B]There is a greater chance of Obama falling to his knees and converting to Islam on live television then there is of the A400 being cancelled.[/B]
The partner countries will just pay more for fewer aircraft.[/QUOTE]

I woulndnt be suprised at either……….:mad:

T-50 is a beaut of a plane! Thank goodness we’ve killed production of the cold war relic called F-22. USELESS plane the Raptor. No appreciable threat out there to justify it.

The RAF operated the Phantom into the early 90s, so I think its safe to assume the RN would have done likewise………an possibly got F-18Cs (Sea Hornet FRS.1?) at that point. interestings, we would probably be having very similar debates over futer RN CVs now as the CVA-01 would be in need of replacement. The “Bucc” could have been upgraded (uprated Speys, new radar, glasscockpit, rewire, etc…..) or also replaced with Hornet.

In the 60s we had the personnel, infrastructure and training and logistical train to support five CVAs and two LPHs. Once the political decision was made to axe the carriers a large scale redundancy program was instituted. The 70 onwards difficulty with manpower are a direct result of this, as it’s hard to recruit new people for a job with no percieved future. It’s the same problem now with the Harrier force/JSF/CVF. Until potential recruits see a more positive future they are unlikley to join up. Naval Harrier pilots didn’t join the FAA to fly RAF missions from RAF bases, different culture for a start.

Maybe all RAF Harriers should have been turned over to the RN in the 90s……hmmm…..just a thought.

I’ve long felt the carrier crisis of the 60s could have been avoided if the RN had simply delayed the replacement programme until the mid 70s; the RAF had big ticket programmes competing for scarce resources at the time and if the Chiefs of the all the services had put their heads together, recognised the Treasury was the real enemy and not each other, then a bit of horse trading could have gone on: 1SL:”We’ll not oppose TSR2 and other programmes in the works if you (CAS) throw your support behind retention of carrier aviation and back CVA programme starting in the early 70s.” The existing carrier force could be kept serviceable for another decade without much difficulty (Eagle SLEP refit 59-64, viable until 1984 without major refit, Victorious SLEP refit 1950-58, viable until 1978-80, Hermes NEW in 1959, STILL in service with India, Centaur new in 1954, refitted 56-58, only ten years sea time when paid off, Ark Royal SLEP 67-70, if extended to 72 then engines could be expected to last into the 80s. Bulwark lasted into the eighties and could have lasted longer if properly refitted, and Albion was the same vintage so could have been retained just as long).

If the Sea Vixen is upgraded further with superior radar, perhaps the same as fitted to the Phantom so that it can fire Sparrow/Skyflash then it can remain viable for fleet defence through the 70s at least (most Sea Vixens had at least 10 years airframe life left to them when withdrawn), so whichever aircraft is chosen to replace the Vixen doesn’t have to enter service until about 1980, on the same timescale as the SHAR historically…

I agree!!!!!! And then in mid 80s it would be Sea Hornet FRS.1 time for the RN!