Came across this pic. (I presume it’s a photoshop job.) Apologies if it’s a re-post. CVF is a bit broad on the beam – why is that?

What if the deatachment was increased to six? I’m trying to establish if buddy tanking might an alternative to stationing either an A330MRTT or an A400M tanker in the Falklands? Could the Typhoons carry buddy tanks? Britain does have experience in this area:

Buddy tanking

The air refuelling problem in the Falklands will go away once the new F/A-18E/Fs are delivered. 😀

This means nothing.

That’s not a very helpful response. If you dispute the data then please explain.

The British Armed Forces also have the highest cost in terms of personell and in terms of Estate.

Are you saying there are too many people in the military, or that they’re overpaid?

“…the highest cost in terms of… Estate”? Do you mean there are too many bases and some will have to be closed?

Let’s not kid ourselves with phylosophy on the numbers while ignoring the evidence.

Some people might think that numbers are more objective evidence that repeated assertions of opinion.

Check out the payloads: http://www.a400m.com/Capabilities.aspx

Some of them really are bulking out, before weighing out – although the CV9030 does look a little lonely!

The UH-60 was designed to fit in a C-130 cargo box with some dis-assembly – that was the Black Hawk size driver.

C-17 is 20.8 (plus 6 m ramp) x 5.5 m wide and 3.76 m high
An-70 is 18.6 (plus 3.8 m ramp) x 4 wide x 4.1 m high
A400M cargo bay is 17.71 (plus 5.4 m ramp) x 4 wide and 3.85 m high
C-130J-30 16.7 m (plus 3 m ramp) x 3.1 m wide x 2.7 m high (as C-130H-30)
C-130J is 12.2 (plus 3 m ramp) x 3.1 m wide x 2.7 m high (as C-130H)
C-27J is 11.4 x 3.33 x 2.6 m
C-295: 12.7 (3 m ramp) x 2.36 m wide x 1.9 m high

C-295 has lost out to C-27J due to its smaller cargo bay.

Isn’t it the case that the C-295 has more customers than the C-27J? And then there’s also little brother, the CN-235, that is operated by dozens of air forces.

Are there times when the RAF has to use a Hercules to carry a relatively small number of people and/or supplies, simply because it’s the only tactical transport aircraft?

Interesting that he also makes this point:

“…The Corps should also pay close attention to the other services’ testing of small turboprop light attack aircraft, which are already popular in several South American nations for fighting insurgencies. The “AT-X” competition is weighing several low-cost, off-the-shelf designs that could be in operational service very rapidly and with great utility to current counterinsurgency operations. For low-intensity conflicts, these aircraft may become the close-air support asset of choice. With the ability to operate out of small unprepared fields, these new light attack aircraft would provide a low-tech, low-cost alternative to (and complement of) the F-35B. Though envisioned as shore-based assets only, turboprop light attack aircraft have a drastically smaller logistical support requirement and cost much less per hour to operate than fuel-thirsty jet aircraft. Though counter to the cost-saving principles of the homogenized force, a small cadre of light attack aircraft would provide the Corps a more versatile ground-attack capability….”

And just as a matter of interest, could any of these COIN aircraft operate from a carrier or an LHA/LHD? If not, could they be adapted to do so?

…….

D. Accept that the investment on Nimrod has been a total waste of several billions without any result, and explain to the press and public that, while there are planes ready to enter service, we are dropping them to spend other money and start development of yet a new platform for the same role, that may or may not cost less to run, but that will for sure do a lot less than a Nimrod.

F. Accept that there would an increased risk for the SSBNs out at sea at a time when the SSN numbers are shrinking as well.
And accept also that, was a serious accident to happen on board a submarine, the best platform available to search it, locate it, and allow a rescue mission to start in acceptable time would not exist anymore.

G. Accept the ridiculous evidence that the UK, an island completely surrounded by the sea, that would die starving if the sea trade was to be stopped, would lack a true sea-patrol plane and an aerial platform capable to fire anti-ship missiles and bring anti-sub torpedos at range, in a time in which more and more nations line advanced SSK subs and a slowly expanding number of foreign powers deploy even SSNs.

According to Jane’s last month,

“RAF offers to cancel Nimrod MRA.4 programme as part of defence cuts

By Tim Ripley
16 July 2010

UK Royal Air Force (RAF) chiefs have offered to cancel the GBP3.65 billion (USD5.57 billion) BAE Systems Nimrod MRA.4 programme just weeks before the first production aircraft are due to be delivered to the service.

The offer, made in the RAF submission to Phase 2 of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) earlier this month, also includes the early retirement within five years of all of the service’s Panavia Tornado GR.4 strike aircraft and the closure of three main operating air bases.

It is hoped these cuts would allow the RAF to reduce its payroll by 5,000 personnel and cancel long-term support contracts with BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce worth in excess of GBP3 billion, according to UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) officials involved in the SDSR process. Hundreds of millions of pounds would also be saved by reduced aircrew and groundcrew training requirements for the slimmed-down RAF.

The Nimrod cut would not save significant amounts of money from the GBP3.65 billion procurement costs of the aircraft because almost all of this amount has been spent, except for around GBP200 million to cover the final delivery of the nine aircraft during the next two years….”

It seems that it’s the support and crewing and operating costs of Nimrod that are weighing against it. IMHO, the maritime patrol aircraft mission should be transferred to the Royal Navy and fulfilled by 8-12 C-295 MPAs – far cheaper to buy, AND to operate.