Sunk at Narvik,
I was actually just trolling. However:
Our JOINT doctrine places carrier-based air under the joint force air commander. The joint force maritime commander then bids for the assets required for fleet defence - which could be from the carrier, or could be from elsewhere - for example, if we needed the stealthy JSF to fly a 'day one' mission, they could all fly off and do that, whicle the fleet might be defended by rear-based Typhoon, or F-18 flying off a US carrier. In terms of how much of the force is allocated to what role, that is naturally the joint commander's call on the day, but you may be interested to note that SRO(C) is working on the assumption that four JSF per carrier are nominally assigned to AD, with all the rest available for land attack. How would that stack up with your three RN squadrons per carrier?
Actually, despite the impression you may have gained from my previous post, I really think we need to get away from the short-sighted ownership issues. Jets on a carrier are not the fleet's toys to use for defending the fleet; they are the joint commander's assets and are used like any other element of air power - they just happen to be on a floating airfield. And no, I'm not overlooking the specialist skills, training, practise and mindset needed to operate an effective carrier air group - ship, aircraft, C2 etc. To an extent, all these arguments apply to an expeditionary air wing too. In capability terms, that is what a carrier is.
Despite what you may think of Jacko, not everything he says is wrong. Carriers ARE an expensive way to project a modest amount of air power at fast walking pace. However, that's not an argument against them - helicopters are an expensive and inefficient way of moving not very much payload not very far not very fast - but we still need them because we want to have the capability to put soldiers and kit in and out of places where there aren't runways. A similar argument could apply to carriers - it is about what kind of country we want to be. However, we must think clearly about what it is we want to achieve - if it's all about Land Attack (as many in the RN are outwardly portraying it), then you can get expeditionary in many other ways too - in Afghanistan and Iraq, more than half the ordnance dropped was by aircraft that took off from US soil - and hardly in a politically sympathetic atmosphere in the case of Iraq.
I haven't really come down on one side or the other - and yes, Jacko, the debates are pretty feisty. However, having come to it with an open mind, the only person who seems consistently balanced on this is Magic Mushroom - and actually the most blinkered and prejudiced views seem to be on the pro-carrier side. Anyone questioning carriers (and all requirements should come under scrutiny) seems to be dismissed as not understanding or abused if they come back for a second go.
I am also mightily fed up of the RAF being portrayed as the author of all the RN's ills. We are NOT briefing aginst CVF, nor are we scheming to undermine it. Yes, thirty-five years ago there may have been an issue over where Diego Garcia was on the map, but having read what Dennis Healey (who made the decison) has to say on the subject, there was a lot more to it than that - in fact at one point he indicated that one of the things that swung it was that the RN were unwilling even to engage in debate - "we need two carriers and that's it." Ring any bells?
And while I'm ranting, the other issue I'd like people to have more balance about is Typhoon. Now, like it or not, it will be the cornerstone of our future air power. Nevertheless, the RAF is not insisting on 232 aircraft at any cost. we all know this number is too high - but we do need Trance 3, not for the airframes but for the capability it gives us. Anyone who thinks we could save any money at all by cancelling Trance 3 needs to find out more about the programme and how we, the Brits, locked everyone in to it, and then take a look at what money is where in the EP and explain how it would actually help - as most of it has already been spent and is is separated by several clear years from the main spend on CVF, Astute, FRES etc. And talking of capability, why are people still chuntering on about lashing up an AD aircraft for CAS? Typhoon was ALWAYS going to be swing role. I can remember going to a presentation at BAe Warton before the Berlin Wall came down and discussing how EFA (remember that) was going to replace the RAF's Buccaneers and Jaguars, as well as what was then the F2.
That's all for now, but I'd be delighted to hear other opinions!