just as the basis for the old USA/USSR joke:

for astronauts to write in space, the NASA gathered a whole bunch of scientists, engineers, etc, and spent $10 000 000 in development and research… and ended with a magnificent pen that could write in weightlessness, head down and in basically any position and pressure… the russians, on the other hand, used pencils

it’s about simplicity 😉

It’s a brilliant story (and one which I often use to illustrate the importance of defining design criteria/specfications correctly).

Sadly however it is an urban myth, with some basis in truth.

(Biro’s don’t work inverted coz gravity pulls the ink away from the contact point with no gravity that’s not an issue, also bits of graphite and clay compound floating around in zero g when the end of one’s pencil breaks ain’t good news)

I bow to my honourable friend’s firsthand experience of maintaining the beast but I do have memories of standing on the blacktop when on secondment, as 4 tonka’s roll up time after time a fourscrew would mutter from the side of his mouth “go/no-go half of them won’t fly” and time after time he was right!

Wow H_K! Thanks for sharing that great photo!

Quite an interesting loadout there. I presume his buddy was carrying the Damocles pod or were those GBU-49’s (i.e. perhaps intended to be used with GPS-guidance)..?

Sorry to be thick but what’s that pod under starboard intake?

Edit: D’oh I am being thick aren’t I? You were referring to HK’s shot of the SEM not Tango III’s shot of the 2K. Grrrr I’ll get back in my box

It would almost be quicker and cheaper to clear the VC-10 to carry Strom Shadows, like those 1960s Skybolt proposals!

I suppose what the RAF really needed was a nice (four engined?) persistent platform with state of the art avionics. It would be coming from over the sea and hunting for targets.

The point is made about an opposing passive sensor being able to watch SAMPSON making bearing changes in a manner effectively labelling it as a carrier in the process of air ops, though wouldn’t that also apply to the S1850M that the carrier will mount?

Yes possibly. But the S1850M is emitting a lot less energy so although it will not detect at anyway near the same range (nor be able to provide the same detailed information or perform other functions) as Sampson it is also harder to see itself.

There are also several units which might have S1850M. There is a larger “crowd” within which to hide the flat top’s “person”

Also given that CVF won’t be going anywhere near trouble without a full complement of escorts, won’t the SAMPSON radar sets on the accompanying Type 45s give the group away in this scenario anyway?

The set or sets will give away the presence of the T45 but it will not give away the exact position of the HVU. The opposing force will not know how far away the HVU is from the T45, even if they are correct in their assumption that there is one nearby.

Finally, if an ESM platform is in a position to monitor a fleet by its emissions, isn’t it in danger of being detected by those very emissions?

Possibly.

The distance from emitter to ESM is half that of emitter to ESM to emitter. Since the strength of the emitted signal falls off with distance the ESM platform might detect emissions at greater than twice the range at which it can be detected.

One of the reasons that boats use passive sonar whenever possible.

The analogy between light and RF is not perfect but its not a bad starting point. If we are in dark woods trying to locate each other and you decide to be quiet and sneaky and dark and look out for my torch (or ‘flashligh’) you are likely to see me much earlier than I you.

And maybe the attacking force pinpoints the radiating destroyer via ESM and comes around on different axis reducing engagement range to <120km.

Absolutely bang on. One of the reasons that the USN has more than one aegis equipped escort per high value unit (and itself a driver in the development of the Already Brokes the USN recognised that they would just never be able to afford enough Ticos to have multiple Ageis ships per flat top or gator).

In itself though another reason not to have Sampson and Aster on CVF when originally planned (cost of fitting with would take 1 T45 out of the programme). Of course by the time T45 programme was eviscerated CVF had already been finalised and cost of ‘just’ fitting PAAMS therefore more expensive.

I’m a bit worried that a chap who has actually been to sea has not recognised that the ‘corvette at best’ required to hold 8 AShMs will struggle to act effectively in the kind of weather that our frigates and destroyers have been designed to operate in.

I’d also be intrigued to find out how expensive the ‘fleet auxiliary with a helicopter deck‘ would be if it was built to the same damage control standards as a frigate.

Do you have a source for the point about a large amount of money from the DfES going on consultants?

This isn’t where I first heard the proportion but might do as a starting point

http://blog.teachable.net/2010/spending-by-the-department-of-education-2010/

I’d counsel caution to any who skim read and think ‘aha its not 50% they only spent £35m on consultants‘ the shallowest dip into the sea that is google will reveal what some of those big figure acronyms a) are and b) spend their money on

I’m not trying to call you up on it,

Why on earth not? I would upon reading such a bold claim!

Military Aviation: if I’m wrong (I’m not) and spend on consultants was £35mil per year how much avgas would that have paid for as part of a (two) war budget rather than two warson peacetime budget.