http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/05/12/356581/f-35a-may-need-mods-to-fix-range-shortfall.html

A bit disappointing… A lot of fanboys seemed to take it for granted that the F-35 would exceed many of it’s requirements including the range and now it seems to struggle to reach that requirement…

This suggestion made me laugh (although one should perhaps consider crying instead…)

Fixing the problem by changing the definitions… great stuff for journalists and the competitors of course…

More here: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/

I assume that you didn’t read the end of the article:

The equation does not include a buffer margin of 5% of fuel capacity, which is intended to be preserved through the end of the flight test period in 2016. Eliminating the buffer margin adds another 72.4km to the aircraft’s combat radius, the source said.

That would be 613 Nmiles…:diablo:

ALso, if you look at Norway bid (http://norway.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/volume-1—executive-summary—part-1_dista.pdf page4) , the 610 Nmiles is with 150 Nmiles low level flight, + combat, including use of AB… I’m still waiting to see another plane do this…

Correct. 😀 To compensate for US-forces in Japan and to soften the US-trade deficit with Japan the main share in foreign weapons has to come from the USA, F-104, F-4 and F-15 f.e.. 😉

And do you think that Japanese regret it? I suppose that the F 104/4/15 were bad fighters, in your opinion?

Not much to choose of an US successor from the
SH and F-35 to stay polite.

Not much to choose between F 35 and competition…

Highly doubtfull

Did you read the NAO report?

Fair enough.. I will closely watch the claims especially focused at this issue. If the bird really flies like Beesley has advertised, we should hear about it soon. After Italians, this is the second claim that indicates rather otherwise.

No Italian pilot flew on F 35 yet.

I think there is a “bit” of a contrast in the management of these programs. I do not know much about Rafale development but it has not been characterised by repeated (ad nauseam) failure to achieve agreed timelines. Nor has it been subject to reappraisal along Nunn-McMurdy lines (OK France may not have such a device) nor has emergency restructuring (F-35 twice, no?) been demanded.

There was no internet during much of the Rafale development; nor the French military programs were so open such the American ones. Otherwise you would know about failures.

Anti-Stealth Sensors to Tackle Chinese and Russian LO Designs

Airborne detection of stealth aircraft may have already been accomplished in a series of tests done at Edwards AFB, Calif. in the second half of 2009. Those with insight into the research say Lockheed Martin’s CATbird avionics testbed –a 737 that carries the F-35 joint strike fighter’s entire avionics system — engaged a mixed force of F-22s and F-15s and was able to target the F-22s.
“The F-35 mission systems suite is the most sophisticated and powerful avionics package of any fighter in the world,” said Dan Crowley, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and F-35 program general manager at the time of the tests.

His clue about the fighter’s anti-stealth capability is in a reference to confronting new, sophisticated, foreign aircraft.

“The F-35’s avionics include on-board sensors that will enable pilots to strike fixed or moving ground targets in high-threat environments, day or night, in any weather, while simultaneously targeting and eliminating advanced airborne threats,” Crowley said.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3af2e3b33f-93da-4076-8852-0b0e2b5f387d&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Despite having built the F22, LM has started from scratch with the F35. The two planes have nothing in common, airframe or the electronics.

The engine on F 22 is the F 119; the engine on the F 35 is F 135. It is an F 119 with a larger fan.

The comparison we are responding to was F/A-18E relative to Tornado and Harrier on bombing mission and to Typhoon on fighter mission.

Wouldn’t you say the Tornado IDS/GR4 tends to be employed hi/lo/hi or (looking at how it was employed in the initial stages of e.g. Gulf I) lo/lo/lo, and so on comparable flight profile has better range?

Consider: “the Tornado GR.1 was conceived as a single-purpose strike aircraft, designed to come in under enemy radar and take out hostile air bases with the highly specialized JP-233 runway-cratering munitions and area-denial mines.”
http://www.flightsimbooks.com/pcpilot/page124.php

That doesn’t sound like a Tornado would typically fly in hi/hi/hi therefor I don’t quite see your point about the flight profile.

You asked why the SH has 1/2 the radius of the Tornado. I tried to explain that this short(er) radius is because of the low flying profile. For mission at higher altitude, the SH radius is bigger. This is true also for Tornado, as the graphs you posted ilustrate.