Was the Starfighter loss rate down to failures of it's engine, or was it to do with the postage stamp wing area combined with it's handling characteristics and the tactics employed flying it?
I have also struggled with the 'limited range' arguments. If what is quoted is for internal fuel and weapons only, then that is for maximum (should that be minimum?) stealth mode?
Is it's range on internal fuel and weaps better or worse than a Tonka, F-18 or a Tiffy each with internal weapons & fuel?
If you then need to hang tanks on it to give it the legs, will it have worse or better EM / IR visiblity than any of the above?
Storm Shadow would have to be carried externally in any case where it was being deployed in complimentary tactics to TLAM for longer range strike missions.
Unless I have missed something, the F-35 is the only new game in town - so I guess that it (in which ever Letter variant) and a 'drone' (tee hee) will become the replacements for the two RAF FJs this side of the next 25 to 30 years ( based on recent artist impression to full combat ready examples); unless we go for those decrepit legacy designs of the Super (Ultra) Hornet or the Strike // Silent Eagle or something with a more Russian flavour to it.
Now for something comletely off the wall - a pity that the USMC didn't haggle for marinised A-10s
