How much do you think it would cost to develop 2 engines? 5 billion each or something like that?

They will certainly at least check if the 2 planes cannot use a common engine.

Another question is, will it be exportable? That would help increase the production run. Will it have common parts with the super hornet’s successor? Could it be possible to use a scalable radar that could fit on the 2 planes with different antennas? Could the cockpit even be common or almost and with nearly identical software?

They are certainly going to look at synergies between the 2 programs.

Accelerating the F-X would make sense to replace the F-15Cs because they will be REALLY long in the tooth.

The USAF might also chose to reduce the number of F-35s to get more of a long range strike fighter akin to an FB-22. They could stop producing the F-35 in 2035 or so and start ramping up the new plane in order to build more of them.

The F-35 will also need its replacement around 2045, so the USAF will have only 7-10 years or so to build the F-X if the F-35 production ends in 2038, and if they don’t want to overlap too much the production of the F-X and the of the successor of the F-35.

Maybe a relatively lightweight FB-22 with F-35 avionics, adaptative engines and HEL would do the trick, w/o too much risk in R&D cost and production cost. I doubt there would be a large difference in stealth between an FB-22 and the design in the picture in the post 214.

They will investigate a lot of ideas, but one can hope they will not shoot too high.

There are always lessons to be learned…

The point is that the USAF accepted some risks in embracing the strategy it has. It has a huge fleet of relatively un-upgraded 4th generation jets right now, but by ~2019 it will have several hundred operational F-35s in the full block III configuration. Every year after that will see another fighter wing worth of F-35s entering the force structure.

Like what?

And what makes you think that a heavy fighter would not end up like the F-22 program? Whatever path they chose, they should shoot for at least 400-500 planes otherwise it is not worth it.

In any case, the recapitalization of the USAF has been a failure. Originaly the F-16 and F-15 were not supposed to remain in service that long and we know what happened. Now they are trying to avoid a catastophe with their inventory. Talk about a failure…

Now models take into account clouds and water vapor. The water vapor is a short term positive feedback.

The Rafale’s conformals are exactly as far along as those on the Eurofighter and Super Hornet… that is to say they could be fully developed and ordered but nobody has yet.

Even if they were ordered conformal tanks wouldn’t boost the Rafale’s range to equal that of the F-35, the Rafale would still need external tanks.

Finishing the CFTs would be rather straightforward. The F-35 has no CFTs in the works at all.

Of course it would give the rafale a better range than the F-35A. Your statement is ludicrous, I don’t even know why I waste time replying to that.

You think that is a new idea?

It was not a new idea for Dassault for sure, the M2000 had the same type of tank. Apparently it is a new idea for LM…

Yes, you would expect better performance. I think its orders so far make it clear that the performance is there.

Better aerodynamics performance remains to be seen. In terms of stealth yes the F-35 is superior. In terms of sensors, it has some advantages but the rafale is well equipped too. Was it worth 60 billion R&D is anybody’s guess. But F-35 fanboys would still argue it was worth it even if the R&D had gone to 120billion. They love the idea of the 3 variants plane so much that they can’t even fathom that it could have been better with a different path 15 years ago.

It is now to late to cancel the F-35 but for goodness sake making the plane has been a PITA. And they still have problems with the F-35B’s airframe with the crack they are trying to fix. Not what you would expect from a world class fighter aircraft manufacturer.