I think something was lost in translation as there is NO WAY IN HELL anyone can “double” the range of an F-35 by adding conformal fuel tanks. There is just too much fuel in the F-35.

You would need to to carry more than 20,000 lbs of fuel in the CFTs and the F-35’s max payload is only 18,000 lbs.

————————————————-

Here is the source story from June 25th where they are only talking an increase of 30%, which seems a lot more doable.

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/possible-revised-f-35-could-make-it-for-israel-easier-to-attack-iran-video/2015/06/25/

Approximately 1,000 miles (1,500 kilometers) separate Israel and Iran, and the current F-35 is designed to fly approximately the same distance without refueling.

The IDF has asked the range to be extended to 1,500 miles, according to Rapaport.

They seemed to even confuse 1500 km with 1500 miles from one sentence to the next. This is the likely source of the “double the range” confusion.

————————————————-

Here is the original report mentioned above and they only talk in km.

http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/content/exposure-will-flight-range-f-35-be-extended-israeli-version

Lockheed Martin and the IAF are in negotiations to examine the possibility of extending the flight range of the Israeli version of the future fighter aircraft F-35 by 30%.

…

The current flight range of the F-35 stands at approximately 1150 kilometers (larger than the range of the F-15 and F-16). Extending the flight range may allow the IAF to action also against Iranian targets. Nevertheless, even the longer flight range (1,500 km) would not allow the aircraft to reach Iran and back without refueling, since Iranians targets are located at a range of at least 1000 km.

You cannot ID a bomber, or any plane, by an exhaust signature.

How would you even sample it?

FADAC cannot be accessed until you can access the avionics in general & the engine faces & exhaust are buried so you won’t see them.

The F135 would be the better pick of the two as it has better fuel economy and the SC aspect of the F119 is not needed.

Here it is

http://aerosim.calpoly.edu/media/cms_page_media/14/Vendetta%20-%20Final%20SAWE%20Paper_1.pdf

Well, other supposedly reliable sources would contend the difference is closer to 18dB – which is roughly the difference between a small bird and an F-18. Eitherway, of much greater significance than you are postulating:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0WuGjb8sqCUC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=l+band+radar+rcs&source=bl&ots=N6nRfCRPJl&sig=_DJXx3gFzYdvTry50I6RkW4RQFs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDsQ6AEwCGoVChMIy4zD_-_XxwIVSf9yCh20VwVo#v=onepage&q=l%20band%20radar%20rcs&f=false

That is a 1993 book so I doubt they had any reliable info on VLO practices, especially constant curvature.

Keep in mind that the above graph is based on predictive software and the book was based off of a simple formula.

It’s not “to be VLO you don’t emit” that makes you effective, it’s controlling your emissions. This is where careful design, AESA radars, and most importantly, narrow-beam datalinks come into play.

Btw, based on publicly available data, low band radars increase a VLO airframe by about 10dbm. Low band radar is by no means a way of making your advantage “fade away”. Besides, if it makes it harder for a VLO airframe to approach, what do you think it will do to a 4th gen jet?

A VLO airframe will always have an advantage because anything you use to detect it will make 4th gen jets even more vulnerable.

“Saying no to Uncle Sam”.

Don’t make me laugh. If that were the case then we’d have the oil contracts.