Engines,
No worries, you're questions are all valid and sensibly stated.
I'm not a FJ guy but it is my understanding that the GR4 has always had a far bigger support and logistics footprint than the GR7. I assume that the GR4 support factors are due to it being a more complex aircraft (2 x radar plus EO, 2 x crew, 2 x engines, variable geometry etc) in comparison the GR9 (single engine (despite what's required for an engine change!), single seat, EO only).
Both fleets are probably stretched by the constant reductions in spares and flying hours, and the need to maintain the trg pipeline for OCU, convex, CR and post grad tasks such as QWI etc. It's merely another symptom of how poorly our armed forces are resourced these days.
Bottom line remains - we are building two socking great carriers, but are we getting the building blocks in place to generate the 'air' from them?
Short answer? No. Inevitably there is a latge focus on getting CVF produced. However, there is less focus upon JSF and, more importantly, it's support infrastructure. The RN doesn't even have an N2 branch and the N2/N6 to exploit the F-35's ISTAR/avionics capabilities will be considerable. Realistically of course, N2/N6 need to be looked at as J2/J6 to ensure commonality between RN and RAF units.
MASC is similarly low on the list of priorities. Realistically, the majority of CVF launched strike ops would probably be supported by a land based ISTAR matrix such as AWACS/SIGINT/ASTOR etc. But an organic MASC is absolutely essential for CVF.
2 x 65 000 ton CVF would be great and I really hope we get them. I just cannot see how the UK can afford them, the associated air wing and it's support, whilst maintaining a balanced surface and sub surface fleet.
Regards,
MM