Backwards PLT,
Does the author not make a coherent and quite obvious point that 48 F35Bs would be woefully insufficient to provide the minimum requirement as stated? Unless of course things like OCU, OEU and aircraft for qinetiq are not to be drawn from the figure of 48. But even then, with maintenance and other operational commitments beyond having 12 constantly, or for the most part, at Sea it doesn't seem likely. It does appear that an awful lot of reliance is being placed on such projects as the yet to fly technology demonstrator the Taranis new fangled thing. Further, it would appear that as a result, another capability gap from 2019 forward is certain.
There seems to be an over certain mood that the future can and should be relied upon with the most technologically advanced equipment that can be found i.e. F35 or nothing. The newer, the more unorthodox, the better. Even if we will rely upon a precious tiny number of assets. The thinking seems to be that HM Forces certainly will not be used to confront any but the most primitive insurgent force and that supporting the Army is all that we need be concerned about far round the corner into the future.
If we should find ourselves actually on a war footing with an industrialized state ever again, I think there will be a reluctance to employ a carrier with F35s anywhere in harms way, far too much will have been invested by the treasury.
FB
