F-35 Advantages over other Fighters-Range

[armedupdate]

I always hear the F-35 has "poor range" which IMO is just BS. The F-35A has a combat radius around 1200 km with 2 JDAMs and 2 AMRAAMs like the F-16, and can probably go up to 1500 km A2A config just like the F-16. However internal fuel is a huge advantage.

For example take the Rafale, it can go a combat radius of 1800km with lots of fuel tanks. However if it enters combat at that range it is likely to drop their tanks for manuverablity/speed sakes. Then it has to go back home with internal fuel, and if there isn't enough=crash. So going max combat radius with a 4th gen Fighter is probably unrealistic IMO unless its CFT.

Also don't CFT carry way less fuel, cause speed penalty(no G penalty) and also cannot be dropped? How does a CFT armed fighter compare to F-35? Does the CFT limit it to Mach 1.6?

Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

These are the types of questions I had, so I worked on a performance model of the F-35 and made a comparison. I have since refined my models and am making a more detailed and thorough comparison here.
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=25735

[Corsair1963]

I always hear the F-35 has "poor range" which IMO is just BS. The F-35A has a combat radius around 1200 km with 2 JDAMs and 2 AMRAAMs like the F-16, and can probably go up to 1500 km A2A config just like the F-16. However internal fuel is a huge advantage.

For example take the Rafale, it can go a combat radius of 1800km with lots of fuel tanks. However if it enters combat at that range it is likely to drop their tanks for manuverablity/speed sakes. Then it has to go back home with internal fuel, and if there isn't enough=crash. So going max combat radius with a 4th gen Fighter is probably unrealistic IMO unless its CFT.

Also don't CFT carry way less fuel, cause speed penalty(no G penalty) and also cannot be dropped? How does a CFT armed fighter compare to F-35? Does the CFT limit it to Mach 1.6?

Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?

Remember, when carrying external fuel tanks. The drag is so high that half of the fuel in said tanks is just needed to over come it........In short only half the fuel in any external fuel tank is "useable".

[SpudmanWP]

Two 600 gallon EFTs (dropped when empty) and CFTs gets you 630nm. Don't forget your loss of maneuverability with the CFTs which you cannot drop and the fact you are a flying billboard the whole time.

[popcorn]

Another perspective on range... the F-35 LO design alllows the jet to operate at altitudes that optimize engine efficiency. Coupled with SA advantage, the jet may approach targets in a more direct route that consumes less fuel. By contrast, non-LO designs may be forced to fly mission profiles to mitigate the risk from opposing IADS that involve circuitous routes and nap-of-earth flying, both of which burn more fuel.

[geforcerfx]

I don't get where people get that the F-35's range is poor. From what I have understood the air force wanted the F-35 to carry 4,000lbs of a2g and 2 air defense weapons internally as far as a F-16 with the same loudout and 3 external tanks. The F/A-18 was limited to around the same ranges with external fuel and load and it looks like the Navy is getting the same (if not better) from the F-35C. The marines are getting a huge range increase on the STOVL aircraft since the F-35B already out ranges a harrier by a lot (while carrying a lot more combat load) and matches a F/A-18(internal fuel) and get's to take off a lot closer to a target potentially. From the numbers I see reported and the numbers I see here on F-16.net on the f-16 range questions people ask I would say mission accomplished. With the fact that the F-35 has EFT's being designed for it, so if the mission called for longer ranges and stealth could be sacrificed or the tanks dropped early that number goes up a lot. Not to mention P & W is working on fuel burn reductions in both block 1 and Block 2 upgrades on the F135. I only see the F-35's already impressive internal Fuel range only going up.

[vanshilar]

I don't get where people get that the F-35's range is poor.

Well...you know, probably because you get people like David Axe saying the F-35 is a short-ranged fighter because it doesn't have the 2500 mile radius of a bomber and can't cross the Pacific Ocean on a single tank of gas. They never really mention whether or not any other fighter plane can do so, but they use it as an excuse to call the F-35 "short-ranged". Somehow it's also unaerodynamic because it's fat and stubby and these authors never seem to question why it has such a large internal volume.

When these articles are all the general public sees, then yeah, it's easy to understand why people might have that impression. Just like how Tyler Rogoway talks up how the Super Hornet will excitingly give a 35% range increase over Canada's current Hornets -- good for the vast arctic! -- without ever mentioning that the F-35, which he says is all wrong for Canada, will itself have a roughly 35% range increase over the Super Hornet.

[cosmicdwarf]

Of course no matter how often you point out that the F-35 isn't short range, the same people keep on repeating it. Because repeating something makes it true no matter what the facts actually are.

[vilters]

When you hang gasbags on the F-16 and company, you loose stations to carry weapons.
A fully bagged and armed F-16 almost looses all external fuel to extra drag.

3 external tanks, PLUS bombs? => And the weight and AOA to carry it all go up and UP=> You might as well leave the external tanks at home.

There's a HUGE difference between a ferry flight without bombs or armament , and a combat flight WITH bombs.

[armedupdate]

Can someone give estimates on the F-35's combat radius with 4 AMRAAMs only? 2015 sources say >590 nm with 2 JDAMs and 2 AMRAAMs which probably is around 1200km. What if the weight decreases to only 4 AMRAAMs? Its only a fraction of weight loss compared total takeoff weight, so should it only be a fraction for the combat radius as well or is fuel required to achieve same speed taken into consideration? I do believe the F-16 can go 1200 km with 2 JDAMs however 1600 km with A2A missiles only. But drag is in that equation.

[geforcerfx]

Can someone give estimates on the F-35's combat radius with 4 AMRAAMs only? 2015 sources say >590 nm with 2 JDAMs and 2 AMRAAMs which probably is around 1200km. What if the weight decreases to only 4 AMRAAMs? Its only a fraction of weight loss compared total takeoff weight, so should it only be a fraction for the combat radius as well or is fuel required to achieve same speed taken into consideration? I do believe the F-16 can go 1200 km with 2 JDAMs however 1600 km with A2A missiles only. But drag is in that equation.

There's a slide that spaz posted awhile back from Norway with a "recon" loudout having only 4 amraams had a Combat radius of like 720nm with a altitude range of 5,000-25,000ft.

[spazsinbad]

I do not have access to all my GigaBytes of info on my old desktop (inoperative) computer at moment. However I reckon the slide mentioned is from an old Norwegian JSF/F-35 LM Brief 24 Apr 2008 which showed combat radius with a JSM tacked on for that extra 100 Nm OR it is this graphic (which I do not recall seeing until today but I'm getting old & infirm).

F-35 Lightning II Maj Frode Dahl F-35 Program Norway 12 Nov 2013
http://forskning.tekna.no/wp-content/up ... v-2013.pdf (3.2Mb)

Here is the other brief: http://norway.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/v ... _dista.pdf (3.5Mb)

Precision Strike Brief 2015: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2015PSAR/RADMMahr.pdf (2.7Mb)

[armedupdate]

The range is with JSMs at low alitiutdes, is there any accurate way to calculate 4 AMRAAM range by looking at thrust and weight changes?

[spazsinbad]

Look at the first response and be patient grasshopper. BTW this question has been forumed a zillion times. Search the forum or even the internet. There will be no definitive answer except the NATOPS/Dash One Flight Manual but the first answer above eventually will tell more or HINT at more but then again it is guess work. This sort of specific range information depends on many variables to which we have no access specific to the F-35 variants & rightly so - still SDD.

I'm in Oz and I search the internet (this Canadian specific brief will be on this forum also but as I said... no access to old)

http://www.ontaero.org/Storage/29/2370_ ... ,_2013.pdf (5.6Mb)

[krorvik]

Maj. Morten Hancke claims on official blog that F-35 combat range is 35-70% better than in the F-16.

http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfl ... #more-1050

http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=2dc_1429640512