I don't think it is a matter of philosophie/tactic restrictions due to a common Fighter for 3 services in more wanted less expensive especialy with only a reactor, without VT also supercruise capacity and in more some restrictions for a VSTOL variant.
More easy to ask now ofc but definitely AF and Navy would have a better fighter mainly for A2A/ dogfight ( agility and low speed ) if each service had his fighter as by ex F-14/15 a lesson learned for next 6th gen.
There had already been a failure in the past with the F-111.
For dog fight F-35 less agile but nomaly her electronic systems for situational awareness on 360° the DAS compensates, the pilot look more fast.
After for max G load i am not a specialist but i think F-35C wings can cause an inferior max G load ?
Also F-35B is a little less powerful as others thrust of ~ 18,5 t vs 19.5.
Other things F-35/F-22 with F-135 are very greedy, F-119 again more, EJ-200, M-88 ( the best with F-414 : 4t/hour with AB 12) and F-404/414 also get a very good consumption and despite 2 reactors for Rafale, Typhoon, F-18 her consumption remains clearly inferior.
Maybe also finaly the supercruise capacity is a problem for consumption need very powerful reactor which ofc consumes more, when i see the F-22 confirmed also by her CR of 1200 km which is good but inferior to F-15 while it is as big.
Talking recently for Rafale same for Typhoon they are for size medium fighters which get capacities of a heavy fighters and consumption help weigh 7 t of less as a F-35 whose 3 t of fuel, ~ 5 vs 8.1 and have a better combat radius as a F-35A max 1400/1100 but CR of F-35 is good better as a F-16, 900 km.
After a F-35 is a stealth fighter and need for it carry a part of her armament in 2 internal weapons bays sized for host big 907 kg bombs and this will take up space and weight.
He get a big fuselage more big as others fighters coz it.
AF Brat what do you mean for supercruise, really interesting for A2A, AB is not sufficient ?
AB : Afterburner
In general I do believe that having a common fighter for the three services does "handicap" the capabilities of each aircraft, and the STOVL really throws a monkey wrench into the works??? and I believe quite a few SDF members agree?? BUT
and it is a Big BUT, Jeff is actually correct in asserting that the compromises are not so great as to cause a "train wreck" and that the economies of scale are in fact today, bringing costs down, to the US and her Partners. So even though in principle I agree with master Delft, that three airplanes would have been better, I have seen the wisdom of Master Jeff's approach, and love the fact that all of these aircraft are getting produced on the mile long assembly line in Fort Worth, and they are being "cranked out" and costs are dropping rapidly, and these aircraft are built to very fine tolerances and with very accurate production tooling, this will pay dividends.
As I pointed out, each of these airplanes have their own "character", as noted by the design Max G of each version, while you are likely right that the larger wing and tail of the C may in fact lower the G limit, it is the extra weight and structure overall that have actually done that?? Load an A up to C weights, and you would also have to lower the Max G of that heavier A model.
Now, if I could could manipulate LockMart, I would build a big wing A, with the larger wing and horizontal stabs, but it would be heavier, slower, and have a lower G limit. I believe I would gain fuel, a slightly quicker Pitch transition, lower take-off and landing speeds, and most importantly, a higher service ceiling??? I just like big wings, like the F-15 as opposed to the F-16, the F-15 is just an awesome handling and flying aircraft, with very few bad habits, the F-16 didn't earn her moniker as the lawn dart for nothing?? but everything is a compromise, change one thing on an aircraft, and it affects 15 different operating parameters, possibly some in a very negative way??
Supercruise is a big deal, sad the F-35 will not have that capability, but accelerated to Mach 1.8 and then pull the throttles back out of burner, and you will prolly have 10 minutes or so of supercruise in dry thrust??? and a commensurate fuel savings for those ten minutes?? even though you will burn a bunch accelerating her to Mach 1.8?
