Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
One might think the US is not above using ITAR as a tool to remove the competition from competing for orders form certain countries.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Srsly? This might be the dumbest posting I've seen for a while. Meteor isn't subject to ITAR. Period.SW1 wrote:That’s my point there a missile for typhoon and there a missile that requires a “role change kit” for use on f35.Timmymagic wrote:That won't work with Meteor. The clipped fins are only required for F-35, and are a field modification, all other aircraft will use the standard fins. Hence no US restrictions.SW1 wrote:The can place ITAR restrictions on form factor as well as content.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I’ll just leave this hereRon5 wrote:Srsly? This might be the dumbest posting I've seen for a while. Meteor isn't subject to ITAR. Period.SW1 wrote:That’s my point there a missile for typhoon and there a missile that requires a “role change kit” for use on f35.Timmymagic wrote:That won't work with Meteor. The clipped fins are only required for F-35, and are a field modification, all other aircraft will use the standard fins. Hence no US restrictions.SW1 wrote:The can place ITAR restrictions on form factor as well as content.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... -next-year
MBDA’s UK air adviser Russ Martin foresees a healthy export market for the Meteor, especially as sales grow for the fighter platforms to which it is currently matched. “It’s a perfect storm. There is a clear need to replace missiles such as the AMRAAM and ‘Adder’ [Vympel R-77], and there’s a range of new platforms being developed.”
Although there are some parts covered by U.S. ITAR controls, export restrictions are unlikely to be a problem, Martin explained. “If the platform is cleared for export, then it is more than likely that the Meteor will be cleared as well,” he said.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
You can leave what you like. It's still not correct.SW1 wrote:I’ll just leave this hereRon5 wrote:Srsly? This might be the dumbest posting I've seen for a while. Meteor isn't subject to ITAR. Period.SW1 wrote:That’s my point there a missile for typhoon and there a missile that requires a “role change kit” for use on f35.Timmymagic wrote:That won't work with Meteor. The clipped fins are only required for F-35, and are a field modification, all other aircraft will use the standard fins. Hence no US restrictions.SW1 wrote:The can place ITAR restrictions on form factor as well as content.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... -next-year
MBDA’s UK air adviser Russ Martin foresees a healthy export market for the Meteor, especially as sales grow for the fighter platforms to which it is currently matched. “It’s a perfect storm. There is a clear need to replace missiles such as the AMRAAM and ‘Adder’ [Vympel R-77], and there’s a range of new platforms being developed.”
Although there are some parts covered by U.S. ITAR controls, export restrictions are unlikely to be a problem, Martin explained. “If the platform is cleared for export, then it is more than likely that the Meteor will be cleared as well,” he said.
And most of all your ridiculous opinion that cropping the tail for a US aircraft makes it subject to ITAR.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I suppose until someone post a fully comprehensive component list for Meteor clearly stating where every part is manufactured and whether or not it is ITAR dependant we could go round and round on this of days. Personally if a representative of the Manufacturers says some components require ITAR agreement that sorts it out for me until proven officially otherwise.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Not criticising the discussions merits but can this be done in another thread
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Apologies. My last comment is that Meteor has been sold to Qatar and Egypt. Both countries have seen MBDA sales nixxed in the recent past by ITAR.seaspear wrote:Not criticising the discussions merits but can this be done in another thread
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Yes agreed, any suggestions where this should be moved to? polite answers only please.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
What about here?Lord Jim wrote:Yes agreed, any suggestions where this should be moved to? polite answers only please.
viewforum.php?f=39
or here
viewforum.php?f=32
-
- Member
- Posts: 96
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 11:36
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
If the carriers are goingt to be deployed in the gulf and or south China sea area .I think it would only to be prudent to update the long radar s1850 smartL radar to the lasest anti-ballistic radar that Thales have supplied to the Dutch navy, the Smart L MM/N Radar.
With this radar the carrier can detect with a range tested at 2000 miles and direct anti-ballistic missiles from allied escort warships and or from a T26 fitted with the pac3 missiles in the mk41 silos. Or even land base Japanese anti-ballistic missiles.
With this radar the carrier can detect with a range tested at 2000 miles and direct anti-ballistic missiles from allied escort warships and or from a T26 fitted with the pac3 missiles in the mk41 silos. Or even land base Japanese anti-ballistic missiles.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
You mean SM-3? Pac-3 isn't Mk41 enabled, I don't think.cyrilranch wrote: With this radar the carrier can detect with a range tested at 2000 miles and direct anti-ballistic missiles from allied escort warships and or from a T26 fitted with the pac3 missiles in the mk41 silos. Or even land base Japanese anti-ballistic missiles.
-
- Member
- Posts: 96
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 11:36
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Yes ,that oneRetroSicotte wrote:You mean SM-3? Pac-3 isn't Mk41 enabled, I don't think.cyrilranch wrote: With this radar the carrier can detect with a range tested at 2000 miles and direct anti-ballistic missiles from allied escort warships and or from a T26 fitted with the pac3 missiles in the mk41 silos. Or even land base Japanese anti-ballistic missiles.
I would thought small quantity of these missiles fitted to a carrier escort ship with a mk 41 launcher would be enough.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Wouldn't it make more sense to upgrade the T45's radar...cyrilranch wrote:If the carriers are goingt to be deployed in the gulf and or south China sea area .I think it would only to be prudent to update the long radar s1850 smartL radar to the lasest anti-ballistic radar that Thales have supplied to the Dutch navy, the Smart L MM/N Radar.
With this radar the carrier can detect with a range tested at 2000 miles and direct anti-ballistic missiles from allied escort warships and or from a T26 fitted with the pac3 missiles in the mk41 silos. Or even land base Japanese anti-ballistic missiles.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
More likely to use the Sampson radar on T45, given the work already done on this system.
The link below is a bit out of date now...
https://www.naval-technology.com/featur ... s-4323886/
The link below is a bit out of date now...
https://www.naval-technology.com/featur ... s-4323886/
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Still can't direct the missiles tho.Aethulwulf wrote:More likely to use the Sampson radar on T45, given the work already done on this system.
The link below is a bit out of date now...
https://www.naval-technology.com/featur ... s-4323886/
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
May be we should go Dutch with the Dutch (rather than taking our own developments into cul de sac's just because there isn't enough allocated budget)?Ron5 wrote:Still can't direct the missiles tho.Aethulwulf wrote:More likely to use the Sampson radar on T45, given the work already done on this system.
The link below is a bit out of date now...
https://www.naval-technology.com/featur ... s-4323886/
Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) completed design and testing of a prototype dual-band datalink that will enable interoperability between the Standard Missile family of interceptors and a wider variety of radars and ships.
"The dual-band datalink will allow for greatly expanded NATO participation in the European Phased Adaptive Approach," said Dr. Taylor Lawrence, president of Raytheon Missile Systems. "This advancement bridges a critical technology gap in air defense interoperability between U.S. and allied nations."
Raytheon's dual-band datalink will allow ships that use AEGIS and SMART-L/APAR variants to employ the full range of Standard Missiles. Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom operate more than 20 naval vessels that utilize a variant of the SMART-L/APAR radar system.
"NATO allies operate naval vessels that could play a major role in ballistic missile surveillance and engagement," said Lawrence. "Raytheon's dual-band datalink will enable our allies to contribute more comprehensively to the full spectrum of ballistic missile defense and frees up U.S. Navy ships to focus on other critical missions around the globe."
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Treading on egg shells, carefullycontribute more comprehensively
more comprehensively = more than not at all
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Again this is the sort of thing the Transformation Fund should be looking at along with collective engagement amongst other things. These sort of issues should be a high priority, and even worth sacrificing the T-31e budget for.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5629
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Germany floats European Carrier idea
Maybe we should offer POW
Maybe we should offer POW
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4106
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
If they offer more than £5bn it might be worth considering but not a penny less.Tempest414 wrote:Germany floats European Carrier idea
Maybe we should offer POW
https://amp.dw.com/en/angela-merkel-bac ... ssion=true
Basically it isn't going to happen
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
27 Aircraft on board (1 from each EU member state, I suppose)? Can you imagine the menu in the JRs Dining
Hall ?
Perhaps it will even be a U-Carrier ?
Which language will be used for communication ?
What does it matter, they will probably be U-AVs ?
And all this from the leader of a country that no longer gives a fig about European defence.
Perhaps the EU will insist on the transfer of POW as a pre-requisite for a "Trade Agreement"
Totally laughable (just like the EU).
Hall ?
Perhaps it will even be a U-Carrier ?
Which language will be used for communication ?
What does it matter, they will probably be U-AVs ?
And all this from the leader of a country that no longer gives a fig about European defence.
Perhaps the EU will insist on the transfer of POW as a pre-requisite for a "Trade Agreement"
Totally laughable (just like the EU).
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
And of course all the loonies on twitter are shrieking about "They're gonna take our carriers away it's an EU Navy they said this wouldn't happen whaaaaaa!"
Rational thinking be in the past, methinks.
Rational thinking be in the past, methinks.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5629
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I have said it once and I will say it again HMS POW should be used as a NATO carrier. A British carrier with a British crew and a NATO or allied air-wing. The UK would hold the right to use her within the British fleet as needed i.e as a LPH but for me the bigger picture is NATO Europe needs its own carriers and should be looking for 4 carrier groups and it could get there now with
1 French carrier group ( CdeG )
1 British carrier group ( HMS QE )
1 NATO carrier group ( HMS POW )
1 Italian & Spanish carrier group based around the 2 LHDs
1 French carrier group ( CdeG )
1 British carrier group ( HMS QE )
1 NATO carrier group ( HMS POW )
1 Italian & Spanish carrier group based around the 2 LHDs
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Could this conversation be taken somewhere else please?
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5629
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Why i am saying POW one of the British carriers should be used as a NATO carrier as we will not have the aircraft to put on it and it could stop it from being moth balled