Originally Posted by Toxicseagull

Because buying 50s vintage helicopter fitted with an inflatable piece of rubber developed in three weeks was not our idea of efficient carrier-borne AEW....

right, so our purchase to buy larger, better and more cost effective aircraft that were actually being produced so it can be put into service when we needed it is ok then?

again, why didnt you wait for airbus to produce a CB-AEW then if "you would rather wait years than buy a US product today"?

Because when you need only three or four such aircrafts, it is not cost effective to start developing it ! Remember the Nimrod AEW ?

Originally Posted by Oil_Slick

Originally Posted by fantassin

Because buying 50s vintage helicopter fitted with an inflatable piece of rubber developed in three weeks was not our idea of efficient carrier-borne AEW....

Except the systems on the ASaC7 are more capable than those on an E2…

Yes, they are so effective that they currently are that close from being removed from RN service as a cost cutting measure...

Originally Posted by fantassin

Because when you need only three or four such aircrafts, it is not cost effective to start developing it ! Remember the Nimrod AEW ?

At what unit cost would you argue A400M is not cost effective?

Or is that one of the projects which has no ceiling?

Originally Posted by whitecity

Originally Posted by fantassin

As for amphibious assaults, the capability is there; the fact that it has not been offered to the USA for one of their recent colonial adventures should not be a cause for concern...more a reason for rejoicing.

So CdG had nothing to do with bombing Afghanistan in 2001-2????

Hmmm!

Look, I don't want to be pedantic but aerial bombardment and amphibious assaults are two different things in my book. And yes, CdG used its SEMs and Rafale on several cruises to do both CAP and CAS over Afghanistan.

a400m isnt cost effective either. your whole argument has been based on that it props up a french production company and "isnt american" which is ironic considering its gone so badly wrong its now costing its parent company billions of its own money a year.

oh and the rest of your argument that britain shouldn't have bought an superior american product that is actually available and works when it needed a capability which is clearly laughable.

Originally Posted by whitecity

Originally Posted by fantassin

Because when you need only three or four such aircrafts, it is not cost effective to start developing it ! Remember the Nimrod AEW ?

At what unit cost would you argue A400M is not cost effective?

Or is that one of the projects which has no ceiling?

No ceiling would be pushing it but I'd say it needs all the support it can get until the capability is there.

When Airbus started taking on Boeing on the civilian market, everybody said it was madness; I think we are now in the same position; it'll take time and money, it'd be nice if it was already there, but we'll get there and Europe will ultimately benefit from it.

Originally Posted by fantassin

Originally Posted by whitecity

Originally Posted by fantassin

As for amphibious assaults, the capability is there; the fact that it has not been offered to the USA for one of their recent colonial adventures should not be a cause for concern...more a reason for rejoicing.

So CdG had nothing to do with bombing Afghanistan in 2001-2????

Hmmm!

Look, I don't want to be pedantic but aerial bombardment and amphibious assaults are two different things in my book. And yes, CdG used its SEMs and Rafale on several cruises to do both CAP and CAS over Afghanistan.

Well, you mentionned US colonial adventures in the plural. The only difference between UK and French foreign policy efforts over the past 20 years is Iraq. And the greater part of UK effort at that time was land based not amphibious. Indeed, it's original mission was to in from Turkey.

Originally Posted by fantassin

this should be no excuse for dropping the need for an independent EU altogether by shopping in the USA

I don't care about an independent EU manufacturing capability anymore than I care about Boeing, BAe or any other large company. I care about British Forces getting equipment that's fit for purpose in a reasonable time for a reasonable cost. The A400 may well be fit for purpose, but it is neither reasonably priced nor will it be in service in a reasonable time.

Neither do I care about buying American. I'd be quite happy to ask Mr Antonov to sell us some of his lovely, massive air transporters if the price was right and they could be delivered at some point before the war causing the major need for them ends.

It's not up to the RAF to prop up European multinationals by ordering over expensive products that can't be delivered when they should be.

Originally Posted by fantassin

Originally Posted by whitecity

Originally Posted by fantassin

Because when you need only three or four such aircrafts, it is not cost effective to start developing it ! Remember the Nimrod AEW ?

At what unit cost would you argue A400M is not cost effective?

Or is that one of the projects which has no ceiling?

No ceiling would be pushing it but I'd say it needs all the support it can get until the capability is there.

Sorry. That's a political cop out that leads to COMPLETE financial disasters such as Nimrod AEW and almost complete financial disaters such as ... well ... just about every major European collaborative defence programme as well as purely national ones. The only difference with national, is that at least you can still rave about an independent capability.

And that, frankly, has to be my greatest concern with the "European" (read EU) mindset: prepared to sacrifice commonsense for political illusion, smike and mirrors.

Originally Posted by fantassin

When Airbus started taking on Boeing on the civilian market, everybody said it was madness; I think we are now in the same position; it'll take time and money, it'd be nice if it was already there, but we'll get there and Europe will ultimately benefit from it.

But if British Airways have to wait a while for their new airplanes then it doesn't really make a difference in the grand scheme of things. If the RAF have to wait then it could potentially cause deaths and will certainly degrade operational effectiveness.