I agree with Jonesy, a fully equipped carrier (and group) has a deterrent effect other assets cannot reach. Just look at the story told by Pheonix Sqaudron, just a couple of sorties by Ark Royal‘s aircraft was enough to deter Guatemala.

Going back to the issue of coast overuns, has there ever been a Government project that didn’t suffer from cost overuns or delays?

WRT Devonport and Pompey, the proposals are supposedly just that – proposals. Putting the bulk of the surface fleet is not a good idea security wise, and as you say, Devonport is larger.

Hmmmmm…..

Yep – layered defence/defence in depth is the name of the game. Not only against air and missile threats, but surface and submarines ones.

I don’t claim or need to be an expert on carriers to know the difference between the training burden imposed by STOVL and CTOL ops, and to know how much of the time JFH operates from CVS, and how much from traditional land bases.

Clearly, less that it would if it had more aircraft, such as before the Sea Harrier got the axe prematurely. (Discussed here at huge length, so lets not go through that debate again).

BTW the original Ark Royal was a Tudor ship, with no Phantoms taking off or recovering – just sails and cannons. Didn’t realise you were that old!

Scooter

Go to PPRuNe. Go to the Military Aircrew forum. Do a search for all posts or threads by Jackonicko – that should give you a clue who he is. Not that I’m taking his side, because he’s in the wrong.

No naval fixed wing pilots will mean no senior naval officers with a real understanding of fixed wing operations, and not understanding how carrier aircraft can be used as task force weapons. Funny enough, when the RAF controlled maritime aviation pre WWII these were the consequences. These were also the consequences of the run down off the Fleet Air Arm in the 70s.

Why not try to learn from history, and not repeat the mistakes off the past which will have negative consequences for both the RN and RAF?

There are lots of aircraft at the dummy deck at Culdrose. In addition to the Sea Harrier FA2s and Harrier T8s you can see here, there are a number of old Harrier GR3s which are in a poor state.

This album is from late 2006, but does show that the Sea Harriers look reasonable but the GR3s look awful. Additionally in 2007 there was a BBC South West news feature which showed the activities there – have a look.

When it was reported that India had expressed an interest in purchasing surplus Sea Harriers it must have meant that India thought that those stored aircraft were still in a decent condition. Hopefully that suggests the aircraft at the dummy deck at Culdrose are also in a good condition. I recently had a chat with a couple of friends who had returned from operations at sea in the Middle East. They both commented on how sea spray effects weapons – in that it makes them rust, so extra cleaning and lubrication is needed.

When equipment is intended for shipboard use it is modified for that environment, particularly with things exposed to the elements. When the Harrier airframe was modified to become Sea Harrier, the materials used in both the airframe and engine were adjusted to improve their corrosion resistance. Presumably other measures were taken to prevent water/salt ingress. Since they were designed to spend very long periods at sea, much of it up on deck, I would imagine that the Cornish weather will be less of a problem for the jets moving around the dummy deck than it would be to land based aircraft used for similar purposes at other places.

Some of them were only delivered to the RN in 1998/1999.

Nobody has ever said they would be immediately flyable and fit for operations, but that they could be regenerated given time and resources (and adequate intelligence warnings).

Additionally,Sea Harrier parts are being produced (under licence) for export to India. A recent edition of Air Forces Monthly notes that an Indian Navy Sea Harrier FRS51, damaged during a carrier landing in 2006, has been rebuilt by BAE Systems, and was redelivered in February this year. Presumably, in addition to BAE Systems themselves, a number of components (airframe and other) would have had to have been manufactured specially. Build to print is alive and well!

Probably get flamed to death for this, but what about a Hercules?

By chance there is currently an article in Air Forces Monthly regarding the retirement of the Viking.

I think the meaning of some of what I have said has been lost in semantics. Local ASW to implies short range to me, alhough that may have been up to several hundred miles with the S3, creating a bubble of ASW. Similarly, carrier based fighters give you local air superiority.

However, the retirement of the Viking is causing the USN problems – as the CVWs no lnoger have their own dedicated tankers.