Why do they need steam catapults or arrestor wires?

The aircraft we're ordering are STOVL, and the Typhoon is just too heavy to operate from them.

Amnesia is suggesting we should instead have the Carrier variant, and make the CVF a CATOBAR carrier.

Oh right, I can't say I'm a big fan of CATOBAR aircraft, the STOVL provides much more capability in terms of landing/taking off in operational environments.

EDIT: And you're [LIFTED] if the catapult fails too.

If it fails then using the full length of the deck may be a possibility when under way. I think it would be best to have a carrier with a catapult even if you only intend to use VTOL aircraft. These ships will be in operation for 30+ years so it could be shortsighted to plan otherwise.

Well we can always re-fit later. But for now I don't see much point in adding a redundant system.

According to Wiki they are compromising, making provision to add a catapult later if required.

I read in the The Times yesterday that the Ministry of Defence is considering scrapping the Tornado (presumably both the F3 and GR4 variants) 15 years early, which would leave Britain with just 42 fast jets for defence (never mind offence), and the Typhoon isn't even equipped with METEOR yet anyway.

Secondly, I read in the Sunday Times today that the MOD is considering scrapping the JSF order to save money. We would instead buy the F/A-18E Super Hornet from the Americans. A bad move IMO that will weaken our ability to project power into enemy territory.

If that is the case then it is stupid. I can understand the delays to the JSF because the carrier are not built but they could still extend the tornado for a while to defer the expend of Typhoon. These cuts are noting to do with efficiency they are being blood minded.

They certainly don't have the best interests of the nation's defence at heart. The Typhoon just isn't ready, no METEOR and not enough aircraft.

As for the Super Hornet, since when is buying outdated and outmoded equipment ever a good idea?

This thread is full of words that I don't understand.

Australia has just bought 24 Super Hornets for $6Bn. These are a replacement for the F111, which the rest of the world stopped using in 1996.

Well fair enough to Australia. For carrier/task force defence it's not going to matter, but if we're serious about penetrating enemy airspace the F-35 blows the socks off both the Super Hornet and the Typhoon.

Yes but the cost of the JSF is very high, and if we use a few Super Hornets as a filler for the carriers, which will meet 90% of our carrier needs at a fraction of the cost of the equivalent JSF force. It will also push the capital requirements out another five years. Longer term though who knows what we will be up against so a mixture or more JSF might be more appropriate.

Are we though? Really? Is there likely to be any requirement in say the next 10 years for the RAF/RNAF to go into an air zone covered by significant high tech anti-air resources, or are they just going to be operating against militia level forces who have man portable heatseekers / optical trackers?

The obvious candidates for being 'the next Iraq' are Syria and Iran but I for one hope to God we're not dumb enough to try to invade either. if the yanks want to do it fine, let them get on with it. Right now, a plane that's able to efficiently support a ground force doing a 'peace keeping/counter insurgency' role is more than enough for our likely needs. If we're seeing the RAF actually dogfighting anyone in the next decade, I for one will be looking to have my MP's proverbial head on a plate.

Jon