I am led to believe there will be some of the naval architects from T31 switching to QE at the very least. To change a corroded shaft coupling? *Potentially corroded. Maybe they're looking at a completely new coupling. Stronger and easier to inspect. Be the smart thing to do. Different to the ones ...

Bring Deeps wrote: ↑07 Mar 2024, 19:53 I have just seen a German twitter account describe F35s as F-35B-Blitzjets. Is it too late to petition the RAF/RN for a name change or is that just going to annoy the Daily Mail readers?

Doesn't Blitz mean Lightning?

I am led to believe there will be some of the naval architects from T31 switching to QE at the very least. To change a corroded shaft coupling? *Potentially corroded. Maybe they're looking at a completely new coupling. Stronger and easier to inspect. Be the smart thing to do. Different to the ones ...

bobp wrote: ↑07 Mar 2024, 10:14 Besides the coupling they may bring forward the planned maintenance for next year, plus any other items requiring attention, so Babcock workforce will be busy unless they bring in workers from other shipyards etc.

Catapult! Missiles! Guns! Sampson radar!

tomuk wrote: ↑06 Mar 2024, 22:46

jimthelad wrote: ↑06 Mar 2024, 22:35 I am led to believe there will be some of the naval architects from T31 switching to QE at the very least.

To change a corroded shaft coupling?

*Potentially corroded.

Maybe they're looking at a completely new coupling. Stronger and easier to inspect. Be the smart thing to do.

mrclark303 wrote: ↑05 Mar 2024, 13:51 You do know your position re the age of the original design is total nonsense I'm sure, you're just having a bit of fun.....

He lost the plot several pages ago, he's been posting contradictory things ever since

GarethDavies1 wrote: ↑04 Mar 2024, 15:05 Not sure that's totally fair given the number of the FRS1 pilots and technicians that were seconded from the RAF!

It matters who was in charge

@SW1 forgot to show the last paragraph in the article: That many accidents during a collective 1.7 million flight hours gave a rate of .87 class A mishaps per 100,000 flight hours, lower than the Army’s overall rate of 1.03 and lower than the H-60’s previous five-year rate of 1.04. Flightfax’s revie...

Tempest414 wrote: ↑04 Mar 2024, 12:20 If we really needed to yes we would in the same way we sent 90% of the FRS1 fleet to the Falklands

Ah but they were FAA. Fat chance with crab air running the show.

Both leonardo and airbus have offered production lines and full integration in the uk with airbus also offering export from there line Full integration = assembly of kits produced abroad with a smidgen of UK parts. All three offer that with varying amounts of smidgen. No R&D, no design, no prot...

SW1 wrote: ↑03 Mar 2024, 15:13 There is suitable home grown medium helicopter offering in the uk

Don't be daft, there's no "home grown" UK medium helicopter.

It’s a great idea but it might be best just to buy 50x UH-60 and immediately start the process of designing a universal helo design for joint use in the RAF, Army and RN. Already happening with the NATO Next-Generation Rotorcraft Capability (NGRC) program. Supposed to produce the Merlin replacement...

SW1 wrote: ↑03 Mar 2024, 10:30 We operate over 200 helicopter below chinook

Ah Chinook, such a great example of a product that benefits UK industry. According to your proposal, it should have all its funding deleted.

SW1 wrote: ↑03 Mar 2024, 10:30 Your industrial strategy is to retain the design integration, manufacture test skills in rotorcraft industry.

None of the NMH candidates does this so your argument is just plain nonsense.

If they are falling over themselves for Blackhawk and wish to ignore the supposed industrial strategy cut the program delete the funding. They might get the message then that industrial resilience matters it’s not a catchy sound bite. yeah, that'll help the squaddies Does in France and Italy What o...

SW1 wrote: ↑03 Mar 2024, 12:11 .. I don’t think we add anything with a carrier in the pacific

Or anywhere else, right??

Bloody awful resolution on those displays

Lovely video

SW1 wrote: ↑02 Mar 2024, 20:49 If they are falling over themselves for Blackhawk and wish to ignore the supposed industrial strategy cut the program delete the funding.

They might get the message then that industrial resilience matters it’s not a catchy sound bite.

yeah, that'll help the squaddies

Let's hope NMH doesn't end up as the second worse. Blackhawk is the only contender that's been designed for battle rather than being a civvy painted green. Should be an easy pick. Pity none of the contenders went for a full Union Flag paint scheme... Seems to have worked in the past. Suspect if Bla...

I thought this an interesting line in the government announcement yesterday on procurement shakeup. “ On exportability, yesterday I published the next stage of our New Medium Helicopter competition – this includes a strong weighting for exports to ensure the high quality rotary work it will support...

I thought this an interesting line in the government announcement yesterday on procurement shakeup. “ On exportability, yesterday I published the next stage of our New Medium Helicopter competition – this includes a strong weighting for exports to ensure the high quality rotary work it will support...

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑01 Mar 2024, 14:12 Nice read, but no in specific detail, I thought. Diversity of options we have.

https://www.navylookout.com/the-royal-n ... ttlespace/

I thought this an interesting line in the government announcement yesterday on procurement shakeup. “ On exportability, yesterday I published the next stage of our New Medium Helicopter competition – this includes a strong weighting for exports to ensure the high quality rotary work it will support...

So in summary you only want to buy two T32s. As T32=T31B2. No the opposite. Forget about T31 and T32. It’s obscuring. RN needs an improved T31 with a bit more capability. A maximised platform with known bottlenecks removed at build. IMO seven hulls is all that can be managed without further funding...