Quote:
Originally Posted by btimbit
Can you expand on this though? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.
|
Sure.
First of all, integration into the revised C&C network (which is being implemented to replace the mid-1990's tech of our "North Warning System") is going to be problematic from a software/avionics perspective. This is why Airbus and and Dassault both bailed on the idea of bidding for the contract.
Secondly? The JAS-39E (while a wholly capable WVR dog fighter, unlike the F-35A) will suffer
increasing integration problems with our anticipated mission tasking overseas.
Not initially.
But over the
40 year life-cycle of it's anticipated RCAF service, it is going to be left way behind...and so will we.
To boot?
While neither of these two are "long legged" (by any stretch of the imagination), the F-35A is considerably better if you look at both aircraft in a "clean condition".
The JAS-39 can not really do the NORAD thing (even a "short range" trip from CYOD), without a full set of gas cans. F-35A would be challenged in this regard as well,
but it can easily do it in a clean configuration with a dedicated force of (say 4/6) tankers based in YWG, that topped off the internal fuel over Northern Alberta/Quebec. The reason is that once it['s off the ground, this thing gets MPG like you wouldn't believe.
If you tried using the JAS-39 like this, it would still be Bingo fuel before it ever got to the "pointy end" and be looking for a place to roost.
IOW?
The "super cruise" aspect of the F-35A's performance envelope is one that is frequently overlooked.
It is already recognized that we are going to need to replace the CC-150 Polaris fleet concurrent with this new fighter capability, so this should not be seen as something that is yet another
costly addition to the CF-188 replacement project. The CC-150's (circa mid-late 1980's) are timed out and are bringing an insufferable maintenance burden as a consequence. (Much like the CF-188 fleet...LOL).
The severe downside to going with the F-35A is going to be the Billions of dollars that we will need to spend in infrastructure upgrades at our two fighter bases (YOD and YBG).
This aircraft requires a set of handling environments that are light years beyond our current capabilities.
In consideration of the fact that we have been kicking this can down the road since the early 1980's?
It's about time we addressed this matter, concurrent with the project.
CYOD got the bulk of the serious infrastructure upgrades in the early 1980's due to it's position as the designated base for conversion training associated with the CF-188 program.
Bagottville (CYBG) is (for all intents and purposes) very much the same as it was back in the middle of the cold war.
Round back hangers built to the 1950's RCAF ADC specification, supplemented with a couple of steel curtain wall shelters slapped up over the course of 40 odd years.
CYOD (with the exception of the "new" 10 FTTU, and the attendant Simulator) has remained very much the same.
I was still living there when McDonald's came to town (Grand Centre).
Now that was a serious infrastructure upgrade!!!
LMFAO...
YMMV but? Been there, Done that.
Cheers, Ron