That is correct. Now if only LM somehow managed to restrict the use of drop tanks or CFTs for F-16s of users like Poland, Singapore or Morocco, all this in order not to embarass their current product.

There are no numbers to support that. Depending on the internal fuel figure (590 / 613 n.mi) used, the F-35A with two 426gal tanks will have combat radius between 690 and 720 n.miles.

There has been talk of putting conformals on the F-35 too. I believe Israel mentioned them. We all know that CFTs don’t appear on day 1 for any aircraft and get developed later.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/israel-to-boost-range-of-future-f-35-fleet-220748/

I did say the figures weren’t drag corrected. Interestingly though the same document that shows the radius increase as 55nmi whilst retaining the drop tanks quotes the basic radius at 673nmi on the same page.

http://norway.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/volume-1—executive-summary—part-1_dista.pdf

Based on that and a 50% multiplier for external fuel, the radius should come in around 774nmi if the tanks are dropped.

It comes from one of the Norway documents where they are talking about a surveillance mission. The problem is that in this scenario the F-35 wouldn’t be dropping its tanks. Essentially what you are seeing is the result of adding a relatively small amount of fuel to the F-35, while adding drag that would be carried out 700+ miles, presumably loiter for some period of time, and then carried back 700+ miles.

I thought so, so basically they’re applying the drag range reduction to all the fuel internal and external by not dropping them. I’m actually amazed that the range is increased at all if that’s the case. What page is it on?

Hang on! Page 3 says 728nmi range for a surveillance mission with 2 AIM-120, 2 GBU-12 and at 5,000-25,000ft which is hardly optimal altitude for range.

Surveillance Mission
Weapons Load
• AIM-120 (2)
• GBU-12 (2)
• Internal Gun
• Countermeasures
• EOTS
The resulting radius is 728 n.mi
(or total distance of 1,456 n.mi)
The range of altitudes during the cruise
is 5,000 ft to 25,000 ft

Oh okay, it also says this:

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

But then on page 5 it quotes radius as 610nmi on internal fuel but that includes combat. So does that actually mean the outright radius is 673nmi for a straight flight?

Lukos – As I noted, to use an F-16 with no external tanks as the basis for any range comparison is utterly foolish, because the aircraft was not designed to operate that way. And please provide a reference for an F-35B gaining 200 nm extra range with external tanks when it is documented that the F-35A gains only 70 nm. Or save your wisdom for some forum where you will be considered a genius, which seems to be where you got your wing-loading estimates. By the way, those estimates are rubbish because the soi-disant “aerospace engineer” responsible made an elementary error early in his calculations. Alpha ain’t incidence, dude.

Hotshot – Apart from silly point-scoring: Yes, the F-16 carries CFTs, an advantage at long range, and they are included in the 630 nm chart that Spud reproduced and with which I am very familiar. So far, the F-35 cannot carry CFTs, and most likely never will.

Levsha – Dunno, have you ever seen an F-104 with 4x AAMs and 2x 2k bombs and a 630 nm range? I have not. The F-15E and Rafale also have warload-radius capability that surpasses earlier supersonic fighters. So let me fix your statement: “When it comes to aircraft range or combat radius the improvement gained from one generation to another has generally been more than incremental, until the development of the F-22 and F-35.”

Where is it documented that it only gains 70nm, that is a ridiculous figure. The link I’ve shown gives 785nm radius neglecting drag but working with 600nm not 613nm as the base figure. Even allowing a 0.5 multiplier for external fuel, the radius comes out at 703nm. The claim of 630nm for an F-16 with 2 370gal tanks is preposterous. How can adding 4,800lb of external fuel (2 370gal tanks) to a small aircraft with 7,600lb of internal fuel more than double range?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon#Specifications_.28F-16C_Block_50.29

340 mi (295 nmi, 550 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with four 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs

Oh yeah? Where’s my elementary error then genius? If it was so elementary even you could have pointed it out.

A couple of observations:

The relentless banging-on about how far an F-16 can or can’t go on internal fuel is a sign of willful ignorance. The F-16 was designed from the ground up to take off almost always with 2 x 370 USG and drop them for air-to-air combat. Hillaker had been involved heavily with the B-58 and may have known something about the advantages of drop tanks. It would be equally stupid to compare the transonic acceleration and supersonic speed of a clean F-16 against that of an F-35 with external tanks retained.

On the infamous 630nm-radius F-16 chart and how the F-35 will go further &c: Note that the F-16 in that chart is carrying four AAMs (not two), big, nasty, draggy GBU-10s and an ALQ-184 pod. Its range with slicker L/JDAMs, internal EW and another 370 USG ventral will be measurably better. Also (for those of us who can’t see the obvious) the profile includes 50 nm at low alt, and nominal JSF profiles (A/C) are HMMH.

We also know, of course, that the F-35 gains little range with external fuel, most probably because of already high wing loading and because external tanks exacerbate nose-heaviness (and high trim drag) with full internal fuel. (And please save any rowlocks about body lift in cruise for the kiddie forums. Thks.)

In any event, the question should not be whether the F-35 matches the F-16’s range or payload. Given the design is a quarter-century more recent, the $55 billion in R&D and >50 per cent greater weight, it should outclass it completely.

On internal fuel with 4 1k bombs the combat radius of an F-16 is 295nm, less than half that of an F-35A with 2 2k bombs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

With 2 426 gal composite tanks the F-35A will make almost 800nm radius and the F-35B almost 650nm. The C will make >900nm radius.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16656#wrapper

So it does outclass the F-16 completely before you even consider the whole stealth thing, the better radar, the better SA, the built in targeting, ELINT and jamming pods, the ability to maintain flight envelope with bombs. At 41,000lbs the F-35 has a marginally higher fuel fraction than an F-16, a TWR of 1.05 (with built in targeting, jamming and ELINT capability LOL) and a wing loading of 89lb/ft^2, which is identical to the wing loading of an F-16C without targeting, jamming and ELINT capability. The combat radius calculates as roughly 400nm, even when you don’t allow for the lighter weight (613 * 12,000/18,500). Add 2 1k LJDAMs and 2 AMRAAMs: and you have the following:

F-16C
Weight = 26,500 + 2,000 + 714 (AMRAAMs) + 440 (LITENING pod) + 635 (ALQ-184) = 30,289lb
TWR = 0.94
Wing loading = 101lb/ft^2
Combat radius ~ 300nmi (assuming 2 pods affect range approximately as much as 2 extra 1k bombs)
Comments = Flight envelope severely limited, lots of extra drag impacts range (2 bombs, 2 pods and 2 missiles). Large RCS. Small radar, no EODAS.

F-35A
Weight = 41,000 (with 12,000lb of fuel) + 2,000 + 714 = 43,714lb
TWR = 0.98
Wing loading = 95lb/ft^2
Combat radius ~ 400nmi
Comments = Flight envelope not limited, no extra drag (except marginally increased lift-induced drag due to added weight only). Negligible RCS. Large radar, 360deg EODAS coverage.

Seriously.

£2195 is a lot for a book.

Table 3, Old Boy, Table 3:

http://engalco-research.com/products/20-aesas4-report.aspx

I was thinking of buying that, then I saw the price and wondered if it came with a free AESA radar or something.

Air Weapons: Making HARM More Dangerous

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairw/articles/20141003.aspx

October 3, 2014: Three years after introducing the latest version of the American anti-radiation missile, the AGM-88E HARM (High speed Anti-Radiation Missile), a new version (88F) is completing its performance tests. The AGM-88F has a GPS guidance added (with less accurate but jam-proof INS as a backup) added. The older AGM-88D also used GPS so that the missile, which normally homes in on radar transmissions, could be used to attack targets by location alone. The F model expands on basic GPS capabilities and also includes other features that assist in defeating enemy electronic defenses. What the GPS/INS provides is for a way for HARM to act on previous intelligence (about where an enemy radar is) while also using its radar signal homing capability and new anti-decoy features. Many countries now use a decoy emitter that send out a fake radar signal to lure the HARM away from the real radar. The 88F model uses GPS and more sensors and new software to get around all known deceptions (and some that haven’t been invented yet).

It was only in 2011, after eight years of development that the 88E entered service. Shortly thereafter a government oversight office announced that the AGM-88E was not able to accomplish its mission. The flaws in question were classified and the navy (which developed the AGM-88E) insisted that the new missile was more effective than its predecessor and the air force and marines also wanted to see the AGM-88E in service. There was no disagreement over remaining problems with the missile. The military believed that, despite the flaws, the AGM-88E was an improvement and that it should be issued for use.

The military got their new missile, despite continued opposition. Since the problems are largely classified, the public will not know what was really at stake for some time (until the details are declassified or leaked). There are a lot of new features in the AGM-88E and it’s probably some of these that the military insists should not stop the missile from being delivered to combat units.

The first 88E production models were delivered in 2010. This included testing for use on the new electronic warfare aircraft, the EA-18G, which entered service in 2011. AGM-88E testing ran into many problems in the three years before it entered service and there were more hardware failures than expected. The military admits that it is still working on some of these issues but that, in its current state, the AGM-88E is good to go.

The AGM-88 moves at high speed (2,200 kilometers an hour or 36 kilometers a minute) to hit targets 100 kilometers away. The D version of the AGM-88 costs nearly $100,000 each. Another version uses more complex sensors that can detect and guide the missile to a wide variety of radar signals. These versions cost about $300,000 each. GPS enables HARM (or the aircraft carrying it) to locate radar when it is turned on, store the GPS location, then goes after the target regardless of whether the ground radar is turned on or off. Over 24,000 AGM-88s, of all types, have been produced in the last three decades.

The new AGM-88E/F designs use a more complex and expensive approach to nailing enemy air defense radars (looking for targets) that are turned on briefly and quickly turning off power. This is an attempt to avoid detection destruction by missiles (like all AGM-88s) that home in on radar signals. The AGM-88E remembers where the radar is when it was on, however briefly, and carries its own high resolution (millimeter wave) radar to make sure it gets the radar. Finally, the AGM-88E can transmit a picture of the target, just before it is hit, so the user can be certain of what was taken out. The AGM-88E, also called the Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM), was developed jointly by U.S. and Italian firms. The original AGM-88 entered service in the 1980s. The original 1960s anti-radiation missile (ARM) quickly evolved into the HARM. Currently, there are orders for over 2,000 AGM-88Es from the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, Italy, and Germany.