So that then basically is the four-spot loss djcross was talking about. I’ld expect you’ld be unable to perform either mission adequately.

Note that LHA/D Tarawa/Wasp compared to LPH (IwoJima) saw an increase in the number of helicopter spots from 6 to 9. That greater number of spots on LHA/D compared to LPH had something to do with the number of CH-46helicopters needed to lift a particular sized unit in a single flight. You’ld be giving that up, going back in fact to a number of spots less than the 6 on board the LPH-2s.

Note also that the AV-8Bs are primarily meant for forward basing (on land, that is!) The Marines Corps’ concept for deploying the Harriers in a land-based expeditionary role focuses on setting up forward bases and light maintenance facilities in under 24 hours on any prospective battle area. Containing one to four aircraft these are to be located 20 miles (32 km) from the forward edge of battle (FEBA). Supplies, including armaments, were to be regularly ferried by Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallions. The close proximity of forward bases allowed for a far greater sortie rate and reduced fuel consumption.

Typically only 8 Harriers are carried (hardly a numer to go play aircraft carrier with). Carrying more would mean carrying fewer heli’s. But if you take away the LHA/Ds heli’s, why retain capability for 2000+ marines?

I always feel sorry for those Marines: imagine 2000+ being cooped up in one of those LHD/As for months at a time, along with another 1,000+ sailors. Doesn’t sound like much fun.

Aren’t the CH-46s being replaced by the MV-22s? How will that affect deck-spotting and numbers required?

Isn’t the RAF going to retire 50+ Tranche 1 Typhoons that cost billions to buy only a few years ago?

Myasishchev 3M-2-3 experimental

Which came first?

‘First day of war manned air strike capability’ is frankly a load of nonsense, and if that’s the F-35’s unique selling point then Britain has been sold a pup.

In the event that F-35s are used to strike another country, the path for manned aircraft will be cleared by missiles and UCAVs, or alternatively the target will be a third world player that does not have significant air defences.

The F-35 concept is already out-of-date. Britain – both RN and RAF – needs a mix of UCAVs and cheap workhorse fighters, such as the F/A-18 or Gripen.

What’s the price difference, assuming similar equipment levels?

Very old news, but if you’re new to the weapon here’s tphuang’s excellent blog post two years ago which explains its potential very well.

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/03/plan-asbm-development.html

Rumours of its operational capability range the whole spectrum, but I do think chen was trying to placate the west with the “problems” the system was facing — an extension of the “hiding our capabilities” doctrine.

As for implications, what is guaranteed is that the USN will think twice before sending a couple of cvns in the taiwan strait during a time of high tension. Anything beyond that is foggy.

Objective achieved, if that’s the case.

EADS? It’s not an EADS product. Aero Vodochody is owned by a private investment group. I find it a little surprising that they’d market it.

Didn’t EADS get a few L-159s as part-payment for the C-295s supplied to the Czech Air Force?

Overrun of $1.15 billion on cost of first 28 F-35s (that’s more than $40 million each!)

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/07/15/359508/f-35-lrip-overrun-value-raised-to-1.15b.html