WhiteOvies
The theory about DLT is an interesting one considering the QinetiQ boffins on the VAAC have sorted out a system whereby you push a button and the jet lands itself. Not a lot of practice required for that IMHO...
Thought that was STOVL only?
junglyAEO
As to launch as recovery of UAVs, without the sloppy link between the cyclic and the collective, the whole aircraft can smaller and lighter for an equivalent performance, so almost anything is possible, a bit like Scan Eagle's wire catching routine and simple caly pigeon launcher.
Surely once you build a UAV that can carry a radar, computers, IFF, navigation equipment and datalinks it has a mass of a couple of tonnes at least? Which brings us back to the launch and recovery issue.
Occasional Aviator
If I had to choose between Merlin and Chinook, I'd go for Merlin. Why? It is actually faster than Chinook, goes about as high (16700ft design limit IIRC) and will stay up for longer on internal fuel - yes you can put a bob tank in the CH47, but you can put one in Merlin as well and anyway it takes up cabin space. The cabin in the Mk 3 is 2/3 the size of CH47, so big enough to take a palletised mission system, and the nightmares in producing a marinised aircraft which folds have all been overcome. Also the clever anti-vibration thingie would reduce fatigue on both the crew and the delicate avionics - the effect of this on endurance and system life shouldn't be underestimated.
You learn something every day. But is a palletised system really that desirable? Surely a fixed installation would be better from a system integration viewpoint, with regards to things like power supplies, EMC, thermal management etc. The vibration issue may be critical with the microwave tubes etc.
Surely a Merlin solution would also have the advantage of commonality with the Merlin HM1?
However, the most immediate issue when will construction start? According to the RN Presentation Team, the shipyards are ready to cut steel within hours of the paperwork being signed.