An extra level of commonality by operating the same variant reduces complexity but the difference is not that significant.
Strongly disagree. F-35 sensors and radar can link together between aircraft on an unprecedented level.
It is not the same as simply exchanging location coordinates through a datalink like 4th gen aircraft.
You are trying to tie to concepts together that have no logical connection. The quest for interoperability is not so great that the US gives aircraft away, nor is it so great that the US would intentionally restrict a domestic program with foreign partners for that reason alone.
I disagree. The F-35 networking is so great that the US will tell it allies to stay home if they cant access the network. The risk of friendly fire in a stealthy combat zone would be too great. So they either have to give the aircraft away to allies or go it alone in future conflicts. A joint program was the only way to force all allies to buy the F-35.
GW1, everyone worked well together and interoperability, or the lack thereof given the large number of different aircraft types, did not significantly impact operations.
Tell that to the family of the Tornado drivers shot down by friendly fire.
The F-22 has range enough for the mission type it needs to accomplish
I said the USAF needs a long range fighter.
You said the USAF already has one.
I pointed out the F-22 isnt a long range fighter.
You now say the F-22's range is enough and is not a long range fighter.
The USAF needs a long range fighter and does not have one.
The UK perhaps is seeking a Tornado replacement but that isn’t actually clear given the stated intention of the platform to replace Typhoon. Really the airframe will have to be multi-role and in that context an F-111 sized aircraft will likely be too big and costly to maintain.
The size of an aircraft doesnt have much to do with maintainance. A well built large aircraft can cost less to maintain than a poorly built small aircraft. Fuel burn is the biggest cost of a larger aircraft.
If they want an aircraft that has low fuel burn they would get more F-35's. So this points to tempest being much larger. Multirole is standard these days.
Japan is seeking a high speed interceptor with a large weapons load, not a long range bomber
Who mentioned the word bomber? I sure didnt. An aircrafts range reduces the faster you go. The F-22's range halves if it supercruises the whole flight making it almost useless. The more payload you carry range reduced as well. So Japan wants a long range fighter. They can simply not buy bombs for it if they dont want to use it against ground targets.
doubtful Sweden wants a long range bomber sized aircraft even though Saab wants to be involved in the program.
Saab as a civilian company would enter the program for the tech. Sweden isnt buying the USAF trainer aircraft but Saab teamed up with Boeing.
There are a few years of requirements gathering and partner building to go before this actually gets to the point where a valid size, weight and capability matrix can be built.
I'm sure you are as excited as I am regarding any developments and how the program will form.
Doubtful on a F136. That ship has sailed and RR themselves recognise they need to develop AETP technologies. That is where US engine tech is moving and where the engine for this concept needs to go. They could acquire under license that technology but I think the far more likely path forward is RR developing the technology themselves.
RR will not develop AETP tech for 100 aircraft for the U.K. Who would write that cheque?
The EJ200 is too small. As you know stealth aircraft with internal weapon bays are larger and heavier. So even with a thrust bump it would only have slightly more thrust than the single F135.
I am also totally skeptical regarding AETP tech. With a set fixed diameter engine the most powerful engine would be a pure turbojet. Adding a temporary larger path of bypass air means the core will have to be reduced. This core reduction would then cancel out most advantages.
I expect the gain will be less than 10%. You can either expect a 10% range increase with no thrust increase or a 10% thrust incresse with no range increase. Or an engine that provides 5% addition range and 5% additional thrust.
Performance wise you would be far better off fitting the F-35 fleet with two engine options. A low bypass engine with 20% additional thrust for speed and a high bypass lower thrust engine for 20% additional endurance.