
wrightwing wrote:usnvo wrote:f-16adf wrote:The F-35C as it stands probably has more range (and far, far less drag) than a similarly loaded F-14D, or any F-18 variant (for an air to air mission). All it may need is a bit more power. There is no need to mess up a fine design.
I always laugh. If a 670nm combat radius is short ranged, what is long ranged? If you really wanted to make the F-35C a better fleet defense aircraft, how about a pair of 5000lb EFTs, certify the AIM-120 for external carriage, and povide a six shot internal AIM-120D capability. That would cost virtually nothing, give you something like 27klbs of fuel for greater loiter time, 10 AIM-120Ds and 2 AIM-9Xs, and not change the aircraft at all.
Or, my personal favorite, make a KF-35C to extend the range organically. A F-35C with the internal bomb bays removed and replaced with more fuel tanks, the centerline gun pod converted to a refueling pod, and a 5000lb EFT on the inboard stations and a 2500lb EFT on the outer stations and you have an aircraft with something like 36klbs of fuel. Should easily give you well over 15klbs at 500nm and be stealthy to boot. And it could still be a second day of the war bomb truck using the exterior stations.
And use up airframe life, like Super Hornets?
Not same situation.
- A notional KF-35C would be a dedicated airframe, like the KA-6D. So all it would do is the tanking mission. So you are not using up airframe life, you are using the aircraft in its intended role.
- Without F-18A-Ds in the airwing, and with Magic Carpet and Delta Flight Path, the need for fuel goes way down.
- Additionally, if you only use the outboard stations for maximum strike tanking, as well as minimizing fuel before landing, you won't stress the airframe as bad. For that matter you could probably meet all the recovery tanking requirements without EFTs at all. The SH Blk I airframe abuse is largely self-inflicted and much of it can or already has been eliminated with changes to how they are operated.
The MQ-25 is