It can increase it, which is a whole different story as I am suggesting.

So can the methods to achieve the same goal, but with less useful tools. There’s always risk, but the point is to minimize it.

Being only slightly lighter, but having less thrust and being smaller-winged than a Super Hornet the A sure won’t set any new records in combat configuration. B and C will be worse (+1500kg, the larger C-wing can’t offset that).

I expect – with comparable load (which would mean 2 drop tanks, 2 AMRAAM, 2 JDAM, plus the awkward pylons for the Super Hornet) – the F-35A to have about 33-40% larger combat radius than a F/A-18E, or about 550nm max. As soon as the F-35 uses external stores that advantage will drop to 15-20%.

The exact thrust on the JSF isn’t known, other than it’s in the 40,000lb+ class. The SH has ~44,000lb in current trim.

Ferry range intern of the F-35A is quoted as 2225 km or 1200 nm, which does give a radius of action of ~500 nm to be optimistic.
The F-16A can do it with 3 ETs for shure, the Israelis did prove it in 1981.
When you do have better data, which are not outdated and receicled at different websites, you are free to post that. 😀

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bild:F-35_weapon_layout.jpg&filetimestamp=20080324113736

To enhance versatility, it does seems that stealth is limited to a few missions only or such load-out does not make much sense.

Of course if you have the first day of war surprise advantage, you can significantly attrit your opponent’s IADS, and kill their aircraft on the ground, not to mention take out their air bases. Once the threat level is down significantly, the JSF can operate in non-stealth mode, while Raptors handle A2A threats.

You mean good for bombing places where you probably shouldn’t be? :rolleyes:

You mean like in places where one’s opponents are using civilians as shields, by putting their HQs and fighting positions next to neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, historically important sites, religious sites, etc…?:rolleyes:

It depends on the total area of the tank exposed to airflow.
Look up wetted area, you might learn something.

I understand what wetted area is(i.e. total surface area exposed to airflow/high speed air flowing around it). The question is how the internal fuel tanks factor into the equation(i.e. do they, and if so by how much?) What’s the drag penalty for pylons, external tanks, weapons, ECM/targeting pods?

There are no GPS guided munitions. JDAMs, for example, are GPS assisted, using INS “guidance”. Incorporating GPS improves accuracy, but from what I understand they’d have PGM-level accuracy without the GPS capability. This is what makes the whole “GPS jammers make JDAMs irrelevant” argument a laugher.

I seem to recall a Russian GPS jammers being destroyed in Iraq, by JDAMs.:D

What? The F35 went to weight-watchers? LOL

According to the official LM site the aircraft still weights 29,300 lbs.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35specifications/f-35a-ctol-specifications.html
And you know what the trouble is? We are still 4 years from the introduction of the type from LPIR lines. Most probable, it is going higher.

There are other sources citing various other weights, and the aircraft is still in testing. It’s easier to stick with a generic weight than to keep updating the facts sheet.

Your argument is obvious. No need to write it more the 4 times.
But even if it does take off with less than maximum internal fuel (which cannot happen often of course) the 35 still must bear all the extra structure (weight) and skin (friction) of its empty tanks all the way.

A- why can’t it take off without a full fuel load often? It’ll be mission dependant as to how much fuel is carried.

B- exactly how much friction does an internal fuel tank make?

I seriously doubt M1,2 supercruise. Try 0,8… 0,81:diablo:

A- speculation, based not upon real world test results, but a dislike of the aircraft

B- an assumption of just how much drag the F-35 suffers from

C- other aircraft with less thrust, and external stores(albeit limited), have demonstrated supercruise at M1.3-1.5. Considering the fact that the USAF refers to >M 1.5, I don’t think that a lower number over M1 is a preposterous notion.

F-35 being less draggy that the F-15??? In what speeds M0,3???:confused:

Mind you a a combat-configured Typhoon does NOT contain drop tanks! Not during combat at least!

-again, an assumption of how draggy the F-35 is.

-combat configuration is how the Typhoon takes off, not what it jettisons. Ostensibly, in combat, it will be firing missiles/dropping bombs too, so that’s a little disengenuous.

As I asked wrightwing, did you ever wondered if internal carriage of extra fuel and weapons gave ANY advantage to a fighter, why not incorporated in earlier fighters?????? Like F-15s or F-16s.
Could it be that the overall advantages are less than the overall shortcomings? Sleep on that.

The advantages are lower RCS, and less drag with a combat load.