Apologies in advance, I'm still trying to figure out how to use your "quote" system properly.
Michael O'Leary said:
OK, now you've leapt from wishing upon an airframe to completely rebuilding the navy too in your best of all possible worlds.
That's a lot of unsubstantiated conjecture with respect to being "almost certain" we'll buy into the F-35, "if it survives."
Now you need to do the estimate for the increase in naval power too.
Ummmm.
Actually, all I was talking about was wondering about the feasibility of putting some F-35Bs on ships, should they be bought. Hardly a 'best-of-all-possible-worlds' construction. you'll have to wait to see my proposal for that
And it consists of little conjecture, none of it unsubstantiated. Your view on the probability of the CF getting the F-35 may differ from mine, and that's fine, but that hardly makes my view unsubstantiated. Mine is based on the facts that
a) every foreign procurement contract the Canadian government issues weighs very heavily on domestic industrial offset.
b) Canadian gov has invested over $150 million directly into the F-35 program
c) Canadian government has also loaned/invested many times that amount into companies developing technologies for contracts in the JSF program
d) Canadian companies have over $400 million worth of contracts in the F-35 program already, and it hasn't even hit production yet
This is significant because, IIRC we already have more involvement in the JSF program than Eurofighter can offer in their program (I will try to include figures for that in my proposal). The F/A-18E/F is scheduled to be out of production (2012 or so) long before a CF-18 replacement is expected (and so far there are no export or follow-on orders, or even strong prospects). Although this IS conjecture, I highly doubt you would be able to extract several hundred million dollars worth of industrial offsets from Dassault/French gov/labour unions for the Rafale. F-22 is out of our price range. The JAS-39C is a possibility, but I have yet to hear any significant government official even speak it's name. Russian fighters are out for the obvious reason. The only other real option is never replacing the CF-18s with a manned fighter at all (which IS remotely possible, but not, in my opinion, likely).
Not to mention that every reputable aviation news source consistently names the F-35 as being Canada's most likely Hornet replacement.
I'm not trying to suggest that the F-35 is the best choice, just the most likely.
"Of course the amount of airframe commonality depends on which variants we get."
-You are simply (and incorrectly) nit-picking my semantics. I said 'of course' because it is a direct relation that should need no further explanation. And the word 'depends' does not make it indefinite. The statement is an indisputable fact. Absolutely no speculation or uncertainty of any kind.
Summing up, you can disagree with the 'almost certain' part, but that hardly makes my statements unsubstantiated.
And there have already been suggestions, from the DAO among others, that either the F-35A or F-35B variant be cancelled. Of the Pentagon's 9 largest platform procurement programs of the last 20 years (Paladin, Comanche, A-12, Sea Wolf, B-2, F-22, Stryker, F/A-18E/F, F-35), 3 were cancelled completely, 3 were cut by 80% or more (in terms of numbers of platforms), two are proceeding relatively well (but with very grave concerns about their inability to meet key performance goals), and one is still completely up in the air.
So adding a caveat that one of the F-35's variants might be cancelled or become prohibitively expensive due to numbers cuts is far from baseless speculation. It is merely prudence.
Now you need to do the estimate for the increase in naval power too.
Well, that's the whole meat and bones of the idea. It's also the hard part, and the largest part of the proposal I'm working on. (It' also what I was trying to ask here in the first place ;D)
I'm no expert in the field, so it's where I've had to spend most of my research. We'll see my results soon enough.
aesop081 said:
And what exactly do fighter aircraft have to do with ESM ?
The F-35 and F-22 were both designed from the beginning to be ESM platforms, in addition to their respective air superiority and multirole tasks. I'll elaborate a little more in the proposal, which should follow in a few days.
Ex-Dragoon said:
Quote
And as far as the whole ship-borne-fighter-thing goes, I was more thinking of giving the navy an increased capability in the more, well, 'naval' roles, like fleet air defence, anti-shipping, cruise missile defence, ESM, things like that.
I did not know you had that much pull to set policy and procure equipment.
Was this really a necessary post that contributed to the discussion? Or was it just a sarcastic barb? Did I mean that I personally would be buying these aircraft, and writing the policy to see them used in these roles?
Or perhaps I meant I *personally* would be using my superhuman matrix-like powers to fly over the fleet and secure them from harm. 8) :threat: (which would actually be pretty cool )
Or maybe I was just elaborating on what roles a shipborne fighter could play.
STONEY said:
THE F-35B is i think a STOVL which stands for short takeoff vertical landing. Notice thats short takeoff, not vertical takeoff. While it may be possible to take off vertically it cannot carry any usefull load if it does, hence it is mainly meant to make rolling takeoffs so could not normally operate from JSS . The Brits & Americans plan to use it from big deck carriers only to take advantage of long takeoff rolls with a decent load factor.
There has always been much discussion about the difference between VTOL, STOVL, ASTOVL, V/STOVL, other acronyms ad nausea.
There's a big difference between reducing your useful load, and not having any useful load. They can all take off vertically with some kind of load, it is just preferred that you take off conventionally if at all possible. What kind of weight the F-35B is capable of lifting vertically is completely speculative at the moment, but it will be substantially greater than the preceding generation of VTOL aircraft (Yak-38, Yak-141, and Harriers of various marks), and substantially less than a CTOL F-35. I've had to rely mainly on LM/BAe figures, and some extrapolations from the Harrier to come up with numbers, but I'll elaborate more on payload/mission weights in the proposal, which should be finished in a few days.
