When the UK government wants advice on fast jets they go to the RAF. So who is going to tell them that this Emperor has no clothes and the jets need to be navy. Certainly not the RAF.

The RN has new built amphibious shipping coming out of its ears, what it lacks is the ability to project a credible amount of air power that would make an amphibious operation feasible against someone who shoots back.

The option for a fleet without air cover is patrol oriented roles. So perhaps the option would be uprated river class patrol ships.

Go for the carriers every time, they are much more flexible. Also it will be much easier to regenerate an amphibious capability than the fixed wing carriers and and their embarked air groups. Just look at the cost comparison between the Albion and her landing craft and a carrier and squadrons of fixed wing and rotary aircraft (even more so if you compare a Bay without all the command and control).

Carriers battle groups can defend themselves against a threat so can be sent places where they are not welcome. Amphibious groups need air cover to protect them if they are not wanted off that particular coast.

They are much more useful in peacetime too. Imagine a CVF off Pakistan with a couple of squadrons of Chinooks (if we had them to spare). It would be of huge value compared to Albion which doesn’t even have a hangar for one aircraft.

And there are occasions when you need air strikes without ground troops, the Israeli attack on the Osirak reactor is a good example. Also carriers are a good platform to launch a special forces raid. If things go wrong better to have a couple of squadrons of fast jets on call.

All in all I think the RN are right to prioritise the carrier programme over all else. A much more influential contribution to coalition warfare.

This RN F18 purchase rumour really has produced a lot of posts! One thing that perhaps bears challenging from all this is that STOVL is intrinsically cheaper than CATOBAR as an option. I am sure this is true some of the time but I don’t think this is quite as straight forward as is assumed.

Getting supersonic fighter jets on an off a warship at sea requires high tech and costly equipment, which brings with it an added servicing requirement as well as the capital outlay. You can either pay for it to be put into the ship (catapults and arrestor gear) or you can pay for it with the aeroplane (lift fan, gearbox and RCS). There is no free lunch. If you doubt this then why does every source suggest that the F35B will be more expensive than the A and C versions despite having the shortest range. There is also the issue of attrition rate. The Sea Harrier had a very high attrition rate and although the F35B is likely to be a lot better, you still probably have to buy more spare airframes.

The question that could be keeping the lights on late at the MOD at the moment may be: How will the cost of the F35B compare to the F35C or F18 and how many B versions can you buy before it becomes cheaper to switch to CATOBAR and put the expensive kit in the ship?

A bit off topic but I bought a book on the Sea Vixen a little while ago. It has a fairly comprehensive lists of the pilots that flew with each of the squadrons and its surprising how many of the senior dark blue pilots from 82 started out as Fox-faw jocks.

It would be possible to mix them in small numbers with limited aori rates, but the F25b is not a helicopter, it has a much more dramatic take off involving very hight energy and temperature exhaust. Even if the multiple jet blast deflecters needed for each type could e fitted in the space, mixing three different types of cycle (helo, VSTOL and CATOBAR) on one deck would be, to put it mildy, problematic.

The problem the MOD needs to solve is that the best solution is not wanted by the user of the aircraft and will be strongly resisted.

CATOBAR makes perfect sense for providing an airwing for CVF. You get the choice of 3 different aircraft, Rafale, F18 and F35 C, with variable cost and capability options. You get operational convergence with the principle allies, US and French navies. The additional infrastructure cost for the ships could easily be made up from the lower cost of the F18 option if cost was to be the principle driver. It opens the door to Hawkeye at some future date to replace the ASAC 7 and any future Euro UCAV will likely have a CATOBAR version as the French will insist.

The problem is that the RAF own all fast jets and will be the buyer of all F35. The RAF want F35 B because they will provide the vast majority of the aircrew for the new aircraft and they want it based on land like their other assets, with occasional familiarisation visits to a carrier. This fits the expeditionary air group idea with CVF as ‘just another airbase’. This rules out the use of CATOBAR as this would require dedicated naval air wings that train with and deploy on the carriers pretty much all the timein order to maintain their deck currency. The down side is that it means continuing with a lash-up AEW and makes the prospect of a naval capable UCAV pretty much impossible, as no one is building a VSTOL one. This mans that any UCAV operation in the 2020s will be land base dependent with all the restrictions that that includes.

Forget naval Typhoon, its a red herring, as it involves immediate substantial upfront development costs and a substantial technical risk. Neither would be acceptable in the current climate.