@MancFrank
I understand the purpose quite well. Actually, you can't understand the actual increase in takeoff weight "without getting into the maths".
If John Farley ('Mr. Harrier' himself, no less) says you can, in a discussion involving other, professional combat pilots, I'm rather more inclined to believe him, than you - you know, with him having carried out all initial flying from the ski jump (including the first such flight) to develop the technique in to a workable service practice 'an all... Given the following rebuttal, it rather seems you haven't heeded your own advice, either - nor even understood what Mr. Farley is saying.
The ski jump does not allow a Sea Harrier to operate "at its maximum all - up weight, that is, the design limitation of the airframe itself". In fact, neither the quote nor the article itself makes that claim. Many other undetailed articles claim it allows the Harrier to take off with a "full load of fuel and ammunition" which is false (a claim Farley does not make).
From the paragraph beginning:"So, at max AUW..." That's precisely what he's referring to, and exactly what he means. What does 'Maximum All Up Weight' (max AUW) equate to in your estimation, then? In flying circles, it is taken to mean the maximum weight at which an aircraft can successfully take off - on a standard pressure / temp day - with any combination of fuel / and or stores not exceeding the maximum allowable by the aircraft's operating limits (under ALL conditions).
Declassified flight manuals are available. Have a look and run some numbers. You can get the on station times from official reports as well.
Thanks, I have them already, if you're referring to the FRS.1 pilot's notes... And much else besides.
Farley probably didn't pull the 30% lift deficit out of thin air, that is a workable number determined by "maths" and testing. Practical limits to ramp angle, etc. What he is saying in a simplified fashion is that the ramp gives you a roughly 30% boost in effective takeoff distance. This was an “average” number established in testing at distances consistent with a carrier deck. RN and USN get the same numbers.
That's not what he's saying AT ALL, re - read at leisure. I'm pretty doubtful that the RN & USN arrived at anything like the same numbers - largely, as the USN never operated the FRS.1. Nor, for that matter, have the USMC...
So, keeping the numbers simple a 500' STO run with a ramp is roughly equivalent to a 650' run without the ramp. This is well short of the 1,400' STO run needed to launch the aircraft at a 31,000lb gross weight. Physics is a bitch. The aircraft has a computer that runs the calculations but one can’t escape the math.
Again, that's not what's said (nor implied) - re -read the quote in full. You know, it's strangely ironic that you begin by telling me the issue cannot be understood "without getting into the maths" (which you don't even attempt...) before you proceed to make inferences which simply aren't supported by the original text, whilst showing an utter inability to understand the factors laid out & trying to "keep the numbers simple"...
And that's before I point out the fundamental error you've made in using the (wiki sourced??) max AUW figures for the AV-8B, rather than the FRS.1. Physics is, indeed, a bitch - but not so much as checking the basics, it seems...
I also LOVE the idea that you you think the FRS.1 is equipped with a 'computer that runs the calculations' - further proof, should any be needed, that you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.
Publications are available which cover the helicopter lift requirements for SBL. Numerous studies have been conducted. 4 x CH-53 and 12 x CH-46 creates logistic versus operations lift conflict when attempting SBL for a USMC battalion. Ponder that versus two Brigades. Not enough aircraft were available before Atlantic Conveyor was lost to meet both logistic and operational needs. There are several detailed accounts of the logistical difficulties encountered. Not losing AC will help, but the available was insufficient for SBL before she was lost. I stand by my point of adding every additional helicopter that is possible. Each one makes the situation on the ground better.
Hooray for studies! I think I'll choose to ignore them, if it's all the same with you. Largely as, in this scenario, we're not discussing the USMC, doubtless publishing whatever they feel will at least maintain, if not improve their budgetary & procurement lot - we're discussing the RN (Sea King / Wessex), the RAF (Chinook) & The Royal Marines (Wessex) who simply need to concern themselves with how they get 'boots on the ground' soonest. Again, take a look at what the one surviving Chinook achieved OTL for proof that the impossible is 'work-a-day' in combat.
I was incorrect about the lack of tanker capability. If I understand your air defense premise it is that 14 Buccaneers will preemptively eliminate the threat by striking Argentine air bases. That’s an approach. I would still go for More Phantoms than Buccaneers.
You've been incorrect about much. You are, of course, quite entitled to structure your own, notional air wing as you wish. And you'd still, in my humble opinion, be dead wrong. By the by, if you'd read the post in which I first suggested preemptively attacking Argentine airfields, you'd see that I actually had in mind a 4 + 4 strike package which would, of course, also require Buccaneers to tank. Launching all fourteen Buccs is not only overkill, it's impossible - and I'd thank you not to make child - like, erroneous attributions. That aside, most air power exponents believe such airfield attacks to be of great value, where possible - particularly in the opening phase of a campaign - for reasons which should be blindingly obvious. Perhaps you could cite recent doctrine or actual actions where, when in possession of the wherewithal to so do, such attacks have not been pursued??