Treasury are having problems with the Sopwith Camel because of its vicious turn to starboard and habit of breaking new pilots. They are looking at the BE-2C instead with the Wright Flyer as backup.
Not necessarily. If they were acquired through FMS and acquired for the same price as the USAF then they would be VFM especially as would be similar price to F-18F. About US$5 - 10 million flyaway difference in cost, but the capability difference between the two is large. Treasury will accept that as good bang for buck.
You have to look at how the RDN (Royal Danish Navy) have been operating them and they aren't lying about the crew numbers. I have been following the Iver Huitfeld Class and Absalon Class closely for at least eight years.
The AH140 is basically the OMT F370 which is the Iver Huitfeld Class. There are important differences between the Iver Huitfeld and Absalon Classes and most other warships, and that is their design philosophy and how they were built. They were designed by commercial designers and the RDN to be built in a commercial yard so there are aspects of commercial ships and shipbuilding in them. They used the automation, IPSM and placement of cabling, hosing and piping in easy access channelling in companionways etc., instead of being hidden behind bulkheads, deckheads, and underneath decks. It makes for easier and quicker maintenance and everything is also plug and play. Consoles on the bridge and in the CIC are all multi use and open architecture, so can be used for for different mission modules. Whilst in RDN the Ivers are AD frigates, they can be fitted with floating machinery mounts for ASW specialisation. In RDN they are also STANFLEX capable which is a RDN specific modular armaments system.
IF we were to go down the Ivers path for the RNZN, then we would have to change their fitout to suit our purposes because we have a different operating environment. I would stay with the same basic machinery because they are quick. Maybe we could look at installing a
CODLAG system instead of the current CODAD. We may need to lengthen the ship but a 5 -10m plug shouldn't be to much of a problem. The beauty about the design is that its adaptable. Next we could take the fitout from the RCN CSC and install that on the ship, less some of the RCN options and add some of our own. For example we wouldn't require the ESSM Blk II because we already have Sea Ceptor, which the RCN are acquiring as well. We would have to acquire a CIWS and there are a couple around that are far better than Phalanx. The RCN are fitting the SPY-7 radar and the latest AEGIS and we should do the same. The CMS they use is the same as ours. Babcocks don't own yards so we can build the hulls and install the machinery anywhere we like. We could then ship them here and undertake the fitouts here if we wanted to. On paper we should be able to acquire four of these vessels for the same or less price than three Hunter Class frigates built in Australia, City Class Frigates built in UK, or CSC frigates built in Canada, yet have a GP frigate of similar capability and quality.
IMHO the F-15EX is the better capability because of it's weapon carriage capability and combat radius. It's also able to self escort as well whilst still carrying a very sizeable AGM loadout, something the F-18E/F cannot do.
The reason that a twin seater with a WSO is preferred is not to overload the pilot, leaving them to fly and fight the aircraft whilst the wizzo in the back seat takes care of everything else such as targeting, threat detection, ISR etc. Secondly in RNZAF the F-15EX would primarily be a maritime strike and long range aircraft. Anything else would be secondary and if the army wants CAS they can submit a case for their own ARH / Attack Helos.
