Hmmm… they need a Sea Venom and a Skyhawk… both flyable, of course.

what about ex british harriers

The USMC already bought all of those the RAF had.

The RN has sold off most of their far smaller fleet already to museums and collectors.

And you think that there is any chance at all that Britain would sell some to Argentina?

Really?

Have you paid any attention to the conflicting diplomatic stances of those two countries lately (like for the last 32+ years)?

[QUOTE=xtangomike;2034100]

You collected 4 posts..or maybe you missed one …say five posts out of 500 + posts, on this thread, that could be classed as negative……..not quite the numbers your ‘colleagues ‘ could direct their ‘whinging poms’ syndrome to. I doubt if they could even have found the famous 4, unless you directed them. 5 out of 500 makes …er..1%. Not bad I would say for an open forum.
So tell me where are all the other ‘doom merchants’ and ‘nay sayers’.

There were far more posts than that casting doubt on the preparation, knowledge, carefulness, and even ability of the recovery team.

And then there are those stating the whole idea is a waste of time & money, and so on.

He just took a small sample from near the middle of the thread. More can be found easily, if you want to waste the time.

Yep… all those aircraft had been transferred under Lend/Lease, on a “deferred payment plan”.

They had to be either returned or paid for… unless they were “written off” as either “lost” or “damaged beyond repair”. The USN had told the RN that it had more aircraft than it could deal with post-war already, and didn’t want those back.

So they were “written off” in order to avoid having to make payment. The US government fully approved this, by the way.

None will buy it.

No one wanted 30-year-old British Harrier-carriers that had been also used for troop-carrying duties (Invincible, Ark Royal), and nobody is expressing any interest in an even smaller, more-limited capability 25-year-old ASW-only carrier.

Spain will NOT sell the AV-8B+s with it, they will fly them from Juan Carlos I… so all it can ever be for anyone is a helo carrier.

New full-length versions of various 15,000-20,000 ton amphibs that can easily be modified before building starts for ASW capability are being marketed by several shipbuilders (and have been for ~20 years) with no takers, and if any nation wanted that capability they would be far more likely buy new.

Since no one has expressed interest before, the odds of someone suddenly deciding they HAVE to have an old, small, limited-capability ship right now is virtually non-existent.

Oh, dear, what will the doom merchants do now? Stand by for a return of the “Let’s bash David Cundall” thread.

Start bitching that it would have come up more intact if “this” or “that” had been done, or “if they hadn’t been in such a rush”… or “If they had gotten off their arses and done it last year”.

There are some who cannot do anything but snipe and criticize.

how is that modernization of MIG-29K from 1980s?. Can you modernized F-18C to F-18E?

Fundamental differences.
1. MIG-29K has 5 wet stations.
2. 4 weopon stations per wing.
3 enlarged fuel capacity to 5000kg.
4 RD-33MK engines. Cannot be installed on legacy fulcrums.
5. quad digit FBW with no mechanical backup.
6. 6000hr airframe life. It alone needs different structure and materials. legacy Fulcrums can only be modernized to 4000hrs.

It has higher top speed, ceiling than Rafale/F-18E. and this was created on very paltry sum of money. converting a land based fighter to Naval is not a big deal now considering past experiance and money. the rest is done by supercomputers.

Fundamental commonality… 20 years of work developing and testing variations and changes, as well as materials, etc. This is all part of the “past experience” you cite… without this work it would have taken far longer than “2006-2009” timeframe you cite. MiG already had worked out most (if not all) of the changes you cite before the 2004 (not 2006) Indian order as part of the carrier deal.

The time-frame you give covers only the final phase of all this developmental work, which did include keeping the materials, structure, avionics, and powerplant current with those developed for other MiG-29/33/35 variants.

Note other aircraft to receive different and much more powerful engines during their production lives without major changes in their airframe…

A-4 Skyhawk: went from the 7,700 lb J65 of the A-4B to the 11,200 lb J52 of the A-4M.
A-7 Corsair II: went from the 11,350 lb TF30 of the A-7A to the 15,000 lb TF41 of the A-7E.
F11F Tiger: went from the 7,700 lb (10,500 lb with afterburner) J65 of the F11F-1 to the 9,600 lb (14,800 lb with afterburner) J79 of the F11F-1F.
F-14 Tomcat: went from the 12,350 lb (20,900 lb with afterburner) TF30 of the F-14A to the 16,800 lb (27,000 lb with afterburner) F110 of the F-14D.

Or the original F-18 & A-18 pair… before they decided to cram both missions into a common set of avionics, producing an aircraft with a slightly-reduced capability in both missions (due to a heavier airframe than either “single-role” version would have had).