If it was called Sea Hornet then would it not be Sea Hornet FA22 as the last Sea Hornet in FAA service was the de Havilland Sea Hornet NF21 – just imagine how confusing it would be when the FAA turns up at say Red Flag with their squadron of Sea Hornet FA22’s which strangely look almost identical to the USN F/A-18 E/F’s

(thud – hand slapping head) – yeah my bad, it would be Sea Hornet FRS18 not the other way round otherwise it would be GR4 Tornado and not Tornado GR4 as it is currently!

On more serious but definitely more flawed tack (as I expose my lack of understanding for a) requirements for RCS and b) improving aerodynamics)

Silent Harrier – A Harrier II with increased use of composites, quadraplex fly by wire, AESA radar, blended intakes, improved Pegasus engine, refined aerodynamics so that it can top out M1 with A2A load out of 4 AMRAAM and two ASRAAM, and finally improved nozzle system and other refinements to improve IR signature.

Designed as a cheaper alternative to the F-35B mostly brought by RN and hailed a success by Boeing 🙂 despite low sales as Boeing never get the large order needed to get the flyaway cost down to be significantly lower than the F-35B. When it is retired in 2040 by the RN hailed as a classic which punched above it weight during numerous low level conflicts

While I will not disagree with your sentiments, I think what LM seemed worried about was the Partner Countries (to the F-35 Programme) not purchasing aircraft rather than the sub-contractors like RR inflating the price -now I am calmed down a bit it could be that LM is looking at A400M and seeing the partner countries for the A400M holding off their purchases which has left Airbus spending their own money and want to avoid a repeat of the situation.

However the UK does not need to order until next year and based on what I have read the initial order was always going to be around 50 aircraft so it might be that LM real battle is going to be repeat orders as I imagine a lot of Partner Countries planned staged purchases and they will only likely commit to the initial purchase at this point.

what is kiss?

K.I.S.S means Keep it simple stupid – it is an engineering idea that the more complex something is the more points of failure you introduce.

I think it is unlikely you will see lots of F-35B’s falling out of the skies but I would expect them to require more frequent maintenance than the A or C, and that over it lifetime a F-35B may need a lot of work on the lift fan compared to other systems.

Then why did LM make the statement to Jane’s Defence Weekly that industrial participation for partner countries was to be set by them ordering soon the full number of aircraft originally planned?

More doom and gloom – a prediction of the outcome of the SDSR:

http://www.defencemanagement.com/feature_story.asp?id=14682

Force structure changes
The SDSR findings that will capture the headlines will be those dealing with cuts in force structures rather than capabilities per se. Work (and argument) continues but, even if the costs of Vanguard replacement somehow disappear from the needs of the next decade, this author would expect:
• No more than one carrier to survive the review;
• The intention to buy 138 Joint Strike Fighters to be cut to less than 50;
• Significant cuts in the number of active RAF combat aircraft
• Significant cuts in tank regiments and the Royal Artillery
• An intention to withdraw UK troops from Germany

Other credible possibilities include retiring Tornado early, absorbing the RAF Regiment and Royal Marines into the Army and ending the Navy’s capability for amphibious warfare. Each service is lobbying vigorously for its roles and assets with the Army being keenest to support its headcount (a cut of more than 10,000 would be viewed as highly damaging) whereas the Navy and RAF are focussed on their equipment. There might be reluctance to abandon Tornado at this stage until the remaining uncertainties of delivery date, cost and performance of the JSFs have reduced, but the RAF remains keen on the US multi-role aircraft.