Fair enough.. I think the 760 nm figure from the presentation for Israel AF falls exactly within this “glossy” category..

If that pleases you go ahead. The reality is that an aircraft flying the majority of the mission at optimal altitudes and speeds (like on a CAP mission) will have a longer combat radius than on a strike mission. That is the discrepancy in radius. If you want, I can give you the numbers for an F-16 (remember the 560 nmi strike mission range for the F-16C), needless to say, it’s range in an AtA mission improves as well.

Why? altitude has a large impact on combat radius, speed (especially at lower altitude) has a large impact on combat radius, drag and to a lesser extent weight have an impact. An aircraft that carries external weapons will have a large gain combat radius on a AtA vs a strike mission simply due to drag.

In other words, having a 625 nmi strike mission profile and a 760 nmi air to air mission profile combat radius computes well.

OK, I have been involved in this discussion.. what have I learned? Nothing.. there is no clear number which can be presentable.. the last Pentagon estimate says 625 nm.. in a presentation for Norway LM say 716 nm.. in another presentation for Israel they say 760 nm.. no one has faintest idea how they came to this number as, obviously, no one has ever tested it.. how can they miss each other by almost 140 miles, for God’s sake?

Summarize again:
1. 625 nmi is for the USAF strike profile used for the KPP. It a particular flight profile used as a “representative” profile of a real strike mission flown at a variety of heights (mostly at mid-altitudes) and speeds with combat time calculated in over target area.
2. 760 nmi is the representative air to air mission radius presented by L-M. This (as B-I-O has said many times) range figure is similar to the air to air range presented in 2009 in response to critics of the F-35’s air combat potential. Likely includes combat as well (the 2009 air to air combat radius did).
3. The figures that Obligatory keeps referring to incorrectly, are from presentation to Norway detailing a Surveillance mission profile with altitudes ranging from 5k to 25k feet. This presentation listed the combat radius on such a mission as 728 nmi with EFT (that were dropped from development).

one is this config, another is that config.. weapons yes/no?, no one knows.. maybe you need some weird Rutowski profile to get that radius, again? LM know but won’t tell you.. now add missing EOL margins, maybe zero time on station and godknowswhat else.. and most of all, we talk about the F-35 here.. what is it? F-35A? F-35C? or some sort of invented weighed average, so that the F-35A gets a bit of the F-35C range, at least on paper?
!t

Rutowski profiles are for acceleration and climb, there is no trick there either. It is pretty much a standard way to save fuel rather than using a steep climb with decreasing airspeed. To answer your other question, most of the time people are referring to the “A” model which will be the most common.

The stated 625 nmi strike mission profile (F-35A) is an actual mission radius, unlike most of the wikipedia and manufacturer claims that people throw around on this forum. So, there are no “tricks” on that, unlike the nice glossy brochures of some manufacturers claiming an 800 nmi combat radius without any flight testing.

in L.M response to norwegian RFI, L.M stated 760 nm with external fuel iirc,
i think the range is just copied over from this RFI as the ultimate combat radius

Cue the clown music obligatory is back with the same claim that has been refuted 10 times before. It’s not even clever lie.

The Norway presentation was a surveillance mission with a radius of 716 nmi (with a variety of altitudes as low as 5,000 feet).

For the love of god! Yes i see that!
But as a metric, the Sukhoi list the absolute maximum range i think. And that works as a metric.
Everything else would decrease the range, – a little puff of AB from take-off and climb, a little AB puff prior to missile launch etc.

If LM would have shown us the same range as Sukhoi, it would tell us something interesting. Like how drag plays in 😉

These aren’t airliners. Your not jumping on them for a hop across the pond.

They are combat aircraft. Your Sukhoi range figure is how they used to quote combat radius. Then users realized it’s a useless figure. How far, fast, at what altitude, and with what payload, is exactly what matters.

I’m sure you would “like” the USAF to quote range the way Sukhoi does, unfortunately they know better, 1/2 ferry range isnt a very useful metric.

Why would you NEED to know the combat radious if you KNOW both jets in any comparison, fly at optimum acruise altitude or at deck altitude. With four A2A missiles.
Both jets, launch all missiles at half distance out, or at bingo fuel, then Return to base.

Because otherwise the radius numbers given are worthless, that is why the scenarios include take-off, specific altitudes, speeds, time on loiter or combat.

I have looked them up, it’s all in the original message. The combat radius of the F-16C is 675 nmi in the A-G config and 865 nmi in the A-A.
?

First off, what is the mission profile for an F-16C carrying the same combat load as the F-35? Second no, I don’t know where you got those numbers from. Here is the RAND study, it’s a bit long but:
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/documented_briefings/2007/DB102.pdf

When I refer to max T.O. weights vs max load- here’s the reason:

F-16C block 50
Empty weight: 20,000lbs (approx)
Max T.O. weight: 42,500 lbs (approx, block 50/52 MTOW numbers vary)
max payload: 22,500 lbs (approx)
– internal fuel: 7162 lbs
– ammunition: 287 lbs
– centerline pylon 177
– fuel pylons 295lbs x2
– weapon pylons ~350 lbs x2
(actual weight with pilot, and two wingtip Amraam equipped as above= 29,667 lbs)

total load available= 12,833~13,500 lbs (without Amraam)

Now, each 370 gallon tank weighs 3047 lbs (tank and JP-8)
A 300 gallon EFT weighs 2,432 lbs
total fuel weight= 8526 lbs

In theory, that leaves between 4,000 and 5,000 lbs for weapons, but as the RAND study showed reality is different.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/documented_briefings/2007/DB102.pdf
pg. 43

The F-16C in the study is carrying various configurations. The most likely as outlined is: two 370 gallon tanks, two AMRAAM, two Aim-9, two 1000 lb JDAM, and an ECM. The mission is flown at Hi-Hi-HI. The straight line radius is roughly 490 nmi. The actual range when accounting for routing and forming up (simulations show a roughly 30% factor in fuel/range reductions in actual mission planning) is roughly 380 nmi.

I know your thinking “The F-16 is carrying more missiles and an ECM pod, the F-35 can only carry two AMRAAM”. However, the F-16 in the simulation is carrying 2,000 lbs less bombs.

What about if we switch out the ECM pod for a 300 gallon centerline tank? Didn’t make much difference. The F-16C carrying the 610 gallon EFT that Israeli F-16’s use with the same weapons load above reached 560 nmi in straight line radius and 440 nmi in actual (the 610 gallon tanks can’t be filled due to MTOW).

In summary, carrying 4 missiles and two 1,000 lb bombs, the study showed the F-16C could reach a max theoretical range of 560 nmi and an actual of 440 nmi. That is in a Hi-Hi-Hi flight profile. The F-35 outranges the F-16 by a considerable margin when you consider the USAF strike profile used in the DOT&E is far more challenging than the Hi-Hi-Hi profile used in about F-16C study.

The load of F-35A would be clear if any, its says Internal A2A config. Which means only one thing FOUR AIM-120 and full INT fuel tank.

True for the F-35. I will post a Rand study on the F-16 block 50 and F-15E range considerations in theater with a variety of loads, it is enlightening. “Combat radius”- is very much NOT a single figure when talking about strike missions.

What are you referring to? Combat radius?

That depends on flight profile, loads (more important with external weapons), speed, combat time.

The current 625 nmi (est), is on a USAF strike mission profile- various speeds, altitudes, combat at target, egress. The exact mix isn’t clear, but probably similar to the JSM strike profile released by Norway.

Air to air combat radius is pretty much optimal Alt’s,speeds with a specified amount of time loiter or combat. That being true of quoted combat radius for various services and manufacturers.