Hi Obi
First off I like the new picture (you did that using just Paint?). Secondly I checked the Navy News website and found that the cutaway was of Ark Royal in the 1950s. I was kind of hoping for a cutaway of her from the ’70s, ah well perhaps next time. Am I the only one who when they think of Ark IV sees her post Phantomisation? Oh and I’ve almost finished my attempt at a Phanomised Victorious. I hope to post it soon.

I think Navy News will bedoing another cutaway of Ark in her later years in the next issue…

I only have paint, not photoshop. It is somewhat limiting, but if you choose the pic carefully you can still manage quite a lot. I’m still on my first computer, a laptop I bought four years ago and the hard drive is getting a bit full (only about 5 Gb left) so I’m waiting until I can afford a new computer before I start adding fancy programs like photoshop!:D

If you are Phantomising Victorious, you may need a sqn of these: (see below) I reckon Victorious would be large enough for a sqn of 12 FG1s, plus 8 Buccs, four Gannets and six Wessex/ Sea King. The RN at the time tended to favour fighters over strike aircraft if it had to reduce from ideal sqn size (ie Eagle’s air group was the benchmark) due to limited space aboard ship. Hermes for example had a full sized fighter sqn (12 Vixens) embarked during the sixties but only 8 Scimitar/ six Buccs. Eagle had the ‘standard’ 14 Buccs (in the 60s Ark had 16 Scimitars, and in the 70s 14 Buccs). The thinking was probably for strike missions the Buccs would be strike leaders and could be augmented by Vixens/Phantoms as ‘bomb trucks’ to add numbers.

France has no idealogical problem about aquiring another carrier, and can easily justify one militarily, hence the PA2 project. The only thing stopping steel from being cut tomorrow is money. The current official position is that PA2 has been deferred until 2012 whilst the available resources are spent on buying other surface ships. These are just as important at the moment, and on the face of it is a sensible move. France’s involvement in the British CVF program was probably borne out of a belief that they could outbid British yard for mosst of the work on the project, but they failed to grasp that CVF is as much about creating and sustaining British jobs in key constituencies as about providing the RN with the Carriers it needs. The French did seem to back pedal on PA2 the moment contracts started to go to British companies and not French ones, but at least they have a fairly complete set of blueprints for a relativley modest fee. In the long term delaying PA2 by a few years will probably prove a blessing, as when Charles de Gaulle approaches the end of her life and a replacement is required, PA2 will still be a relatively young ship and the replacement program will only have to find the money for one ship instead of two, due to the approximately twenty year age gap between CdG and PA2.

When she is finally retired…………I hope she is turned into a Naval Museum instead of being scrapped.:(

Agreed… we have a nice berth lined up for her in Pompey!;):D

My only complaints about the Invincibles would be a matter of detail, ie I would prefer a normal complement of 12 Sea Harriers as opposed to the 5 they were originally commissioned with, and the lack of shipboard AEW as provided from late 1982 onwards by the Sea King AEW, which was offered to the Navy before the Falklands but blocked by the RAF, who said their Shackletons could provide the RN with all the AEW cover it would need (in the North Atlantic; clearly a move intended to prevent the RN from becoming a force capable of deploying worldwide once more). That the RN already had a ‘Wartime strength’ for it’s SHAR sqns shows they were well aware that five aircraft per ship was utterly inadequate. Five aircraft was the number selected so as not to ring any alarm bells with the anti carrier elements within the RAF and MOD. Also post Falklands I wish we could have hung on to Hermes, give her a proper SLEP refit and buy enough SHARs to equip her properly as well. Perhaps when the RAF was replacing it’s GR3s with GR5s they could have been passed to the RN and navalised to equip a couple of dedicated strike sqns. Many of the GR3s were low mileage, some were only ordered after 1982 as attrition replacements so would have been withdrawn with relatively few hours on their airframes. In the wake of the Falklands it would have been a lot easier to go on a recruitment drive for the RN and the FAA to rebuild it’s strength, especially considering the high unemployment. My brother joined the RN in 1986, and had it not been for my interest in naval matters might not have considered it as a career (our father was an army man during the sixties). He quizzed me a lot during the preceeding months about almost everything to do with naval life before joining up, though he went on submarines (mainly for the better money) rather than becoming a WAFU!:eek::D

Agreed! Makes ALOT more sense to buy super bugs or Rafaels than to develope essentialy a whole new a/c.

Well this is just the tip of the iceberg as regards SeaPhoon; Essentially it would involve designing a completely new ‘Typhoon-shaped’ airframe around the existing avionics and engines (and redesigning those too, to a degree).

Have you seen what plumbers charge these days?:eek::diablo::D
That estimate may be unjustifiable but not necessarily unrealistic.:(

Lessons of history?! Now you.ve done it! Certain posters here dont believe in that! Prepare for PARAGRAPHS of why you are just wrong and “history” means nothing!n

“Those who forget the lessons of history are condemmed to repeat them!” as said by a much more famous philosopher than I! And if that doesn’t work, my fallback position has always been “I’m not wrong, my reality is just different from yours!”:D