I think it would be prudent in the next few years to start passing FAA officers through the USN training program for CTOL aircraft so that a pool of trained pilots is built up in case a switch to the F-35C is needed. Large numbers aren't required initially, but certainly a core from the OCU and the frontline sqns would be wise. This would counter those who try to dismiss the ides that we could switch to CTOL because it would mean retraining the WHOLE of the FAA FJ sqns. Well, we'll have to retrain them all anyway in a few years when the F-35 enters service, so adding CTOL ops the syllabus might not be such a huge addition to the task.
As to Four sqns, I'd like to see 899 NAS return along with another 89' numberplate, either 892 or 893. During the fifties and sixties the FAA sqn numbers evolved a system whereby the mission of the aircraft assigned could be deduced by the number, ie 700 series were second line and 800 were frontline (instituted in the 30s), 80x became strike sqns, 81x and 82x became ASW, 83x became EW (only one sqn 831 was used), 84x became caommando troop transport (with the notable exception of 849, the Navy's sole AEW sqn), and 89x became fighter sqns. The choice of 800 and 801 for the two frontline SHAR sqns is somewhat anomolous in this respect, perhaps reflectng the thought that they would be used as the Navies sole strike aircraft with fighterrole secondary (the opposite of the stated mission in the 70s and 80s) ro perhaps the RN was just staking out the edges of the sqn numbering scheme, with 899 as the HQ sqn at the other end of the range. If we had two 80xs and two 89xs then perhaps we could return to the old system, with the former specialising in strike and the latter specialising in Air defence, although both would also practice each others missions too as required.
