Royalistflyer To get back a little to performance ..... I don't recall anyone on this thread (correct me if I'm wrong) mentioning combat radius as a distinct problem with the F35. If we aren't using it for air superiority, but primarily as ground attack isn't its combat radius a real problem?
Courtney Mil ...several times over the last five years. I think the B model combat radius is barely sufficient for strike and for fleet defence
glad rag Indeed, however the real kicker is how do they operate on "the first day " without the carrier group having to close into range of shore defences?
I recognize sources differ, and that combat radius differs greatly with load and profile flown, and that F-35 combat radius has been dumbed down from original goals, but it appears the F-35 will have a combat radius greater than the F-16 (the aircraft it will replace in the largest numbers) greater than the Sea Harrier and Harrier, and similar to the F-18 series. Yes I get there are other aircraft with more impressive combat radius with better long range strike or long endurance CAP figures.
"Ground attack" depnds on how you define it. If you mean longer range pentration strike like the F-111 or Tornado specialized in, then yes the F-35 will come up short in your comparisome. If you mean ground attack combat radius like the F-18, F-16, Harrier then the F-35 compares adequately. F-35 will never compare to long endurance CAP like a F-22 or Su-27, as it was never designed to do so.
It seems F-35 combat radius is adequate for most the customers- and on internal fuel. All versions will be able to carry external tanks (with reduced stealth). Surely a 450 mile radius is adequate for most US Marine Corps close air support profiles, and gives enough room for the UK carriers to park sufficiently offshore.
While more range/endurance is always nice, the F-35 seems to meet the range requirements of the many customers that have signed up, and few of those have large airborne refueling fleets. Seems Isreal and Australia have expressed interest in more range.
If you are flying the super long (for tactical aviation) sorties from carriers and land bases in profiles supporting ground troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan, then yes range is more of an issue. Most scenarios for carrier aviation, and tactical jets in general, are at shorter ranges.
Not sure what sources to believe, but it appears the B will have the shortest legs with a radius of @450 miles, with the A and C perhaps closer to 600 miles.