Originally Posted by
SASless
What about when both are on task....say the Falklands Redux or something similar?
If both ever have to deploy with a full compliment of 36 F-35s a piece then two carriers plain and simple won't be enough, we're going to need a much bigger defence budget. As it is, we'll have both carriers at sea before we get even just 48 aircraft in total and we can be sure not all of those will be available at once. The rate of production and delivery is planned to be very slow indeed and I can't see that even if we could place 72 F-35s at sea at once, that such a large scale deployment to respond to a resurgent threat to the Falklands, would be at all likely. There seems to be a craven desire in some quarters for all 138 F-35s to be STOVL capable and all therefore able to go on the carriers. This may have been the thinking when the F-35 was seen as a Harrier/Sea Harrier replacement and nothing beyond. But it isn't, it is now the principal replacement for the Tornado GR as well. Any F-35s, which would be operating from land bases, including overseas deployments, would be better off as CTOL variants. As ENGINES has pointed out a mix would be the best solution. An approximate split in the 138 along a 50-50 ratio would mean 69 of each. One more point, if vertical lift and hovering is such a must have ingredient and not simply a patriotic British nod to our heritage in inventing vectored thrust, then surely everyone else; Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Australia, Israel, Italy, USAF and USN would settle for it.
FB