Guys,
I'd like to respond. This is a very good discussion that gets to the core of what has become a political issue - and we know how they can go...
LF's analysis is really very good. I absolutely agree that cat and trap is the way to go if you can afford it. 'Affording it' means a number of things that don't come with STOVL. These are:
a. A big and fast ship - at least 65,000 tons and around 30 knots
b. A ship stuffed with expensive kit to launch and recover the aircraft, e.g. cats and traps
c. The training burden of keeping the specialised and perishable skills required for night bad weather ops current.
On top of these, the operational norms for cat and trap also require organic AAR, and probably a decent AEW/EW capability.
The problem for the UK has been to know where the cost boundaries for each option lie, and what is included and excluded. Then the challenge has been to accurately cost them. The recent debate over cat and trap conversion costs illustrates the point - I strongly suspect (but don't know) that the figures being thrown about varied so much because they included different things, depending on who was trying to make their point.
I absolutely agree with NAB that trying to model manning and costs for a new carrier that isn't a CVS (but isn't a CVN either) is a really difficult exercise, made harder by the dilution of carrier aviation knowledge and experience within the FAA and the RN.
Hope this helps
Best Regards
Engines