I need to know how our carriers will be used, will they always rely on land based aircraft to act as tankers, land based aircraft to supply air early warning? Or will these carriers be able to operate without this type of support?
How did the FAA do it with harriers? how would they do it with sea typhoons or hornets?
will it be close air support where the aircraft gets down and dirty, letting the grunts on the ground see them attacking the nearby enemy, having the opposition both seeing and hearing the aircraft that is coming to the aid of the troops that might be in a tight corner? I would ask if this latter option is a non starter for such a modern, complex aircraft but I would like to hear the thoughts of others, especially the US Marines who believe that all pilots are first and foremost a 'grunt with a gun!'
its better that the enemy not see or hear what hits them as it gives them a chance to shoot back or take actions that make the CAS less effective. Its not really about seeing or hearing the aircraft doing CAS but the effect. unless its a gun run CAS aircraft don't get "down and dirty" that much anymore.
why are the US Marines so adamant that they want the 'B'? We are now reading how any ship that carries this aircraft has to be adapted for that role, the aircraft will not be seen cross decking to ships that have not had this extra work and in this age of sequestration would there be huge and very significant savings if the US Marines purchased more fast jets but did away with their STOVL type fleet? More fast jets, more rotor wing aircraft but scrap the STOVL fleet and let the Navy pay the bill for sea based fast jets.
Does having the navy buy things produce a net savings in an age where funding is limited? or is it more expensive overall? it really depends when you are talking about cost. it needs to be remembered that all options are going to be "expensive" thats the nature of cutting edge military hardware, whether it is a Typhoon or Ford Class Carrier to carry additional marine aircraft.
I am going to take a strange position and say the F-35B is probably the cheapest solution for the UK because thats the one they are going with. the C has been proven to be more expensive to buy and convert the ships, so they went back to the B. the sea typhoon is the most expensive option, and hornets/rafales may still not make sense as they still have to pay to convert the ships. so comparing aircraft one for one ignores the big 1.4 billion pound elephant in the room for the UK.
so does it save on fixed wing aircraft cost while increasing cost in other areas?
Is having a very small number of very advanced, very expensive aircraft a better option that having excellent, more adaptable aircraft? Having the much cheaper option would give us so much more versatility and adaptability.
the F-35B would be more adaptable than the Typhoons, and yes cheaper to buy and operate as well. typhoons are very high end aircraft