Interesting article - although I don't know how he reconciles this bit:
Now the notion of a joint STOVL force - or even an Air Force-managed and - commanded force if you prefer - for both land-based and shipboard operations does indeed make a lot of sense. This is not simply in terms of simplified logistic support and other such measures to please the bean counters, but much more importantly in view of a far greater operational flexibility. The fact that the aircraft can be continuously redistributed between carrier decks and land bases according to the demands of the respective theatres, and indeed it is even possible to concentrate all available resources, either at sea or on land if the operational conditions allow, is a first-class force multiplier in an expeditionary environment. The validity of this concept was clearly demonstrated by the recent deployment of JFH aircraft to Afghanistan.
Further, this deployment flexibility also enables significant savings as regards the required numbers of aircraft. The current British plan for a total of 150 JCA is clearly predicated on the aircraft’s “swing” capability for land or sea basing, and should the programme be split into two separate requirements then a substantially larger total fleet would be needed.
with this bit:
Be this as it may, what would arguably be the most logical solution, as well as the one providing better returns on taxpayer’s money - F-35A for the RAF and the AMI, F-35B for the Italian Navy, and F-35B or much better F-35C for the Fleet Air Arm
Personally, I'm for the joint force.
Also, why does he say
...RAF would maintain its current choice for an all-STOVL attack fleet
? I didn't know Typhoon was STOVL?