The F35 costs how much for a far from operational, non-effective platform that clearly has limited opportunity for any degree of enhancement once actually in service?

See the difference?

Hmmmm, Block 4, 5, 6, 7…..

Well the F-35A can’t operate from carriers, so this plan would entail both the USAF and USN using the the C model, resulting in the USAF getting less airframes (higher cost), and lower overall performance. (slower acceleration/G loading) Unless the USMC went with an aircraft much more akin to the AV-8B, there’d hardly be any cost savings realized.

No sources = no arguments. Just your own speculation without any proof…

Let’s just call it an educated guess. I started with a number that several here are taking as Gospel, of 20nm for the AIM-120C5. I then took a conservative range of percentages of improvement, that the C7/D have been attributed with, along with the kinematic advantages that the F-22 bestows, from firing at high speed/altitude. The assumptions are all high altitude shots, against a head on target. Obviously at low altitude, tail chase, etc…., the ranges will be significantly lower.

2. F-22A has probably the best kinematics of all current fighters. It can shoot AMRAAM from 1,7 Mach + 40k ft+, which give the missile a lot of range compared to the others fighter. Very important thing is acceleration from 0,9 mach ( even raptor fly economically before detect targets) to Mach 1, + so you need to gain energy when you are ~ 100-200km from target (EW, reduced RCS, low flying target, passive detection, etc make detection more difficult ).
3. 20 miles is actual effective AIM-120C-5/7 AMRAAM range when fired from Raptor – we all know that Raptor fire AMRAAM and then turn away, thx to link 16 other F-22 guys can guide missile by radar/ALR-94 combo.
4. We all know that F-15C shoot AMRAAM from 25 km (35k ft+ 1,4 Mach) in real war games… against poor equiped MiGs.
So I don’t understand why some guys here can’t accept the facts #3 because:
-AIM-120C has 10% better range than AIM-120B

-Assuming that we go with the AIM-120C5 having a 10% range improvement over the B. That still doesn’t account for the C7, which has a ~10 to 30% improvement over the C5. Now when fired from the F-22 at high speed/altitude, you can add another 30-50% to the range. So, just doing some basic beer math-
C5= ~20nm
C7= ~22-26nm
C5 fired from F-22 (supercruise/high altitude/head on)= ~26-30nm
C7 fired from F-22 (supercruise/high altitude/head on)= ~28.6-45nm
D= ~33-39nm
D fired from F-22= ~49.5nm-58.5nm

Now if we don’t assume that the C5 is limited to 20nm fired (from high altitude in a frontal engagement,) and is in fact higher, then the other corresponding range figures increase as well.

If we assume a 30nm range, then then numbers start to look like-
C5= ~30nm
C7= ~33-39nm
C5 fired from F-22= ~39-45nm
C7 fired from F-22= ~42.9-58.5nm
and just for fun
D= ~49.5-58.5nm
D fired from an F-22= ~64.35-87.75nm

initially, it’s from Lockheed presentation to Norway if my memory serves well… looks like quite a small gain, but that may illustrate the drag increase (and therefore, the increase in fuel consumption) with external stores. The extra tanks may be interesting not to increase the overall range, but to maintain range when stuff is hanging outside…

What I’d like to know is if the first range figure was for internal carriage only, and the second range figure was for tanks, and external stores. If so, then that would make sense.

[QUOTE=Andraxxus;2036224]No, math is very accurate, but comparison logic is slightly flawed:

An F-16 with only 370 gal tanks have 688 nm combat radius.[quote]
What use is an unarmed F-16, flying with 2 370 gal tanks?

F-35’s undisclosed combat radius is 590 nm with full internal fuel load of 18500 lb.

Actually that’s not accurate. That figure was based upon an arbitrary reserve amount, during the testing process, and without giving the specifics of the mission profile, time on station, afterburner usage over target area, etc..

For F-35, to reach 814 nm combat radius, it needs fuel tanks; How many? Assuming “miles per pound” stays same -which is not possible due to increased drag and weight-, it will need at least ~7030 lb of fuel, which equals to 1064 gallons.

There’s no mission where an F-16 has an 814nm combat radius, without aerial refueling.

When has this occurred first of all. Secondly assuming that such a feat was possible, it wouldn’t be of much use in combat, as an F-16 without EFTs, isn’t going to have particularly impressive range as is (much less in full AB). Additionally, with EFTs and sensor/jamming pods, it’d never get close to that speed. The fastest that an F-15 in A/A load out, has flown in real world conditions, was ~M1.4.

The PR department claim F-35 flies better than anything else for as long as it has any combat load.
Incorrect as far as A2A loadout goes, but correct if combat load=2×2000 lbs bombs

Well, if it’s being compared to F-16/18s (or 4th Gen fighters in general), even in an A/A configuration, they’d have EFTs, and the F-35 would be even lighter in A/A configuration (handle better, than in A/G).