform the same function as the current CVNs, but there again, the arguement has been settled in favor of the CVN-78. By the same token, the French PA2 is rapidly approaching the full load displacement of a conventionally powered American “super carrier” of the Forrestal class.

The real question is whether a CV-F with an embarked peacetime combat air group of only 9 F-35Bs will offer significantly more striking power than an American LHA/LHD? The reality is that the RN can’t afford a credible air group and the CV-F is very clearly an enormous platform without a clear mission.

Mhm. Very nice system instead of e.g. Crotale NG. Too bad the release points of PGMs are outside the SA-15’s engagement range.

This is why missiles in the same performance class as Tor-M1 have obtained so few export sales since the end of the Cold War.

Tor-M1 might make sense as a “point defense” missile against an unstealthy warplane, dropping unguided “dumb” bombs from moderately low altitudes.

However, it is impossible for Tor-M1 to successful engage a cruise missile flying at extreme low levels over land – or an aircraft releasing guided weapons at medium to high altitudes. Flying at 30,000-40,000 makes even the least sophisticated completely aircraft invulnerable to Tor-M1. Even the complete absence of defense suppression, which is unlikely, Tor-M1 would be hard pressed to engage an aircraft making a guided weapons release at 20,000 feet!!!

It might be possible for Tor-M1 to engage guided munitions after release from the aircraft, although that might also be difficult to accomplish with this system. Exchanging expensive SAMs for cheaper PGMs doesn’t make very much sense on a financial level – or on an operational level when so very few systems are being procured.

and it’s the better engine, too. More advanced, and likely to have better development potential for any F-35D/E/F……

Who says it is “more advanced?” The variable cycle YF-120 was supposedly “more advanced” than the F-119, but it failed in the ATF competiton. GE tried to a similar tactic, and tried to get it funded as a “back-up” in much the same way that its trying to keep the losing F-136 alive.

Also, any cancellation of the F-136 would endanger UK involvement in the project. Given that a lot of countries are beginning to have second thoughts about the project, deliberately aggravating your only Tier 1 customer is not a good idea!

The future of the F-136 has very little bearing on whether the UK cancels the JCA and/or the CV(F) aircraft carrier program.

JSF Rolls/GE Engine Cancelled in FY’08 Budget?

Sure looks that way. If at first you don’t succeed etc… etc….

Pentagon tries again to kill second F-35 engine
http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2007-02-05T231124Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-286442-1.xml&archived=False

The big question is why US taxpayers should fund a project for the partial benefit of a UK company?

At this point, the F-135 seems to have advanced much farther than the GE/RR alternative, and there will be no appreciable competitive cost savings until perhaps 2020.

If the UK government wishes to fund this project solely as a British project, they are welcome to do so.

Yeas, you would need to know our politics lot better to realise it yourselves. There was no question to any of the Baltic buffer states (Balts, Poland and Us) that there wouldn’t be confrontation in some point agaisnt USSR. We all posessed thread to USSR and we knew it and they knew it. Even back in 1939, I believe that the war would have been avoidaple if we would have given Stalin the few sq land that he demanded….there was too much of concerns in mid-europe that he douptly would have risked war against Us. People buy the mythical david-vs. -Goljat aspect of the winter war and tend to forget that there were strong anti-russian racistic and fasist, Greater-Finland lobby that evetually drove us into Germans pocket. It wasent nessecity but deliberate choice of our government and we payed too big price of it….

….and compared to it, we also managed to slip away from our burden of participating Nazis world conquer plans and holocaust pretty unoticed.

Not in my obinion, thougth the option wasent even question at the time, all of our leaders were completely brainwashed by our own super-race BS and anti-russian racist rumblings… But even if they would have tryed to pull same trick to us as they did with the Balts, we would still put on a figth no matter what the situation would have been….But there would have always been change for peace, And thats worth of deeper thougth.

Of pure respect. Stalin was humbled by our recistanse. During 1944 only failed allied campaing was Stalins attempt to end the finnish front by massive blow in the same time as the Nordmandian landings. The battles in the Karelian ishtmus were one of the forgotten big battles of WWII(Largest in the Nordic countries and in fact one of the largest of the world by meassure of menpower and tanks.), and it still rank as number one of our military historys miracles. In winter war, we survived mainly due Soviet lack of understanding of modern war and their innability to exploid their superiority. But in 1944 Soviet had learned their leassons from the germans and all credit went to our forces, particularry to Artillery and After it Soviet lose all intress to waste resources to us….

After the Stalin own purges had ruined his change to make revolution in here, Soviet realised the fact that it was even better to them to have one western democracy as allied as well. A Window to the West as they said. And frankly speaking, the Cold war was one of the best period in finno-russian relations. We both benefitted from the somewhat dodgy relationship, too bad it is all now ruined and the nationalistic bombast begun to lure back into our political rethorics.

I’m not surprised by your left-wing perspective, because, after all, Finland was probably one of the most socialistic countries in post-war Europe. I’ve even read that the fines for speeding in Finland are based on income – now there’s taking social equality to the point of near insanity.

In retrospect, every pre-WWII government in Europe displayed a propensity for undemocatic, fascistic or socialistic policies. Your sense of national guilt isn’t altogether unjustified, but it is revisionist.

It is a peculiar fact of history that of the countries that fell within the Soviet area of hegemony, Stalin spared only Finland and Yugoslavia from complete domination. It is obvious that Stalin was deterred by Tito’s very effective resistance to the Nazi, and equally impressive defense preparations taken after WWII. Less obvious is Stalin’s relative leniency with Finland. Why did he only settle for “tribute,” instead of outright control. Finland was far less formidable than Tito-era Yugoslavia. Perhaps Stalin actually did respect the Finns?

I am surprise by your sense of Cold War nostalgia? Finland was repeated humiliated by the Soviets, and forced to make a huge industrial contribution to the Soviets – without full and adequate compensation.

We need to repeat our Russian relations mistakes we made in the 20’s and 30’s that brougth Soviet agression upon us.

Do you really think that a more submissive Finland would have fared better against Stalin? If Finland had conceded to all of Stalins demands without any resistance, it is perfectly likely that Finland would have been entirely absorbed into the Soviet Union, much like the three Baltic states.

It is a great mystery why Stalin allowed Finland to remain independant, albeit neutral?