Tim, you're an absolute rookie. A neophyte. The greenest tree in the most virgin forest would laugh at your posts.
>>I would think anybody would accept that no matter what the criteria, we certainly don't need the F-35, nice though it would be. Common sense would suggest that it would be far better to "navalise" a final batch of Typhoons (especially when BAe have repeatedly said that it can be done fairly inexpensively) and forget about another whizz-bang jet that, in practical terms, offers the RAF and FAA absolutely nothing of any practical value which can't be achieved with Typhoons.
Except that the UK carriors don't have catapults, and unless you want the "analised" Typhoons to land and never take off again, it is no option.
Furthermore, navalising an aircraft, if it is suitable in the first place, which the streamlined Typhoon is not, adds thousands of pounds to the undercarriage and landing gear. The Russies tried what you think you know, adding a sling to the back only and hoping for the best, and watched silently as the front fuselage of the Mig-29 serenely detached itself from the rest of the shrieking caught aircraft and sailed down the runway before disappearing with a human scream off the front of the shop.
>>Okay, you can drift into Air Forces Monthly-esque fantasy trips about what weapons can be carried or what g can be pulled, blah, blah, but let's be realistic here - unless the Typhoon is already considered to be obsolescent (and it would seem that for the first time in its history the RAF has actually got a fighter that actually isn't *gasp*) then I do find the slightly misplaced eagerness for the F-35 quite comical.
The F-35, go read the clues, will be simply astonishing and simply a step and in many cases many steps up from the EF. It is impossible now for example to add the sensors that F-35 would have without adding massive weight to EF and affecting its centre of gravity. F-35 was designed from the bottom up as a true 5th gen multi-role naval fighter, the EF was a air superiority fighter now clipping on lots of weird ****.
>>As Engines outlined on Page2 of this thread, the Typhoon and F-35 are indeed very different aircraft but not sufficiently different to convince any self-respecting bean counter to accept that there's a good case to buy more than we need of either type, especially when (as has been said repeatedly) HM Forces are woefully short of many other assets which are arguably just as (or more) important.
Nuts!
>>You only have to look back through the pages of PPrune to see that we all saw this coming for a long time. Even our beloved cousins across the Atlantic have started to appreciate that there comes a point at which the endless quest (usually encouraged by industry for very obvious reasons) for more advanced weaponry starts to look a tad pointless when there's scarcely enough money to finance what is already available.
You need more advanced weaponry because the big players are all going stealth, and unless in a mere 75 years you want to move from the most advanced aerotech industry to being totally obsolete, a la muskets in front of further shooting rifles, siege cannons in front of basilisks, you would have to invest.