Notaboffin,
“To the best of my knowledge none of the Sea Hornet / Sea Venom / DH110 alleged land-based progenitors ever had an extensive service career.”
Not a historian, either, clearly. The ‘best of your knowledge’ simply and demonstrably doesn’t cut it. While the DH110 RAF did not see service, both the Hornet and the Venom served with distinction, and had careers that were no shorter than their contemporaries.
“IIRC the aircraft was not fitted with nose-tow and was STOBAR only, making it by far the worst for deck ops and sortie generation.”
Every time you post, you demonstrate further ignorance. The Typhoon N studies examined STOBAR and non-STOBAR carrier versions, the non-STOBAR versions including nose-pull and fuselage pull catapault sub variants.
GK121,
I don’t know why you are or are not surprised. As a Johnny come lately septic with 49 posts you are proving yourself to be every bit as clueless as your postcount would suggest.
The F/A-18 was a productionised derivative of the YF-17, the latter plainly a “non-STOVL land-based design that was developed into a successful carrier-based variant.
And like the USN, and despite teething troubles, yes, I’d call the Goshawk a success. And so did my Boeing guide while we examined the latest one taking shape at St Louis.
Like Notahistorian, you need to polish up your knowledge of aviation. Russia’s carrierborne Su-25UTGs are used only for pilot conversion training and standardization, and not for strike or attack. And the Su-33 has proved a success in its intended role, and the MiG-29K would have done, had funding allowed.
Orac,
“Shouldn't the Harrier be at the top of that list Jacko?”
No, cos old ‘Notafknclue’ did say non-STOVL.