Who needs an aircraft carrier?

The lack of Radar is a serious handicap for its use as a Fighter. Yet the the Sea Harrier they scrapped in the mid-00s had a fantastic Radar Suite.

[maviczap]

Originally Posted by allymc

Believe it or not, there was a little UK airspace probe this morning 'oop North....

One wonders why he's doing this?

Originally Posted by maviczap

One wonders why he's doing this?

It happens quite often, but it seems particularly apt today

[Stingo]

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

Thats a very good point.I wonder why they dont use the Harrier as a fighter.Perhaps they think surface to air missiles are good enough these days.They would have a nasty surprise I think.

Of note, the GR7 and GR9 are not fighters! Although more than capable of looking after themselves, the aircraft are optimised for the close air support and strike roles and do not possess either a radar, or an integrated long-range air-to-air capability, they do however retain a high degree of flexibility that lends itself well to the current threat environment within which the Royal Navy is required to operate. The unique performance characteristics of the Harrier allows continued operation from both ashore and afloat utilising existing platforms and infrastructure, and providing a bridge in capability pending the entry into service of the Joint Strike Fighter during the next decade.

pinched from http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operatio...harrier-gr7-9/

Seemingly the GR7 and GR9 are multi role aircraft, or were anyways.

Disgusted.

[Biker Biggles]

I see this topic wont lie down and die.
In the news again today.

Nobody seems bothered that the Ark Royal's sister ship, HMS Illustrious is still in active service. Or that the Harriers were approaching retirement anyway.

Does it really matter though?
We've begun the process of adopting the French way of fighting battles, i can see it now...
PM: "Oh hello fine chap, gimme a second <turns round, unzips trousers and bends over> i'm ready now, fine chap, please be gentle."
all this whilst the rest of the "armed" forces are running away.

I don't know if this was mentioned on the last 2 pages.

I watched this whole debate on holiday whilst waiting for some rain to clear (house of commons).

The new carriers were ordered by Labour. Typical labour spending money on stupid ideas without applying any logic.

The new carriers were already ordered, it would cost the government MORE money to buy themselves out of the contract, that it would to continue to build both carriers, hence why both are still being put forward to be built.

Labour also orderd the in-correct planes, ones that cost more, are less effective, carry less armunment, do less miles, and were more expensive. Hence why the planes are on hold whilst the newer cheaper better versions come out and will be installed to the carriers.

The current carriers (from someone I know within the navy) are useless. As said, they cost more to maintain than it does to scrap them hence why they are going. There is only ever 1 out at sea. I think its Illustrious is constantly in dry dock, and the other two, generally only one is out at sea, the other being also in dry dock.

As much as I love the harrier, they are old, and won't cut it against modern planes. They are only good as bombers, of which the Tornado is also better at. They are continuing orders on the Tornados and Eurofighters.

Illustrious doesn't do much, Invincible does even less (ie: nothing), it could be de-mothballed in about two years, give or take, but parts were cannibalized from it to keep Ark Royal and Illustrious going so they don't intend doing this.

The original plane order was for the F-35B which is STOVL like the Harrier and would take off in the same fashion, using a ski-jump. The new plane order is now for the F-35C which uses conventional catapults/arrestor cables for takeoff and landing respectively, so the carriers won't have the skijump and will also enable allied aircraft to land on them (and vice versa for our allies' carriers).