Yeah……..I got what was pretty much the consensus of opinion on VSTOL by page 2 of this thread. after that its pretty much people trying to ram their opinion down anyones throat that doesnt agree with them. Nothing new here.

Ok, kinda off topic….but……it kinda seems to me that Putin is using this situation to let the world know that Russia is “back” (for want of a better word) and will have the last word on this situation. If he continues to back Assad, and it appears that he has every intention of doing this, then Assad is going to stay and this rebelion will be crushed. And with Russian support like this I dont see that there is anything meaningful that the rest of the world can do about it.

I guess my opinion is, that when you come down to it, VSTOL is nice and useful to have, but is strictly a niche capability, useful only from small(ish) ships. It should be telling that the RAF is (so far) the only air force that is getting the the 35B. (and I’m not sure if they are too happy about that) In my mind VSTOL, while viable, takes too much away from the total A/C performance compared to land based or indeed CTOL navy planes to be worthwhile. A while earlier we were discussing how many navies operated Harriers as opposed to any other a/c type. I brought up the A-4. And it is a fact that more navies used the Harrier than the A-4. But with the exception of the RN, all those navies have just one squadron of Harriers and only one air force (the RAF) has ever operated the Harrier. The A-4 has seen much more widespread service.

That old chestnut again. It didn’t matter what Britian had, Argentina would have invaded anyway. The Argies didn’t believe Britian would respond with military action and they believed, and still do so, that what they did was correct and they also believed that most of the world would have took their side and condemn Britian’s military response.

@Mildave,
Neither do you. But the RAF and Royal Navy FAA had a clue, yet despite knowing the longer ranges and bigger payloads of the Phantoms and Buccaneers they claim the Harriers operating from HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible was the best choice due to being able to operate in rough seas and poor weather, where as the CATOBAR aircraft would have struggled. How many times does this have to be stated!

Hate to be impolite, but you are just wrong. The political descision to invade was made under the strong impression that the RN was downsizing significantly (Invincible going to Australia, Endurance being withdrawn, Fearless, Intrepid decom, etc) A counterfactual RN with big CVs would have detered the Argies from going in as it would have demonstrated that the RN had the capability beyond all doubt to retake them.

The point is that they couldn’t afford one, so they would not have had one. The harrier/small carrier combo worked out better, and cheaper, in the end. Had the UK relied on a conventional carrier; a) they would likely not have had any carriers, period, or b) wouldn’t have been able to put up in the air anywhere near the amount of planes/sorties.

The point being that in order to utilize a conventional fighter, you need a large carrier. And that large carrier comes with a full battle group of ships and support. It’s not just the cost of the fighter A vs fighter B, but all the rest too. Being able to take fighter B with you wherever you want, and get the same (relatively) capabilities as fighter A, is pretty useful (and to think that the new America class ships will be able to carry 20 F-35Bs. That is a larger air-wing than any other country’s carrier)

100km is very short ranged, compared to a fighter.

A real good argument could be made that if Britain had had the 50,000 ton CVAs, Argentina would not have invaded in the first place.

Thats what I’v been saying!!!!!! But the “B” model fanboys jump on me like I just spit on their grandmother!:D

Russia supports Syria. Is Turkey gonna start WW3 over this?