Why not? The F/A-18, Rafale M, MiG-29K, are carrying out all those roles right now.

Hmmm.

For the naval view.

The F/A-18 is a poor airframe, kinematic performance is heavily compromised for approach.

The Rafale is the best of the three cited*, but has so-so range without drop tanks, the radar aperture is not exceptionally large for independent BARCAP.

The MiG-29K has insufficient range without external tanks, as with the Rafale, the nose isn’t really big enough for a honking radar for independent BARCAP.

The F/A-18 and Rafale are quite expensive, too expensive for CAS.

Everyone of those cited has their faults, including faults I have not listed.

*No doubt due to being designed from the start as a carrier capable aircraft.

I believe multirole is more flexible and thus cheaper, (they can be re-armed depending on mission unlike dedicated)

Just in case I’m reading you wrong – are you confusing multi-role (i.e. fighter, interceptor, bomber) with multi-force (air force, naval)?

To be clear (I suppose I never explicitly outlined this earlier) – I am a complete advocate of retaining the former, albeit without loosing focus of priorities. I do not support the latter, as the compromises necessary are simply too much resulting in a poor aircraft.

The big costs of any fighter are through-life, support, logistics, spares, etc. and the design and R&D phase that precedes it!

When you delve into it, you will find the bulk cost of every one of those things you’ve listed will be system or sub-system support.

Be it engine, radar, electronics, avionics, landing gear mechanisms etc.

Besides – at the end of the day, these are supposed to be warplanes. If having an aircraft 10% more capable means you aren’t hit and don’t need to rebuild half an airframe, your saving on spares (right when you need the aircraft most) right there!

Wherever you can leverage a common airframe, then it makes enormous financial sense to do so.

Not when it significantly compromises the capability of the airframe.

would it have been cheaper in the end to have stuck to dedicated designs?

Dedicated airframes.

However, use common engines, sensors, equipment etc as much as possible.

For instance – if the USN had decided to build a proper naval heavy fighter – you’d spec up something like:

If the USAF wanted a lo to complement the F-22.

If the USMC insisted on its STOVL

So, in the end you could have:

So, you’d still get the best aircraft for each service.

3 separate airframes, without aerodynamic compromises but common systems where possible = the best of all worlds.

1 common airframe with many aerodynamic compromises is a joke. JSF is a result of structuring a program that is more tailored to political ideals than engineering reality.

I had heard of inevitable delays to the program some time ago – but these seem to have not materialised – or gone public – perhaps Bombardier managed to get the program back on schedule (I have my doubts though).

The current A320, A320NEO and 737 backlog is a good thing for Bombardier – while the 737MAX will capture many orders in 2012, if airlines want a fuel efficient plane sooner, they’ve little option but to go for the CSeries.

Unfortunately, if the global economy continues to stagnate, the airlines may not want any new aircraft any time soon.

especially since the French are trying their hardest to destroy the British economy.

Do you not realise the City of London have already largely succeeded in destroying the British economy?

I’ll not fault Sarkozy for wanting clamp down on the wan… I mean bankers. They are a bunch of overconfident fools that don’t even understand the business they are in!

You still haven’t answered my point, an attacker entering the defended zone at M1.2 (and with a low RCS) is going to have a better chance of surviving and completing its mission, regardless as to whether it has to face Rafales, MiG-29s PAKFAs or J-20s, true?

Yip.

I think the argument everyone is basically making is:

Better to go at Mach 1.4 and have a LO (X/Ku-band) signature from a few angles, than go at Mach 0.9 and have a VLO (X/Ku-band) signature from a few angles.

Regardless of your LO/VLO – search radar will detect you from useful distances to vector fighters* onto your ass. Sure, SAM X/Ku-band tracking radar may not be able to fix you at useful ranges – but that won’t matter when the other guy nails you with his IRST or radar from the flank.

*The original USAF hi/lo doctrine called for the F-22s to be on nearby CAP to clear these opfor fighters away using its superior kinematics to see, engage and kill before the opfor can deal with the F-35 or F-22. But with only 182 F-22s gonna be built, the JSF will have to do this itself (probably in a separate flight element, but same problems apply).

Basically, the assumptions made in formulating the ATF/JAST doctrine are no longer valid; due to (a) the scarcity of F-22s and (b) the poor flight performance of the F-35.

I wish Canada would buy the Super Hornet and be done with it. This thing is a pig in a poke, plain and simple.

Nah… They should buy the Su-35.

That would really put the cat among the pigeons! :diablo: 😀