Money? You could rebuild old FRS.1 SHARs to the FA.2 standard, thus saving a bit – and most FA.2s were just that, rebuilt FRS.1s. The RAF could do without radars on its GR.5s because they’d never have to do air-air, even when deployed on carriers (that’s what the SHARs were for). Short-term penny-pinching, of course, but what do you expect?

BTW, the FA.2 does have one advantage over the Harrier II: it’s faster.

What do I expect? pretty much the answer you’ve just given me.

As said, the Harrier II was something like that super Harrier (though not at all faster), & in US, Italian & Spanish service it has AMRAAM. Bigger wing, more powerful Pegasus & fatter rear fuselage to fit it in, enabling bigger loads, better T/O & landing performance (especially in hot weather) & longer range & endurance. The Sea Harrier FRS.2 got the improved avionics (though not the same improved avionics) & AMRAAM, but not the rest. The Harrier GR.5/7/9 have the wing, engine & fuselage, but not the SHAR radar nose & all that goes with it.

We could have had both . . .

Sounds like some pretty poor decision making all round really, I wonder what the thought process behind it was.

The AV-8B+’s have an AMRAAM capable radar like the SHAR’s and unlike the GR.9’s.

Right, fair enough.

Well, not even considering the benefits in performance. You know how much fuel a Super Carrier uses over the average 40+ year lifespan……….:eek:

You ever wonder why the USN quit build conventional Super Carriers.:D

The cost of designing a power plant means its prohibitively expensive unless you’re going to build a number of them.

A French nuclear powered carrier the size of a CVF would need more power than CdG (which people say is underpowered anyway), so it would need a new reactor designed, for a single ship I’d say at a guess that would make it unaffordable.

More C-130 J and C-17 purchases perhaps?

Seem several stories suggesting the RAF want at least a couple more C-17s as well as A400M.

A Dutch F125 ?The accountants don’t seem to like anything about the contract, which they claim is designed poorly and only to the favor of the defense industry.

Anyone else think this statement sounds particularly ridiculous?

The Government being willing to pump money into capital projects does not really present much of an opportunity to military ship building, in fact if I’m honest I’d say it represents more of a threat. From an economical standpoint, because you have less public money to throw around you’d want your maximum return on investment, proping up an industry that keeps a relatively low number of people employed and dominated by a few large companies isn’t really ideal. From a political standpoint politicians want to be seen to be doing something that helps as many people as possible and therefore protects as many votes as possible, the results of this investment need to be visible so that as many members of the population as possible can see any possible benefit to society as a whole.

For these reasons you are more likely to see money pumped into capital projects such as construction and refurbishment of infrasturucture, hospital, roads etc. The construction industry as always one of the first to suffer in any recession, job losses are always high.

Also from a Historical perspective labour Governments are not big spenders on the defence sector.

The delays to CVF are as much to do with smoothing out a demanding build schedule as actual delays to the programme itself, delays to the MARS programme are another matter completely as most sources seem to suggest that the fleet tanker element of the programme will be built abroad anyway.