Justanopinion - From what I've heard, Lightning II will most definitely not be spending the majority of its time at sea. Deck capability will be just one string of many strings to its bow. I have not V/STOL experience, but I have it on very good authority from a number of sources, that while V/STOL onto a deck is certainly harder than to a land base, it's not sufficiently hard enough to merit all the downsides of the squadron being embarked most of the time. JFH proved the ability of RAF Harrier squadrons to maintain deck capabilities through short deployments, while using their land-based time to concentrate on other skill sets. JFH also proved the ability of RAF squadrons to maintain a credible air power capability from the deck of RN carriers. In an ideal world, with limitless armed forces, then I can certainly see the argument for a fixed-wing FAA as a branch of the RN. However, in this era of austerity, I really don't think it can be justified. A separate fixed-wing FAA, with all the extra overheads that generates, just to man 42% of a single squadron? I would not suggest that the captains of the QE carriers should be RAF Officers, just because they operate aircraft. To argue that pilots of aircraft that happen to take off from such carriers should wear dark blue uniforms is similarly ridiculous. There has been an awful lot of bad blood between the RAF and the RN in the past; this thread is testament to that. But can we not try to put the past behind us and move forward together? A very effective 21st century partnership, showing all the best bits of all things 'joint', could result from a carrier capability with the maritime power experts operating the carriers themselves, and the air power experts operating the aircraft. Incidentally, the RN pilots currently flying Hornets in the states are not really on 'exchange' per se, are they? Instead they are filling slots that the MoD pays the USN extremely handsomely for. While it made an awful lot of sense to build up a seedcorn of cat and trap experience when the UK was lined up to buy the C model, is this massive expense another one that can be culled (maybe not completely) to deliver further savings to the cash-strapped MoD? As for anti-ship missiles: it would indeed be great to have them in our arsenal (stand fast Sea Skua), but once again the coffers are not limitless. Defence procurement is centred around likely threats and the capabilities necessary to counter them. I don't believe a modern blue water navy features particularly highly up the MoD's list of likely threats. Again, please don't get me wrong, it would be great to have such a capability, just as it would be great to still have Harrier in service. Unfortunately, when cuts have to made, it makes more sense to sacrifice anti-ship missiles in order to keep other weapons, that we are much more likely to require in the kinds of conflict the UK envisions itself getting involved in in the future. Edit - sorry all for the mono-paragraph, for some reason it's not letting me insert line breaks.
Last edited by Knight Paladin; 24th Jun 2013 at 18:45.