Brit55,
You are getting your time periods well and truly muddled up. You are confusing the argument put forward in the mid sixties when it was decided that the UK no longer needed fixed wing carrier air power as air defence of the fleet could be provided by shore based air power. The famous example of the time was a map of the Far East theatre where air cover was provided from Singapore, Australia and various islands to prove that organic fixed wing air cover was unnecessary. The F3 had not even being dreamt of then.
The F3 (or more accurately F2 at the time) on the other hand was a decade later when a significant cost saving was made by proposing an Air Defence variant of the Tornado IDS as the next generation RAF AD aircraft. Its lack of agility being justified by it never having to meet hostile fighters as it would concentrate on taking out massed Regiment sized backfire raids 400 miles out over the North Sea at night, at low level in the middle of a snow storm and under heavy ECM.
davedek and Safety_Helmut
No need to get your knickers in a twist. It is indeed a woefully inaccurate statement. The argument is NOTHING to do with arming the F-35s, nor has it anything to do with the Pentagon “approving” missions.
It is all about IPR and software codes, therefore it is a purely economical argument concerning upgrade and major overhaul of the F-35 by BAE Systems. Basically they want to be able to do it but Lockheed-Martin retain the IPR and insist that only they can do it. It’s just the same for the C-130J, AMRAAM and Trident.