Sounds like a failure of the ground staff at the airport, or can’t they afford them? Seeing as how they have the highest inflation in the world from memory.
I don’t understand the whole price increase thing. If you sign a contract, a *binding* contract, for x number of aircraft at a price of y value each, how can airbus increase the price from y to z?
The Chileans have been talking about getting a ship like that for a while. I can’t criticise their choice of the Enforcer design, if that’s what it is, but if that picture is right, it appears to lack a hangar.
It also looks bigger then 9,000 ton. If that image is correct in scale, that ship will be larger then the British Bay class LSD’s (which only has one chinook sized landing spot from memory).

Stevo 3.52GMT in the morning:) makes it what in Australia?, what would they stand to gain by keeping success quiet? vs what they would gain/protect by keeping failure quiet.
If you design and build something that works then you tell people you try and sell your product, if you design and build something that is having trouble you don’t broadcast that fact that you have failed. Why would you not broadcast failure well it’s simple, you would not want to show prospective customers that your project has failed and will take longer than planned. It seems logical to me that if it worked they would be telling people in an effort to gain support for a sale to the UK MoD, people should know that the MoD will need something to replace and complement reapers obtained via UOR.
I posted that at 2:52pm AEST. GMT+10 +DST
Very good point i’ve not heard anything about it either and forgot about it. I would suspect that they are having problems with it and staying very quiet to keep the media from lambasting another BAE project. If it was flying im pretty sure BAE would have splashed it all over the place to get publicity and try and sell some of them.
If anyone finds anything could they let me know, thanks in advance.
Or it could have exceeded all expectations and they want to keep it quiet for a while so their competitor’s don’t get the information.
source:http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=11101
Davies: both carriers will take JSF
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Both the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales aircraft carriers will be able to carry the joint strike fighter (JSF) according to defence equipment and support minister Quentin Davies. Speaking in the House of Commons he also rubbished the Gray Report’s claim that there was a £2bn annual overspend in the MoD’s equipment programme.
In October, it was reported that government would downgrade either the Queen Elizabeth or the Prince of Wales carrier, taking away their ability to carry the JSF. Reports stated the MoD was looking to save money on the 65,000 tonne carriers, which are already £1bn over budget.
Davies said reports the carrier plans were to be scaled down were “complete rubbish”.
“There is no suggestion at all, and there has never been in our minds at all, to re-specify the two aircraft carriers,” he said.
“There has been no change in that programme, and neither has there been any change in our JSF programme. We are already committed to purchasing the first three aircraft.”
He also said there was “no evidential basis” to the statement in the Gray report that between £1bn and £2.2bn was being lost each year as a result of failure to control equipment spending.
“The very fact that the range is between £1bn and two point something billion shows how imprecise that statement inevitably would be,” said Davies.
See, nothing to worry about!:D
All the RAF needs is a CAS version of the Hawk for low intensity conflicts. And to buy Rafales for the carriers 😀
I wonder if you could fit Vixen 2000 or whatever its called into the nose of a hawk, maybe a bigger engine if one could be fitted easily (hawk 200 on steroids)……:dev2:
Maybe they just figure that the longer they hold off the weaker the US dollar will be?
Agreed.
Of the developed economies, Australias seem to be struggling the most (for its size) eg the latest Collins mess,
A lot of the problems with Collins are the fault of the swedes at kockums. They basically scaled up the gotland class, which cause all sorts of problems. The Americans had to be called in to help fix the design problems. All the previous problems were sorted out, and now apparrently the diesel engines are messed up. Honestly no idea who chose that particular make of engine.
Stevo, The Australian Army may have had problems with them but they work and are cheap to acquire although operating costs are a tad higher but coming down with newer M models. They are also common with our biggest ally who we operate with the most so in areas it makes sense. What are the specific problems the Aussies had with them??
An adverse reaction to hot and high conditions as I understand it. The replacement (MRH-90) has much more powerful engines and a larger troop capacity.
Swerve we could always import something and have it built here, AW in Yeovil could assemble UH-60’s or almost anything else we would care to buy in the helicopter sense. Not quite as simple in other areas although it still could be done. You have a very good point though it’s almost all down to the fact that we have built our own before back when we actually ordered things in numbers and people bought our kit. Now it’s all about trying to keep people in jobs no matter how grossly inefficient and expensive it may be and trying in vain to keep the ability to have control over a product.
Please don’t talk about manufacturing *sh*thawks*, they are being replaced by MRH-90’s by the Australian Army for a reason.;)
Unfortunately over here we don’t get to hear about ADF ops as often as I would certainly like to. No offence intended at all.
Sorry, i think I worded that badly. If it was me who was posting in your place, rather then making a comment like that, I would have actually looked up on google or even wikipedia to get some idea instead.
Well, you learn something new every day!
Its not exactly a state secret, and the way in which you asked the question, could quite easily be taken as an insult (thats what it looks like to me).
They are still very tight lipped about this, with the only confirmation being from people involved with the Typhoon project saying that if they could say anything at all about it “that they would be shouting it from the rooftops..”.
You can make of that what you will.:cool:
Perhaps now that the F-22 is not subject to the same pressures that caused the D notice on the exercise(or what ever a Defence Notice is called now), that some people in the know can fill in the details. Has any one retired from the fray and want to comment??. LOL…
Cheers
Hate to say this, but even if they have retired, top secret is still top secret, OPSEC is still OPSEC, they can still go to gaol for revealing information. So don’t even bother asking, because they wont give you an answer.
Yes but how many long term overseas engagements is the ADF involved in? :rolleyes:
Five
– Afghanistan
– Iraq (guys babysitting the diplomats)
– East Timor
– Solomon Islands
– Persian Gulf/Horn of Africa, Various naval vessels.
Those are just the ones with 100+ troops, there are quite a few more if you count smaller deployments.