In an ideal world it would be nice to see 2 carriers embarked with a healthy number of -C, however this isn't a game of top trumps.
Given the known (particularly budgetary) constraints, if the choice is between 2 carriers and 138 -B or 1 carrier with 96 -C, personally I'd go for the -B.
If this is the choice (I don't know whether it is) then I can understand why the military brass might be advocating a switch back to the -B. I'd wager that 'more ships and more planes' carries more weight [for both the RAF and RN] than many of the advantages currently being advocated of the -C.
Add to the fact that reverting to the -B moves the short-term cost of installing EMALS (whatever that ballooning figure is) out of the current planning round (and any implications on carrier build schedule) and the case for the -B becomes more sound.
As I say, I understand the capability advantages of the -C but I can understand the rationale of a possible reversion to the -B.
Best,
Last edited by oldspool; 28th Apr 2012 at 08:56.