F-35 internal fuel, range

[doge]

CSBA presents, Range survey and comparison but Source Unknown.
I'm dissatisfied with the CSBA diagram showing that the Range of F-35C is shorter than that of A-3(Fuel 30,000 lb), A-6(Fuel 17,000 lb), A-7(Fuel 10,000 lb) ...But on the other hand...
I am satisfied that it shows that the Range of F-35C is longer than F-4, F-14, F/A-18CD, F/A-18EF, F/A-XX.
https://csbaonline.org/uploads/document ... f#page=138

It's, a Fuel 20,000 lbs single engine Monster...

[playloud]

Maximum payload for the F-35 should be 22,000 lbs.

[spazsinbad]

Maximum payload for the F-35 should be 22,000 lbs.

Thanks. LM reference that number here: https://www.f35.com/about/carrytheload/weaponry

"...In stealth mode, the F-35 can infiltrate enemy territory that other fighters can’t, carrying 5,700 pounds of internal ordnance. Once air dominance is established, the F-35 converts to beast mode, carrying up to 22,000 pounds of combined internal and external weapons, to return to the battle to finish the fight...."

Looks like CSBA did not add the combined internal/external loads? 5.7k + 18.3k = 22,000 pounds TOTAL

[XanderCrews]

Maximum payload for the F-35 should be 22,000 lbs.

Puts it literally off the chart

[playloud]

Maximum payload for the F-35 should be 22,000 lbs.

Thanks. LM reference that number here: https://www.f35.com/about/carrytheload/weaponry

"...In stealth mode, the F-35 can infiltrate enemy territory that other fighters can’t, carrying 5,700 pounds of internal ordnance. Once air dominance is established, the F-35 converts to beast mode, carrying up to 22,000 pounds of combined internal and external weapons, to return to the battle to finish the fight...."

Looks like CSBA did not add the combined internal/external loads? 5.7k + 18.3k = 22,000 pounds TOTAL

To be fair, the USAF and USN fact sheets list it at 18,000 lbs, as does the LM Fast Facts sheet. However, that never made sense given the internal/external hardpoint capacities. But, in the beast-mode advertisement you linked, they now specifically say it is 22,000 lbs, which jives with the hardpoint numbers.

[spazsinbad]

In the 'beast mode' thread there is discussion about this - I'll find the link soonish…. BTW CSBA should be brighter than us.

SOME LINKS: viewtopic.php?f=54&t=51255&p=376723&hilit=H4kuB58nENs#p376723
&
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=29374&p=393671&hilit=H4kuB58nENs#p393671

BEAST MODE LM Jeff Babione Shares F-35 Update at ASC17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4kuB58nENs

[element1loop]

For F-35A/C:

18,000 lb total weapon load equates to:

5,700 lb (int) + 12,300 lb (ext) = 18,000 lb

The tallied weight allowance for each pylon comes to.

Max internal = 5,700 lb
Max external = 16,600 lb ... ... (4,300 lb more than the available 12,300 lb for external stores in a 18,000 lb total allowable payload)
Total = 22,300 lb

A maximium external load configuration would be:
2 x 5,000 lb weapon (includes 2 x 550 lb pylons)
2 x 2,500 lb weapon (includes 2 x 550 lb pylons)
2 x 300 lb (includes 2 x 113 lb pylons)
1 x 1,000 "multi-mission pod" (as centerline station is reported rated for 1,000 lb)

Which brings it up to about 16,600 lb of total max external weight that could be added to the jet.

I don't see a configuration where 18,000 lb external is even possible, unless the pylon stations were capable of carrying more weight than claimed. For instance, if a higher external weight was made possible via a reduced certification +/- G range. i.e. the official 18,000 lb of total payload would represent the allowable payload, without reducing +/-G numbers below required G ranges. Thus a "Beast mode" loading would only be viable with a reduced agility envelope in battle, plus non-standard weapons, and this may degrade structural life also. I'm betting we never see maximum loadings like that.

But even if you had full-fuel plus an actual 22,300 lb weapon load the takeoff-weight still only comes to 69,797 lb, or 203 lb less than MTOW

Now, if you had full-fuel plus the full 18,000 lb weapons load (theoretically possible, but unlikely) the actual takeoff-weight only comes up to 65,497 lb, or 4,503 lb less than certified MTOW.

But if you have full-fuel plus the maximum long-range standoff strike configuration possible, you get this:

2 x JSM @ 950 lb each = 1,900 lb
2 x AIM-120D @ 355 lb each = 710 lb
Full internal load = 2,610 lb

2 x AIM-9X @ 187 lb each = 374 lb
4 x JASSM-ER @ 2,250 lb each = 9,000 lb
Add pylon weight: 4 x Heavy weapon pylon @ 550 lb each + 2 x AAM rail pylon @ 113 lb each = 2,426 lb
Full external loading is therefore = 11,800 lb

So the maximum long-range strike takeoff weight is 11,800 lb external plus 2,610 lb internal = 14,410 lb

So, full-fuel plus the 14,410 lb, comes to 61,907 lb for a maximum strike-loading at takeoff, or 8,093 lb less than MTOW.

In this relatively light configuration power to weight looks like this:

Dry thrust:
28K lb Thrust @100% fuel = 0.452
28K lb Thrust @50% fuel = 0.532

Wet thrust:
43K lb Thrust @100% fuel = 0.695
43K lb Thrust @50% fuel = 0.817

And the achievable cruise altitude such a light takeoff weight and the resulting climb and cruise fuel-burn efficiency benefit will provide is a lot higher than what all prior strikefighters could achieve with their maximum long-range strike loads.



EDIT1: I slipped up with the middle pylon's allowable weight limit, resulting numbers now adjusted.
EDIT2: All numbers updated using 'Spurts' suggested pylon weight additions, given immediately below.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Heavy pylons can weigh over 550lb each and AAM pylons can still be 200. In pylons alone you are looking at adding another 2,600lb possibly. I think the pod weighs 1700lb IIRC

[element1loop]

Heavy pylons can weigh over 550lb each and AAM pylons can still be 200. In pylons alone you are looking at adding another 2,600lb possibly. I think the pod weighs 1700lb IIRC

OK, thanks.

The outer AAM station capacity is 300 lb and the missile is ~187 lb, so its pylon should weigh less than 113 lb.

EDIT: I've now updated my post above with Spurts suggested pylon weight numbers, and adjusted the resulting P:W numbers as well. (Note that the figures still don't include things like expendable countermeasures, fluids and/or compressed liquid-gases, that may add to payload weight, and are not a part of the empty-weight.)

[playloud]

The C model carries the gun pod, which would push total carriage on all hardpoints to 22,300 lbs. Not that you'd ever get every single pound out of each station.

[doge]

I... set off on a journey to find past Range articles. It's a...treasure hunt...!! (devour.)
http://secure.afa.org/media/scripts/conf2006_Davis.asp

AFA Transcripts
Brigadier General Charles R. Davis Deputy Program Executive Officer
F-35 Lightning II Program Office Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition 2006
Washington, D.C. Sept. 26, 2006
"F-35 and What It Does"

This kind of gives you an idea of a little bit of the configuration differences. I’ll kind of show you how they match up to some of the legacy airplanes right here. The big point we need to emphasize on all of the discussions we have here, look at what the internal fuel is on all the airplanes. 18,000 on CTAL. Even STOVAL has 14,000; 20,000-plus on CV. That is a significant amount of range, more so than any legacy jet out there, and that is in a very, if you will, low observable, stealth configuration. To be able to carry that much gas, and you’ll kind of get an idea of what the range is. But most of the airplanes are well over 550, up past 650 nautical miles of range based on being able to carry weapons and that amount of fuel in a stealth, low observable configuration which is a new aspect that most of the services, short of the Air Force right now, that’s going to be picking up this airplane will have that they’ve never had before.

So if you think about the Department of the Navy, the Marines, and certainly all of our partner countries, never had a stealth platform, never had a day one stealth platform out there, this kind of gives you an idea of what the F-35 is going to do for them.

http://www.robodaily.com/reports/Lockhe ... t_999.html

Lockheed Martin F-35 Succeeds In First Aerial Refueling Test
by Staff Writers Fort Worth TX (SPX) Mar 16, 2008

The F-35 carries a prodigious amount of internal fuel - more than 18,000 pounds - giving it exceptionally long range without external tanks, and dramatically reducing its need for tanker support. The internal-fuel configuration enables the Lightning II to remain stealthy by avoiding external tank carriage typically used by legacy fighters to extend range.

https://vanguardcanada.com/2014/05/21/j ... iven-data/

The Joint Strike Fighter: Driven by data
Vanguard Staff (from Apr/May 2014)

“It has the best combat ID suite of any fighter I have ever come across,” he says. “And it has the most advanced suite of countermeasures of any fighter airplane.” In addition, he points out that the F-35 carries 18,500 pounds of onboard fuel, meaning it can stay in the fight longer than its fourth generation counterparts.

That range of capability – operating at distance, onboard electronic warfare, target identification, common situational awareness, and the ability to engage for longer duration – suggests a change in tactics.

O’Bryan says young pilots entering the F-35 program are already starting to think of new ways of operating. “They are getting very innovative. I have seen them in the simulator do things that I have learned from, things to create deception and surprise.” But that, too, will remain classified.

https://theaviationist.com/2019/03/05/f ... nthan-afb/

F-35 Demo Team Debuts with New Dynamic Aerobatic Routine at Davis-Monthan AFB
March 5, 2019

Capt. Olson went on to tell TheAviationist.com, “The stuff you see at the airshow is really awesome, but it doesn’t even touch the tip of the iceberg of what this airplane is. When you get out there and actually employ this airplane, you’re talking stealth, you’re talking sensor fusion, and then ‘information fusion’ is kind of another word we’ve been using recently. It’s fusing together information not only from itself, from sensor fusion, but also from all other different sources, coming in, and presenting it to the pilot to be able to make decisions not only for your own airplane, not only for your own wingman, but for the entire battle space, and its sharing that information for the whole battle space. So, the chief recently compared it to the quarterback on the field and I think that is a great analogy for what this airplane brings to the battle space. When we go out there we’ve got tons of gas, we can hang out for a long time and we can paint the battlespace for everybody and share that situational awareness with our fourth gen brothers and sisters and be a more effective fighting force.”

[doge]

I am...The Runaway Train!
What I noticed when I was looking for; Mr.Billie Flynn often touches the F-35 Range. (devour, Devour)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lockhe ... -1.1324551

Lockheed Martin launches Canadian PR campaign for F-35
Terry Milewski · CBC News · Posted: Apr 08, 2013

'Stealth is not an accessory'
Flynn swoops into the fray fully loaded. For him, the price isn't really the issue. Spread over the 40-year lifespan of the fleet, he says, the F-35's cost will be roughly the same as its rivals.

Rather, the issue for him is whether Canada wants to send pilots to war with second-rate equipment. Having flown his share of Arctic-sovereignty missions in Canada's North, Flynn doesn't think much of them. Canada's CF-18s, he says, allowed only a "token presence." They couldn't see far or stay for long. The F-35, he says, has greater range and lets pilots see much more — covertly, too.

"With the immense amount of fuel — with 18,500 pounds of gas inside this jet — it has range and persistence better than any other jet," Flynn says.

"So I go further, I stay longer and with the sensors I see vast distances."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KppyVg4ttLU

A Pilot's Perspective: The F-35's Range
10/22/2013
Patrolling the far reaches of Canada requires a fighter with great range. F-35 test pilot Billie Flynn relates his experience as an RCAF pilot to the Lightning II's fuel capacity and range.

You know it's interesting all the fuel and the f-35 is carried internally in the body of the airplane and out on the wings.
I have 50% more fuel capacity in the f-35 than I did in the cf-18 that I flew as it as a young pilot and later into combat.
I go further I stay longer once I get there than I ever could in any of the in the see f-18 or any of the legacy fighters that I ever flew.
That translates when we're talking about patrolling the largest coastline Pacific and Atlantic in the world or the vast expanse of the Canadian Arctic.
That translates to significantly more range which means area covered and surveilled by us and allows us to stay on station and patrol an area much longer dramatically longer than I ever could in any of the fourth-generation airplanes that I flew it is measurable.
The difference in range and and persistence in the f-35 in the fourth-generation fighters you.

https://sldinfo.com/2014/06/shaping-arc ... -the-grid/

Shaping Arctic Defense: Leveraging the Grid
06/07/2014
Billie Flynn, former Canadian Air Force fighter pilot, is now an F-35 test pilot with Lockheed Martin. Flynn started flying the CF-18 some 30 years ago and retired after commanding 441 squadron and leading the Canadian task force involved in Kosovo.

Given the importance of CFB Cold Lake in any Arctic strategy, Flynn’s operational experience is suggestive of the way ahead if F-35s become the mainstay Canadian aircraft. “Because the F-35 is clean in design and operation, it goes further and stays longer in the airspace. This allows it to patrol the Arctic without the same level of tanker support that the CF-18 requires. It can stay over the Arctic area of operation to be able to see at distance,” he says.

“It will allow the Canadian Air Force to patrol areas with fighter aircraft in way they could not do before. As the CO of 441, to fly out of Cold Lake for Arctic ­sovereignty missions required a significant logistical support just to operate in the areas crucial for the mission. With 18,000 pounds of fuel on board the F-35, the pilots will operate longer and at greater range than with the CF-18.”

We then discussed impacts of combat systems for the Arctic sovereignty mission set. “Stealth allows the F-35 to patrol with impunity. The combination of 360° multi-spectral sensor, sensor fusion shared information among members of the network allows the F-35 to serve as a key node to a much broader grid than anyone would have thought possible with a tactical fighter,” he asserts.

Flynn believes that patrolling and guarding Canadian resources in the Arctic will be done on a order of magnitude more effectively with the F-35 than any legacy fighter platform. “The F-35 sees in depth and breadth and across many electronic spectrums as well. It can see hundreds of miles around itself and does so in a moving space as it operates. The pilot is in a shared sensor space – he is not operating as a unit of a squadron defined by wingmen.”

https://defensemaven.io/warriormaven/ai ... Zv5PZU9-w/

Warrior Maven Video Special: War in the F-35 - Pilot Interview
2/5/2019 By Kris Osborn
On F-35 Stealth
F-35 Pilot Billie Flynn: Stealth contributes to the survivability of the platform. The only way to achieve that survivability is to build an aircraft that is stealthy from the word "go" -- from the very beginning. The fuel is carried internally, 18,000 pounds of gas in an F-35A and 20,000 pounds of gas in an F-35C. The antennas are embedded into the skin of the airplane and every sensor is flush mounted into the airplane. This allows us to fly with less drag than any legacy platform, go farther and remain on station - and be survivable.

...... One of the most fascinating parts of the F-35 is how every hinge, every panel, every fastener and every bolt is closed back up when we are done with the maintenance of the airplane. Every time we take off in an F-35, we are in that stealth, non-visible configuration. We designed it so the stealth robustness will be maintained over many decades.

[doge]

I Quote from a Magazine PDF posted by Spaz.
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=411798&hilit=ADBR&sid=0eccc32d26647934e8ccece585c2b9ac#p411798
Web ver. https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/ ... -luke-afb/ (Not complete compared to pdf.)
I will quote only my favorite part because it's long.

･F-35 flight characteristics are similar to F-22.
･F-35 is run circles around Time-On-Station/Combat Radius than Hornet.
･F-35 is significantly better in Mil-Power Sea-Level performance, and climb quite from the 40K ft compared to the Hornet/Super Hornet.
･F-35 can Take-off with Fuel 18,000lb with Mil-Power, but Hornet can't Take-off without using AB with Fuel 16,500lb(3xEFT).

Etc. are written.

LUKE DAYS - FLYING THE F-35
Nov-Dec 2018 Andrew McLaughlin

LtCol Heirlmeier has an impressive resume, having previously flown the Boeing F-15C before moving to the Lockheed Martin F-22 as an operational and then instructor pilot. He has led the 61st FS for nearly 18 months.
“I think I was lucky to have an F-15 experience, from a legacy platform perspective where you really had to work sensors to get information then fuse it up here,” he said as he tapped his head. “To then go into the F-22 and be like, ‘Oh this is great, sensors do all the work for you’ – they fuse the picture and now you’re really just a decision-maker. So coming into the F-35, that was the same.
“The flight characteristics of the F-35 are similar in a lot of ways to the F-22,” he added. “With the high angles of attack, it’s very similar performance there. They obviously look similar in a lot of ways, and I think the digital flight control system laws ported over in a large way as well. Plus the way the stick behaves and how it moves the airplane was very intuitive having come from the F-22.”

“Overall, the PVI is very intuitive and very well done. The jet also carries a lot of fuel and, if you fly carefully, it will run circles around the Hornet for time on station and combat radius. It is also very easy to land and is very stable, and the flight control system and control laws are first class.”

WGCDR Jackson said the other key difference between the F-35 and older generation jets is the built-in mission flexibility the new jet brings to the fight. “I think one of the other differences with flying the F-35 is it’s pretty much always a clean jet,” he said. “The performance is considerably better than an aircraft that’s lugging around a bunch of tanks or external weapons.
“We commonly equate some of the performance to a classic Hornet carrying a centreline tank, but even that’s probably not valid. The F-35’s sea level performance in mil power is significantly better than you would see in a classic, and as you get higher up even into the ‘40s’, if you keep the speed on the jet it goes quite well up there compared to a Hornet or Super Hornet.
“But importantly, in terms of the missions that you’re flying you’ve got far more flexibility, because you’re always in a configuration that can do any of the roles. It’s not like I can’t do BFM (basic fighter manoeuvrings) that day because my fleet is ‘jugged up’ with (external) tanks, so quite often here we’ll do some BFM on the back end of the mission, whereas historically we wouldn’t have been able to do that.
“Or now we can swing-role into something else, whereas maybe we wouldn’t have had that flexibility in the past because we didn’t have a targeting pod on the jet,” he said. “That creates some scheduling and training flexibility that we didn’t previously have, and it means we’re unencumbered by some of the constraints we have on the classic Hornet.
“So, by nature the way we operate tactically, I can do a lot more mission elements in a single F-35 flight than I could previously, and I can stay competent across a broader range of roles using fewer focused sorties.

The first time I noticed something different was on the takeoff roll. We did a mil power (non-afterburner) take off, and this was the first time I had felt the acceleration - the F-35A has more 'go' than the classic, that's for sure. We took off in mil power with 18,000 pounds of fuel, whereas the classic would have a maximum of 16,500 pounds with three external tanks and need to do a full AB (afterburner) takeoff.
Overall compared to a Hornet, The F-35 is noticeably faster while carrying more fuel, and was extremely stable and easy to fly. I can't wait to get to the tactical flying!

And, Quoted from my past posts.
I am forgetting my past posts! (When searching for Range articles and finding this, I remembered that I posted the same thing in the past.)
https://www.bcam.net/wp-content/uploads ... ll2017.pdf
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=24027&p=378010&hilit=British+Columbia+Aviation+Museum&sid=402d07cfac897a6237abeda5184c881c#p378010

THE NORSEMAN NEWS
THE OFFICIAL NEWSLETTER OF THE British Columbia Aviation Museum
2017/10

We are in the information age. Another observation from that exercise was that the F-35 has a greater time on station than the others. This is due to two factors, one is that because of its stealth design the airframe is very slick. The other fourth generation planes carry external weapons and fuel tanks creating drag using more fuel and keeping their speed reduced.

The F-35 carries 18,000 lbs. of internal fuel and so can remain on station for longer periods than its nearest peers. The F-35’s engine produces 42,000 lbs. of thrust, compare that with the CF-18 which is no slouch. The F-18 has two engines producing 17,000 lbs. thrust for combined 34,000 lbs. Lightning II‘s stealth and radar jamming capabilities make it survivable even in heavily defended airspace. Young pilots will survive even against modern and deadly Russian surface to air missiles.

[mixelflick]

OK so it's pretty clear it has excellent range, especially compared to the F-15, 16 and 18. Having said all of that, how does the range compare to an SU-35?

It's clear the Flanker carries more fuel, but then again it has 2 engines vs. 1 and a draggy airframe. Soooo... assuming full internal fuel for both, and a 6 AAM loadout for both (we'll assume 6 AMRAAM's for F-35).... who has the better range? Let's assume the mission is offensive counter air...

It's hard (for me, anyway) to figure out. Opinions?

[doge]

This time, I tried searching the Israeli Range article.
I try various approaches.

From the IAF official site English version.
https://www.iaf.org.il/5642-35315-en/IAF.aspx (As far back as I can tell using [wayback machine], this article seems to have existed since 2010.)

Fifth Generation in Israel
It's one of only two fifth-generation combat aircraft in the world, a stealth jet with impressive fighting, bombing and transport capabilities, and for the IDF it's the aircraft of the future. The F-35 is already taking shape, and the Air Force is doing all it can to acquire it as fast as it can, in order to preserve its aerial supremacy in the Middle East.
Sivan Gazit
An Unseen, Outstretched Arm
In reality, acquiring the F-35 isn't moving forward, it's leaping forward. It's not equivalent to updating the F-16, improving an Electronic Warfare system or receiving a new smart bomb. "Apart from the F-22, there's no stealth fighter like the F-35 anywhere in the world", says Colonel Ido. Lockheed-Martin markets it similarly: a cross between a combat plane and a B-2 stealth bomber.
"The Air Force is putting its hope in this aircraft in a very dramatic way, as it adds capabilities that don't exist today, to fly anywhere, even to a very dangerous area, and return without being discovered". 'Anywhere' is no exaggeration; the F-35 will dramatically extend the Air Force's already long arm. "The F-35 can carry the most fuel", explains Colonel Itzik. "The aircraft's internal tank, for the sake of comparison, holds about the same as the F-16I holds in its internal, under-wing and conformal fuel tanks put together". The fuels tanks and its weapons bay will be situated inside the aircraft, not under-wing, so as not to harm its radar signature.

In 2012, LM O'Bryan was presentation on F-35 at a conference in Israel.
http://www.fisher.org.il/Fisher%20Insti ... ons/50.pdf (Talks about F-35 on pages 35~43. He talks not only about the Range/fuel, but also about Radar, IR sensors, EW, datalink, etc.)

F-35 in the Symmetric Conflict Stephen O'Bryan, Vice President, F-35 Business Development and Customer Engagement, Lockheed Martin, USA
May 22, 2012

How do we design an airplane? We try to retro-fit it on F-16, we did our best but we really made no discernible impact to the operational signature of the airplane despite reducing it quite a bit. So, it had to be designed from the beginning, and if you go to the first thing we realized, it is that you have to put the fuel internal to the airplane. You have a 35A, for Israel is going to have 18,500 pounds of fuel compared to internal F16 is only 7200 pounds of fuel.

That is what we knew on the F-35 that we could not do on the F-16, and those attributes have to be present from the beginning in the design of the airplane and that is what F-35 does. When we look at it, it is not just the stealth, but the different qualities of it, so when you see the comparisons of the F-16 and F-35 you can see the big thing that takes you, this amount of fuel on the F-35 that comes to 18,500 pounds and the same amount of ordinance that you see on a fully loaded F-16 today, about 52,100 pounds of it, but what we know in a new symmetrical environment [is] that F-16 is not going to be survivable, it is going to be the high risk: you are going to take high loses or you are not going to accomplish the mission, or more likely all these three.
But the F-35 is a flexible alternative, because again, you cannot be just one element of it, you cannot be just the first four days of a conflict; you have to provide a sustained approach to a level of efforts, report to troops, cast missions and only the F-35 gives you 18,000 pounds of ordinance. The flexibility, a transition to a more permissive environment that you see in Iraq and Afghanistan and being able to bear more ordinances without compromising the amount of fuel you have. You could see that compared to any other 4th generation airplane, the F-35 is going to bring more ordinance even in a permissive life as well as an in a stealth configuration. When you add that up it gives you a huge change in the aerodynamics of the airplane.
The first, as you see [referring to presentation] is the range, so when you take 5th generation engine technology, advanced 30 years behind what we did to an F-16 and then you put 18,000 pounds of fuel and then you mounted it internally to the airplane you get a huge increase in the range capability, whether it is time on-station or to reach a target further along. When everything is not carried external to the airplane, you are actually able to accelerate faster and you are able to reach a high supersonic speed faster. The F-16 now will tell you in a slick configuration is a mach 2.0 airplane but the configuration I showed you prior, a combat configuration with bombs, tanks and missiles, is a subsonic airplane. That same configuration in F-35, that stealth configuration is a mach 1.6 airplane every day, all day, and we are seeing that in a flight test [referring to presentation].

In 2016, In response to criticism/concerns about F-35, an anonymous IDF senior officer whose name hidden talked the F-35 range/radius/fuel.
https://www.calcalist.co.il/local/artic ... 59,00.html (Language is Hebrew. I used Google translation. (partial bing translation.))

Lockheed Martin responds: "Why is an excellent aircraft like F35 getting a negative attitude from the media?"
Shaul Amsterdamsky and Uri Tovel 05.04.16
Lockheed Martin Senior World Vice President Gary North and Business Development Vice President Jack Chrysler - and Lockheed Martin Israel Brigadier General (res.) Joshua Shani on Sunday held a press conference at the Hilton Hotel in Tel Aviv. The aircraft and praised its capabilities.
The senior officials refrained from answering the Calcalist question about the findings of the severe report the Pentagon submitted to Congress a week and a half ago, and its details have been widely published here, but both expressed resentment at the publication: "There is a vexing question - why is an excellent aircraft receiving so much criticism from the media?"

"Every project has risks."
This position of Ben Eliyahu is well reflected in the Ministry of Defense's position and the official answers received from the apply that he commands.
In response to the "Calcalist ", the IDF could talk to one of the senior officers in the Air Force, but not to quote it in his name. In the bottom row, check the audit.
The officer claimed that he knew the project closely and even visited the United States about two weeks ago to examine him, and he said he was advancing to the satisfaction of the Air Force.
"For us this is the leading and most important power building project in the Air Force in the coming decade, and he is currently very good." In December, the first two planes are going to land. "This is a full-on plan," said the officer, when asked about the timetable.
Officer number: "There's an operational and perceptual leap in here, and the Air Force has entered this plane into the fifth generation era." No one in the Middle East has any "fifth-generation airplanes." Contrary to his remarks, the security expert will open a shafir from the Institute for National Security Studies, said last week to "calcalist " that "we love to present this plane as one of the fifth generation planes, but the truth is that it is a legend." The division of Dorot is a marketing issue that should be overlooked.

Q: Your optimism doesn't match the Pentagon's report.
The officer: "There may be a professional argument about a parameter here. Every professional platform (that is, the aircraft and the SC) has bugs and we handle them over the years. The planes will be declared operational one year after they arrive, progressing along the way. In any Air Force project. "
"When we bought airplanes like the F16i, they came to us after accumulating lots of flying hours. The F35 project is still under development, and as with any such project there are risks."

Q: Why is the IDF so interested in an aircraft that some of its features are inferior to those of other aircraft?
The officer: "Already today, the aircraft represents a major operational leap in relation to the capabilities we have. weighing his capabilities with those of the other planes, our aircraft level jumps to generation 4.5th."
As for "Calcalist" questions about the aircraft's elusiveness - which should be one of its key benefits - the officer replied that there are few people who know the real details of this feature, and are not the people with whom "Calcalist" spoke.

Q: This aircraft can only fly 1,100 km without refueling, compared to F15 which can fly 1,800 km. Isn't that a problem for you?
The officer: "There is no gap in the range capabilities of the aircraft compared to other aircraft because the aircraft carries the armament inside the body and not the wings, so it does not need a lot of fuel.
Considering all the data, its range performance does not fall below that of other aircraft."

Q: Israel paid $ 5.6 billion for 33 aircraft and their maintenance is expected to be very expensive. Given the many reported failures, isn't this a deal that is too expensive?
The officer: "The cost of holding the aircraft is down significantly. If you compare the price of a new F15 bought today with the F35, you will find that the first is 30% more expensive."

This IDF senior officers say there is No Range Gap between to the F-35, even when compared to a Radius 1,800 km F-15 !! Is the Radius/Range of F-35 that so Long !? wow!?