The source is also pretty clear that it dates back to 2009 when combat radius was expected to be far greater than the numbers disclosed in 2010. It looks like these apples are rotten…

Maybe you missed the slide dated 2016 showing an even longer range?

The only thing that’s breathtaking here is your dishonnesty. First of all note that the JSM is a light missile compared to a 2000lbs weapon, so the difference with an AMRAAM instead in terms of range would be small. And in that profile, most of the flight is done at high altitude, which is optimal of course.

30,000ft is optimal? No, 30k ft is relatively high but it is certainly below the F-35’s optimal cruising altitude.

A careful reader would note that the first and last stages of the profile are higher than 30k ft… guess why.

Now if the speed is like mach 0.6, if it can really reach that range, what is the point of going to max range at mach 0.6 and returning to base immediately? If it is for CAP, that range is only to get to the patrol station where the tanker would refuel the plane, it doesn’t include time for an a2a fight, so there is really nothing to be impressed about.

The point of the comparison is to make it apples to apples. Different companies/countries will inevitably define a mission slightly differently and the devil is in the details.

Per the Janes source, which matches closely with the more recent powerpoint slide, in a simple air to air mission profile a clean F-35 is slightly longer ranged than a Eurofighter with three tanks.

You might find that range quoted includes weapon range.

No, the source is pretty clear that it is an apples to apples comparison.

Discussing maximum mission radius, Mazanowski presented an air-to-air mission profile in which
all the aircraft: took off with a weapon load, remained at high altitude and returned after about a
minute of combat. All but the F-35 and Su-30MKI were carrying three external fuel tanks.
Under this scenario, the Rafale had a maximum mission radius of 896 n miles, the F/A-18 816 n
miles, the F-35 751 n miles, the Eurofighter 747 n miles, the Su-30MKI 728 n miles and the Gripen
502 n miles.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiwhMmT2pjNAhVCMFIKHay4CYEQFggmMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.f-16.net%2Fforum%2Fdownload%2Ffile.php%3Fid%3D21434&usg=AFQjCNH3VvTsACJP0weIo0vYI9wM7x-EMg&sig2=Jb9qNfiovgnlZU4FR3XW6Q

Here’s something I was wondering, and perhaps the F-35 experts can help, when did the F-35 qualify its external fuel tanks?

Give that a clean F-35 can already match a Eurofighter’s range with three tanks I think you can see why external tanks have not been an early priority.

They will probably come in Block 4 or as an Israeli-integrated option.

Easy there Hotshot..

Those range figures from LM regarding F-35 does Come a bit weird..
It doesn’t explain what so ever, which altitude, speed and load configuration.

I just find it utterly strange that there are such big difference between ground strike mission and A2A mission..???
I’m asuming both profile are done with Internal ordinance/ none external?

You will find yourself at medium altitude at both missions above.
The Engine and airframe and sensors all advocates the same region of altitude for F-35.
Starting to speculate how much more AB duration you need on both mission profiles is impossible to predict here, so we are left with basicly nothing to compare with.

We know that the F119 engines gobble a lot of fuel on AB.
What do we know about the F135 fuel consumption.?

This really shouldn’t be a surprise. Over and over again people have explained that the ranges quoted for the F-35 weren’t “maximum” ranges, but the range achieved assuming a certain very specific strike profile that included a lot of flight at sub-optimal altitude and “combat” in the mission area.

A quick look at the F-35’s internal fuel capacity and the likely efficiency of a very new and relatively high bypass engine should have led everyone down the right path.

Yes let’s play maths: You think 1st day of war against a near peer enemy comprise more than 1% of missions? Better get a multi-role plane for the other 99% & use the money you save on either a dedicated stealth UCAV (which you are developing anyway) or more stand off missiles.

Nic

Now THIS is a classic strawman…

The rafale was delayed because of funding issues, not because of technical issues.

So what? I really don’t get why people insist on bringing up excuses. Someone claimed the Eurocanards moved faster and delivered more capability earlier than the F-35. I corrected them.

Some sources say the CBU-105 will be integrated at 3F, some say it won’t.

For instance here it doesn’t have it. It seems to have been removed.

This pdf from 2009 doesn’t have it ( page 12 ).

Some charts have it but I think it was the original objective dating back from 2002 or so.

Could be… in either case the basic point remains the same. At 3F the F-35 will be capable of undertaking the full range of missions that it can expect to be assigned with the exception of a handful of exceptionally rare scenarios that are covered by other planes. Once Block 4 rolls around we can expect to see a greater variety of more specialized weapons integrated.

This whole line of debate is more than a little silly. If the F-35 can’t be considered fully operational without a dedicated anti-ship missile, anti-radiation missile, and a nuclear strike capability then not one of the Eurocanards are fully operational yet themselves.

The F-35 program has moved more slowly than was planned, but it has still moved significantly quicker than the Eurocanards, delivering more capability earlier. (even if we use 2008 as the date for a “multi-role” Rafale, albeit a very limited multi-role capability without a targeting pod, that is still 17 years after its first flight. The equivalent date for the F-35 would be 2023, by which time we are talking about Block 4.)

The F-35 has some concurrency costs, but those costs prevent there from being any orphaned planes like the Tranch 1 Eurofighters or Gripen As. (or needing to see planes gutted and rebuilt in the case of the first Rafales.)

You are contradicting yourself within a single post, either you can perform the full range of missions or not. Block 3F will hopefully enable the aircraft to perform the missions that are demanded of it at that stage. It’s a broad mission spectrum for sure and yes it’s more missions than what the Rafale or Typhoon could perform when being declared FOC, it’s nonetheless not the full range of missions and even a handful is plenty enough, given that there aren’t that many mission types available. The 1% figure is pulled out of your hat and has nothing to do with reality, albeit I fully agree that the missions the Block 3F should be capable of are realistically those that make up the bulk of missions that the aircraft will be assigned to perform.

Let me try again slowly… once Block 3F is available the F-35 will be capable of undertaking all the missions it will be tasked with. That doesn’t mean that that every weapon on earth will be fully integrated. It won’t have an anti-radiation missile. (just like the Rafale) It won’t have a nuclear strike capability. (like the Typhoon and Gripen) etc…

Pre- and post-strike reconnassaince and SEAD are important tasks in any medium to high level threat environment, naval strike is important against opponents with a credible naval force, cruise missile strikes are a necessity and there are other mission restrictions that haven’t much to do with the aircraft itself, but with the inherent limitations of the weapons integrated at Block 3F.

The F-35 will be capable of conducting pre and post strike recon missions using its EOTS and SAR capabilities.

The F-35 will be capable of carrying out SEAD and naval strike missions using its JSOW, LGB, etc capabilities. No, the F-35 won’t initially have an ASCM capability. (just as the Rafale lacks an anti-radiation missile) If the USN needs to fire a Harpoon they can use one of their brand new Super Hornets that are still coming off the production line…

A GBU-12 or GBU-39 SDB I are fine for maybe 70-80% of the CAS scenarios, but when you have to deal with multiple vehicle coloumns or fast moving surface targets a rocket powered, fire & forget capable supersonic AGM is a much better suited weapon,

70-80% huh? Didn’t you just accuse me of making up numbers? The F-35 is scheduled to receive the CBU-105 in 3F… should be just the thing for your column of vehicles problem…

as is a supersonic or subsonic sea-skimming ASM in comparison to a JSOW-C1 and that assumes the F-35 will be capable to provide MCG to the later at Block 3F. Likewise a dedicated ARM is a better match against airdefences than a SDB I and I can easily bring up more examples than these alone.

Ofcourse the US armed forces have several platforms to take care of these missions, there is subsequently no hurry to get all those capabilities onboard for FOC timescales. This is not even a critic at all, it’s a reality check!

Yes, a dedicated ASCM would be a better ASCM than a JSOW. Yes, a dedicated anti-radiation missile would be better for SEAD than JSOW/SDB… but that doesn’t mean the F-35 can’t undertake those missions. If we used the same standards to grade Eurocanards do any have an anti-radiation missile?

There is much more about IOC and FOC declarations than the theoretical ability to fire/release this or that weapon.

Yes, and the F-35B met the standard set by the USMC. The F-35B isn’t a finished product, but it already has more capability in specific areas than the planes it is replacing.

It’s not untrue at all, if you had bothered to read in the first place. The ECDs IOCed and FOCed with a more limited mission spectrum, but they were capable to perform the I/FOC declared missions with sufficient reliability. Something that could at best be described as questionable for the F-35B Block 2B. Hopefully the USAF will do better and hopefully Block 3F FOC declaration doesn’t come with a sh!tload of strings attached either. That remains to be seen and I’m not going to speculate on this, I simply wait and see when the time has come.

Sure, if you just define mission spectrum down to what the airframe is capable of then it is fully capable… but for an “omnirole” fighter to need a buddy just to lase a target for years, and over multiple combat deployments… that doesn’t seem like a bit of a problem to you?

If you count the time from FF to IOC/FOC then the F-35 beats the Rafale and Typhoon (not the Gripen which FOCed 9 years after its FF despite a 15 months delay due to the FCS related crash during the 1st prototypes 2nd test flight). Big deal if production is authorized only 6 years after the first flight (Rafale) or 4 years (Typhoon), whereas it was within around 2 years for the F-35. Concurrency helped to speed up the process at the expense of building multiple non-combat capable and potentially flawed aircraft that need to be fixed at high cost.

You mean unlike the early model Gripens that were simply retired rather than upgraded? Or unlike the Tranch 1 Eurofighters that will never be upgraded? Or the Rafale F1s that needed to be torn down and rebuilt at great cost?

From a “handed over to IOC/FOC” PoV all ECDs beat the F-35. It’s to a large extend owed to the approach taken.

How on earth do you figure? Again, it took the Rafale 20 years to achieve a proper multi-role capability. The F-35 will be at Block 4 well before 20 years have elapsed.

It delivers certain capabilities faster, others remain to be seen, such a reconnaissance, nuclear strike, proper for moving surface target engagement, CM strike, proper anti-ship strike to name the most prominent. The “it couldn’t self-designate for a decade” argument is a poor strawman for the several reasons outlined above. So maybe you get real and learn a few facts about other aircraft programs and the rational behind decisions why something was there or not at this or that point.

The fact that the Rafale needed 20 years to achieve a proper multi-role capability is hardly a strawman. You seem really really hung up on the ASCM and nuclear strike business. In decades of operation how many ASCMs or nuclear weapons have the planes the F-35 is replacing employed? Think about it… those missions are a tiny tiny tiny part of the mission set. Being able to drop a LGB on the other hand… dropped by the thousands over the last decade.