that's what I don't get: all that refined engineering for an aircraft meant for war, which costs a bomb not only to buy, but to maintain as well, and frankly not that insanely revolutionary :confused:

EDIT:
well, it's not that I don't actually get it, but I find it a ridiculous speculation for something that can be so easily destroyed and won't have much longevity anyway..

Surprising statement, I don't see any reason, VTOL birds are going to be much more expensive and the new QE class carrier will be geared arount CTOL ops, we are after all talking about operating french units from UK carriers and the french don't have any VTOL, so I don't see an operational need for VTOL.

p.s. F4?

p.p.s. even more annoying was that we bought all our harriers from the US in the first place

Well if you are looking back at FAA past 40 years, the usage of a small carrier force was well theorized and efficiently put at work. Today Italy, Spain, India, Russia has gained from that "heritage".

Bigger carrier need to work in dual, with a wider backup crew force and logistic.

I fear that the move to bigger unit will lower the force effectiveness. I am not a pro VTOL but we hev seen in France that a single large unit does not provide as much deterrence as two smaller (and older). There is a strategical capacity loss despite all the top tech hardware that give a short tactical advantage.

If the carrier were build in a series such as it was envisioned at the beginning, the price gain would hve make a two carrier force possible and sustanaible. Now i'ts not. Hve a look to our flat top and how rusty it looks alrdy. :(

F4 stands for F4 Phantom K (with spey eng )

nice reading about the after war RN carrier 'drama'
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cva01.htm

Ah OK....I didn't realise you were on a more historical theme, yes I know the UK variants of the Phantom.

Thx!

Pretty impressive piece of engineering right there!

Good video quality as well, beautiful to see :)

Nice video thanks for sharing.