Please feel free to shoot me down.
This is obviously completely theoretical now, but.......
My understanding is that taking off with a ramp the B will point at the ramp, full throttle and brakes off. I.e the lift fan won't be used. Like a normal takeoff except you leave the ship before your at flying speed.
If this is the case then surely a C could use a ramp also? The Russians seem to have no difficulties.
Logic: The C variant has an issue with it's tail hook. This surely is a relatively simple fix in contrast with the B that just looks a bit too complicated for it's own good (the need for autoeject does not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling).
The one advantage the B has over the C is getting back on the carrier. Clearly
the C is the better aircraft for the UK if you have the choice.
I can only assume the costs have gone through the roof because the 'fitted for but not with' was a lie, and what this really meant is that a space was left for some extra cabins, the AAG but NOT space for the catapults. Hence the massive cost has likely come from the expense of redesigning the top third of the ship to fit the catapults and energy storage devices.
Thinking outside the box, just because EMALS is too expensive, does that mean you have to go back to the B? Keep the ramp, install the JBD's that were planned, put the AAG in the space left free for it, make a few adjustments to the left sponson, fit the LSO station and forget about the science fiction catapult. Launch the C off a ramp and accept the lower pay load as it will only matter when there is no tanker, it will make a much better Tornado replacement (which is what the thing really needs to be) and the hawkeye can go off a ramp (apparently) if it's arrested so there is no need for a bodge job AEW solution.
If the C does get delayed to a deal to take B's to start and then swap them for C's if you need the capabilty early.
Please point out the flaws in my idea.
And God knows what the spams are thinking, but our reputation with the USN and USMC must be in tatters. Let's hope the sake of the exchange lads the USN doesn't do the same as the USMC and sent them packing. And good luck trying to get some harrier exchanges, although it is ironic that the result of this is we will probably end up with some harrier boys and girls on exchange flying ex UK frames.
With regards to FAA vs RAF control, assuming FAA Fast Jet survives this cluster it will have to be joint, the FAA is not going to quadruple in size during a period when they have no aircraft. Similarly the RAF has no interest in flying off boats, at least not for a career. It will be joint, it will be a mess and it's inevitable (unless as will probably happen the whole thing gets canned and we end up with 105 typhoons and the 2 biggest most expensive helicopter carriers in the world).