posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 03:03 AM
Whilst the F-35C does have greater fuel capacity than the F-35A, it's also draggier and heavier. That means the combat radius is actually the
. That makes it more expensive to operate, whilst being 21% more expensive to buy. Whilst wing loading is better, its transonic
acceleration is substantially worse. It's not 9G capable either. It also doesn't have a gun.
If the USAF wanted the big wing, then the F-35A would have the big wing.
Buying the F-35C for NGJ would needlessly fragment the fleet, which negates key JSF concepts such as interoperability, commonality, maintainability
and affordability. Countries like Australia aren't going to buy the F-35C just for NGJ.
The solution is simple.
Integrate the NGJ on the F-35A.
Vehicle Systems between variants are 70% common. Mission Systems between variants are 100% common. Components that aren't common are often cousin
parts. Can't be too hard, the aerodynamics are just a little different, they don't even need to be jettisonable.
Source on range: FY2019 F-35 SAR. F-35A demonstrated performance combat radius is 669 nmi. F-35C demonstrated performance combat radius is 670 nmi. Of
course, the profiles could be slightly different.
edit on 29/9/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)
edit on 29/9/18 by C0bzz
because: (no reason given)