F-35 internal fuel, range

The F-35 was specifically designed and the specs set such that any multi role mission range would be doable with internal fuel. If they needed more range in the spec, it would have been put inside. The no tanks range of the F-35 is thus quite remarkable and set for missions anticipated.

Yes, it was designed for the required 600 nm plus mission.
That doesn't mean there are no missions that require more radius. USAF just uses tankers or bombers for that.

But there are other users with different requirements. Customers have asked LM to come up with solutions for more range. So if one or more customers is willing to pay and it's technically feasible*, LM will put drop tanks on the F-35.

* That's not a given, what with the predicted seperation problems the old tank had...

Israel is participating with LM to develop not only drop tanks perhaps but also stealthy CFTs Conformal Fuel Tanks. There are posts about this in various places here. viewtopic.php?f=54&t=55676&p=422354&hilit=conformal+stealthy#p422354

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=28921&p=348168&hilit=conformal+stealthy+Israel#p348168

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=27642&p=301018&hilit=conformal+stealthy+Israel#p301018

2010: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14133&p=176777&hilit=conformal+stealthy+Israel#p176777

Good freaking grief! The damned plane as more gas than the Viper weighs empty sitting on the ramp. GASP.

My trusty Sluf had about 9,000 internal, and our combat misions from Korat used two x 300 tanks. And we still didn't have what the Stubbie has internally.

I always enjoy your stories, especially if they involve the Sluf or the Viper

Thing is though, the F-35 burns a lot more fuel than your A-7 or F-16, because it's a much larger airplane.
I'm not saying range sucks, the F-35 really has long legs, but it is what it is - 670 nm or so combat radius.

Btw.,Israel to Bushehr is around 820 nm, to Tehran around 800 nm. Both more than 670 nm, but less than 40% more than 670 nm

Good freaking grief! The damned plane as more gas than the Viper weighs empty sitting on the ramp. GASP.

My trusty Sluf had about 9,000 internal, and our combat misions from Korat used two x 300 tanks. And we still didn't have what the Stubbie has internally.

I always enjoy your stories, especially if they involve the Sluf or the Viper

Thing is though, the F-35 burns a lot more fuel than your A-7 or F-16, because it's a much larger airplane.
I'm not saying range sucks, the F-35 really has long legs, but it is what it is - 670 nm or so combat radius.

Btw.,Israel to Bushehr is around 820 nm, to Tehran around 800 nm. Both more than 670 nm, but less than 40% more than 670 nm

For a Tactical Fighter the F-35A/C have exceptional range "clean" compared to any current 4/4.5/5th Generation Fighter. Plus, options for CFT's, External Fuel Tanks, and possibly even new engines. (XA100 and/or XA101)


So, what's your point???

Btw.,Israel to Bushehr is around 820 nm, to Tehran around 800 nm. Both more than 670 nm, but less than 40% more than 670 nm

F-35 + JSM can strike targets over 1000nmi away from the launch point, so problem solved. Heck even JSOW can add another 100 miles of strike range.

Btw.,Israel to Bushehr is around 820 nm, to Tehran around 800 nm. Both more than 670 nm, but less than 40% more than 670 nm

F-35 + JSM can strike targets over 1000nmi away from the launch point, so problem solved. Heck even JSOW can add another 100 miles of strike range.

While this is true, I rather doubt Israel would leave the success of an Iranian raid up to those weapons. Just doesn't seem like their style. I'm not sure what their prior results have been, but I'm fairly certain the dream of long range PGM's doing all the work still hasn't been realized.

Rather, I see them developing their own stealthy CFT's - or disguising their jets carrying "regular" EFT's as.. something else. Their aviators are arguably the best in the world, and take great pride in keeping a man in the loop. If I'm wrong and they use PGM's to great effect with no loss of life, fantastic. But I'm not sure even they're there yet.

There's still some "they're" there, LOL

Btw.,Israel to Bushehr is around 820 nm, to Tehran around 800 nm. Both more than 670 nm, but less than 40% more than 670 nm

F-35 + JSM can strike targets over 1000nmi away from the launch point, so problem solved. Heck even JSOW can add another 100 miles of strike range.

While this is true, I rather doubt Israel would leave the success of an Iranian raid up to those weapons. Just doesn't seem like their style. I'm not sure what their prior results have been, but I'm fairly certain the dream of long range PGM's doing all the work still hasn't been realized.

Rather, I see them developing their own stealthy CFT's - or disguising their jets carrying "regular" EFT's as.. something else. Their aviators are arguably the best in the world, and take great pride in keeping a man in the loop. If I'm wrong and they use PGM's to great effect with no loss of life, fantastic. But I'm not sure even they're there yet.

There's still some "they're" there, LOL

It has nothing to with style, pride, or skill. Israel routinely uses PGMs, and there's still a man in the loop for stand off PGMs. The issue with stand off weapons, is that you need eyes on the target, if it's not a fixed site. The ability to get closer, so your sensors can find relocatable targets of opportunity, is pretty important.

Btw.,Israel to Bushehr is around 820 nm, to Tehran around 800 nm. Both more than 670 nm, but less than 40% more than 670 nm

F-35 + JSM can strike targets over 1000nmi away from the launch point, so problem solved. Heck even JSOW can add another 100 miles of strike range.

1. The published ranges are based on degraded used engine life specs. The current Israeli F-35I's will have better than 670 ... probably > 700nm radius with good mission planning.
2. A couple JSOW-C with BROACH can put a dent in most targets at 800nm plus.
3. With no more than a top off refueling after climbing to altitude, and rendezvous air refueling coming back home, Bushehr and Tehran are easily in reach of the Israeli's F-35Is today with internal fuel.

Still the missions we're talking about here are "F-111 Class" medium bomber type missions. Other systems/options (sub launched cruise missiles, turn around in Azerbaijan etc.) might be considered along with this "direct flight tactical fighter". What is interesting is that the F-35 is even in this conversation as a clean internal fuel fighter. How fat does a fighter have to get before folks stop trying to put drop tanks on a "Puffer fish"? Is there any amount that will do? I mean we could come up with a mission where the KC's could get more miles more than "just" from Missouri to Singapore, with two drop tanks? So should we design giant drop tanks for the KC-46? I mean there "could be" a mission... really folks ... The only reason we're discussing this, is that this mission is possible for the clean F-35. That's pretty amazing ... but not necessarily a reason to plan new stuff (ie. $$$) around it.

My musings,
BP

So, what's your point???

You should be worried about your point.
Or did I miss you correcting LM's claim about 40% more range from 44% more fuel? Because as we all know, half of the fuel carried in external tanks is needed to overcome the drag of the tanks. And that's a (Scooter-) fact!
Or has that fact suddenly gone out of fashion?

Btw.,Israel to Bushehr is around 820 nm, to Tehran around 800 nm. Both more than 670 nm, but less than 40% more than 670 nm

F-35 + JSM can strike targets over 1000nmi away from the launch point, so problem solved. Heck even JSOW can add another 100 miles of strike range.

Not if your problem requires something like a BLU-109. Or maybe it requires the F-35 scouting targets or aimpoints for GBU-28 equipped F-15Is. Or, or...

How fat does a fighter have to get before folks stop trying to put drop tanks on a "Puffer fish"? Is there any amount that will do?

Fatter than that apparently. It's never enough

So if a customer asks LM to examine and possibly implement solutions for more range, should they reply like "Nah, keep your money, it has enough range, or you're not using it right. Good day."
Methinks they at least start looking into options.

What if LM back in the day said no way in hell are you going to spoil the lines of our beautiful F-16 with your ugly CFTs and that even uglier spine. I don't think so Tim

What if LM back in the day said no way in hell are you going to spoil the lines of our beautiful F-16 with your ugly CFTs and that even uglier spine. I don't think so Tim

Ironically the Spined CFT equipped F-16s are the best looking to me. Yes the classic design has a flowing beauty, but much like the MiG-21bis I like a spine on the F-16

The million dollar question is how will CFT's effect the F-35's RCS???

Straight out of 2015 from the Interested Israeli from my second link:
viewtopic.php?f=61&t=28921&p=348168&hilit=conformal+stealthy+Israel#p348168

"...“It’s short-sighted to expect that all the smart people working here on conformal fuel tanks will not manage to make them stealthy," the IAF officer said....” http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /71608464/

Straight out of 2015 from the Interested Israeli from my second link:
viewtopic.php?f=61&t=28921&p=348168&hilit=conformal+stealthy+Israel#p348168

"...“It’s short-sighted to expect that all the smart people working here on conformal fuel tanks will not manage to make them stealthy," the IAF officer said....” http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /71608464/

That maybe the case. Yet, old story and more "speculation" than fact.