I am dead sure that if the RAN ventured anywhere near a SSGN it would be the Virginias and the Astutes wouldn't get a shoe in.
On the same page here, the Virginias would be a no brainer especially with our existing industry links to Electric Boat. What I was suggesting was if we were to anounce in a future white paper that SSNs were on the cards I do not doubt the UK would make an offer, as would France. That said the US can and has been pretty selective about what technology they offer and to whom, sometimes without any aparent rime or reason, think the F-22 restrictions driven by legislation when the (in many ways more advanced) F-35 is a multinational project.
I will venture to suggest Malaysia. The Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) currently operates 2 F2000 frigates built by Yarrow (now BAE):
There's some talk of the RMN getting 2 more Lekius, kind of like a Batch II to the first pair, but with more updated software and hardware. Time-line wise, if the Batch II Lekius do materialise, it is likely to be before the T26 is ready. So far, there's no word on the modernisation of the 1st pair of Lekius though. I guess that will come later on and BAE should feature somewhere in that modernisation.
Beats me really. That's crystal-ball gazing and I suppose quite a bit depends on the requirements in the coming years. Although there is a possibility that the Victory class gets replaced by a substantially reworked T26 sometime in the future (much like how the Formidable class is substantially reworked from the La Fayatte)?
True, from what i've been reading from pilots operating in the likes of Afghanistan etc it appears that the main benefit of fast air is the massive amounts of ordnance they carry (+ recce assets) rather than strafing ability.
But it's a bit of a tricky issue, have guns or not have guns. If a situation arises where an F-35B should 'need' guns, considering the technology, something's already gone pretty badly wrong.
But of course, this has all been said before with consequences that cost lives. If it were me, i'd buy the things, but i'm not one of the decision makers
Depends on the way you look at it, I suppose. I don't think the Vietnam example, as frequently as it's brought up, is as valid as it once was. In an age of cooperative engagement, extremely high performance air-to-air missiles/systems, and increasingly miniaturised ground attack munitions, I think a case can be made that an internal gun isn't going to see nearly as much use as in past eras. Certainly as far as air to air combat goes, when you've got helmet-mounted sights, high off-boresight IR missiles, AWACS support and far more effective BVR sensor and weapon systems, I'd have to think the gun would be a weapon of absolute last resort. Sure, if you're out of missiles it'd be good to have, but again, when you've got off-board sensors and you're operating as part of a networked group of aircraft, you have to consider that even if you don't have a shot, it's very possible someone else will. If the target has LO properties that are confounding your missiles then maybe, but then I do wonder how much more luck the gun's targeting system will have with the hostile anyway... gotta aim it with something, after all.
Depends on the way you look at it, I suppose. I don't think the Vietnam example, as frequently as it's brought up, is as valid as it once was. In an age of cooperative engagement, extremely high performance air-to-air missiles/systems, and increasingly miniaturised ground attack munitions, I think a case can be made that an internal gun isn't going to see nearly as much use as in past eras. Certainly as far as air to air combat goes, when you've got helmet-mounted sights, high off-boresight IR missiles, AWACS support and far more effective BVR sensor and weapon systems, I'd have to think the gun would be a weapon of absolute last resort. Sure, if you're out of missiles it'd be good to have, but again, when you've got off-board sensors and you're operating as part of a networked group of aircraft, you have to consider that even if you don't have a shot, it's very possible someone else will. If the target has LO properties that are confounding your missiles then maybe, but then I do wonder how much more luck the gun's targeting system will have with the hostile anyway... gotta aim it with something, after all.
When it comes to air to ground, once again I think it's becoming more of a nice to have rather than a necessity. The smaller precision guided munitions get, the more can be carried, and delivering these weapons is not only more accurate than strafing runs (although I'm sure modern aircraft are by no means slouches in that area), but safer for both friendlies on the ground and for the aircraft itself, which should be able to deliver these munitions at a higher altitude and thus it's more likely to be outside the engagement envelope of AAA/trashfire/VSHORAD missiles. Looking at some of the smaller weapons, starting from the SBD on down to laser-guided 70mm rockets, the Griffon missile, the Viper Strike glide bomb, there's all kinds of bits and pieces available for low-collateral ground attack.
I've always erred on the side of caution and considered a gun to be something I'd rather an aircraft have and not need than need and not have, but with ongoing advances in technology I'd say it's very much more of an optional extra than it once was. I mean how long were the Harriers operating in Afghanistan without guns... they seemed to do alright... and from a fighter vs fighter perspective I don't know when was the last time guns were a deciding factor in an engagement (wouldn't surprise me if it was the Israelis, they've got quite a history of effective air-to-air gunnery).
Does the proliferation of LO technologies change the equation? Possibly. It certainly opens the potential for aircraft to have more close encounters with one another. But again, on that kind of high-technology battlefield I don't know if guns would play a major part in the overall outcome of the air war.
Anyway, I'm rambling, apologies
Pretty much answered your own question there. If the enemy can't or won't defend their AWACS/Tankers/Transports then the F-35 could just fly in front of it pumping exhaust straight into the target's engines until it stalls if they wanted.
Boy, two posts in a row and you are already gonna upset the mods, and you haven't even reached 10 posts yet. Ka kite ano after your warning or banning that's undoubtable coming. Ngā mihi.
Thanks for sharing the link, yes it is a worth read.
Guess you miss the harriers irony was the harrier and the Jaguar shared a lot of similar kit and both did their jobs very well.
As they should have done its a capability the UK will never be able to fully regenerate sometimes the UK public need to be told the truth what can and cannot be achieved by British industry with out political band standing.