DZ,
CVF deck is really big for the tonnage - it's about the same area as the original Forrestal class. You are spot on - the aircraft will still need to be spotted with tails over water, but the whole deck cycle and aircraft handling routines will be very different from our current CVS. On CVF, aircraft will be taxied under their own power to areas of the deck where a short 'push back' will get them spotted. On CVS, nearly all deck moves are 'tractored' from start to finish.
The CVF team have built some really smart flight deck movements simulations and have modelled this stuff for a few years - I am told that the USN are very impressed.
As an old time Harrier engineer, I'd love to agree that a Harrier plus AMRAAM could have cut the mustard - but we had one and we junked it early. FA2. Further developments were looked at, and there were any number of projects put around by Kingston, but the fact is that the basic Harrier concept of a centrally mounted high bypass turbofan generating lift by direct jet thrust carries too many performance penalties. The X-32 showed how real they were.
JJ, I agree that going STOVL ties us in to a range of costs. The trick is how that range of costs stacks up against the costs of running a cat and trap operation. I don't know the answers, but the high priced help in town apparently do. One thing I do know is that committing to an 'off the shelf' E-2 would not be cheap. I'd also suggest that one area of our capabilities that we do not want to hand over to Uncle Sam is our organic C4ISR.
Best Regards
Engines