The president still has the right to veto any attempt of reviving F-22 from the Congress.

The GOP won’t be able to revive the project of F-22 until:

1. It gets back The President of USA in the next election.

or

2. It changes the mind of Obama successfully.

3. It changes its own mind.

Comments from one Republican representative aside, it was a GOP president (Bush 43), with a GOP-dominated Senate that put the airframe cap on F-22 (191* in 2007, later dropped to 187* by Obama in 2009).

Simply put, neither party wanted to keep building them!

* including the 8 test & development airframes… operational totals are 183 & 179.

Most of the ships in your list had 3-5 year periods where NO work was being done, due to the post-war economic crisis.

For example: HMS Hermes R12 – Built by Vickers-Armstrong, Barrow.
Laid down 21 June 1944.
Construction suspended 1945.
Work resumed in 1952 to clear slipway, and hull launched 16 February 1953.
Work suspended again until 1957, when work commenced to heavily modified design.
Commissioned 18 November 1959

Out of the 15 yrs 5 months, only ~4-5 years was actual construction time.

10-11 years was wasted with “stop-work” orders… which were set out by the government, not the shipyard.

Which would seem logical for the standing force the US has in the Indian Ocean to support ops in Iraq & Afghanistan, and operations off Somalia.

Would some of those assets be tasked for support of the presidential visit “just in case”? Yep… but they are already in the area for other reasons.

See http://culture.france3.fr/

For picture/video

Where?

I don’t speak French, so I can’t tell which link to chase to try to find it.

Having said that, a PW1120, or a RM6C powered Mirage III would have been smart, with similar sorts of airflows but much more thrust over the later Atar 9’s.

There was one… “City of Hobart”… a modified Mirage IIIO.

Having selected the Mirage, the RAAF then had to decide on the power plant, and with the Rolls Royce Avon already in service powering both the Sabre and the Canberra, this option was pursued for the Mirage. A French Mirage IIIC, known as “City of Hobart”, was fitted with an RB146 Avon 67 RA.29 (mk301) turbojet which produced 12,100 lbs thrust (15,715 lbs w/reheat), and flew on February 13 1961. This was known as a Mirage IIIO, but did not receive an RAAF serial number as, although this modification delivered superior performance over the SNECMA Atar 9C [9,430lbs thrust (13,670lbs w/reheat)], its cost was prohibitive and this project discontinued.

Larger image here: http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=189397&d=1288177266

2 Jaguars (or one and the front fuselage of a second) AND a Sea Harrier FA.2!!

He’s ready to protect his village from the Zombie Apocalypse!!

😀

actually, it was already a made decision to have it built by the british… with no particular protest from french workers.

but the defence budget here in france was also cut in lots of places, and the second carrier has been “postponed” for that reason.

You mind posting a source for that?

Everything I read before the “postponement” announcement was for a joint build of 3 CVF… with France scheduled for at least 30%-35% of the structural work!

From what came out in the press, one of the sticking points was that France wanted more than a 1/3 build share, despite getting 1 of 3 carriers.

When Britain declined to give France 40%-50% of the build work, France first pulled out of the build partnership, then “postponed” PA2.

Lets compare the versions available in the same time-frame.

RB199 mk.104 (Tornado F.3 ADV): thrust 9,100 lb.s.t. (16,400 lb.s.t. w/reheat); weight 2,151 lb; length 142”, diameter 29.6”, SFC .60 (2.50 in reheat); Airflow: 154-165 lb/sec

F404-GE-400 (F/A-18A/B): thrust 10,800 lb.s.t. (16,000 lb.s.t. w/reheat); weight 2,180 lb; length 159”; diameter 35”; SFC .80 (1.75 in reheat); Airflow 142-146 lb/sec

By 1990 the F404-GE-402 saw a thrust increase to 11,800 lb.s.t. (17,700 lb.s.t. w/reheat), but also a weight increase to 2,315 lb.

The Tornado would require a complete redesign of the aft fuselage to take the F404, and would be much shorter-ranged as a result of the 33% worse non-reheated fuel consumption. It would have a little better acceleration without reheat, and a little worse with reheat… although reheat wouldn’t use quite as much fuel as with the RB199.

Overall, I really don’t see that much performance improvement with F404-400 vs RB199… but I do see a definite decrease in cruise range.

The F404-402 does have a noticeable thrust increase, but the same definite decrease in cruise range.