Something close to viable discussion on the "Sea Jet" thread.... whatever next!
Jacko
The issues you raise about the lack of depth to the FJ force, the shocking state of the AAR/AT fleet, and the need to match operational tempo to avaliable, deployable resources, are all valid. And ones that Lord Tim et al will doubtless raise! The question of financing this IMHO requires a good hard look at the RAF force structure, basing, "non-core activities"
(eg, and sorry Rocks, RAF Regiment), and central headquarters, Groups, (isn't the IDFAF run by 1 2*?) and the massive overhead of the MOD civil-military structure.
That having been said, I've no doubt that there will be times and places - other than FI - when a CBG is a v. useful tool in the way FB11 described. If it weren't, why would the USN waste so much cost and manpower in keeping their 12+ CV/CVNs? (And no, it's not because they're stupid Americans, before anybody starts.)
Equally, an airgroup of 40-odd F-35s (Is this right for surge?) would have a signficant operational and deterent effect. (Given the size of the ships, why not buy the CV version with cats and traps - the difference in performance / payback for the STOVL variant has never made any sense to me, so perhaps others could help? And with cats and traps, et voila, E-2C.... and be nice to French, the CdG SNAFU was all very difficult! I hope this is not the result of some light-blue "Harrier is VSTOL and VIFFs, we need F-35 STOVL blah blah" position.
)
Hence, I believe that a way will be found to get CVFs built; the question - again, like the SHar question - is whether the other RN / UK military capabilities prematurely retired to fund them will be offset by the CVF's capability? (Why are T23s being retired after 10 years? Is there nothing useful for them to do?
) And is the cost of the CVF programme actually going to unbalance the entire RN surface fleet? Indeed, will CVFs have the necessary escorts and auxiliaries to function as a CBG?
So, not fishing, just some genuine questions.
S41