F-35 internal fuel, range

You question the technical excellence that the Israeli Machina has demonstrated time and again (with LM help this time).

You question the technical excellence that the Israeli Machina has demonstrated time and again (with LM help this time).

The Israeli are very capable. Yet, a single source (IDF Officer) that is over 5 years old. Is hardly a concrete source.

In addition it's not that a question the claim. I would just like more information that supports it. I don't think that is
unreasonable....

Aahh grasshopper. Like the finger pointing to the moon - it is not the moon - it is not the finger. Who knew. Who knows?

Aahh grasshopper. Like the finger pointing to the moon - it is not the moon - it is not the finger. Who knew. Who knows?

So, you have a pretty good idea of the RCS of the F-35 when equipped with Israeli CFT's??? What did I miss.....

Rong answer - Rong question - Katsu.

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

The 670nm is a combat radius under specific conditions. This figure can be shortened or extended depending on the misson at hand. The below 2016 LM chart states a 760nm combat range in an air-to-air config. Norwegian F-35 pilot Morten Hanche is on record stating that the F-35A enjoys 30-70 percent more range than the F-16AM depending on the circumstances.

Then there is the "routing factor": The distance to target vs. the distance actually flown to reach the target. A non-stealthy fighter will tend to fly around the SAM or radar bubbles - increasing the distance flown - whereas a stealthy aircraft can fly a more direct route through the SAMs. According to this chart, an F-15E enjoys a -30 percent routing factor whereas an F-22 (or F-35, probably) only has a -6 percent factor. Meaning: The stealthy aircraft has a lot more effective range for the same amount of fuel (and tanker support).

Plus, those numbers don't include any mid-air refueling either......

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

Best as in most badass maybe.
Nothing beats the original F-16A in terms of looks. With small tails, but grey radome please
Much the same with the MiG-21 actually. The first gen. MiG-21F/F-13 are the only versions that look decent. Including the Chinese knock-offs that are MiG-21F based.
All imho of course.

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

Best as in most badass maybe.

That's a good way to put it

I find the F-22's range remarkable, especially when considering its configurated for the air to ground mission. Carrying 2 1,000lb JDAM's plus 4 AAM's.. Makes you wonder what it's true range with just 8 AAM's is.

It may not be comparable to the F-35, but it's an incredible achievement IMO, especially considering they shaved 5,000lbs of fuel from the prototype. Throw in the fact its second to none at well, almost everything - and it's truly exceptional IMO.

If I were one of those engineers, I'd be really proud. Hell just as an American, I'm proud of what they accomplished..

I find the F-22's range remarkable, especially when considering its configurated for the air to ground mission. Carrying 2 1,000lb JDAM's plus 4 AAM's.. Makes you wonder what it's true range with just 8 AAM's is.

considering four AIM-120s is 1,400lb...

I find the F-22's range remarkable, especially when considering its configurated for the air to ground mission. Carrying 2 1,000lb JDAM's plus 4 AAM's.. Makes you wonder what it's true range with just 8 AAM's is.

It may not be comparable to the F-35, but it's an incredible achievement IMO, especially considering they shaved 5,000lbs of fuel from the prototype. Throw in the fact its second to none at well, almost everything - and it's truly exceptional IMO.

If I were one of those engineers, I'd be really proud. Hell just as an American, I'm proud of what they accomplished..

Its not going to be much, about a 420lbs difference assuming that they use AVEL's to carry the GBU-32s. If they use a different heavier launcher it'll be a bit more but in the grand scheme of things a 500lb difference is only about 0.7% of the gross T/O weight without bags. Probably will have only a very minor affect on range.

If the F22 has a remarkable range considering an 18000 lb internal fuel capacity but with 2 engines burning fuel, imagine what the range would be for a single engined fighter like the F-35 carrying that same amount of fuel...no wonder some people think the F-35 can go 3000nm.

Salute!

You have cracked the code, Weasel

As with the Viper and Raptor and even the Sluf, the planes are all drag limited more than weight limited. It was very obvious to us in the Viper, as we had lottsa ooopmh for takeoff. You know f=m*a to reach rotation speed. Once up, you could pull back and cruise along sipping gas. Sluf had problems getting up due to a criminal thrust to weight ratio, but once up to 250 knots or so we did fine with 6 x 1000 pounders on parent rack.

A Raptor with only internal load and no supercruise segment should have a really super radius, but I haven't seen exact numbers. When I flew the VooDoo, our squadron did not normally fly with the two external tanks. Our load was internal - two Genies, and two recessed AIM-4's. Super clean configuration, and outta burner soon as WoW, climb at 400 until 0.85 and on up to 35K in about 4 minutes. For exercises where we went up over Canada and orbited for the Bisons and Bears, we sometimes took only one tank and just got used to the wing drop after liftoff. But the drag was less than two tanks and it paid off.

Gums sends...

Did youse yanks have a preference for which wing for drop tank? Like one dresses left or right (mostly LEFT I'm told).

Did ya see the DRAGOONIEfly PDF over here: viewtopic.php?f=46&t=56953