Was the decision to go with the F-35 due to the Ski Ramp design of the Carrier....or did the decision to buy the F-35 STVOL drive the design of the carrier?

Onceapilot,

Says you.

SASless,

I think the decision to go with STVOL F-35 drove the carrier design.

Proone,
If you have a valid point, make it. Don't fish for a response then parrot back a silly comment. :)

OAP

Just how large an "expeditionary" warfare capability does the F-35 purchase by the UK provide?

As an aside....how much of a defense can the F-35 force provide should the Russians decide to come west and take up residence by force?

Are we talking about a bit of sacrifice for National Pride on the one hand....and a pipe dream on the other?

Good is fine....but it takes numbers to last in a war.

Onceapilot,

Don't be silly.

SASLess,
Two squadrons of F-35's on one or two carriers provides a significant expeditionary capability. Should the Russians decide to come west and take up residence the reply will be Trident and NOT F-35's! Which is why they won't.

Not really sure what constitutes 4.5 but I have often seen Typhoon classed as that.

Anyway the Customer Support statement is a surprise (to me anyway). Quite a thing to say if it is aimed at BAE. I Had heard that Boeing provided poor levels of support.

Not convinced by the WFoV afforded by a repositioner, tomorrow, Orca? Not convinced by Meteor today? Not convinced that you might need Typhoon's kinematic performance advantage?

Probably, right up until you encounter an unseen bogey with better kinematics? :sad:

OAP

So, how about when you are outnumbered? (More threats than your missiles with no run-out ability).

OAP

Not trying to be too clever but, if you say "I am happy with better missiles/sensors/sights", how about when 1 bogey turns up more than you have missiles and you can't run away?

OAP

Another interesting aspect about the LO "stealth" hugely expensive fighter/bombers is that they seem to be pretty much creatures of the night. Optical/IR in day/VFR seems to remain a vulnerability. Maybe the LO empire is night precision bombing but day fighting could still be owned by high spec Typhoon in much greater numbers for your $. Anyway, it is all probably wasted. Eastern doctrine seems to be leaning heavily towards first use of nuke missiles if they feel the need. With no ABM or dispersed capability, there would soon be no defence. :uhoh:

OAP

OAP, I know at one time BAE experimented with day LO using adaptive lighting.

I thought it was a circular argument.

​​​​If we went cat and trap we would have needed and angled deck, etc and a system for powering the cat whereas a ramp was cheaper.

So it was really money rather than capability.

Cat&trap got you a cheaper more capable variant.
Ramp got you a cheaper deck and more versatile and expensive aircraft.

Or.....could ya'll just not part with the Harrier tradition and thus went with another "Jump Jet" design?

That surely drove the USMC's thinking I believe.

It would certainly have been a factor hence my versatility comment. Also with only one deck cat&trap doesn't give you any redundancy. At least you are not as dependent on ship speed, there are more landing spots if someone messes up, and ultimately probably a lot more emergency decks around. 'Over the side' was an expedient way of getting a clear deck when aircraft were cheap and plentiful.

I might also say that we have a history of major reconstruction through life so adding catobar and an angled deck would not be impossible in 20 years time.