Is that 26000lbs engine in flight tests?. F-22/T-50 does not need huge nose as they are designed for reduced rcs in front. but they do have much bigger noses than EF/Rafale class fighters.

No, predicted figures. EF customers have never expressed greater thrust interests nor reduced engine life cycles atm, however with cft’s and larger loads maybe someone might want the increased capability, it may provide supercruise performance approaching the F-22 with those levels of thrust.

It only says radar weight will increase by 100kg. it doesnot say airframe weight increase in reaction to weight increase of heavier radar. it could enter service in 2017.
I dont think EF engine power is more than F-18E or RD-33MKM. and neither is nose size. so radar performance would not be that much more. at most 250km range against fighter size target.

Airframe weight is increasing not just aesa weight but also strengthening of the airframe for cft’s.

Future EJ200’s have been quoted with thrust figures up to 26,000lb’s. No idea what sort of lifespan degradation however. Go check things before you claim your usual bull.

Does the F-22 have a huge nose, does the T-50?

how is fuel fraction identical?. Sukhoi fuel fraction is close to 68%. and you dont even know the weight increase that will come with electronic scanning radar on EF.
Sukhoi designed for external pods on wingtip. and 4AAM between the engines. very effective combination without any impact on aircraft performance.

100kg weight increase predicted for new radar.

http://media.aerosociety.com/aerospace-insight/2013/03/08/typhoon-the-best-is-yet-to-come/7851/

Typhoon has excess power in its earlier guises however possibly tranche 3 versions combined with cft’s may justify expanding the EJ200’s performance envelope but I doubt it with initial partner nations, already has insane combat T/W ratios.

To cut development costs.
The only way that the Pentagon convinced Washington to fund a new platform was that this new “all dancing, all singing, very affordable” aircraft was going to replace almost every tatical combat jet in the inventory, while at the same time the development costs would be a lot lower than developing three new aircrafts.
In the end, they might have been right, we just have to look at the A/F-X and the massive beast that it was to imagine what it would cost to have the Navy, the USAF and the Marines to design three diferent programs with their own specifications. They would all be axed along the way…
Would it be possible to avoid this massive budget overrun and delayed deliveries in the JSF program?
Yes, but hindsight a decade and a half latter is all very well and nice but irrelevant.

Cheers

Thanks for the reply.

Still there was no specification or program to literally develop the F-16 mark II. Yes more development costs but ensuring guaranteed sales potential to be similar (maybe more) to the original F-16 would have outweighed these. However justifying the the marines, RN stovl requirement by a single type with the same specs of the F-35 I doubt would be possible at all.

In my opinion the F-35B as a stovl aircraft is truly excellent, but at the cost of the A and C.

And the F-35A/C is a perfect example of that !

(trying to learn) Can I ask why the JSF was to be only a single platform to satisfy all the requirements instead of 3 distinctly different versions made by manufactures, one conventional, carrier and stovl? Why not award Lockheed one or two and Boeing the remaining (assuming they produced ac unto standard)

Are the costs of development, training, operational costs (predicted to be very high) and poor kinematic performance not outweighing the single origin design.

Would it have been smarter to actually produce a new LO F-16 type ac, the F-35a is getting there but still is very different, surely this would have had mega bucks sales potential instead of compromising everything into one type.

I.e Cheaper, more capable performance (non compromised design) that more importantly would actually meet the requirements of many of the EU nations, etc…