But by about 2016, support will comprise 14 leased A330-200s aircraft (transport and AAR), 6 C-17 Globemaster IIIs, 25 A400Ms and 24 Hercules C4/C5 all operating from Brize Norton. While ISTAR will be 7 Sentry AEW1, 5 Sentinel R1s, whatever will replace or whether the Nimrod R1 will be used again, 12 or more MQ-9 Reaper Bs all based at Waddington. That will be the RAF’s future structure.

Add this link as well:

Financial Times: Navy’s new carriers to deploy old aircraft

Another one of those “look at our wonderful fighter”-type TV news pieces. There’s probably half a dozen of those around for every fighter around. It did strike me though that the manufacturing facilities for the Sukhoi look pretty run down, especially if you compare it to the modern and clean facilities that Western nations possess. Reminds me of British Leyland in the 1970s!

SOC might be out of luck there. They generally employ anybody other than people who know anything about defence (give or take a few exceptions including the former AFM ed).

The MoD and the RAF still call it the “JCA” on official websites and literature and you often see news reports still calling it JSF, but it was officially named the “F-35 Lightning II” in 2006 by the US “in co-ordination with partner nations”. On that basis, it would be called Lighting II when in RAF/FAA service. Question should be will it be called just the “F-35B Lightning II” or the “Lightning II GR1/FGR1”.

What about a leased option? Surely something could be sorted out with Airbus or a similar company where the RAF would lease a number of planes fitted with Helix similar to the planned FSTA. Problem again with that though would be delivery schedule. I can’t imagine anything being available until early next decade. Seems that the need for new aircraft is mounting up. I even read on one forum that the MoD is planning to get rid of the Army’s Lynx pretty soon and replace them with entirely new helicopters or transfer Sea Kings over. I can see some major cuts on the horizon (starting with Typhoon tranche 3).

Turkey regularly produces studies of possible new equipment. You see it time and time again, these major wish lists from the Turkish military, but the ecomonic reality often reduces these to just studies. Other than the dispute with Greece, the main threat to Turkey is its own internal system coupled with the PKK and Islamic militancy. Maybe you might say that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to Turkey, but its unlikely that they would act unilaterally in such a situation. You also cannot really envisage Turkey or Greece taking major leads in overseas operations that would require the use of aircraft carriers. Even the UK doesn’t really use its carriers in the same way that they were designed for anymore, until we get the CVFs.

As for Brazil and Thailand and India as well, the use of these is nothing more than expensive and unnecessary toys – a little bit of prestige. Thailand will be a particular case with their carrier being termed as an “offshore patrol helicopter carrier” despite its availability of Harriers. It was never intended for “power projection” of naval air power. As for the statement that any country possessing an aircraft carrier is a major naval power, well that obviously would come from an aviation-related magazine. Aircraft carriers might be useful to the US, given that its more likely to need that kind of strategic asset, maybe France and the UK as well (seeing themselves as major world powers… cough), but a good range of submarines and surface vessels (especially ones where you can deploy amphibious forces and helicopter support assets) are probably more useful for smaller nations these days. That said, either country would probably find an LHD useful and allow them a bigger role in any overseas ops with NATO or the like.