[INDENT]

• 1Sqdn of F-14A’s (Fleet Defence,12 planes)
• 1Det of F-14B’s (Training, 4 planes)
• 1Sqdn of AV-8C’s (Ground attack, 12 planes)
• 1Det of TAV-8A’s (Training, 4 planes)
• 1Sqdn of E-2C’s (4 planes)
• 1Sqdn of S-3B’s (8 planes)
• 1Det of Seakings (Transport duties- 4 helos)
• 1Det of Squirrel (Ships Guard- 3 helo’s)
• 1Det of C-2 (2 planes)

[/INDENT]

The F-14B wasn’t a training type, it was simply an improved F-14A. All Tomcats were two seaters anyway. Also I concur, the Tomcat was far beyond the capacity of an Essex class to operate, unless you were to indulge in a reconstruction akin to HMS Victorious in the fifties. Strip down to the hangar deck and start again, but if you are going to that expense, why build a new carrier on top of a 35 year old hull? May as well start from scratch and build new. A new build also offers the advantage of lower manpower costs (very important in the RAN context).

As to the rest of the air group, you have included types not in RAN service (adding more cost), why not make use of what was available (ie already paid for?), so a larger sqn of Sea Kings for ASW, partnering S2 Trackers for longer range (upgraded to turbo tracker configuration), Wessexs for SAR, and an increased number of Skyhawks for the first few years whilst the budget recovers from buying the ship in the first place. Supplementing the skyhawks with AV-8Cs makes a degree of sense, as they are similar in size, performance and payload and by the mid 80s would be available from US stocks in reasonable numbers. It would mean operating a hybrid CATOBAR/STOVL air group, but this had been trialled by the USN on the FDR in the seventies and found to be feasible. There would however likley to be opposition from the RAN itself, who would probably argue for buying more A-4s to simplify training and logistics support. Moving to a common RAN/RAAF F/A-18A/B fleet later in the 80s would make a more financially viable case IMHO, economies of scale with both services operating a common type.

So, by the beginning of the 90s the air group could be:

VFA-805 12 F/A-18A Hornets
VFA-808 12 F/A-18A Hornets
VS-816 8 S-2G Trackers
VS-817 10 Sea Kings
plus detachments of: 2 Wessexs for SAR, up to four turbo trackers fitted with Searchwater radar in retractable radome under fuselage for AEW.

This still leaves a fair bit of space in the hangar and on deck, but operated like this the manning of the ship could be reduced from USN norms. Also Army troop carrying helos could be embarked occassionally allowing the ship to double up as an LPH for ops.

There has been a campaign for some time:
http://www.bringinvinciblehome.co.uk/invincible_campaign_home.asp

How about the swing wing Lightning. Nothing known except for this silhouette.

Perhaps these pics can shed some light…;):diablo:

Slight correction, in 1977 we had one fleet carrier and one Commando Carrier (Hermes), as Bulwark was paid off into reserve in 1976. At the time no one seriously expected her to recommission, the stated position was that she was being heald in fully maintained reserve as insurance against the late delivery of Invincible (as things transpired).

Honestly, they only survived this round because it cost just as much to cancel them as it did to build them. It would take a lot of explaining on spending billions and losing jobs to get nothing for it. I think they’ll pull a hatcher and put both of them up for sale the moment their complete. The RAF would of course fully support this.

RAF fanboys can fantasise all they like about the carriers being put up for sale, but the fact is no nation in the world will be in a position to buy them. The French want a second carrier, but any french government that tried to aquire one other than by having it built in a french shipyard will be committing political suicide. The recent strikes and protests give an illustration of how they wuld react. Brazil is plannig to build three carriers (one of which would be paid for and delivered to Argentina), again this will be an indigenous program, and thus a lot cheaper than CVF. Likewise India. “Call me Dave” found this out when he visited there recently; “You chaps want carriers, will you buy one of ours?” Hell no, we an build them in our own shipyards for a fraction of the price and they will be built to our specs not yours. No buyers = no sale. Ten years from now we are siupposed to be in a different economic situation if you believe the politicians. The Deficit will be cleared by 2015 and we will be well into recovery from recession (we are already). The CVF’s are designed to have running cossts not much more than an Invincible whilst being at least twice as capable. I would be very surprised if both did not enter RN service as fully commissioned aircraft carriers. We are talking about a decade from now, not next month.:cool:

I’d very surprised as well if the three development F-35Bs weren’t simply re ordered as F-35Cs, or some exchange deal was worked out soon. Something like we’ll pay for three Bs now and swap them later for three ‘Cs to help out the USMC ‘B program.

Take no notice of these ‘mothballing/selling’ stories. What matters is they are both being built. The RN will let the current ‘here today, gone tomorrow’ crop of ne’er do well politicians believe whatever they like, because ten years from now they won’t be the ones making the descisions. The Navy knows for the next ten years the whitehall battles will be dominated by the Pongoes and the Crabs, so they have set their sights on 2020 onwards. And if you think that after all they have sacrificed to get the two carriers, they will meekly let one or both go after completion, you don’t know the RN very well…;):cool:

The Buccaneer flew a combat mission in 1972 launching two aircraft from the Ark Royal (R09) in the Atlantic near Florida to overfly Belize/British Honduras. Bit more than 2000 miles ferry range, the sortie was 2500 miles each way! Only replacement for a Buccaneer is another Buccaneer, with modern avionics!

As to the Harrier debacle, We should have kept them and binned the ground gripping (in the hot and high afgan desert) Tornado. But here is where we are and here is how I think we shold proceed:

The twelve FAA pilots who were due to stand up this years as 801NAS have already been sent to the USN to train as F/A-18 pilots as well as Marine AV-8B pilots. They are expected to serve a three year tour over there. Arrangements should be made asap to send 800NAS pilots on a similar tour once the sqn stands down (scheduled for the end of january next year) in order to maintain a cadre of carrier qualified pilots in the long term. This will mean further tours after the current ones expire but it will ease the regeneration of Naval Air in the future.

Of course not all of the pilots will still be flying in ten years time, but the more experienced aviators will be able to pass on their experience directly to the junior pilots by flying with them day in and day out. Much better solution than trying to start from scratch in eight years time with all new pilots.

I think the RN has played the long game here, looking ten years (and up to fifty years) ahead rather than fighting over the next five years. The near term battle was always going to be won by the Pongos because of the Stan. So the Navy has offered up existing ships to safeguard the future. I always knew the carriers were safe, these days when big business says jump it’s governments who say how high? not the other way round. Nimrod MRA 4 may have been cancelled, but BAe has been paid in full for it. Cancelling the carriers would have meant an end to UK warship construction, and that is a price even the ConDems weren’t prepared to pay when confronted with the facts.