ch1466, whilst I do have to admit that most of what you say goes right over my head (
), I do have this to say in reply to the above...
Good on 'ya I say!
Now start developing an ops schedule, port of call/basing plans and 'joint' training system for three different classes (Italian, French Brit).
Then you can run the Atlantic and the Med and maybe even take over for the 5th in the Red Sea/IO/PG areas.
That will let us cut back to 8 carriers, all facing West toward China.
Every spring when the equinox comes, we'll meet at high tide at the gates of Hormuz and do a mummer's dance as we blow the crap ouf of Iran for
'Auld Lang Synes' sake.
In point of truth, a two carrier navy is just next to worthless for any but 'show the flag' missions close to home and on the /odd/ occasion,
securing sea lanes on major routes (out away from predictable SSK/SSN haunts, now that the latter can send creeping mines or CM into sealed bays).
Such is the reason why 1 out 4 USMC squadrons on both coasts MAW are now 'fully commited' (CARQUAL'd) to keep the USN from suffering another major
caught-in-turn moment on their seven ready to sail ships.
And it further supports Dr. North's POV which is namely that not only are 8 Harriers on an LHA worthless as teats on a boar hog /in their own
They are not even marginally supported by the latest classes like the LPD-17 which holds major relevance to the Corps because the F-35B should
otherwise outlast both the Wasp and Tarawa classes 'and then what the heck do you do'?
STOVL really screws up a normal carrier's deck cycle.
If you make the Marines by F-35C's, then /by virtue of their submission/ to the eternally subservient roll as Navy RAG, their presence instantly
makes a laughable 360nm F/A-18E/F radius around the boat into a more respectable 650-700nm distance.
Which means UCAVs and F-35s can effectively take over from the Super Slowmobile _without_ the requirement for 'air defense' or SEAD/EA type
IMO, Bug Deux is the rough equal of the Flubber. With the latter's superior aeros and payload performance being offset by the former's higher
internal fraction and sensor/netcentric links.
Though neither jet will reach out any great distance without a tanker, the Flubber at least doesn't have to lift itself by it's own bootstraps as it
suffers less penalty carrying heavy weight tanks and stores while sucking up to a real tanker.
"So what you /really/ wanna do...." is keep a fragment force of Flubbers around to decorate airshows, protect the UK from UFOs, smugglers and
hostile airway zombies.
While you proceed to make you 150 plane order a bunch of F-35Cs which really don't give a flying flollop which basing mode they 'JCA' take off
Even assuming you only have one boat out to sea and it only has 3/4 or 3/5ths it's normal operational airwing, that should leave you your operational
attrition reserve of 50+50+50 as a _land based_ force exponent. Which can only be a 'good thing' when you try to hop into bed with the EU RDF and
what not after our precious 'special relationship' sours.
I can just see it now: Tiger Meet 2010, the JSF is blocked off behind a bunch of ropes so that the devious (deviant?) French cannot 'get a wiff' of
it's precocious stealth technology or source codes. "But hey, we brought it to do joint ops which is surely the next best thing!"
Of course that will likely never happen through a combination of Eurofighter Consortia politicks (You WILL stick with the program on a jet you
insisted you needed when we wanted to cop).
And F-20 syndrome ("What, you mean you're selling us jets YOU don't want?") secondary sales.
Even so, it's amazing that the UK confidence in it's vaunted aerospace technology base is so low that you don't take the obvious alternate route
which is to lease elderly F/A-18E Lot I or Rafale F1/2 and then develop the hell out of your UCAVs just to 'show U.S. whose boss'.
One might almost say it was indicative of how little money there really is.
YEAH, THAT'S IT! Show me the money honey! Then we'll talk tech trades vs. budget cuts.