Unlike yourself I am in no doubt as what to call it,it is clear from your post that it is you that is in a state of confusion.to quote 'Of course it is a cruise missile.or.,more correctly a stand-off missile'. It is of course a 'stand off missile' not cruise.
As far as Storm-Shadow is concerned,whilst I agree that it would be a close run thing,I would suggest that with SRVL it would be possible to bring back this missile without ditching it. You have written very eloquently in your own blog about this and I see no reason if Storm Shadow were to be used from a CVF why it could not be brought back onboard if unused using SRVL.
We know that the UK put into abeyance SRVL trials when we decided to go down the path of the 'C' model,fortunately the US has carried on with these trials and I would expect the UK to rejoin,and with it's expertise in this area to be a valuable contributor.
I think we be starting to annoy some of our readers regarding this subject on this thread,if your wish to carry on this discussion could we perhaps migrate to a more appropriate thread,i.e.
I thought I'd go there and have a look! Blimey, it really is argumentative!! Has our much maligned Nuclear attack submarine friend gone there, now that he appears to have been banned from here again?
Well I think it's all a matter of relativitly,I don't find it so argumenttative as putting ones viewpoints across in a robust manner. perhaps that is where I have gone wrong on this thread. As far as our,and my friend in the nuclear boat world,well that is a different matter. I like a vigorous discussion but not an abusive one,enough said.
Looking forward to seeing some photos of a major part of our future carrier shortly.