Israel to double attack range of F-35 stealth fighter with conformal tanks

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/166772/israel-to-double-f_35-range-with-conformal-tanks.html

Any reason why other customers should not be supplied, too? If stealth is not seriously compromised. doubling range is a massive increase in capability. So what if weapons load is greatly reduced if the option of sticking them on pylons under the wings would have greatly reduced stealth and the F-35 was being used because stealth was needed for the mission.

Serial prod can now begin.

I thought it started more than a year ago.

[quote]Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $430,878,490 cost-plus-incentive-fee, fixed-price-incentive-firm contract for non-air vehicle spares, support equipment, Autonomic Logistics Information System hardware and software upgrades, supply chain management, full mission simulators and non-recurring engineering services in support of low-rate initial production Lot 9 F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter aircraft for the Air Force, Marine Corps, Navy, non-Department of Defense participants, and foreign military sales (FMS) customers.

…

Work will be performed in Orlando, Florida (70 percent); Fort Worth, Texas (17 percent); El Segundo, California (7 percent); Owego, New York (4 percent); Greenville, South Carolina (1 percent); and Samlesbury, United Kingdom (1 percent), and is expected to be completed in January 2022.

…

This contract combines purchases for the Air Force ($136,308,496; 32 percent); Navy ($30,326,973; 7 percent); Marine Corps ($32,762,358; 8 percent); non-Department of Defense participants ($187,885,664; 44 percent); and FMS customers ($43,594,999; 10 percent) under the FMS program.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/166455/lockheed-wins-%24431m-for-f_35-lot-9.html

I’m in the UK. This ‘non-Department of Defense participants’ thing… does it refer to foreign partners? Is UK paying a chunk of this? Apparently 99% of the work is going to be done in the USA and 1% in the UK. Seems a bit strange to me.

Because the plan is still that it will become cheap… also it costs more to operate several different types of a/c so unless there is a big different is cost between a/c A and B, it will not pay off to operate both.

There is and (I think) always will be a big difference in cost in operating F-35 v F/A-18. Even bigger difference F-35 v F-16. Yes, starting from scratch to set up support, training for 2 types rather than 1 must cost a lot but that’s sunk money for current types in operation so I think that argument doesn’t hold water where operating a mix of F-35 and F/A-18 is concerned.

From the NSN analysis:

Drawing on detailed comparisons to other aircraft (see Appendix A), we identify four crucial areas where the F-35’s capability is mismatched against near-peer competitors:

1. The F-35 is less maneuverable than many of the 4th-generation fighter aircraft it is intended to replace or those it would likely face in combat, making it unlikely to be effective in within-visual-range (WVR) air-to-air engagements.

2. The F-35’s small internal payload capacity will significantly limit its effectiveness in beyond-visual-range (BVR) air-to-air engagements, and, to a lesser extent, strike missions against surface targets. The F-35 will also likely have difficulty generating high rates of sorties to deliver payloads to targets over time.

3. The F-35’s short range means that it will be of limited use in geographically expansive theaters like the Asia-Pacific or against so-called anti-access threats whereby adversaries can target forward airbases.

4. The F-35’s survivability depends on stealth technology that is at risk for obsolescence and will become increasingly ineffective over the 56-year lifetime of the program.

Thus, the F-35 will find itself outmaneuvered, outgunned, out of range, and visible to enemy sensors. Going forward, full investment in the F-35 would be to place a bad trillion-dollar bet on the future of airpower based on flawed assumptions and an underperforming aircraft. To avoid such a catastrophic outcome, Congress and DOD should begin the process of considering alternatives to a large-scale commitment to the F-35. Staying the present course may needlessly gamble away a sizable margin of American airpower at great expense and unnecessary risk to American lives.

Does NSN truly think independently or does it have some faction’s axe to grind?

Is it that surprising? If you dont pay the bribes, your files will get “misplaced”.

Perhaps executing people who “misplace” files would help others to remember where they put their paperwork. 🙂