Art and his other pilot have lots of hours on USMC Harrier IIs. His maintenance personnel, likewise, are experienced Harrier maintainers – and there will be a continuing supply for a long time coming from the USMC.

http://allthingsaero.com/airshows/aircraft/article-nalls-aviation-adds-second-civilian-harrier

The two current civilian Harrier pilots are both Certified Flight Instructors in Powered Lift and have thousands of hours of flight time and test pilot experience between them.

“Our next civilian pilot will be awarded her type rating very soon.” added Nalls. “She has nearly 1,000 hours of Harrier flight time, combat experience and was a Weapons and Tactics Instructor while serving in the United States Marine Corps. She is currently a LtCol in the Marine Corps reserves.” said Nalls.

As for the condition of the aircraft:

Nalls expects the import process to take several months to complete, and an additional several months before the airplane is inspected, modified, and approved for flying in the US. But, he also added that the airplane is in such good condition that ferrying the airplane across the Atlantic Ocean was seriously considered. It was determined that the risk to do so was not necessary so the airplane will be dismantled and shipped to the USA.

I don’t understand all the drama around Ivan Gren’s fate.

It’s a project born conceptually old, nobody in his sane mind would require or expect a landing ship to beach itself to disembark troops and vehicles.

It’s even small and unable to provide logistic support, something obe could use only in very short range missions, like within Black Sea.

No reason neither to rely on old concepts nor to reinvent the wheel: between LSD, LPD and logistical vessel there are plenty of working concepts waiting just to be picked up and tailored to specific black berets’ force structure and missions requirements.

However, Russia seems enthusiastic about it:

http://www.janes.com/article/44670/russia-orders-second-ivan-gren-class-landing-ship

Russia orders second Ivan Gren-class landing ship
Nikolai Novichkov, Moscow – IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly
16 October 2014

The Russian Navy has ordered a second Ivan Gren-class (Project 11711) landing ship, Sergei Vlasov, the director general of the Nevskoe Design Bureau, told IHS Jane’s on 14 October.

Designed by Nevskoe, the vessel will be broadly identical to lead vessel Ivan Gren with the exception of having internationally sourced equipment replaced with Russian-built products (due to Russia’s sanctions-driven self-sufficiency drive), Vlasov stated. Ivan Gren has “a few [items of] equipment of foreign origin” he said, noting that “the issue of import substitution is being solved for the second ship”.

Vlasov also revealed that Ivan Gren , laid down in 2004, will finally be commissioned in 2015 after a troubled build programme.

There were 6 planned:
http://rt.com/news/russian-biggest-landing-ship-862/

A series of six large modern landing ships ‘Ivan Gren’ (Project 11711) have been launched to replace the outdated Soviet-made ships, including the Mitrofan Moskalenko.

The first vessel in the series, the ‘Ivan Gren’, was put to sea on May 18, 2012. It is expected to enter service next year.

The DC-8 was returned to service and flew for many years despite its ocean voyage. It was finally scrapped in 2001. Despite coming down on a calm river I don’t believe there was any discussion about returning the A320 to service.

Here’s a story on the JAL mishap
http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/Shiga-SFBay.htm

Totally different cases…the Soviets didn’t want publicity of any mishaps, and when you control the media (and people are taught not to ask too many questions)….you get the expected results. 🙂

It looks, from the photos and from the fact that the DC-8 was craned out of the water two days later, that there was little fuselage damage.

The A320, on the other hand, suffered considerable damage to the skin and ribs of the lower aft fuselage, making repairs much less economical.

The French evaluated an F/A-18A in the early 1980s, before the final decision for a carrier-capable version of Rafale – they would have had to launch with minimal fuel and immediately refuel in order to carry a useful external weapons load.

Based on results of operations from the Charles DeGaulle, it isn’t all that certain that even if they had bought the Super Hornet they would have been able to operate it from the carriers they envision.

Bad move, F18 regularly operated from CDG recently…

Hornets (F/A-18A/C) – NOT Super Hornets (F/A-18E/F)!

The Hornets that “operated” (actually, did light-load landings & take-offs without significant external payload) from CdG are smaller and lighter than the Super Hornets Brazil was looking to buy – and weight is a major factor for carrier operations, as the catapults and arresting gear have to be able to deal with launching or stopping that weight to/from the aircraft’s flying speed – which is basically the same speed for both Hornet and Super Hornet.

Super Hornets require more powerful catapults and stronger arresting gear (as well as a stronger impact area in the flight deck) than do Hornets.

Still officially in service, to be replaced by the Typhoons they have contracted for.

On another board, I have contact with a former USN F-4 Phantom and F-14 Tomcat pilot. He has repeatedly stated that his former squadron-mates who remained in the USN and transitioned to the F/A18E Super Hornet to a man state that in a fight between F-14s and F/A-18Es they’d much rather be in the Super Hornet, as it would not only be much more likely to still have all systems working throughout the fight, but that it is more maneuverable in actual A-A fighting and its radar and systems would give them a much better chance to win.

Simply put, they told him that even the F-14Ds with their new radars, computers, etc and the AIM-120/AIM-9X could not dominate – or even match evenly – against the F/A-18E with the AIM-120/AIM-9X.

The only advantages the Tomcat held were aircraft range and extreme range of their AIM-54 missiles. And the AIM-54 was, even in its newest model, simply no good against a fighter-sized/fighter-maneuverable target – it was purely an anti-bomber/anti-non-maneuvering cruise missile weapon.

As fighters against other fighters, the Super Hornet was, and is, superior to the Tomcat.

Ah, the ejection seat. So there is enough UK content that it would require significant re-engineering and qualification effort on the part of Embraer and Saab to replace entirely then.

Anyway, all of it is possible to replace, given adequate time and money.

Or simply an Argentinian formal declaration to the UN that it no longer claims that set of islands in the South Atlantic.