Engines
Hi Engines - you seem to know what is going on in this programme - (program for our cousins!)
I emerge from hibernation because you have offered information that was unknown to me before.
I had previously believed that we (the UK) should have bought the C and put launch and arrester gear on the QE/PoW. That way we could have operated from land or afloat without major penalty.
The B/STOVL version was, in my opinion, a Harrier/Invincible legacy that was inappropriate for current requirements.
The Harrier austere landing site concept was brilliant and worked well in its time, but it required essential and substantial support from the Royal Engineers, Signals folk and many others. That infrastructure worked really well in Germany in the 70's/80's but it has now all gone. I know the USMC position and fully understand and support their need for the B and its austere potential, but I am not sure that we either need or could afford that option.
So if the value of STOVL is now just to allow aircraft to operate from QE/PoW, then perhaps the C might have been better.
But the variations suggested about the C might make me think that my views that we should have bought the C rather than the B are wrong. Interoperability with the USN and French notwithstanding.
It all doesn't really matter now as things are well down the track, but it would make me feel better to know that my prejudices are wrong and that our esteemed politicians and their advisers were right all the time!
I would much appreciate your views.