Was i in Bae, though, i’d spend something autonomously to complete the design without waiting for the government funding, because i believe a 155 mm naval gun capable to use standard NATO army-type ammo would have MASSIVE export potential. They could complete the work and then make an offer to fit the gun on Type 26 and refit the Type 45 with it as well during docking periods.

They probably are. I’m guessing they and the MoD would be each paying a portion of the costs.

More Artisan and CAMM systems will need to be ordered for the T26, only for a few ships. Assuming of course that a full 18 ship production run (possibly in a high spec and low spec version) is still planned.

Osbornes comments today certainly suggest no ruse.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-29/osborne-rejects-nuclear-weapon-cut-exception-in-cabinet-split.html

I think that’s a game changer, and some of the options put forward by RUSI are going to have to be looked at.

And here was me thinking that the most important job of any government is to ensure its defenses are up to scratch.

In fact, the last government of Australia Routinely said pretty much that exact sentence.

I think LO might be an area which the UK might have to compromise – it looks like that Converteam have got EMCAT working and the MoD has to make 10 – 20% cuts against a background of procurement cost overruns, if say 70 F-35B’s cost £7.5 billion but say 70 F/A-18 E/F costs £5 billion then I can see that despite all of the logic that says that the MoD, RN and RAF have planned their strategy around the F-35B there they will go with the cheaper aircraft.

(I am of course in a pessimistic mode and I am hoping someone like pjhydro will pop up and let me know just how unfounded my pessimism is 🙂 )

Forget pessimism, The thing is, even if they are cheaper to procure, will they be cheaper to maintain and operate? Possibly not.

Remember that by going to the Super Hornet you are adding at least 50-100 more crew to each ship. The construction of the ships will take longer as they will need to be modified, or they will require very expensive refits just a couple of years into their lives.

So you are adding, crew costs, training costs, maintenance costs for the additional equipment, Modification costs for the carrier. Once all those add up, the super hornets are probably no cheaper.

Russia to recall from reserve three nuclear-powered missile cruisers by 2020 – Navy

Russia will recall from reserve after an upgrade three nuclear-powered missile cruisers by 2020, a high-ranking Navy staff officer told RIA Novosti on Saturday.

“Cruisers Admiral Nakhimov, Admiral Lazarev and Admiral Ushakov will be modernized and returned to the Russian Navy’s combat force in 10 years,”
Full Story

Ouch, wont those things be 40 to 50 years old in 10 years time?

The articles i’ve read said 32kw.

Article grabbed from another forum, originally posted by ‘buglerbilly.

By Colin Clark Sunday, July 18th, 2010 5:53 pm

For the first time, a solid-state laser has successfully destroyed a flying drone in a naval environment.

The tests, performed by Raytheon with the Navy, occurred off of San Nicholas Island, Calif. over several days in late May. Four UAVs were destroyed, according to Mike Booen, vice president of directed energy.

Booen spoke with DoD Buzz in an exclusive interview at the Farnborough Air Show. The company mounted six 5.5kw solid-state lasers with a Phalanx gun system. The radar used the Phalanx’s targeting system, Booen said. And the famous guns could be used to supplement the radar.

Aside from UAVs, the laser could be used against Katyushas and other smaller rockets, as well as against swarming small boats, a growing threat to large Navy ships. Of course, the means it could, in theory at least, be used against pirates.

The effort was funded by Raytheon internal research dollars until the May shootdown, Booen said, when the Navy paid. Booen would not disclose how much the company has spent and deferred all questions about Navy funding to the service. The laser effort is not yet a program of record, meaning there is no dedicated money for it in the Pentagon budget. After additional testing, Booen said the company thought it could become a regularly funded program by 2016.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/07/18/new-laser-is-bad-day-for-uavs/#ixzz0u7zQMWX0

(very subtle :o)

But it does the job and has long endurance. 😀

Besides, I think it made my point about “best this” and “best that” threads.

What about all of the U.S.M.C Av8s that will be retired soon?
Could a country buy 1 or 2 invinc and U.S. harriers?

They will be just as worn out as the GR.9/9A’s.

I’m surprised no other navy would want them. This would depend predominantly on the usefull life left in any used SeaHarrier FA2 and Harrier GR9 that might become available. That is, unless you us them as helicopter carrier. I would think they’ld be usefull to minor navies as core of an ASW group, possibly with a mixed ASW/AEW helicopter complement? Countries e.g. Argentina, Chile, Peru, or Pakistan, Malaysia, South Africa, Taiwan.

There arent enough FA.2’s left, and the GR.9/9A’s will be completely worn out by the time they are retired.

As stated by kev as well, they require something like twice the manpower of HMS Ocean, and with their Gas Turbines, would be much less economical on fuel as well.

Most of those countries you list can barely afford to run their surface combatants let alone a helicopter carrier. Because the most expensive part to purchase and maintain, is the helicopters, not the ships. To the extent that I think we would all be surprised at what percent of our countries defense budgets are spent on helicopters.