A STOVL aircraft, sure. That's a given. But seeing as STOVL didn't play nearly as big a role in TTL as it did in OTL, i don't think we'll see a supersonic stealth fighter. One of the big drivers for giving the amphib fleet high end fighters was the Falklands and how the Harrier fared. Without that, the Harrier will not be seen as a fighter, but as a bomb truck. So the USMC will eventually get a new aircraft to replace their AV-8Bs, but I doubt it's a fast fighter.
Not even that, really. While they were definitely cheaper than nuke boats, the Canadians realised just how badly they weren't prepared to operate nuclear submarines. And being honest, they didn't need them for their projected missions
Which is why I don't think the UK going hornet is realistic. But the author has made the decision.
I could see the FAA going with the Hornet, since it's a certified pain in the ass to develop a good carrier fighter. It's partly why the UK went with Phantom as well. But it is surprising that the RAF went with F/A-18s as well.
That’s rather over stating the case. I should imagine rather than becoming partners on joint Euro projects, it is more likely we see the British partnering with more American companies and projects, this was a really rough time for anyone to be trying to go it alone (the defense companies in particular were all looking for someone to share costs and infuse capital into projects, which mostly happened through a pretty radical merger and consolidation process). We could easily see the British continue being major players in the market of trainers of all sorts, as well as trainer derived light combat aircraft (and those will become more popular in the budget minded post Cold War period as they have much better operating costs than junky used Cold War leftovers). There is also the possibility of a Harrier successor continuing for mostly foreign markets, and the British are the experts on that. There is quite a lot of room for the British defense industry to be major players, but they can’t be major players in every field at once anymore, even the American industry will struggle in that regard. Basically OTL Britain took a very pan-European positive stance and did so at the expense of potential deeper partnership in other directions (US, Canada, Australia, Japan, India, etc.). It is possible that this TL the British see that other directions may make more sense. It is also possible that Britain maintains most of its original trajectory and the FA-18 is a bit of a one-off procurement choice, but if Britain partners with anyone on a next gen fighter, this time it makes more sense to be a joint project with the French for a carrier plane. So we could see an Anglo-French carrier capable plane and also a German/everyone else land only plane (or an Anglo-French effort could push the Germans to buy F15 or something American instead). There are a lot of ways things can change, and those changes are dynamic, each impacts the likely choices to be made by everyone else, so it is very hard to predict.
The Hornet could actually carry a slightly larger load of AAMs than even the Tomcat could. Differences in what they were designed for. The Tomcat (for example) was designed as a long range, high speed interceptor so carried half it's missile loadout recessed in the tunnel to minimize drag. But because of that, it limited the F-14 to eight missiles.
I was wondering about why the RAF would commit to an aircraft which doesn't meet their requirements, but then I wondered whether having two CATOBAR carriers might change the requirements slightly. Does the RAF need an aircraft with the range to patrol the North Sea and up in to the Norwegian Sea if the UK has aircraft carriers that can patrol up there? I'm sure that the RAF will vehemently press their case, but don't the Queen Elizabeth and Eagle turn the RAF long-range interceptor from a necessity in to a nice to have?
Only if there's a carrier and air group in position when you need one. With only two carriers and world-wide commitments, that situation may be quite unlikely.
