Alternatives to F 35- no holds barred and no F-35 stuff please

[uk 75]

The F 35 thread is proving fascinating reading especially for people like me who have no engineering background.

However, I wonder if a separate thread is now necessary to explore what options exist to provide alternatives to F 35. Please assume that F35 is out of the equation as the existing thread already compares it with other systems-manned and unmanned.


Let me kick the ball off.

The RAF has a large number of Eurofighter Typhoons which are capable of being upgraded in various ways for both the fighter and strike roles.

Despite their limitations UAVs are able to cover some of the envelope, notably in the strike and recce roles.

The Royal Navy looks likely to get at least one of the two carriers for itself and possibly if the Economy ever comes good might get both of them.

I realise that the US Marine F35 programme is pretty solid but for the purposes of what-if lets assume that it gets knocked off course. Italy, UK and the US Marines, plus Spain and perhaps even France (it has a lot of spare flattops) could be in the market for a Super Harrier (Boeing and BAe have done much work on these possibilities). Alternatively the US Marines might opt for more F18s but the Harriers have proven their worth for the Corps, who must be ranked as the World's key STOVL user.

Looking further afield, Russia, China, Brazil, Japan, Korea, India would all be interested in a Super Harrier style aircraft for their own navies and even for their Marines or Air Forces. The Harrier formula of a "relatively" simple aircraft could be resurrected if F35 were not available.

Hope this helps the bar

 

[JFC Fuller]

By accident of history F-35B is now the RAF Tornado GR4 replacement (formerly FOAS then DPOC, officially abandoned in 2010) and the JCA Harrier replacement; those two roles need to be balanced, the obvious solution was to use the F-35C and fit cats to the QE class, that turned out to be too expensive for the period in which the money would need to spent due to the need to modify the ships. It is now difficult to see an alternative to F-35B due to the fact that virtually all alternatives would need catapults and thus the apparently too expensive modification to the ships. A super Harrier could not realistically provide the RAF's GR4 replacement.

The root of this problem was the RAF/RN attempting to sustain 3 aircraft programmes through all of the cuts that have happened since 1990 (the UK had 32 fast jet squadrons in 1990 and today it has 8 and this may fall to 7). Ideally JCA and FOAS/DPOC would have been mashed together in the mid 90s and the solution incorporated into the CVF programme. As it was the basic structure of UK fast jet procurement (3 programmes; Typhoon, JCA/F-35 and a GR4 replacement) remained intact for 20 years after the end of the Cold War whilst the UK Fast Jet force shrunk by 75%.

 

[sferrin]

The F 35 thread is proving fascinating reading especially for people like me who have no engineering background.

However, I wonder if a separate thread is now necessary to explore what options exist to provide alternatives to F 35. Please assume that F35 is out of the equation as the existing thread already compares it with other systems-manned and unmanned.


Let me kick the ball off.

The RAF has a large number of Eurofighter Typhoons which are capable of being upgraded in various ways for both the fighter and strike roles.

Despite their limitations UAVs are able to cover some of the envelope, notably in the strike and recce roles.

The Royal Navy looks likely to get at least one of the two carriers for itself and possibly if the Economy ever comes good might get both of them.

I realise that the US Marine F35 programme is pretty solid but for the purposes of what-if lets assume that it gets knocked off course. Italy, UK and the US Marines, plus Spain and perhaps even France (it has a lot of spare flattops) could be in the market for a Super Harrier (Boeing and BAe have done much work on these possibilities). Alternatively the US Marines might opt for more F18s but the Harriers have proven their worth for the Corps, who must be ranked as the World's key STOVL user.

Looking further afield, Russia, China, Brazil, Japan, Korea, India would all be interested in a Super Harrier style aircraft for their own navies and even for their Marines or Air Forces. The Harrier formula of a "relatively" simple aircraft could be resurrected if F35 were not available.

Hope this helps the bar

Let's not forget one of the requirements is stealth. That pretty much eliminates well, all of those alternatives. Shouldn't the thread be about *viable* alternatives else everybody could just use F-4s.

 

[pathology_doc]

Shouldn't the thread be about *viable* alternatives else everybody could just use F-4s.

That's probably taking it a little too far in the other direction.


Maybe at the end of the day, Stealth is just too expensive. (So also - as JFC points out - is buying into three major development programmes to support just nine squadrons' worth of aircraft. You could probably do this back in the 1920s or even up to the early 1940s, but not after - not unless your overseas sales figures are through the roof and you can't build them fast enough; then you can sustain all the programmes you want.)

 

[Triton]

Shrug, if we eliminate stealth from the discussion we just have Generation 4.5 upgrades to existing platforms. Is that really desirable? Or should a new Generation 4.5 program be initiated? We know the United States military isn't going to buy SAAB JAS 39 Gripen or Dassault Rafale. I really don't think we can put the stealth djinni back in the bottle considering the development of stealth platforms in Russia, China, and India. Not to forget Japan and South Korea. The discussion is moot considering that potential adversaries may have stealth technology.

To be an alternative, it really has to be an available choice at the time that the JSF decision was made. So if we look at the programs in the development pipeline we have Lockheed Martin/Boeing AFX-635 (A/FX), McDonnell Douglas/BAE Systems JAST, BAE Systems Replica, Northrop Grumman FB-23 Rapid Theater Attack, Lockheed Martin FB-22 Strike Raptor, and Tornado 2000. So how do these platforms fare in a comparison to the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II?

 

[GTX]

Well, taking the F-35 out of the equation leaves you with the following options as I see it (with the top couple being the most obvious for the Western Air Forces):

F/A-18E/F Super Hornet - probably developed along the lines of the "Super Hornet International Roadmap" that Boeing included in its offers to India
Typhoon - probably developed along similar lines with AESA, and other improvements over the years
Rafale - ditto
Gripen NG and ongoing developments...
F-16E/F/IN and developments - though just how long you keep going here is up to anyone...
F-15 - ditto...
Su-27/30/35 - ditto...
J-10 and developments thereof...
T-50 PAK-FA...
Various indigenous programs (e.g. Tejas)
UCAS
Some miraculous new program...

As for the VTOL/STOVL requirement, you are really left with the following options:

Revamp the Harrier yet again or more likely, just keep trying to keep the existing ones in the air through various upgrades and relifing programs
Try to get the Yak-41/43 happening again...
Get out of the VTOL/STOVL business...
Go the helicopter route...
Some miraculous new program...

 

[Triton]

I don't believe that the following are alternative selections for most Lockheed Martin F-35 customers:

Sukhoi Su-27/Su-30/Su-35/T-50
Chengdu J-10
HAL Tejas

Just can't see the Royal Netherlands Air Force, for example, operating Sukhoi Su-35 fighters.

 

[GTX]

I agree fully...hence why I put them at the bottom of the list...


In reality, if you remove the F-35 you are just going to see the same old battles fought between Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, F-16 and F/A-18E/F...


In all likelihood, you would see the Europeans (including Turkey probably) going for either Typhoon, or Gripen maybe with an odd Rafale here and there.


USAF gets more F-16s maybe some more F-15Es. USN getting more Super Hornets. USMC trying to keep some Harriers going but eventually going to the Super Hornet.


RAAF & RCAF going all Super Hornet.

 

[bobbymike]

Assuming NO F-35s then wouldn't there probably been more F-22s built?

 

[Arjen]

Assuming NO F-35s then wouldn't there probably been more F-22s built?

Yes, but a low-end companion would still be required - possibly more than one type.

 

[GTX]

Maybe, though I suspect that you wouldn't see too many more. You also wouldn't see them exported unless laws change...

 

[airfan1]

If there wasn't the f-35, the nations would tread water with 4th gen till the F-x, F-xx are done. It's time to give up any fantasies of eurocanards ruling the sky.

 

[LowObservable]

The question of "what is THE substitute for the F-35?" begs the question - that is to say, assumes to be fact what has to be proved.

The question, rather, is "how does airpower contribute to military operations in 2020 and beyond - and what does that tell us about platforms?"

The answer involves a lot more than platforms. It starts with what kinds of threats we expect, and involves an assessment of how information technology plays into warfare in all domains. Pretty obviously, too, the answer is filtered through affordability - real affordability, not pretending that we can make things for whatever sum of money we just pulled out of our ears.

I would also submit that the idea that every combat aircraft has to be stealthy is one that the US has been chasing for a long time, with a singular and expensive lack of success, so it is not exactly smart to take that as a going-in position, unless you have some brilliant idea about how to make an all-stealth fleet affordable.

 

[Triton]

McDonnell Douglas Super Harrier?

 

[GTX]

Folks/Mods,

May I suggest someone crops the pure F-35 debate bits from this "Alternatives to F 35- no holds barred and no F-35 stuff please" thread and merge it into the "The F-35 No Holds Barred topic" thread. I know the two topics are closely aligned but as per the topic title and original initiating post by UK75 "...explore what options exist to provide alternatives to F 35. Please assume that F35 is out of the equation..."

Regards,

Greg

 

[RyanC]

Short Term Alternative to F-35:

F-18H Blue Hornet -- Super Hornet developed for USAF to fill shortfall in fighter inventory, as the F-18 is the only teen-series airframe actually in serious production for US specifications.
All other teen-series airframes are specialized overseas export models which would be very hard to support.

Long Term Alternative to F-35:

Some sort of sensibly designed supercruising (Mach 1.6 to 2.2) high altitude aircraft, designed with a proper mix of low observables to reduce "cheap kills" from RCS spikes, and the proper mix of manouverability against speed/producibility -- because at a certain point it begins to cost a lot of money to develop a superagile aircraft -- there's a reason why nobody ever put a Forward Swept Wing aircraft into mass service.

Design it from the start as a USN aircraft, since you can always use the longer USAF runways and the stronger USN mandated airframe to carry heavier bombloads in Air Force service.

The extra attention paid to corrosion control by the USN would benefit the USAF in long term service.

Avoid temptation to make "variants" of the same plane, with a larger/smaller wing depending on which service is buying it. You just frankenstein the entire fleet that way -- F-35 was supposed to have 75% commonality of parts across all three models, now we're like just 12-15%, due to the need to reduce weight on the B model.

Speaking of the B model...if the Marines try to insert a VTOL/STOL requirement, take the offending officer who delivered it behind a woodshed...

 

[GTX]

Short Term Alternative to F-35:

F-18H Blue Hornet -- Super Hornet developed for USAF to fill shortfall in fighter inventory, as the F-18 is the only teen-series airframe actually in serious production for US specifications.
All other teen-series airframes are specialized overseas export models which would be very hard to support.

Good luck trying to get the USAF to accept the Super Hornet : . Besides, it will be easier and far, far less expensive (I suspect) for the USAF to introduce/support Block 50/60+ F-16s then it would be for them to introduce an entire new platform which has minimal if any commonality with anything else in service.

Long Term Alternative to F-35:

Some sort of sensibly designed supercruising (Mach 1.6 to 2.2) high altitude aircraft, designed with a proper mix of low observables to reduce "cheap kills" from RCS spikes, and the proper mix of manouverability against speed/producibility -- because at a certain point it begins to cost a lot of money to develop a superagile aircraft -- there's a reason why nobody ever put a Forward Swept Wing aircraft into mass service.

Design it from the start as a USN aircraft, since you can always use the longer USAF runways and the stronger USN mandated airframe to carry heavier bombloads in Air Force service.
Also, the extra attention paid to corrosion control by the USN would benefit the USAF in long term service.

If the Marines try to insert a VTOL/STOL requirement, take the offending officer who delivered it behind a woodshed...

Sounds like restarting a F-35 program... ...I'd be curious to see how any of the supposed issues with the F-35 program are to be avoided...

 

[JFC Fuller]

I didn't ignore, weapon sys costs are in the APUC and the swiss wouldn't have to pay any R&D costs just the FMS price based on the urf cost of the year brought and a 3% fee

But your numbers are out of date and the APUC cost is not the URF cost. My numbers are only LRIP up to the end of LRIP, the to complete numbers are almost entirely full rate production costs. The Swiss would have to pay the Weapons System Unit Costs or all they would get would be the aircraft without any support or even a lot of the testing: hardly a useful package.

 

[RyanC]

Besides, it will be easier and far, far less expensive (I suspect) for the USAF to introduce/support Block 50/60+ F-16s then it would be for them to introduce an entire new platform which has minimal if any commonality with anything else in service.

F-16 Block 50/60 requires monies to be paid to the UAE, who funded development of that platform/block, IIRC.

Sounds like restarting a F-35 program... ...I'd be curious to see how any of the supposed issues with the F-35 program are to be avoided...

I think the fault lies in two major issues:

A.) They sold the JSF as replacing just about everything that flies that shoots or drops a bomb that isn't a bomber as a way to "sell" the program back in the 90ies, adding programmatic complexity to fulfilling all these roles in a single joint-ish airframe.

B.) Concurrent with A, they did not do a realistic cost evaluation of the program in order to sell it to Congress -- "We can make the fighter do all of this, take off vertically, go supersonic, have F-117 level stealth or better, carry large bombs internally, etc etc and cost the same (or slightly more) than a current new-build F-16!"

A few of the requirements could have been met within their cost estimates, but not all of them.

 

[GTX]

Besides, it will be easier and far, far less expensive (I suspect) for the USAF to introduce/support Block 50/60+ F-16s then it would be for them to introduce an entire new platform which has minimal if any commonality with anything else in service.

F-16 Block 50/60 requires monies to be paid to the UAE, who funded development of that platform/block, IIRC.

Still doesn't really alter my point/position.

 

[airfan1]

no 4th gen is an alternative to 5th gen f-35, ask russia and china if they think a 4th gen is survivable in the near future.
a 15k lb empty weight 5th gen plane might be ok for those countries that want something cheaper to run, but it won't be a euro design..they haven't got the will or the money

 

[RyanC]

Still doesn't really alter my point/position.

Which is what? The USN is going to have a fleet of 515 F/A-18E/Fs and 114 EA-18Gs when all is done, with decent number of them being Block IIs, which use some JSF technologies, which is a good starting point for maintenance/operations of any Blue Hornet, which would use the same engines, radar, avonics, etc; just with different software loaded so it can use USAF-specific weapons.

 

[lastdingo]

F-35 alternative(s)

In the USMC (close air support and general maritime air warfare):

The desire/need for STOVL is very questionable unless the amphibious carriers ought to be used.
STOVL on land is quite superfluous. A tail hook and truck-mobile arresting gear and ski-jump set would serve about the same purpose.
The CAS mission has been turned into a "lotsa sensors to look down, some bombs" to drop mission that dosen't require radar stealth in any way.
IR stealth would at least make IIR-dependent SHORAD more tricky, butt hat's feasible with so-called gen 4.5 aircraft, too.
The maritime air combat role is obviously feasible with the Super Hornet (despite its wing design flaw). The F-35 is unlikely to become a peer to the likes of J-20, T-50 in air combat, so the USN and USMC air are going to have a hard time in some wargames 2020-2030 anyway.
I'd rate the F-18E/F as a realistic alternative, albeit naval Rafale is technically fine, too (not politically for the USN, of course).


In the UK RN (STOVL carrier ops):

Conversion of carrier to CTOL as intended for a short period lately, purchase of naval Rafale, forget about STOVL.


In the USAF (high tech bomber, more akin to a modern A-6 with some air combat capability than anything else):

The USAF could exploit short range cruise missiles (~ASMP-C, JASSM etc) and maneuvering SR ballistic missiles (~Iskander, LORA, unitary ATACMS Block II) against certain stationary high value targets. These known targets do not require penetration of defended hostile airspace unless they're so deep that they're not all that important to a land campaign anyway.
More demanding targets would be unsuitable for F-22s for want of a suitable sensor suite, and a FB-22 project would become a platinum-plated boondoggle.
The ground attack mission on tricky targets (military engineer bridges, tanks, air defence units and similar) would probably even overtax the F-35. It would probably need to stay at stand-off distance to avoid SHORAD if loaded with external ammunitions and wouldn't have strong arguments with internal store only. As a result, the F-35's stealth is probably rather substitutable in CAS and interdiction - its air/ground sensor suite not so much.
Gen 4.5 air/ground combat aircraft such as Rafale and even upgraded F-15E and their export offspring could serve as substitutes.
A modernised F-15 would certianly be disappointign to the USAF, but disappointments -be them F-15s for the 2020s or late and partially underwhelming F-35s - are the payback for being grossly incompetent in procurement and project management.


In small air forces of Europe, Canada and Australia (multi-role combat aircraft):

They need a reasonable all-round package, and it's not for sure that they would have been able to exploit the full potential anyway (problems beginning with maintenance of coating and extending to the very diverse pilot training that's far below 200 hrs/year in someF-35 customer air forces).
Again, Rafale fits the description best.

 

[airfan1]

you may be able to argue that the rafale may be an alternative to the hornet, but it's silly to say it's an alternative to the f-35

 

[GTX]

Still doesn't really alter my point/position.

Which is what? The USN is going to have a fleet of 515 F/A-18E/Fs and 114 EA-18Gs when all is done, with decent number of them being Block IIs, which use some JSF technologies, which is a good starting point for maintenance/operations of any Blue Hornet, which would use the same engines, radar, avonics, etc; just with different software loaded so it can use USAF-specific weapons.

I think you are overestimating USAF/USN cooperation. Just because the USN has a fleet of F/A-18E/Fs etc does not mean that the USAF would be any better off. The USAF would still need to train all its own people (operators and maintenance etc), buy all their own spares and S&TE, learn how to support these new platforms etc. They already have/know this for the likes of the F-16. Therefore, if they were to buy either of the two, the F-16 (in whatever latest block) would be the less expensive and easiest by far and away.

F-16 Block 50/60 requires monies to be paid to the UAE, who funded development of that platform/block, IIRC.

Parts of the Block 60 were funded by UAE. That does not necessarily mean however that the USA would pay anything to them. I think you will find that there are already contractual clauses in place that cover that. Besides, who said we would even be talking about a block 60 in this scenario. It may well be a Block 70/80 or just as easily more Block 50/52...

 

[RyanC]

I think you are overestimating USAF/USN cooperation.

So point out to me the dedicated USAF tactical jammer aircraft that replaced the EF-111?

Oh right, there isn't any, because the USAF has piggybacked off the EA-6B, and now the EF-18G for quite a while.

Just because the USN has a fleet of F/A-18E/Fs etc does not mean that the USAF would be any better off. The USAF would still need to train all its own people (operators and maintenance etc), buy all their own spares and S&TE, learn how to support these new platforms etc.

Manuals have already been written, etc; just need to add a new cover sheet to represent the fact that they're now a USAF manual # in addition to a USN manual #. Spares would be cheaper, since it's already in the system as a NSN number, and your spares would take advantage of already bought spares for the USN; in terms of cost/quantity curves.

Besides, who said we would even be talking about a block 60 in this scenario. It may well be a Block 70/80 or just as easily more Block 50/52...

At that point, you've blown cost/affordability curves out the window if you're talking of Block 70/80 F-16 with god knows what.

 

[RyanC]

you may be able to argue that the rafale may be an alternative to the hornet, but it's silly to say it's an alternative to the f-35

With the proper weapons loadout it would be.

People need to remember that the F-22/F-35 were conceived before (F-22) and during (F-35) the initial proposals for JDAM.
Now that we have ever smaller JDAM style weapons like SDBs, and wing kits and suchlike giving 30+ n.mi glide ranges for these weapons; the need for stealth to get close to a target to strike it is much obviated.

 

[sferrin]

Still doesn't really alter my point/position.

Which is what? The USN is going to have a fleet of 515 F/A-18E/Fs and 114 EA-18Gs when all is done, with decent number of them being Block IIs, which use some JSF technologies, which is a good starting point for maintenance/operations of any Blue Hornet, which would use the same engines, radar, avonics, etc; just with different software loaded so it can use USAF-specific weapons.

Which still isn't going to be anywhere near as survivable as the F-35. So you'll have to buy all the extra goodies to bring it up to snuff. (Stand off missiles, more powerful engines, new avionics, more EW aircraft, more tankers, etc. etc.)

 

[GTX]

So point out to me the dedicated USAF tactical jammer aircraft that replaced the EF-111?

Oh right, there isn't any, because the USAF has piggybacked off the EA-6B, and now the EF-18G for quite a while.

So, one specialised platform in a specialised role in small numbers where there is no other realistic alternative or more importantly in-service alternative makes the case...hmmm, I think not. :-\

Manuals have already been written, etc; just need to add a new cover sheet to represent the fact that they're now a USAF manual # in addition to a USN manual #. Spares would be cheaper, since it's already in the system as a NSN number, and your spares would take advantage of already bought spares for the USN; in terms of cost/quantity curves.

I'm sorry, but have you any actual experience in this sort of thing? It simply doesn't work that easily in the real world. Besides, you have still left out the need to train a whole new set of operators/maintainers etc. BTW, how do you factor in the complete changeover of aerial refuelling systems between the F-16 and F/A-18? Or is that just another little thing that doesn't matter? :

 

[GTX]

Besides, who said we would even be talking about a block 60 in this scenario. It may well be a Block 70/80 or just as easily more Block 50/52...

At that point, you've blown cost/affordability curves out the window if you're talking of Block 70/80 F-16 with god knows what.

Just reflecting the reality of the situation were it to happen... :

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Oh right the reason the USAF doesnt bother with its own is because its free to piggyback off prowlers and growlers. Here is a tip dont spend your services money on what another service provides you already free of cost.

Just for the sake of argument and because i hate the navy why should the air force change? How about a navy viper? Thousands more f-16s out there with more export potential as well. The navy already operates them as aggressors too.

Even if that never happened the air force would rather buy one spark viper than a thousand hornets

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

http://www.globalnews.ca/f-35+alternative/6442711404/story.html

Priceless

 

[RyanC]

Enginewise, Iroquois 2 was 231" long, 42" in diameter, and weighed 4,650 lbs putting out 20klbf of non afterburning and 30 klbf afterburning with a 0.85 non-reheat and 1.9 reheat SFC.

F100-PW-229 is 191" long, 46.5" in diameter weighing 3,740 lbs putting out 17.8 klbf of dry, and 29.1 klbf afterburning with a 0.76 non-reheat and 1.94 reheat SFC.

The modern engine is larger in diameter, but I'd need a detailed diameter diagram of the two engines to see how badly that would impact structural design changes needed to accomodate the throatier engines, and how that'd impact the aerodynamics testing needed to revalidate it.

Avonicswise, the Arrow was designed around the very large, very bulky avonics of the day; so fitting avonics from a F-15E into it would not require much repackaging.

The big problem I see is that Canada no longer has an aerospace industry basically to speak of.

By aerospace industry, I mean large companies capable of pulling together a large, disparate project like a large combat aircraft within budget and schedule.

Trainer with a simple weather radar in the nose sure...but not a large 70~ klbf MTOW aircraft with an advanced avonics system that needs to be carefully integrated to prevent inadverdent electrical glitches from firing missiles...

 

[RyanC]

BTW, how do you factor in the complete changeover of aerial refuelling systems between the F-16 and F/A-18?

Completely forgot about the two types of refuelling systems used by the US -- the USAF high pressure system, evolving from the need to fill up B-47s rapidly, and the USN lower pressure system evolving from the need to fill up smaller tactical aircraft.

The change of refuelling system to the USAF standard would justify the F-18H designation alone.

As for the other stuff; keep in mind that the F-16 family is starting to hit it's limits for future growth -- why else are the F-16E/F Blk 60 covered in bulgy CFTs and suchlike? The Blk 60s also top out at about 12 tonnes of payload (fuel/weapons), wheareas a stock Super Hornet's payload is 17 tonnes.

 

[RyanC]

So you'll have to buy all the extra goodies to bring it up to snuff. (Stand off missiles, more powerful engines, new avionics, more EW aircraft, more tankers, etc. etc.)

It's worth noting we live in a world where a 70 kilometer ranged battlefield rocket that strikes with a CEP of 5-10 meters and a penetration of several feet of reinforced concrete...costs $100,000 or less when bought in bulk (GMLRS), and a thousand-kilometer ranged stealth cruise missile with a 1,000 lb warhead costs about a million bucks (JASSM-ER)...

...It may be just simply cheaper to throw weapons at the enemy's air defenses until he exhausts his missiles.

Right now, it costs the US Army about $3.1 to $3.8 million per Patriot PAC-3 missile, and the US Navy about $3.68m per SM-2 Block IIIB; which provides us with a baseline for what per missile cost is for high end SAM systems, since the Russians never have IIRC released per missile costs for S-300.

A defense analyst once opined that air defenses could still defeat an enemy attack, even in defeat; via taking out a significant portion of the enemy's attacking force...but that was from a time when the US Navy paid $2.6 million FY86 dollars for each Tomahawk ($5.34 million in 2011 dollars).

What happens when it's simply cheap enough to throw sub-million dollar cruise missiles with ranges long enough (several hundred kilometers), that prevent the launching platforms from being engaged by defending SAM systems?

 

[SpudmanWP]

http://www.globalnews.ca/f-35+alternative/6442711404/story.html

Priceless

Funny thing, the video makes no mention of the development and production costs involved.

 

[GTX]

It always amuses me how the nostalgia aspect kicks in. I suppose the next will be the UK should go the TSR.2... :

 

[shedofdread]

It always amuses me how the nostalgia aspect kicks in. I suppose the next will be the UK should go the TSR.2... :

No need - a Buccaneer and a large tin of stealth paint will suffice...

 

[Avimimus]

Avonicswise, the Arrow was designed around the very large, very bulky avonics of the day; so fitting avonics from a F-15E into it would not require much repackaging.

The big problem I see is that Canada no longer has an aerospace industry basically to speak of.

By aerospace industry, I mean large companies capable of pulling together a large, disparate project like a large combat aircraft within budget and schedule

Simple - contract out parts of the more difficult production to India... or work on less optimised production at home (but keep the jobs in the country).

As for the R&D - design an aircraft from the era when aircraft were cheaper, better yet - pick an aircraft which has already reached pre-production run stage.

It would give us a long range patrol and strike capability over the arctic... the higher performance could help compensate for the fact that the design would have as much RCS reduction as the Eurofighter. Of course, we could just buy the Mig-31BM... But, the important thing - Canada's requirements are for a long-range, twin engined design - one which favours a smaller number of high performance designs instead of large numbers of well integrated, slower and stealthier fighters.

 

[Avimimus]

http://www.globalnews.ca/f-35+alternative/6442711404/story.html

Priceless

Funny thing, the video makes no mention of the development and production costs involved.

Presumably those were included in the bid. The development costs (to the prototype stage) are already complete. Redesigning for modern materials. Fitting newer engines and purchasing a newer avionics sweet are all that is required.