Afternoon all,
Glojo. Correct - first one to have no cat and trap. (As it stands with the current wind direction)
F18E would offer a greater capability than the GR4 but if we pass up the chance to buy the last manned fighter (F-35) the implications are large.
Can we save/ lose money by taking the Joint out of JCA? Not vast sums. I think that with the post SDSR figure of 12 deployable to start with we are now possibly in the realms of single service manning. Therefore the desirability of a single service force really boils down to what it offers defence. I can't see how this would significantly effect the cost.
We are buying a carrier borne aircraft, to embark, for maritime strike. If it were to be solely manned by the RAF you deny all levels of the RN experience in operating the product. If it were to be solely manned by the RN, the ACC (who - let's be realistic - will always be RAF) might not know what his 'other box of tricks' is capable of. Both can be mitigated to some degree by LOs. I think Joint is the way forward. If I had to choose between two single service options - gun to head - given the existence of Typhoon and GR4 replacement, that the lesser of the two evils is for the ACC to be broadly, if not intimately, familiar with the capability. i.e. JCA becomes dark blue and the boys spend their entire lives at sea, singing shanties and searching relentlessly for the golden rivet and we send a fishy type to the CAOC to answer the tricky questions.
As to the debate about what JCA is, well it would be brilliant if it were F-35 but everyone will have a line in the sand as to when it becomes 'something else' (or F-18E, or Rafale). As the programme slips and the jets get more expensive we start tripping over those lines and at some point we'll get to Mr Cameron's.