You mean the same operators that operated the F-16 or the F/A-18 vs the likes of Mig-29, Su-27, Mig-31, Mig-25 among others?? Yeah..The answer to get that level of capability (i.e. multiple stealth types) is to invest money in developing or acquiring them, however that is not within reach for most NATO customers so they will invest in an aircraft just like they invested in the F-16 back in the day and that has served them quite well over the decades through an MLU and upgrades)..As far as thrust, and particularly dry thrust, you will not get a heck of a lot of capability addition unless you are willing to sacrifice in other areas..Its quite simple..short of adaptive engines you will have to trade other areas if you want to get more dry thrust and more overall thrust. Its a multi-role fighter that takes over the F-16 mission set that includes air to air, CAS, SEAD/DEAD and needs a combination of design features to provide supersonic capability, subsonic loiter, cruise, ability to give good range without bags at 30,000 (Targeting pods and weapons operate best here) and also have some ability to go up and fight the air battle. The F-16 is no F-15C up at 45,000 fleet. The F-35 is also no F-22A at 45-50K feet but adaptive engines will most likely narrow that gap (but those are some time away)..Similarly the F-22A despite of the "A" doesn't do so well in terms of range and range/payload when flying at 30,000 feet..Its all a trade-off.Kanson wrote:Problem is not to US, it is for whom who buy F-35 but cannot get F-22. And to tackle Su varieties and the coming PAK-FA , J-20 etc, it is an eternal dilemma whether F-35 alone is sufficient.brar_w wrote: Dry thrust is not an issue with the JSF..It never had super cruise as a requirement because range was the absolute driver for the design along with the requirement for a single engined fighter. The bypass ratio of the F135 and the thrust class is designed around the engine. If they wanted a super cruising air to air fighter they could have made one. Use an engine with a similar bypass ratio to the F-119, reduce the 2000 pound bomb carriage and lift the CAS range and loiter requirements and you would have had a different looking aircraft with a different mission profile. It would have made a lousy F-16 or F-18 replacement but you would have gotten that performance from it without needing to get more dry thrust (or wet for that matter). All in all thrust is important and thrust to weight is an indicator, but the real indicator is and always is thrust to weight minus drag and as your design changes and evolves as they do when multi role mission sets are demanded you have to make trades..Its no longer the "NOT A POUND FOR AIR TO GROUND mentality that survives in multi-role fighters...
How is a NATO nation that uses an all F-35 fleet or a mixed F-35 and F-16 any different from the French that operate an all Rafale or a Rafale+M2K fleet?? Air Combat is not just about being able to slug it out against near peer threats, you have to strike at ground targets, support your soldiers, conduct ISR, Electronic Warfare and support other services in whichever way you can. When Nations can afford only one fighter they choose one that performs each of the mission-sets..Thats a primary reason that most defensive air-forces in Europe do not have a mach 2.5-3 Interceptor to fend off against bombers, a mach 2 figther to fend off against Su-35's, and PAKFA's and a subsonic strike aircraft for SEAD and perhaps some A-10's for CAS. None can afford that so they seek a balance in all mission sets and as they did with the F-16 look to constantly maintain a technology edge when it comes to systems, sub-systems, weapons, PGM's and support..A common aircraft allows them to channelize these investments...Its come to a point where they are co-investing in BVR Missiles (Meteor), AEW aircraft and other support. Its not just an F-35 vs Su-35 or PAKFA its an F-35, flying with AEW, with MEADS and other systems supporting from the ground. Neither Japan, Soko or NATO are looking to invade and conduct a "battle of britain" type campaign over Russia, they'll be wiped out by Nukes if it ever came to that.
Anyhow back to the AMCA - Like I said you can always design a pure air to air fighter and get the maximum performance in many relevent areas..When you begin to add multi-role capability and missions you will have to make trades..You can't say I'll get the best of the JSF, best of the Rafale, and best of the F-22/T50 and roll that into my plane..Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. The ATF competition was the best contrast when it came to evaluating various trades and what "cost" each design team had to pay for its decisions..As one "acquisition community member" remarked Northrop McD's team had to go report to their board that they developed most likely a stealthier aircraft, a faster aircraft and one that had more range but lost simply because of one design parameter in that the US air-force wanted a cranking ability which it really could not perform as well...That was just in the Air to Air (Mostly) fighter..When you start to work with the operators in terms of going over the threat and seeing what sort of capability is required you have to scratch your heads and look for trades, and this determines your level of stealth, level of performance, level of sensor coverage, sheer number of sensors.... Stealth will be the biggest challenge here and it will be interesting to follow this program over the next decade to see what maneuverability and speed/supercruise trades are made for it...