Salute!
It's always easy to add new performance requirements and measures of merit to any system that takes longer than a year ot two to develop and field nowadays, especially in the software/CPU/memory fields. Yeah! We need a better camera on the new laptop, and the speaker sounds tinny, battery life needs to be longer without adding weight or size, and then..........
Changes in military threats are inevitable over the years and ages. And as pointed out, the lengthy deveopment and testing of systems these days can and do encounter changes to the original threat and maybe new threats arise that were not envisioned when the original specs and requirements were laid out. Big deal!
I went to the U.S. budget source document that the "ARSTechnica" blurb referenced, and the quote from the congressional cmte was accurate, additionally, the cmte mentioned the A-12 program from the mid 80's( page 46) . That stealthy plane was supposed to have another 200 miles more range than the F-35 , if I read their numbers right. I took note as I was the guy assigned to develop the armament system controls and displays for one of the competing prime contractor teams ( no kidding). It was basically a subsonic design, for what it's worth, and I was not privy to the A2A performance specs, just the weapon loadouts and general employment parameters - a very compartmentalized program, lemme tellya.
The chart posted by Asturias with "strike ranges" for carrier wings cannot be very accurate for the 60's thru 90's unless the number of Intruders and Slufs dominated the wing composition, or they didn't count Tomcats. As attack planes, the Double Ugly and Bug guzzled gas, whereas the Intruder and Sluf did real well on range, just slower and not much A2A capability. When the two slow, ugly bomb trucks phased out, you can see the dramatic decrease in range. Find a Bug jock and ask them when they have to get gas from a buddy tanker or big one if the target is more than 300 miles away.
This new "strike" fighter will do just fine on range, and not all missions after the first few days will require the full exploitation of the LO capabilities inherent in its design.
I recommend the folks here interested in discussing the F-35 visit the F-16.net forums dedicated to the new jet. It is not dominated by Brits, so be advised only a few will recognize a lotta slang and reference to RAF and RN units/personnel.
Gums sends...