That is a theory, the other possibility is that the external tanks as designed, were too close to the body of the aircraft. Which can explain the separation issue the tanks faced. Simply put, the tanks caused a increase in interference drag between the airframe and the tanks. The F-35 does not differ greatly from the design of the F-22 as far as a trapezoidal wing with the tail set far to the rear of the aircraft. The F-22 does not suffer from the high trim drag from a nose heavy design, I would not think that the F-35 which has most of it’s mass over the wing to be any different in that regard.

I don’t think airframe/tank distance is a problem. The distance is actually pretty large, after all the main gear is located there, and the B-models roll posts.
According to this paper, the issue are other stores: “at least three external stores did not meet safe release criteria adjacent to this baseline fuel tank.” And “Since the original initiative for the redesign of the fuel tank was marginal separation performance for stores located next to the tank,…”

Still, I think the 426gal tank is too small for an aircraft the size of the F-35. That’s just 15% bigger tanks for a 50% heavier jet (F-16 to F-35). The F-15 which is in the same weight class uses 600gal tanks, and up to 3 of those for a maximum of 1800gal ie more than twice what the F-35 can carry.

You are going to have to explain your logic there due to:
1. The internal fuel of an F-16 is 5920 lb http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f16/F-16Specifications.html
2. Add the 300 gal belly tank and two CFTs (450 gal ea) gets you a total of 14128 (at 6.84 lbs/gallon) not 17160.

Given what we have proven above, the F-16 with only 2 bombs and 22336 lbs of fuel goes virtually the same range (630nm at 35 gallons per mile) as an F-35A (613 at 29 gallons per mile) with 18k of fuel.

So you are saying that by removing 8200 lbs of fuel, still having the drag, and having to deal with that drag longer, will some how magically out-range the F-35???

Back-of-the-napkin math says that the F-16 with 4x 2k JDAMS will go only ~400nm (14128 gallons / 35.5 gal/mile) if it’s lucky.

The CFTs hold 450gal combined. Thats 5920 + 3078 + 2052 = 11050 lbs of fuel with CFTs and center tank.
With 2 bombs and 2 370 gal tanks, the F-16 radius is more than 600nm @ 10982 lbs of fuel.

Those green bubbles are Electronic Surveillance Coverage, that means passive range of the BAe Systems EW suite. The red bars with 728 mile range are for EOTS and radar coverage. You got it all written there.

What about the white lines then. Also, if the red bar is sensore coverage, it would mean they get more range at a 45 degree angle – the green bubbles on the other hand are round. To quote from the briefing:

The F-35 has a radius of 673 nautical miles on internal fuel alone and 728 nautical miles using external tanks.

Yes, it sounds implausible. For two reasons:
1. The F-35’s max. combat radius of 590 miles is for aircraft with internal load only. Pure removing ordnance (for recon mission) would have relatively little impact on the radius as the only difference would be slight drag decrease due to ~7% reduced weight, nothing else.
2. That would completely contradict your own bold assumption that marketing information provided is going to show data that presents the aircraft in the most favorable way. If there was a way to achieve real combat radius of 728 miles, then the figure would appear in the specsheet. Just like the 800 n.mi figure of the F-16.

The F-35 mission is not marketing info, it is a USAF profile KPP mission. Required are 590nm, estimated are 613nm . Or the Norwegian surveillance mission estimated at 673nm. I wouldn’t be surprised if the F-35 can do better under optimal conditions, but thats just me speculating. After all, +/-600nm seems a bit poor considering the amount of internal fuel. I remember LM estimated the USAF profile radius @ 700nm at one point…

It was a D model, 86-0182.
This jet was in Payerne, Switzerland for the Air14 airshow along with another F-15D. Here it is on arrival day, September 5, 2014:[ATTACH=CONFIG]232212[/ATTACH]
Kind of weird learning the jet crashed only some weeks later… glad no one was hurt.

The Brimstone being operational only on the Tornado limits the choice somewhat 😉
One F-15E was hit, and haven’t Iraqi forces lost several Mi-24 and Su-25 already? Plus of course the Syrian AF losses. So a Cessna Caravan might not be the wisest choise.

That photo and many more on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=valiant%20shield

http://www.nellis.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=1556&page=50

The pic shows a GBU-32 so that’s a Mk83 1000lbs bomb. No 2000lbs stores fit inside the bays. Nothing is cleared for external carriage either.

I see you’re located in Boscombe Down so a Welsh joke wouldn’t work.
Still the “news” is dated 10 May 2012 😉