ORAC,
My thoughts are that with the loss of the Bonnie Dick, the USMC will be a deck down for the foreseeable future, probably enabling a near-permanent USMC presence on the QEC. Capping at 48 now, applying the 'rule of thirds', only realistically sustains 16 jets for warfighting (ie embarked), 16 for training/currency and 16 for sustainment (depth servicing, upgrade, repair and attrition). Add in a USMC VFA and you're back to 24-26 embarked which is the advertised 'peacetime maximum'. Given that F-35 is so 'digital' and comes with a heavy use of synthetics, there might be some variance in those fleet numbers. However, the current plan is for F-35 to be in production for decades so we can 'dip back in' if finances permit, we lose too many to sustain the fleet or to take advantage of a Block Upgrade that is cheaper to build from new than retrofit. Re EMALS, my suspicion is that the RN have finally worked out that they are going to be too 'upthreat' to effect many near-peer nations with F-35 without the ship being vulnerable to shore based ASMs (and some nations, doctrinally, will launch a mass attack to empty the DD/FF VLSs…). It's a similar issue that the USN faces with decks full of tactical aircraft and no tanker save for 'buddy buddy'. The USN answer is the MQ-25 Stingray, and I suspect this is in the mind of the RN when looking at UAV EMALS, as well as launching LANCA style UAV wingmen to add combat mass, deception and EW/EA/SEAD to an F-35 strike package. Naval Tempest would need to be factored into the program now, if not already too late, to influence design and stress assumptions, the USN F-XX may be a desirable option in terms of risk/cost but I doubt we can afford 2x Gen 6 platforms.