SSSETOWTF - You missed my point slightly, probably because I didn't explain myself properly. I fully respect all the boffins and TPs working on JSF and I'm sure they are doing their upmost to generate the best solution available. However, there is a long and distinguished list of things that we as an aviation community, and especially we as Brits, didn't quite get right. And some of those instances may have been avoided had we learnt lessons from history. At the risk of sounding like a staff college academic, I'll abandon that thread there!
My main point was frustration at the prospect of 'very talented people making sub-optimal things work' (which we as a military are very good at...probably because we have to be with some of the things we are asked to make work!), when there is a more capable alternative available. I am very supportive of the JSF and think it is essential for the UK to operate it. In fact, I wish the powers that be would consider JSF as not just a Harrier replacement but one for Tornado as well! The SRVL debate is a side issue. The main debate is the overall capability of both the JSF model that the UK invests in and of the CVF as a platform.
Why would you invest in a STOVL JSF when you could have CV? The only argument that seems to keep cropping up against CV is training burden - I thought the JSF was going to have an auto-land capability? I'm sure conventional carrier approaches are a training burden, but I'm sure that would be manageable and wouldn't occupy all your time. The STOVL has all the added complications of achieving STOVL and must therefore have an equivalent increased risk of developing an emergency - why take that risk when balanced against the alternative model? The CV exceeds STOVL in range, time on stn, weapons load...all those things we need from a strike platform in the first place, and for my money the things we should be prioritising when deciding on the JSF model we want.
As far as CVF goes, why on earth would we put a ski ramp on the front, as I have seen in the latest artist impressions? Wouldn't that limit other ac from operating on our carrier? Surely we would want to get our money's worth from CVF and operate other ac types, like coalition allies flying non-JSF ac when all the JSF guys need a rest from ops, perhaps a decent fixed wing C2 asset, perhaps some organic AAR asset....maybe mapping the capability on a natural evolution of the very successful Nimitz Class.
As for non-CVF ops, surely we aren't going to contemplate putting JSF into a field site? Austere ops on some form of runway is probably as far as we would go, even with STOVL. If that is the case, with the take-off performance comparison I bet you could operate CV from most places that you can operate STOVL, especially if you bang a cable into the austere base to account for the recovery differences.
CVF, with CV JSF, with fixed wing C2, with organic AAR would be an awesome capability and a worthwhile investment in the future of UK military.
There is no denying that CVF, with STOVL JSF, with rotary C2, with no organic AAR is a second rate, less capable solution.
Being really cynical...perhaps the only thing keeping STOVL JSF ahead of CV is the reluctance to admit that JSF could replace Tornado as well.
And please make the right decision early before we end up with someone suggesting again that we could marinise Typhoon!!!