Oggin Aviator,
(Of course we couldnt possibly touch the crab's shiny new jet could we?
Err, no actually we couldn't because the UK is contractually required to meet the costs to the partner nations of cancellation. So we'd probably end up paying more for cancelling Typhoon orders.
I think that it's fair to say that most in the RAF would have preferred to have taken a load of F-15E's 10 plus years ago than the Typhoon. That would have given us a proven swing-role asset that approached the capability that Typhoon will give us in the next few years. However, take a reality pill Oggin. To have ordered F-15's would have effectively ended European military aviation. This is something that is clearly politically unacceptable.
Steaming a carrier with 40 plus jets with organic C2 support to just beyond the horizon sends a very serious message.
Yes it does, and as I've said before, I am a strong advocate of maintaining a credible fixed wing carrier capability. Similarly HN support is required for land based assets. However, remember that in EVERY major conflict involving carrier aviation since WWII, carriers have relied upon land based assets for a major part of their combat support assets. And this includes even the mighty USN CVNs. As an illustration:
Vietnam: EC-121 AEW/SIGINT.
Falklands: Nimrod MR1/2 Maritime Recce and R1 SIGINT, and Victor K2 radar recce.
GW1/Former Jugoslavia/Afghanistan/GW2: AAR, SIGINT, AWACS, JSTARS, ECM.
Carrier aviation must be seen in context. It is part of a much bigger force equation. Carriers have their capabilities just as land based assets do. Let's just recognise the fact and stop trying to score points against each other.
Regards,
M2