> Well, moving forward to the Sea Harrier FA.2 is a bit more of a jump;

>> Well, moving forward to the Sea Harrier FA.2 is a bit more of
a
>> jump;

> Too true. Even in the mid-1980s, as I understand it, they were
> hand selecting those processors from the production run that
> were able to operate at the required clock speed. Blue Vixen
> just wouldn't have been possible in time for the Falklands.

> Well, Hermes used to have it, so what are the possibilities or
reinstalling
> a couple of wires underway? If the space has been turned into magazine or
> something it couldn't be done, but if it were berthing or something, then
> is it feasible.

> Would be nice; but the data is based around the ARK ROYAL air group -
> the carrier `most likely' to have been available in a what-if game.

> >Rule of thumb is that you can maintain 1/3rd of your a/c on CAP,

> I wouldn't like to have to maintain that over a month or so; but it's
> probably accurate for shorter roulements.

> >Anyway, for the Falklands I think I'd be willing to give up 6-8 Buccs for the
> >same
> >number of F-4s, if they wouldn't have fit any other way.   You'd still want some
> >Buccs for tankers, as well as for maritime strike (Martel at the time, IIRR) and
> >land
> >attack.  They should be a lot more effective and cost effective than sending
> >Vulcans
> >down from Ascension with their 10-12 tankers.  Offhand, I don't remember if the
> >RN
> >Buccs had Martel capability at the time, but many of the RAF ones that did were
> >apparently ex-RN machines, so the fit should be possible (assuming the system
> >was
> >car-qualed).  809 might have borrowed some RAF WSOs with Martel experience if
> >necessary.

> Hmm. I'm not sure that the Bucc's would have brought that much to the
> game - anti-shipping was best done using SSNs to deter the Argentine
> Fleet from interfering; and helos and RN warships could tidy up the
> minor units that attempted to run supplies etc.

> >Assuming that they're still FRS.1s, true.  If we're dealing with hypothetical
> >AM-120
> >capability then they're presumably F/A.2s with Blue Vixen (and you've also got
> >Sea
> >King AEW.2s), and in that case I'd take AIM-120 and maybe some AIM-9s and leave
> >the
> >guns home, or else fly mixed sections, one loaded primarily BVR and the other
> >leaning
> >more towards WVR. Say 3 x AIM-120 and 2 x AIM-9 on one a/c, assuming such
> >assymetric
> >loads are allowed on the SHAR -

> Well, moving forward to the Sea Harrier FA.2 is a bit more of a jump;
> but yes, if we'd had them and the AEW Sea Kings, they'd probably have
> carried 4 x AIM-120 and 2 AIM-9L.

>>In article <3CCE401C.727FB...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net>, Guy Alcala
>><g_alc...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:

> <snip>

>>>I'd put six, onboard, myself.

>>Would be nice; but the data is based around the ARK ROYAL air group -
>>the carrier `most likely' to have been available in a what-if game.

> If we can alter her air group to have more F-4s, there's no reason that we can't
> alter it again.  After all, this is war not peacetime.

>>>>With 12 Phantoms, you can keep a two-ship CAP (i.e. equal in numbers to
>>>>that provided by Sea Harrier) all day. Again, 12 happens to be the
>>>>squadron size for ARK ROYAL. If you let her exchange her Buccaneers (14)
>>>>for a second squadron, you can keep a four ship flight up...

>>>Rule of thumb is that you can maintain 1/3rd of your a/c on CAP,

>>I wouldn't like to have to maintain that over a month or so; but it's
>>probably accurate for shorter roulements.

> With standdown periods for bad weather to let your pilots catch up on their sleep,
> and the maintainers to catch up with the squawks, you can go for a long time, even
> figuring 67% MC rates.  The SHARs did a lot better than that in the Falklands,
> although the F-4's a lot more complex (and older).

> It's be interesting to see comparisons of downtime,  There's anecdotal
> evidence that during one exercise Ark was down to Gannets and one
> slightly sick Phantom, though operating procedures change (improve) over
> time of course.