The ship named Invincible befor the aircraft carrier was a battlecruiser that had a slight “mishap” at Jutland.

Agree! Most of the anti Israel guys here just dont think the IDF is worth anything. They would be in for an eye opening experience.

It should have been canned in the early 90s! The Marines could have had EH101s for over 10 years now!

If T-82 was “double ended”…ie, 2 Sea Dart launchers……would she have four Type 909s?

No Phantom?!

Not sure they wouldn’t have invaded, thats often quoted but has no evidence to actually back it up, its always been an assumption. People seem to imagine that Ark Royal would have been some magic deterrent from any military disaster befalling the nation.

There were many advantages of SHAR/VSTOL ops.

It operated in weathers that the old Ark could not have launched or recovered in.

In the event of emergency aircraft could land essentially anywhere and an airstrip was set up on land at the earliest convinence. In the event of a major accident on the flight deck (much higher risk with CATOBAR ops) nobody has to face ditching.

Reinforcement was easy as aircraft were transported and flown off a civvie cargo ship or were flown direct to the carriers where some RAF pilots made their first carrier landing.

Small size of aircraft saw a larger airgroup given the size of available vessels.

The RAF could send its Harriers to join the party.

safety was improved, the accident rate for the sortie rate was much lower than for a CV in wartime conditions. As Sharkey Ward says its so much safer to stop an aircraft and land on a ship than do it the other way round.

The Harrier was actually a really good fighter plane, often overlooked in discussions about this.

Didnt really mean Ark Royal so much as the three CVAs. Sorry for the confusion.

The problem the MOD needs to solve is that the best solution is not wanted by the user of the aircraft and will be strongly resisted.

CATOBAR makes perfect sense for providing an airwing for CVF. You get the choice of 3 different aircraft, Rafale, F18 and F35 C, with variable cost and capability options. You get operational convergence with the principle allies, US and French navies. The additional infrastructure cost for the ships could easily be made up from the lower cost of the F18 option if cost was to be the principle driver. It opens the door to Hawkeye at some future date to replace the ASAC 7 and any future Euro UCAV will likely have a CATOBAR version as the French will insist.

The problem is that the RAF own all fast jets and will be the buyer of all F35. The RAF want F35 B because they will provide the vast majority of the aircrew for the new aircraft and they want it based on land like their other assets, with occasional familiarisation visits to a carrier. This fits the expeditionary air group idea with CVF as ‘just another airbase’. This rules out the use of CATOBAR as this would require dedicated naval air wings that train with and deploy on the carriers pretty much all the timein order to maintain their deck currency. The down side is that it means continuing with a lash-up AEW and makes the prospect of a naval capable UCAV pretty much impossible, as no one is building a VSTOL one. This mans that any UCAV operation in the 2020s will be land base dependent with all the restrictions that that includes.

Forget naval Typhoon, its a red herring, as it involves immediate substantial upfront development costs and a substantial technical risk. Neither would be acceptable in the current climate.

You hit the nail on the head! TOTALY agree!