doge wrote:operaaperta wrote:...as far as endurance goes...we’ve got a lot of gas, in fact the legs on the F35 are longer than the legs on an F15E, based on my experience. Internally we carry 18,000lbs of gas on the A model, and we’ve got one engine, it’s pretty impressive.
Wow!

Longer leg than F-15E...F-35's long leg...! Amazing...!!

I'm not surprised doge. Clean short wing and large lift body means much higher "economical" cruise speed, plus much better altitude for that cruise, combined with designed-in engine optimisations for a burn at that typical best upper altitude cruise speed band--this all adds up to a predictably outstanding best specific-consumption speed and altitude at ISA and weight.
As I pointed out two days ago, that understated range can be extended
much further yet. Increasing it by another ~40% to 50% within 10 years should be possible from here. And once you do that the realisable tactical options rise, even as the support aircraft and crewing costs fall further.
viewtopic.php?p=400617#p400617i.e.
Add a variable cycle engine = 20% range growth
Add conformal tanks = 10% range growth
Use C wing & supercruise @ 》60K ft engine optimisation = 15% range growth.
(the thin air actually means much lower drag for a given IAS on the longer C wing and its larger area, and the higher mach at that alt will equare to lower consumption per knot, which means a vast improvement in specific consumption will be achieved)
Combined, it means the net specific-consumption changes can be expected to fall between 40% to 50%, which translates to a directly proportionate range increase of 40% to 50% higher than present at the resulting (much higher) best speed-altitude bands. The aircraft radius growth potential is quite staggering for such a small jet--and it should be fully exploited as it can make an F-15E look very pedestrian.