Hi Obi Wan
Thanks a lot for those. Now if only I had a paint package to hand to do what I want with all of those.

Well here’s a quick plan of the flight deck layout of that model I modified. On the model itself I had the split JBDs of Ark Royal, but when I drew this plan a couple of years ago I gave it US style JBDs just to see how they would look:

Hi Obi Wan. I love the deck plan. Perhaps a before and after would be good. I’ve tried modifying your deck plan to add extensions to the flight deck port and starboard that cover over the areas shaded in green and add the SPN 35 radome aft of the island. If I can figure out how to master the drawing packages on my machine I’ll post it. Meanwhile keep up the good work, I look forward to more.

Possibly off topic I remember once owning a book about the Lightning, probably written in the late 80s. It wasn’t a ‘coffee table book’ but a small hardback and in it, near the front was a caption that read something like: ‘where they didn’t expect to be’ and below was several photos taken through a Lightning gunsight of other aircraft such as an F-15 and a Sea Harrier. Perhaps someone might remember it the book had a navy-blud dust jacket.
On the flip side I did read about FAA Sea Vixens doing well against Lightnings in exercises in the Far East in the late 60s where the Vixens were ‘bombers’ which had to cross an imaginery line in the sky without being intercepted by the Lightnings.

Whereas I heard it straight from a former Phantom pilot…. & I wasn’t the only one in the room (on both occassions) when Mark mentioned it….

All this talk of Phantoms in the Falklands brings up my what if of the Falklands War. What if the RN had CVA-01 class carriers or at least ‘Phantomised’ Ark Royal (and what the hell Eagle as well) at the time of the Falklands, what would have happened? I’m willing to bet no Falklands War at all.

Comparing the Tornado to a modernised Bucc, in the high speed low-level strike mission (the Bucc’s specialist mission), is hardly what I call fair. One is a jack of all trades and one has its main niche. The Tornado being a jack of all trades is from an engineering point of view, a compromise. It could never incorporate the internal weapons bay that gave the Bucc its “practical” low-level speed advantage or its huge internal fuel capacity and still be effective in its other roles. But being the jack of all trades the Tornado is; means it can do things the Bucc could never do. At the same time as offering a respectable capability in each of its roles.

You know I’ve always suspected that had the CVA01 class carriers been built, Buccaneers (with upgrades to their avionics and weapons fit) would have made up the strike element of the airgroup throughout the whole of their careers. Even if the ships were only decommissioned perhaps 5 years ago. Their F4K hanger mates (even with upgrades), of which I am a huge fan on the other hand, would have probably been consigned to museums and scrapyards years earlier to be replaced by Tomcats or perhaps even Navalised Tornado ADVs.
On topic I would have liked to have seen a Lightning F7. In my mind it would have major avionics upgrades which would hopefully take up less weight and space this allowing more fuel. Perhaps engines that were more fuel efficient (though I’m not sure what). A new radar with double the range and at least a limited look down/shoot down capability. And a redesigned wing (identical in appearance) buit with the undercarriage placed in such a way as to allow the drop tanks to be carried under the wing and an extra pair of Redtop AAMs on top.
Perhaps ultimately an RAF strike command equipped with TSR2s (in place of the Buccaneer/Tornado, with a strategic version just like the FB111 in place of the V-Bombers) and both versions of the P1154RAF for strike and recce ops (in place of both the Harrier and the Jaguar) and two seat P1154RN as an interceptor (in place of the Lightning and F4K/M Phantom).

I’d like to second whats been said about this thread being really fascinating (along with the other V-Force thread open). Though nuclear warfare terrifies me up to this day and has been the source of many a nightmare, the weapons, people and operating organisations responsible for such things, SAC, V-Force, SSBNs etc fascinate me.
I’m just curious, when talk of recovery following strikes is mentioned, were there any plans for crews to ditch their bombers by naval vessels in the ocean (assuming any such vessels survived), with the crews being picked up and their aircraft consigned to Davy Jones locker? Given what was mentioned about more distant targets making recovery difficult.

Also, and this is open to everyone, not just the RAF veterans, how do you think the introduction of Skybolt and TSR2 might have affected things? Would the RAF for instance have finally standardised on a single V-bomber ie the phase 3 Vulcan which would have carried up to 6 Skybolts or the phase 6 Victor which could have carried 4 and in both cases stayed on patrol for many hours. Or would the mixed force of Victors and Vulcans persisted and could the goal of 84 Skybolts being in the air at all times ready to strike was feasable given how few strategic missiles we seem to maintain on submarine patrols today (16)?

According to Jane’s Fighting Ships 2004-2005 for the Nimitz-class it is (depending on the mission):
10-12 F14B Tomcats (or F/A-18F Hornets)
36 F/A-18A/C/E Hornets
4 EA-6B Prowlers
4 E-2C Hawkeyes
up to 6 S 3-B Viking

(and 4 SH-60Fs + 2 HH-60H Seahawks)

So that would be (max) 62 fixed-wing aircraft typically.

You would think that nowadays the airwing would comprise:
24 E-model Super Hornets 2 fighter squadrons
24 C-model Hornets (to be replaced by C-model Lightning IIs) 2 light attack squadrons
12 F-model Super Hornets 1 medium attack squadron
4 Prowlers (to be replaced by G-model Super Hornets) 1 EW detachment
4 Hawkeyes 1 AEW Detachment
plus 8 – 12 Seahawks 1 squadron of various marks for ASW and SAR.

Do you think a dedicated detachment of tanker aircraft should be included and if so what? I’m for the Growlers doubling up on that role so that there would be 8 rather than 4.