For the last few weeks, I have not been getting automatic notification e-mail, and I have not a clue why (problem at my end). This is a shame because much of the stuff on the last couple of pages is fascinating.
As Navaleye says, the lack of carrier capable aircraft post Sea Jet is a problem, particularly when you consider the needs to retain and develop the skills of flight deck crews as well as pilots and other aviation specialists. These problems were predicted
here - as was the reduction in pilot numbers and reduction in JFH aircraft numbers.
The CTOL vs STOVL argument is interesting, but personally I find the arguments in favour of STOVL to be seductive in many ways. The CVF design is meant to be adaptable, so the main issue should be getting the construction work started.
From what Engines and NoHoverStop have said I conclude that a) RVLs are feasible at sea and b) If a pilot judged the conditions too bad for a RVL, he/she would have the option of ditching his stores and going for a normal vertical landing. I can foresee extensive trials and simulations to find these limits. I also believe that the VAAC systems (and the ones F35B will have) enable the aircraft to be recovered to a particular part of the deck.
The VAAC work being done is a continuation of British invention and innovation in the field of naval aviation. After all, we invented the carrier, radar, the jet engine, steam catapults, angled decks, mirror landing sights, V/STOL aircraft, the ski ramp, the idea of using shipborne helicopters for amphibious assault, frigate/destroyer borne helicopters.........
The news that some are considering fitting radar and mission systems to the Osprey is interesting. In fact an observer from 849 NAS mentioned the Osprey as a possible MASC platform during a visit to Culdrose in March 2004. Not sure about the TOSS name though.
Sorry for lacking patience and not waiting until this thread was no longer on page one.