Capt P,
Managing to both avoid answering a question and making 2+2 = 5 in the same reply. Well done.
NFZ (Capt P avoiding the question)
The last I heard of it, the UK isn't a No Fly Zone. We don't have ground attack aircraft getting airborne and travelling at low level for minutes few to bomb the people. But putting your apples and oranges example aside for a moment, do spell out clearly what options there are in a No Fly Zone beyond doing nothing or shooting the aircraft down. Nice and clearly so we can assess them and relate them to the Iraqi NFZ ROE and how a coalition aircraft could do something different (than nothing or shoot down) to a Libyan attack aircraft on the 12 minute transit to dropping a bunch of HE on the rebels.
T45 (Capt P making 2+2=5)
Where, at any stage in my post, did I say that a T45 would replace AD aircraft or that it wouldn't be required to defend the Fleet? My response was purely because you decided that you are now the maritime AD expert who answered Haart's quite sensible discussion point about maritime AD with a straight 'no.' Make a bold statement like that and be prepared to get an alternative view that exposes your prejudices and superficial understanding of the issues Haart was trying to discuss.
Your comment about the Falklands is a tiny bit childish - the deterrent effect provided by land, sea and air platforms provides a range of capabilities that makes the whole package a deterrent. Where did you make the leap that I was suggesting a T45 could allow Typhoon to go home?
Thank you for demonstrating your light blue hysteria about anything that might challenge the primacy of aircraft in the policing a NFZ.