Originally Posted by
Lima Juliet
With the pitiful range/endurance of the F35B, I don’t think so. So we would need to buy F35A (and some boom tankers) to do the SEAD/DEAD role
or the better, and more expensive, F35C (which at least can use a drogue tanker). But these assets are EXPENSIVE compared to Typhoon ECR or aircraft like EA-18G Growler. Note that the RAAF ordered their Growlers around the same time as their F35As and see them as “complementary” to the F35A mission?
Then there are many articles like this that suggest that F35 needs a SEAD/DEAD and EW aircraft to support it’s mission:
https://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-needs-electromagnetic-cover-from-growlers-2014-4?r=US&IR=T
As for range of the F35B - any truth in the rumour that the aircraft that took off from the QE this week had to ‘gas and go’ at Brize to get to Marham?
The F-35C has an almost identical range and endurance to the B model - it's significantly heavier so burns more, so I don't follow your reasoning other than internal payload capacity? It's also the most expensive - the Treasury won't like that part.
F-35A is surely the most sensible choice? 9G (as opposed to 7.5G), longer endurance, internal gun.....
It's for the money and aeronautical geeks to decide if it's cheaper to modify the A with a refuelling probe, than it is to upgrade Voyager with a boom and train a cadre of boom operators.