Can somebody tell me why we are buying the STOVL version of F35 when we are also buying two bloody great 50K ton carriers? Surely that gives enough deck for even the FAA to land conventionally? Some of the figures I have heard for its range/payload are pathetic and, when coupled to the support costs of the carriers and all their attendant hangers-on, the cost/effectiveness of the whole thing looks ridiculous. If you have the sort of air superiority that seems to have been established over Iraq within the first 24 hours, do you need a high-performance ordnance-deliverer at all? No. You need some air superiority fighters (a few Typhoons should do fine) and ideally a tanker/transport that can be fitted to deliver JDAMS and cruise missiles.
Can anyone think of a scenario where we are likely to have to go it alone without the Yanks, and where there is a credible air threat? If so, God help us! Every shot I saw of the army in the recent conflict, they were drawn up in parade-ground order just waiting for a stick of something nasty. Every lesson the army learnt in WW2 has been forgotten. But of course they have not had to fight under a hostile air envrionment since the reatreat from Burma in 1942.