But this is all just so much distraction. We shouldn't be talking about what aircraft to fly from CVF, but should instead be cancelling CVF and its aircraft. Defence spending is being dramatically distorted by the CVF/JSF programme - which threatens to cost as much as Typhoon did - the difference being that much of the spending on Typhoon was committed when we had Cold War budgets to play with.
We face a stark choice - first rate armed forces with adequate SH/tankers/SEAD/recce, etc. without carriers, or third rate forces with a first rate submarine-based nuclear deterrent and two shiny first rate, top of the line aircraft carriers.
Do we want to be able to undertake ops like the two Gulf Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, or to be able to project cocktail parties across the world's oceans?
A tad disingenous Jacko and your last comment does you no credit at all.
Firstly £4Bn (for the ships) spread over the years 2008-2015 works out at about £500M per annum, which for a £9Bn pa procurement budget is (give or take 7%). Secondly, while your point regarding Typhoon fund commital may have some validity, what you are implying is that we signed up to this when there was shedloads of wedge in the EP and as we are now in the main procurement phase are spending significant amounts of a much reduced budget - Mr Pot & Mr Kettle spring to mind, although I'm happy to admit that we desperately need the aircraft.
F35 is another story. Again, £10Bn over the years 2012-2022 given current schedules is essentially 10% of the budget from which we should get a top of the line strike capability, which is also deployable from land or sea.
When you talk about dramatic distortions in spending, you might want to look at other little projects like DII and DII(F). Your point re SEAD is well made, but unless its wrapped up in whatever FOAS is called this week, you've just invented a new programme (I hear there's a new SEAD aircraft on the market btw, EF18G or something, might even be carrier compatible don't you know).
People also seem oblivious to the material changes that may be required to Typhoon to operate succesfully at sea without fizzing away. Not at all trivial. We might even wish to consider how something as "trivial" as removing the gun proved to be so expensive in terms of CofG and certification that it was dropped (very cunning plan!). Do we honestly think wholesale redesign of the u/c, rear fuselage and FCS will be signed off just like that?