Gentlemen,
Bismark is absolutely, deadly, right on, bang on the target here. The FCBA/FJCA/JCA numbers were all built around equipping and sustaining the two CVFs. There was never a 'GR4 replacement' line in those numbers.
Now we are down to one carrier, and now that we are a few years down the line, yes, looking at F-35C as a GR4 replacement makes eminent sense, but not at the expense of the main and original justification - Carrier Strike. Of course, i would not expect the RAF to share that view.
PrOOne raises an interesting point when he puts the idea of 'two more squadrons in addition to the 'Joint Force Lightning flown by RAF and FAA'? Surely, what he means is 'two more squadrons for Joint Force Lightning'? Or does he mean (as I suspect) 'two RAF squadrons, not shared with the RN'? Following his logic, would the best result not be Lightnings (As?) for the RAF and Cs for the RN? Why 'Joint Force'?
Zerva - navalised Reaper - not a hope for the prop driven version - it's basically a powered heavy glider, not a carrier aircraft unless you give the whole deck over to it. General Atomics are pushing a 'navalised' version of their new Reaper, but the airframe looks wrong for deck ops. Early days yet, though.
The dog that REALLY hasn't barked yet in this thread - future RAF fast jets - has to be RAF UCAVs. I'm surprised at the level of attention being given to X-47 (a long way off as a usable capability) for naval use compared with the undoubted potential for a UCAV replacement for GR4. If they are the way forward, leave the RN to do manned stuff from the deck, and get the RAF UCAV'd up as the GR4s retire. Any comments on that one?
Best Regards as ever to those out there in the dark doing it for real
Engines