ORAC, FB,
I thought it might be helpful to other readers of this thread if I responded to your posts. As ever, please feel free to tell me if it's not. I do confess to being a little confused by the assertion that the 'general consensus' is that the F-35B is the 'most successful of the three models', apparently on the grounds that 'the USMC and RN (are) getting the other services to pay enormous amounts of cash for sub-optimal aircraft so they could get a far more effective platform to replace the Harrier'. It's hard to know where to start in responding to this, but my points of fact would be as follows:
The three F-35 variants arose from the Joint Strike Fighter programme, which was jointly funded by the USAF, USN and the UK MoD. The aim of the programme was to develop a family of three aircraft to replace a number of legacy aircraft that were becoming expensive to support. The JSF programme was bounded by a key restriction - the aircraft had to be single engined and single pilot. This was a DoD response to to massive cost overruns and failures of a number of USAF and USN tactical aircraft programmes over the preceding 15 years or so. The USAF and the USN (note that the USMC's budget is managed by the USN within DoD) joined the programme on the basis that developing a family of three aircraft would be cheaper than trying to develop three wholly different aircraft. Here in 2018, it's clear to all that the JSF/F-35 programme has experienced significant overruns in both cost and schedule. But to characterise the programme as the USMC and RN getting the other services (which I suppose means the USAF and the RAF) to 'pay for a 'Harrier Replacement' is, in my respectful view, a bit off the mark.
I would also question the assertion that the F-35B is a 'sub-optimal' aircraft. Yes, it has less range and payload than the F-35A. But by design, not by being 'worse'. To repeat, if you want a STOVL aircraft, you suffer a penalty. (Incidentally, the F-35C, as a 'cat and trap' design, suffers penalties as well, including maximum speed, acceleration and turn performance). If you mean that the F-35A and F-35C are 'sub-optimal', that rather begs the question of 'sub-optimal compared to what?'. Possibly to large twin engined, twin seat aircraft. Which were probably unaffordable (my view again). Rafale? Gripen?
It's useful to remember that the UK got into JSF because the MoD had endorsed the RN's requirement for a Sea Harrier replacement (NST 6464). That formed the basis for our entry into the JSF programme via what was titled 'The UK STOVL MoU'. That was FCBA. On the arrival of Joint Force Harrier, the UK's requirement was rebadged as FJCA, and the aim expanded to replace both the Sea Harrier and Harrier GR7/9 fleets. I believe that this was the basis for the development of the UK's '138' figure. (others may correct me). So to be clear - the UK's involvement in the JSF was for an RN/RAF Harrier replacement. Nobody was 'getting the RAF' to pay for 'their' aircraft, unless one assumes that all military aircraft development funds within the MoD 'belong' to the RAF. Personally, I don't.
The adoption of the F-35B as the 'Tornado replacement' was (in my personal view, happy to be told I'm wrong) a result of the MoD realising that the UK's defence budget could not afford another military aircraft procurement programme in the same timeframe as JSF. The MoD and the RAF had spent a lot of time and money on what were (in my opinion) non-starters such as a UK designed and built 1000 mile range stealth bomber, and the various FOAS studies. Moreover, by this time, Eurofighter/Typhoon was suffering massive cost and schedule overruns (not as widely reported as the issues with JSF/F-35, but that's the UK media and defence issues for you) which were threatening to overwhelm the MoD's procurement budget. Back in the late 1990s, I worked for a while for a truly exceptional MoD senior civil servant. He had briefing charts that clearly set out his view of the future for the RAF's combat aircraft fleet. That future was Typhoon to replace Tornado F3 and JSF to replace Tornado GR. How right he was.
As to USAF and USN F-35 buys, I've seen nothing to indicate that they are moving away from their stated acquisition plans. The USN has always planned to use F/A-18s for as long as they were combat capable, and buy new Super Hornets if the F-35 programme slipped. I've seen nothing from the USAF that shows any desire to build any more F-16s, and no news of any major F-15/F-16 life extension programmes. In my view (and only in my view), talk of an F-22/F-35 'hybrid' is speculative at best. While I worked at Fort Worth, I heard many Americans say openly that whatever they were going to do on F-35 'they sure as hell wouldn't do it like they did it on the legacy aircraft' - 'legacy' meant the F-22. The USAF's new 'long range fighter' is years away, and I am sure that wise heads in the DoD are dusting off their parametric studies to get a handle on the likely cost of a large, highly manoeuvrable,long range, twin engined aircraft.
I suppose what i'm trying to say (in a long winded way) is that trying to characterise the F-35B as a sub-optimal aircraft forced on the RAF by a cunning RN/USMC cabal is not only plain wrong, but a disservice to all those BAeS, RR, MoD, RN and RAF folk who have given their all to this programme and earned the UK much credit within the US service and industry community. I've seen young Brits (including RAF aircrew) absolutely stun US meetings with their calm, polite and utterly professional inputs. They have made a huge difference.
Best regards to all my old friends in the JSF programme, and to the young RN and RAF personnel getting ready to take the F-35B fleet forward.
Engines