With thanks to GF0012 Aust for his help I found this little gem.
Land based air V Carrier borne air and cost and achiements over 40 years, Authors: Admiral Sandy Woodward and Commodore Steve Jermy.
It’s not an in-depth work for which i was hoping, basically a summary of cost and achiements and the basic needs to reinstate HMS Ark Royal and her Harrier aircraft until the Queen Elizabeth class comes on line, how accurate the numbers are and if there is any bias i do not know.
Land-Based Air versus Carrier-Borne Air – Real Costs and Achievements over 40 Years « The Phoenix Think Tank
A little know story (well i did not know anything about it) of the RN came to avert an invasion of at the time British Honduras, goes to show the flexibility of carriers in a well balanced navy.
Phoenix Squadron
The Phoenix Think Tank is evidence that Woodward, Jermy, Sharkey Ward et al are starting to lose their marbles.
I read a few articles, compared some of the 'facts' given in them with reliable sources, & concluded that there is no fact-checking, no checking of calculations, no review - nothing. For a so-called think tank, that's unforgiveable. It's a rather bad joke, which acts only to discredit those who associate themselves with it. I find it sad that people I used to respect have sunk so low. Jermy, in particular, surprises me. Woodward is old enough that his involvement can be attributed to age-related diminution of his facilities, Ward was always more interested in stirring up a stink than the truth, but Jermy struck me as sensible - see, for example, his comments on the British move into Helmand. Ah well.
As for that particular article - well, just check what it says about Tornado IDS operations during the 1990-91 war. It's a total load of bollocks. What it says is just plain false.
In Iraq, eight aircraft were lost but informed sources tell us that only one of these was due to enemy action. The remainder of the losses reportedly resulted from unfamiliarity with the JP 233 delivery profile (three aircraft) as well as ‘finger trouble’ and a basic lack of air warfare munitions expertise.[3]
This is based on
an article by Sharkey Ward on that site, & of his claims, only one (the 'laddering' loss) has any truth to it. "unfamiliarity with the JP 233 delivery profile (three aircraft)" is an out-and-out lie. He claims that Tornado crews didn't realise that the aircraft would suddenly gain height when the JP233 was released, & so lost control & ejected. Totally untrue. Only one Tornado was lost after delivering a JP233, & both crew were killed. It is thought it was lost to Iraqi AA.
Four were lost on raids with dumb bombs. One was shot down before release, hit by a SAM which rendered the pilot unconscious: the navigator saved both their lives by ejecting them both. One was the 'laddering' incident (crew ejected, survived), & two went down after successful attacks. Both those crews died in their aircraft, which went down while leaving the target area, apparently shot down by AA. Heavy AA had been encountered over both targets. One was hit by a SAM after dropping an LGB. The pilot ejected both crew, but the navigator was found to be dead, apparently killed by the SAM. The JP233 loss & the last two mentioned aircraft were not subsequently examined by the RAF, but the others were, & the data recorders and/or damage assessment confirmed the cause.
Note the difference between the Phoenix Think Tanks story (3 crews ejected after delivering JP233) & the truth (one crew killed in their aircraft by AA after delivering JP233). Sharkey says his information is from 'a privileged source'. Basically, he says that the RAF investigators, the RAF command, RAF aircrew & armourers have colluded in a lie, but some unattributable person is telling him - and only him - the truth.
No other Tornadoes were lost in combat. One had a technical failure after takeoff from Tabuk & was unable to land, so the crew ejected.
-are getting larger and larger in size. Who knows maybe the Japanese will deploy a super carrier by 2020.