It isn’t just the footprint that needs to be considered. The motors used on some missiles produce “stuff” that is not good if sucked into a jet. Thus before firing such a missile you have to either stop all aircraft engines still on deck, or risk trashing them.

The launch trajectory has also to be carefully considered vs launch and recovery paths of aiircraft.

So personally I feel that missile systems on board carriers should be minimised to at most self-defence. And even then it is not always appropriate

I would expect a similar (ish) concept to continue in the West, developing from the harrier carriers mentioned to F-35B carriers. Admittedly the role will be somewhat different from that described above, but the concept is very similiar.

Whilst there the USN, RN and the French might have more traditional carriers, other nations (e.g. Italy, Spain) might like to continue their smaller ships with a relatively small complement of F-35Bs. ENough to present a serious threat to anything except a well equipped land based air force, or a full-szied carrier

After kicking up hell about the SDSR cutting the number of Scottish air bases to 1, Salmond has now said that he thinks that is all that the independent Scotland need.

Frankly I suspect that such a base will support 2 cessnas and a squadron of paper darts for all Salmond cares for or has thought about Defence. Similarly the navy will be a rubber dinghy and Salmond’s bath tub

Defence is as already said the weakest part of the independence argument, and if Scotland feel they have no threats then they are silly and have a short recollection of history (e.g. cod wars)

FWIW the economic advantages to Scotland of the union are far more clear cut. If Scotland splits:

The whole point of my comment really was just the hint of irony given comments made after that event.

Indeed. Now then, which radar would you prefer providing missile defence for your ship
a) That state of the art modern (though unproven in combat) Sampson which is way up there to give a better horizon for sea-skimmers
b) The very old technology (though unproven in combat) Spy-1 radar with a few updates which is way down there

Seriously though, the Iranian situation does worry me. Stay safe boys and girls out there

Quite an irony really as, after the Gloucester/GWS30’s rather modest showing against those Iraqi shorebased Styx-clones back in ’91, the comment I heard was that it would be a cold day in hell before the USN let a Brit do air-defence on any of its capital ships again!.

Really? I thought she had a thank you plaque from the USS Missouri

When the USN have had more successful operational missile shots against anti-ship missiles than us then they have a right to comment. To the best of my knowledge the score is still RN 1, rest of the world 0

All that in real Cold War times with the option going hot in short notice. The USN flyers had to face MiG-29s/Su-27s from the 80s.
First flight of YF-18 Nov 18th 1978 and series production of F-18A from 1980.

So much to compare the F-18 with the F-35 to stay polite.

Oh there is. I could find lots of other comparisons, with that and other aircraft. The point being that I have heard a lot of the criticisms before and for other aircraft programmes.

Is F-35 worse? I don’t know, I am not involved enough to judge. I do know that that the internet has magnified all criticism

With reference to the subsequent comments on Peter Goon. I did not know so I googled “Peter Goon F-35”. He does seem to have a history of criticising the programme.

… is the political will there to see it through?

Whilst they have the NK nutters within artillery range of Seoul, I suspect there will be.

That newspaper report does not state that this delay is because of problems with F-35. Indeed it states that it is due to changes in the tables off training needed. Nor does it imply a delay to the training itself.