Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion

[randomradio]

Says who?

Says the Australian AF.

Anyway, if the F-35's combat radius with combat and reserve is 1400Km, then it exceeds even the Su-35S's combat radius in such conditions. That's unlikely.

40% of the F-35's estimated basic range of 2800Km gives us 1120Km.

The Israelis wouldn't consider the F-15E to have more range than the F-35 if that wasn't the fact.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Which is lower than for F-35.

Yes, but the load that the f-35 is capable of carrying is not the same as that of the Rafale.

We can try a little comparison:

The F-35 can carry two 2,000 pound bombs and two or four missiles, it does not need a laser designation pod because it is already integrated.
It will thus be necessary to add to the Rafale a mass of 450 kg for 4 missiles, 265 kg for the Pod and 2t for the bombs, that is to say 2.715 kg which, because of the density 4 times greater of the weapons, compared to the fuel will generate a drag equivalent to 700 kg of fuel.
The fuel fraction of the Rafale C when fully fuelled is 0.336, that of the F-35 A is 0.389.
To equalise the fuel fractions, the Rafale would have to be given an additional 1250kg, but due to the drag of the drop tanks and accepting the principle that it takes one tank to carry the other, the Rafale would have to be given an additional 2500kg to take into account aerodynamics.
The load that the Rafale will have to carry to be on a par with a stealthy F-35 will therefore be 2715 kg for the weapons + 2500 kg to compensate for the difference in fuel fraction, taking into account the drag induced by the drop tanks, + 700 kg for the drag induced by the weapons, i.e. about 6 t in total.

As it can carry 9.5t it leaves 3.5t to carry more or go further.

Taking into account the additional drag from the weapons it can carry, it can double its payload and have the same range as the F-35, or if it is limited to the same payload it can increase its range by 30%.

I counted the aerodynamic penalty for the Rafale when it carries drop tanks, but I did not count the aerodynamic penalty for the f-35 which has a cargo bay that permanently increases its drag.

And if the tanks are dropped during the initial transit, which is the case for high-intensity warfare missions, the drag they induce is reduced by more than half.

 

[vstol Jockey]

Yes, but the load that the f-35 is capable of carrying is not the same as that of the Rafale.

We can try a little comparison:

The F-35 can carry two 2,000 pound bombs and two or four missiles, it does not need a laser designation pod because it is already integrated.
It will thus be necessary to add to the Rafale a mass of 450 kg for 4 missiles, 265 kg for the Pod and 2t for the bombs, that is to say 2.715 kg which, because of the density 4 times greater of the weapons, compared to the fuel will generate a drag equivalent to 700 kg of fuel.
The fuel fraction of the Rafale C when fully fuelled is 0.336, that of the F-35 A is 0.389.
To equalise the fuel fractions, the Rafale would have to be given an additional 1250kg, but due to the drag of the drop tanks and accepting the principle that it takes one tank to carry the other, the Rafale would have to be given an additional 2500kg to take into account aerodynamics.
The load that the Rafale will have to carry to be on a par with a stealthy F-35 will therefore be 2715 kg for the weapons + 2500 kg to compensate for the difference in fuel fraction, taking into account the drag induced by the drop tanks, + 700 kg for the drag induced by the weapons, i.e. about 6 t in total.

As it can carry 9.5t it leaves 3.5t to carry more or go further.

Taking into account the additional drag from the weapons it can carry, it can double its payload and have the same range as the F-35, or if it is limited to the same payload it can increase its range by 30%.

I counted the aerodynamic penalty for the Rafale when it carries drop tanks, but I did not count the aerodynamic penalty for the f-35 which has a cargo bay that permanently increases its drag.

And if the tanks are dropped during the initial transit, which is the case for high-intensity warfare missions, the drag they induce is reduced by more than half.

You forgot that even F=35 can carry external stores.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

You forgot that even F=35 can carry external stores.

In this case it is less stealthy than a Rafale.
I said:

The load that the Rafale will have to carry to be on a par with a stealthy F-35

And only for Israel:

It is no secret that the Israeli Air Force considers the combat range as one of the most important factors when adopting a new fighter aircraft and that, because of this, it was the first operator to ask for external fuel tanks for the F-35 Lightning II or, more specifically, for the customized F-35I Adir. The first studies for new fuel tanks started at least during the system design and development phase (SDD) of the 5th gen aircraft, but after 2019 nothing new surfaced, at least online. Until, a few days ago, the Israeli news website Walla reported that development is still ongoing.

Israel Continues Development Of New External Fuel Tanks For Its F-35I Adir Jets

A local newspaper reported that the development of external fuel tanks for the F-35 is still ongoing and will possibly be complete in two years. It is no

theaviationist.com

 

[vargr]

When transiting from Norway to the US, Norwegian F-35s, flying with external AIM-9X rails and no wing tanks stop to refuel in Iceland, 1500km from the Norwegian mainland, then make the transit to the US, 3500km from Iceland while refueling once in the air. Two refueling for a 5000km flight.

This usually involves hot pit refueling while on the ground. Quick process.

 

[Innominate]

In this case it is less stealthy than a Rafale.
I said:

And only for Israel:

Israel Continues Development Of New External Fuel Tanks For Its F-35I Adir Jets

A local newspaper reported that the development of external fuel tanks for the F-35 is still ongoing and will possibly be complete in two years. It is no

theaviationist.com

Lol. Delusional Rafail fanboy. This is not some knock on them it is a fact just look at this claim by this French Rafail fanboy. How dumb must you be to believe that this plane in this configuration....

... Is stealthier than the F-35 in this configuration.

Only a French Rafail fanboy would believe such stupidity.

 

[BMD]

Yes, but the load that the f-35 is capable of carrying is not the same as that of the Rafale.

We can try a little comparison:

The F-35 can carry two 2,000 pound bombs and two or four missiles, it does not need a laser designation pod because it is already integrated.
It will thus be necessary to add to the Rafale a mass of 450 kg for 4 missiles, 265 kg for the Pod and 2t for the bombs, that is to say 2.715 kg which, because of the density 4 times greater of the weapons, compared to the fuel will generate a drag equivalent to 700 kg of fuel.
The fuel fraction of the Rafale C when fully fuelled is 0.336, that of the F-35 A is 0.389.
To equalise the fuel fractions, the Rafale would have to be given an additional 1250kg, but due to the drag of the drop tanks and accepting the principle that it takes one tank to carry the other, the Rafale would have to be given an additional 2500kg to take into account aerodynamics.
The load that the Rafale will have to carry to be on a par with a stealthy F-35 will therefore be 2715 kg for the weapons + 2500 kg to compensate for the difference in fuel fraction, taking into account the drag induced by the drop tanks, + 700 kg for the drag induced by the weapons, i.e. about 6 t in total.

As it can carry 9.5t it leaves 3.5t to carry more or go further.

Taking into account the additional drag from the weapons it can carry, it can double its payload and have the same range as the F-35, or if it is limited to the same payload it can increase its range by 30%.

I counted the aerodynamic penalty for the Rafale when it carries drop tanks, but I did not count the aerodynamic penalty for the f-35 which has a cargo bay that permanently increases its drag.

And if the tanks are dropped during the initial transit, which is the case for high-intensity warfare missions, the drag they induce is reduced by more than half.

Except when you carry that 3.5t to go further, that adds more drag. You can't start from a losing position and win by adding external tanks, it just doesn't work. And in high intensity warfare you never operate at anywhere near maximum load. So your post is completely flawed.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Lol. Delusional Rafail fanboy. This is not some knock on them it is a fact just look at this claim by this French Rafail fanboy. How dumb must you be to believe that this plane in this configuration....
View attachment 20844

... Is stealthier than the F-35 in this configuration.
View attachment 20845

Only a French Rafail fanboy would believe such stupidity.

I don't see the drop tanks that were discussed with @vstol Jockey on your picture.

 

[BMD]

When transiting from Norway to the US, Norwegian F-35s, flying with external AIM-9X rails and no wing tanks stop to refuel in Iceland, 1500km from the Norwegian mainland, then make the transit to the US, 3500km from Iceland while refueling once in the air. Two refueling for a 5000km flight.

This usually involves hot pit refueling while on the ground. Quick process.

Difficult to judge anything from that because in peacetime there are minimum reserve fuel loads that must be carried in case of emergency.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Except when you carry that 3.5t to go further, that adds more drag. You can't start from a losing position and win by adding external tanks, it just doesn't work. And in high intensity warfare you never operate at anywhere near maximum load. So your post is completely flawed.

I just said double weapon load wich add 2450 kg and then you have 1 t of fuel to compensate the drag.

 

[BMD]

I don't see the drop tanks that were discussed with @vstol Jockey on your picture.

In reality we see your aircraft operating with 3 external tanks to carry 4x125kg bombs + 2 SRAAMs. An F-35 can carry 8x250lb SDBs internally + 2 MRAAMs, or even LRAAMs in the case of Meteor. Plus every time you add weight the fuel fraction goes down.

 

[BMD]

Says the Australian AF.

Anyway, if the F-35's combat radius with combat and reserve is 1400Km, then it exceeds even the Su-35S's combat radius in such conditions. That's unlikely.

40% of the F-35's estimated basic range of 2800Km gives us 1120Km.

The Israelis wouldn't consider the F-15E to have more range than the F-35 if that wasn't the fact.

Where? Quoted combat radii depend on the combat and reserve requirements, which vary AF to AF, so are no indication of actual range.

Look at the fuel fractions of both aircraft and note internal carriage for F-35. Why unlikely?

The F-15E has a large internal fuel load and can carry 3 huge tanks plus 2 conformal tanks, all bigger capacity than any tank the Rafale carries, so duh. You may as well be talking about an F-111.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

In reality we see your aircraft operating with 3 external tanks to carry 4x125kg bombs + 2 SRAAMs. An F-35 can carry 8x250lb SDBs internally + 2 MRAAMs, or even LRAAMs in the case of Meteor. Plus every time you add weight the fuel fraction goes down.

In fact it can carry 6x500 lb bombs +2 Meteor (LR) + 4 Mica (MR). And every time you add fuel the fuel fraction goes up. It's why I computed a more precise way to get the range taking into account the drag.

 

[Innominate]

In fact it can carry 6x500 lb bombs +2 Meteor (LR) + 4 Mica (MR). And every time you add fuel the fuel fraction goes up. It's why I computed a more precise way to get the range taking into account the drag.

And what a beacon it will be for IADS which means it will have to fly below radar line of sight cutting its combat radius drastically. Remember those supposed maximum combat radius numbers are done at optimum altitude.

 

[vargr]

Can't fly in bad weather my *ss.

Difficult to judge anything from that because in peacetime there are minimum reserve fuel loads that must be carried in case of emergency.

I wasn't trying to add to the ongoing argument, just making a generalist observation.

 

[randomradio]

Where? Quoted combat radii depend on the combat and reserve requirements, which vary AF to AF, so are no indication of actual range.

My point exactly. Combat radius needs to have at least up to 3min of combat and reserves. Maybe even a 30 min loiter time. Manufacturer figures are simply a "divide ferry range by 2", which gives the F-35 the max 1400Km combat radius, ie 2800/2 = 1400Km.

Simply combine the higher advertised max combat radius of 1500Km for Su-30 and its greater airframe efficiency at higher altitudes, you get a much better figure for the Flanker compared to the F-35 when carrying AAMs, even when carrying twice the BVR load of the F-35. Give the Flanker bombs, the efficiency drops, which puts max combat radius below 1300Km, slightly lower than the F-35.

The F-15E has a large internal fuel load and can carry 3 huge tanks plus 2 conformal tanks, all bigger capacity than any tank the Rafale carries, so duh. You may as well be talking about an F-111.

The F15E's fuel fraction on internal fuel is 0.29. It's only 6T of internal carriage. Two seats eliminates a fuel tank.

Even with 3 external tanks and 2 CFTs, the F-15E's range is 3900Km. The MKI with just 2 external tanks will easily match it. The Su-35 manages 4500Km with 2 tanks. There's nothing particularly impressive about the F-15E's range. But the Israelis still think the F-15E significantly surpasses the F-35A's range, which tells you everything you need to know.

If we consider the F-35A's operationally relevant combat radius is actually 1400Km, a match for the Su-35S, means that with the mere addition of CFTs, the F-35A will easily surpass the F-15E in both range and payload. Then the Israelis wouldn't be pushing for the purchase of 25 brand new F-15s over the F-35. So, no, I'm not buying it.

I always prefer to see what air forces do rather than believe in manufacturer claims.

 

[Innominate]

My point exactly. Combat radius needs to have at least up to 3min of combat and reserves. Maybe even a 30 min loiter time. Manufacturer figures are simply a "divide ferry range by 2", which gives the F-35 the max 1400Km combat radius, ie 2800/2 = 1400Km.

Simply combine the higher advertised max combat radius of 1500Km for Su-30 and its greater airframe efficiency at higher altitudes, you get a much better figure for the Flanker compared to the F-35 when carrying AAMs, even when carrying twice the BVR load of the F-35. Give the Flanker bombs, the efficiency drops, which puts max combat radius below 1300Km, slightly lower than the F-35.



The F15E's fuel fraction on internal fuel is 0.29. It's only 6T of internal carriage. Two seats eliminates a fuel tank.

Even with 3 external tanks and 2 CFTs, the F-15E's range is 3900Km. The MKI with just 2 external tanks will easily match it. The Su-35 manages 4500Km with 2 tanks. There's nothing particularly impressive about the F-15E's range. But the Israelis still think the F-15E significantly surpasses the F-35A's range, which tells you everything you need to know.

If we consider the F-35A's operationally relevant combat radius is actually 1400Km, a match for the Su-35S, means that with the mere addition of CFTs, the F-35A will easily surpass the F-15E in both range and payload. Then the Israelis wouldn't be pushing for the purchase of 25 brand new F-15s over the F-35. So, no, I'm not buying it.

I always prefer to see what air forces do rather than believe in manufacturer claims.

The reason why Israelis are buying F-15's is because they actually manufacture avionics and weapons for F-15's therefor if they stop buying F-15's and go all in F-35 they will have to close those manufacturing plants and many jobs will be lost. Just like Boeing here in the US who are paying a lot of money to politicians to keep F-15 plant open. They already lost the F-18 they don't want to lose the F-15.

F-35 can reach Iran without mid air refueling so range is not the issue since Israel plans to air refuel F-15's and F-35's over Saudi Arabia or Jordan in any strike on Iran.

Since F-15's will be easily seen I can picture Israel using F-35's as EW/escort to hide F-15's with possibly a handful of F-35's hitting heavily defended sites in Tehran.

 

[randomradio]

The reason why Israelis are buying F-15's is because they actually manufacture avionics and weapons for F-15's therefor if they stop buying F-15's and go all in F-35 they will have to close those manufacturing plants and many jobs will be lost. Just like Boeing here in the US who are paying a lot of money to politicians to keep F-15 plant open. They already lost the F-18 they don't want to lose the F-15.

Far more work is being done on the F-35 than on the F-15. It's also more expensive, so more moolah. Israel has real security concerns, they are not interested in propping up Boeing, they want capability.

F-35 can reach Iran without mid air refueling so range is not the issue since Israel plans to air refuel F-15's and F-35's over Saudi Arabia or Jordan in any strike on Iran.

View attachment 20849

Range is an issue, which is why they are buying more F-15s. Which is also why they are working on drop tanks and CFTs for the F-35.

Even the USN prefers more SHs because even the F-35C doesn't meet their range goals.

The Navy's F-35 Flight Range Is Dangerously Low, Congressional Report Says

WASHINGTON — The Navy’s newest fighter jet, the stealthy F-35C, may not have the range it needs to strike enemy targets, the House Armed Services

taskandpurpose.com

Interestingly, the old F-15E should be able to meet USN's combat radius goal of 1000nm.

Since F-15's will be easily seen I can picture Israel using F-35's as EW/escort to hide F-15's with possibly a handful of F-35's hitting heavily defended sites in Tehran.

The Israelis have superior EW capability on the F-35. That's one of the main goals of their own version, to have their own ECM capability. Even the airframe is being modified for this purpose.

Only an idiot will announce to the enemy you are coming when you have stealth.

 

[Innominate]

Far more work is being done on the F-35 than on the F-15. It's also more expensive, so more moolah. Israel has real security concerns, they are not interested in propping up Boeing, they want capability.

No. Israel has the F-16 and F-15 source codes they don't have the F-35's.
-
Among those challenges will almost certainly be the introduction of Israeli-developed weapons destined for the IAF’s operational F-35Is, which are now serving with two other squadrons. Currently, all the IAF’s fast jet platforms have been adapted to use indigenous weapons and, in the past, the FTC has hinted that the aircraft’s flight envelopes have also been expanded while carrying these weapons. The IAF has mentioned that the “Adir” will receive locally developed electronic warfare and communications systems, too. Weaponry is expected to include the Rafael SPICE precision-guided bomb, but may eventually include air-to-air missiles and other weapons, too.

However, the air force also admits that incorporating indigenous systems in the F-35I will not be as easy as with previous-generation aircraft, thanks to the Joint Strike Fighter’s closely guarded software codes.

“In the “Adir” program, the IAF doesn’t have access to everything, and cannot fully intervene,” explained Lieutenant Colonel Y, commander of the FTC Squadron. Nevertheless, Lieutenant Colonel Y added that “The experimental F-35I will act as the main building block for acquiring new flight capabilities and allow for independent installation of munitions.”
Israel’s Specially-Built F-35I Test Jet Just Touched Down In-Country (thedrive.com)

They are not interested in propping up Boeing they are interested in propping up their Defense Industry that manufactures F-15I avionics and weapons.

Range is an issue, which is why they are buying more F-15s. Which is also why they are working on drop tanks and CFTs for the F-35.

I already explained why they are buying F-15's. Any strike on Iran is going to require air refueling.

How to get there?​

For a start it is a very long way from Israel to Iran. As a rough estimate many of the potential targets are some 1,500km (930 miles) to 1,800km (1,120 miles) from Israeli bases. Israeli warplanes have to get to Iran and, equally important, get back.
At least three routes are possible.

• There is the northern one where Israeli jets would fly north and then east along the borders between Turkey and Syria, and then Turkey and Iraq
• The central, more likely route would take Israeli warplanes over Iraq. With the US military gone, the Iraqi authorities are far less able to monitor and control their air space, effectively opening a door to an Israeli incursion
• The third, southern route would take Israeli jets over Saudi air space. Would the Saudis turn a blind eye to such a move given their own concerns about Iran's nuclear programme? Could this route be used by Israeli aircraft on the return leg of their journey? We just do not know

What we do know, given the range, is that Israeli aircraft will have to be topped up with fuel en route.
Douglas Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London, says that "air-to-air refuelling will be critical".

"Israeli aircraft," he says, "need not just to get in and out of Iranian air space; they need to have enough fuel to provide time over their targets and they need sufficient fuel to cover any contingencies that might arise during the mission."
The initial tanking, Mr Barrie says, might be done over the Mediterranean or even in Israeli airspace. "One option," he notes, "would be to take off with a full bomb load and drop tanks containing additional fuel; to climb to cruising altitude and then at this point to replenish their tanks, before setting course for their targets in Iran."
Israel is believed to have between eight and 10 large tankers based on the commercial Boeing 707 airframe, but experts believe that tanking capacity will prove one of the limiting factors in the scope of any operation.
Analysis: How Israel might strike at Iran - BBC News

This was a 2012 analysis before they had F-35. So no matter what their F-15's will need air refueling adding external tanks to F-35 is a game changer because now they don't need F-15's since with drop tanks F-35's will have more than enough range and still won't be seen. They can drop their tanks somewhere over Saudi Arabia or Iraq and will have more than enough fuel internally to strike Iran and make it back home without tankers. That is why they are working on drop tanks for F-35's. They want to avoid using F-15's that will be heavily loaded and be seen by radar.

Even the USN prefers more SHs because even the F-35C doesn't meet their range goals.

The Navy's F-35 Flight Range Is Dangerously Low, Congressional Report Says

WASHINGTON — The Navy’s newest fighter jet, the stealthy F-35C, may not have the range it needs to strike enemy targets, the House Armed Services

taskandpurpose.com

Interestingly, the old F-15E should be able to meet USN's combat radius goal of 1000nm.

This is one of many dumb claims you have made. Reason for more F-18's is because F-18Cs are retiring and F-18E's hours are quickly being used up thanks to wars. F-18E's are wearing down faster than predicted. As for range.

The Israelis have superior EW capability on the F-35. That's one of the main goals of their own version, to have their own ECM capability. Even the airframe is being modified for this purpose.

Only an idiot will announce to the enemy you are coming when you have stealth.

No. Israeli EW is not superior than Barracuda try again.

 

[randomradio]

No. Israel has the F-16 and F-15 source codes they don't have the F-35's.

No, they don't.

-
They are not interested in propping up Boeing they are interested in propping up their Defense Industry that manufactures F-15I avionics and weapons.

That's peanuts compared to the F-35 business. It's more beneficial for businesses in Israel to earn from the F-35 than the F-15 now.

Once again, no, they want capability, not prop someone's business, doen't matter who's it is. This is the Israeli Air Force we are talking about, not the Israeli MIC. The IAF is making this decision.

I already explained why they are buying F-15's. Any strike on Iran is going to require air refueling.

How to get there?​

For a start it is a very long way from Israel to Iran. As a rough estimate many of the potential targets are some 1,500km (930 miles) to 1,800km (1,120 miles) from Israeli bases. Israeli warplanes have to get to Iran and, equally important, get back.
At least three routes are possible.

• There is the northern one where Israeli jets would fly north and then east along the borders between Turkey and Syria, and then Turkey and Iraq
• The central, more likely route would take Israeli warplanes over Iraq. With the US military gone, the Iraqi authorities are far less able to monitor and control their air space, effectively opening a door to an Israeli incursion
• The third, southern route would take Israeli jets over Saudi air space. Would the Saudis turn a blind eye to such a move given their own concerns about Iran's nuclear programme? Could this route be used by Israeli aircraft on the return leg of their journey? We just do not know

View attachment 20851
What we do know, given the range, is that Israeli aircraft will have to be topped up with fuel en route.
Douglas Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London, says that "air-to-air refuelling will be critical".

"Israeli aircraft," he says, "need not just to get in and out of Iranian air space; they need to have enough fuel to provide time over their targets and they need sufficient fuel to cover any contingencies that might arise during the mission."
The initial tanking, Mr Barrie says, might be done over the Mediterranean or even in Israeli airspace. "One option," he notes, "would be to take off with a full bomb load and drop tanks containing additional fuel; to climb to cruising altitude and then at this point to replenish their tanks, before setting course for their targets in Iran."
Israel is believed to have between eight and 10 large tankers based on the commercial Boeing 707 airframe, but experts believe that tanking capacity will prove one of the limiting factors in the scope of any operation.
Analysis: How Israel might strike at Iran - BBC News

This was a 2012 analysis before they had F-35. So no matter what their F-15's will need air refueling adding external tanks to F-35 is a game changer because now they don't need F-15's since with drop tanks F-35's will have more than enough range and still won't be seen. They can drop their tanks somewhere over Saudi Arabia or Iraq and will have more than enough fuel internally to strike Iran and make it back home without tankers. That is why they are working on drop tanks for F-35's. They want to avoid using F-15's that will be heavily loaded and be seen by radar.

You argue for the sake of arguing, not because it makes sense.

This is one of many dumb claims you have made. Reason for more F-18's is because F-18Cs are retiring and F-18E's hours are quickly being used up thanks to wars. F-18E's are wearing down faster than predicted. As for range.
View attachment 20852

Too old to consider the Block III with new engines. 2007.

No. Israeli EW is not superior than Barracuda try again.

It doesn't matter which one is superior. They want their own stuff. Your entire argument is centered around how they want to make money, how ridiculous.