...possibly.

https://www.skiesmag.com/news/dassau...ement-project/

BV

One other thing. For BEagles’ benefit. Aside from the fact that, as already mentioned, every jet I can think of has a tail hook nowadays. Any jet landing in your ‘middle of nowhere’ might be lucky to find a runway with a cable in the first place. And there aren’t many asphalt runways in the middle of nowhere anyway.

I understand your point about drogue refuelling but I still don’t think anyone would buy the F35C if they did not plan to put it on a carrier. The A model, even unrefuelled, has pretty good range. Add external fuel tanks (fine for a Q scramble) and it’ll be even better.
The NORAD tasking could easily justify the use of a USAF tanker and anywhere else they can rely on the US anyway. Or maybe buy some new tankers.

Again, this is only semi uninformed ramblings not scientific fact so please take it at face value.

Twitter

My bad. Good spot.

Assumption on my part. You know what happens when you assume...

BV

IIRC the wing pylons were originally planned to be wet, but the piping was removed as part of the weight saving program.

I believe the IAF F-35s have the piping installed and that Cyclone have a contract to provide 480g underwing tanks and Elbit to provide conformal fuselage tanks.

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/336925615844218041/

Knew the others did, didn’t know the F-117 had a hook.

You Tube

Does it say somewhere that it can’t handle an approach end engagement? There have been plenty of approach end engagements in various jets with a ‘USAF-style’ hook. Even did a few myself, and it wasn’t a problem.

Latest is Dassault won’t be competing with the Rafale due to the difficulty in incorporating the interoperability required by the contract terms.

Are you, or were you ever a, FJ pilot?

I would love to watch you try and convince every FJ pilot that ever lived that they would have been better off without drop tanks.

I think we could all give you numbers from previous aircraft types to convince you otherwise. I’m pretty sure that, if F35 were to ever be fitted with drop tanks, it would follow a similar pattern.

F16 Guy and UD, I agree with your points about stealth vs DTs.

BV

There are times stealth matters.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....bcbdf9cefb.jpg


Other times not so much........

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....789d3283a7.jpg

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019...r-competition/

US, Canada talks underway to decide if the F-35 will be pulled from Canada’s fighter competition

VICTORIA, British Columbia — The U.S. is threatening to pull the F-35 from Canada’s fighter jet competition if the ally to the north doesn’t change requirements for the winning bidder to stipulate specific industrial benefits for domestic firms. The U.S. government is arguing that since Canada is a partner in the F-35 program it cannot request guaranteed industrial benefits for its companies.......

The Canadian government plans to purchase 88 new jets to replace its aging CF-18 fighter aircraft fleet. Canada will require that a robust package of guaranteed industrial benefits or offsets be provided by the winning bidder, government officials have said. But the U.S. government has objected to that, as Canada is still a partner in the F-35 program, which does not guarantee participating nations a set number of contracts. Work on the F-35 program is based on best value and price.

U.S. Navy Vice Adm. Mathias Winter, program executive officer for the Joint Strike Fighter, wrote Canadian procurement officials Dec. 18, 2018, pointing out that the F-35 agreement prohibits partners from imposing requirements for industrial benefits. “We cannot participate in an offer of the F-35 weapon system where requirements do not align with the F-35 Partnership," he noted in his letter.......

The letter has prompted ongoing discussions between Canadian and U.S. procurement officials in an effort to work out some kind of solution, multiple industry and government sources told Defense News. But the Canadian government will also respect any decision by the U.S. to not bid the F-35 if an agreement can’t be reached, sources added.......

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds...ints-1.4416420

Feds look to ease requirements for fighter-jet makers after U.S. complaints

I will admit that I haven’t been keeping up to date on the RCAF fighter issue and I am too lazy to read back through the thread. However, I believe I am right in saying that, due to a prior dispute, Boeing are currently not planning to enter the process.

I have talked previously about the Canadian obsession with twin engined jets. As it stands, the only twin engined jet expected to enter the process is Typhoon.

BV🤭

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/air...ters-1.5265665

Airbus pulls out of Canada's fighter jet competition

One of the companies in the race to replace Canada's aging fleet of CF-18 jet fighters has dropped out of the competition.

Airbus Defence and Space, which was pitching the Eurofighter Typhoon, notified the Liberal government Friday that it was not going to bid. The decision was made after a detailed review of the tender issued by the federal government in mid-July.

The move leaves only three companies in the $19 billion contest: Lockheed Martin Canada with its F-35; Boeing with the Super Hornet; and Saab, which is offering an updated version of its Gripen fighter.

Simon Jacques, president of Airbus Defence and Space Canada, made a point of saying the company appreciated the professional dealings it had with defence and procurement officials. “Airbus Defence and Space is proud of our longstanding partnership with the Government of Canada, and of serving our fifth home country's aerospace priorities for over three decades," Jacques said in a statement. "Together we continue in our focus of supporting the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces, growing skilled aerospace jobs across the country and spurring innovation in the Canadian aerospace sector."

In a statement, Public Services and Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough said she accepted Airbus's decision. “We understand that participation in this competition represents a significant commitment for suppliers, and we respect this business decision," she said. "We would like to thank the U.K. Government and Airbus Defence and Space for their participation and thoughtful feedback during this process."

Airbus decided to withdraw after looking at the NORAD intelligence security requirements and the cost it imposes on companies outside of North America. It also said it was convinced that the industrial benefits regime, as written in the tender, "does not sufficiently value the binding commitments the Typhoon Canada package was willing to make.".........

One defence expert said few people who have been following the file are surprised by the decision. Dave Perry, a military procurement specialist at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said that at times Airbus appeared to be "the least enthusiastic of the remaining four" bidders. “I do have the sense they had reservations," he said.

The company's reference in its departure statement to NORAD security issues is significant, he said.

Saab is now the only European bidder among the competitors. Sweden, where Saab is based, does not have a preferred intelligence-sharing arrangement with Canada and the U.S. If Britain, which backed the Eurofighter bid, believes it cannot meet the stringent NORAD intelligence-sharing measures without significant cost, Perry wonders what that does to Saab's bid.

"It'll be interesting to see if they can put forward a proposal that the Canadian government thinks is workable," Perry said.......