Navaleye,
You're absolutely right, just like WEBF.
Let's meet up and go and canvass for the hundreds of millions we'd need to extend the life of an aircraft that, even with a big motor and improved avionics, is still a short range/short endurance aircraft.
I do find it slightly tedious that when I present a perfectly logical reason why FA2 is not viable, WEBF goes offline for a few days, waits for my answer to get buried under some trite responses, completely ignores it and starts again with the same well trodden lines.
And no mention of my last post from you either.
How many FA2 do you think we'd need to keep 24 hour cover over a reasonable sized task group for 6 months? Have a stab. Maybe you'd like to let me know how many FA2 we'd need to own to do that for just one TF? Now lay down a logical case for FA2.
You sentiment for the loss of organic fixed wing is lovely and indeed valid, but linking Sea Harrier with that same sentiment as a potential answer is painful, regressive and damaging to those of us dealing with the future of FAA aviation.
Help us celebrate the inevitable last months of the Sea Harrier rather than soil it.
(4 months until the transfer to 'Aviation History and Nostalgia')