Would not a lightweight version of the F-35C be tempting for countries that want a long range aircraft?
>>64531255there's not really a friendly market anywhere in the world for a long range stealth aircraft. anywhere that needs it to have extended range has refueling tankers.
>>64531320>there's not really a friendly market anywhere in the world for a long range stealth aircraftAlgeria bought the Su-57 because of its rangeI'm sure Saudi arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait etc. wants a long range F-35
>Anon invents the F-35A
>>64531255and what would they remove?>>64531350lol
Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Differences_between_variants
They could remove the heavier landing gear used for carrier landings. Removing naval tail hook would also save weight.
>>64531350Why would the gulf states need a long range F-35? They have no enemies that warrant it, nor do they have territories large enough that would require it due to distance between airbases.>iranNot exactly going to threaten the airspace of anyone for the forseeable future.>Algeria "bought" su-57And I'm sure they'll get them too, just in time to ring in the new century.
>>64531255Nigga, what are you talking about? Its been in production for 20 years now and more than 3400 delivered with orders happening very frequently for a period of low intensity. 21 countries have bought the thing. Its extremely successful, and will likely beat the F-16 in production numbers before its replaced. the DoD just placed an order for another 296 in September, and two more nations are eyeballing it for purchase. You could power the city of Boston with the energy produced by Pierre Sprey rolling over in his grave.The issue isn't the design, its the needs of the nation eye-fucking new planes.
>>64531369The cup holders, the leather upholstery and the 8 stack CD changer
>>64531453Keeping the tailhook or at least including a non carrier rated one is probably still useful for ground landings where you need to catch a cable.
>>64531255Most published range values are the "ferry range" (one way trip) and the listed combat ranges have a lot of variables in regards to payload, how many minutes in combat, altitude during cruise, etc.Considering that non-stealth aircraft will be bogged down with A2A weapons for self-protection even during strike missions, and the necessity to bring anti-radiation missiles to deal with SAM threats, the F-35C flying sleek and having a diminished surface-to-air threat means that its range is actually quite comparable to larger twin-engine naval fighters despite having lower ferry range.
>>64531732doesn't the F-35A have a tail hook even though it's a air force and not a navy plane. In fact I think think most air forces have tail hooks on their fighters despite not needing it for carrier landings.
Switching from the naval tailhook to the lighter version would cut down weight.
>>64534662a meaningless amount. For increased complexity.
Because it's supposed to be the Bugatti of fighter jets, if they make 50 versions of it, it will just prove that it's not the best as they present it to us
>>64532114yes it does, the F15 and F16 have one too
>>64531369>and what would they remove?foldable wingsreinforced landing gearlanding hookand other stuff for carrier operation
>>64534944sooo an F-35A?
>>64534963 More like a F-35a with the F-35c wings and larger fuel tanks.
>>64535084Do you think maybe there's a reason why the F-35A has F-35A wings?
>>64535084Wouldn't the larger wings just mean more drag and thus a higher fuel consumption reducing range? You could just put low-observable drop-tanks on an F-35A if increasing the range is all you want, you know that right?
>>64531350>Literally a list of sandyland browns that have nothing in common with the West other than a disdain for the ChineseWe don't really want them buying F-35s anyway. We'll take their money and put them on the waiting list if they like, but you'll find those fighters will never be delivered in time for the war that everyone is arming for. They might get delivered in 15-20 years once the tech is outdated. Why build a model they want to buy when we don't want to sell to them anyway?
>>64531255>>64535155Word from F35 pilots is that an f-35D model which is essentially just the F35C endurance / high altitude performance without things like heavy naval landing gear / folding wings etc pretty much would be the best option (before you start going into the true magic wand wish list items like removing the length limitation imposed by the B model)>>64531320Braindead take. Every next gen US proposal is all about having the range and endurance for fighting in the pacific, and as AAM's get longer ranged in general supporting assets like tankers will be pushed further backIt really can't be understated how badly the muhreens autistic shitspeak 'muh harrier' requirements gimped the f35
>>64535729You made that up. What the pilots actually want is a 2nd engine and to get rid of the fucking canopy bow. Range can already be given easily by drop tanks or loyal wingman tankers. Also the f-35a has a higher g-limit and top speed (it needs all the speed it can get) than the C, specifically because it has appropriately sized wings.
>>64531255just make a drone fighter
>>64536526Ah, gotta love fucking morons with zero experience of "Real Life" who just sperg all over the internet!The canopy bow doesn't block anything, do you know why - of course you don't you dumb Ranjeet low IQ moron - because if you did you wouldn't say such dumb motherfuckery things!For everyone else - the DAS camera, which sits infront of the canopy bow, is displayed to the pilots into their HMDS (helmet) so the canopy bow doesn't obstruct anything.
>>64536526>2nd engineThis would require a new design, not just a refresh or anything. It would accordingly get a new designation (not just a letter) and would eat into F-35 sales, reducing the amount made and therefore increasing costs per airframe for both the hypothetical aircraft and F-35.
>>64541109China did it. Look up the j-31
>>64541552Dumbass, they arent the same airframe, these share nothing in common other than their similar appearance and the credit given to whatever Chink that both worked on the F35 and leaked said classified information to the CCP.Fyi, China did it because they have shitty engines with reliability issues (no, their quantum engines dont solve reliability issues, only their anemic PWR and fuel efficiency).
>>64535729>It really can't be understated how badly the muhreens autistic shitspeak 'muh harrier' requirements gimped the f35Brainlet take, any military (especially the various ones operating heli-carriers) will greatly appreciate the VTOL capabilities, not to mention said capabilities also give it the ability to perform STOL. If one will really be islandhopping again, this is a great capability, not to mention it can land on (semi-unprepared) runways that dot the pacific and elsewhere.
>>64541566The f-35 had the most troubled development of all time because of the commonality requirements with the f-35b. That meant the other planes had to have the canopy bow and the single engine.Also Trump said he's gonna make a double engine f-35 because he doesn't like single engine planes.
>>64541692Trump says a lot of shit, most of it's completely detached from reality.
>>64541692>Also Trump said he's gonna make a double engine f-35 because he doesn't like single engine planes.>implyingkekTo develop something so sophisticated (the skin is practically shrink-wrapped around the fuselage for fucks sake) it takes much time and resources to iron out the issues. This was only compounded with the fact that the sandbox ate up massive amounts of funds which could've gone towards quicker development of the initial versions, and the fact that the multi-national cooperation very likely led to feature creep and other issues which only further compounded development.
>>64531255Because orange man, dumb zigger.
>>64535729And yet even countries without any real navy will buy the SVTOL version to take off of roads and other hasty runways. Making it extremely popular and the feature one of the programs keys to major adoption.
>>64541890The only county that exclusively got the f-35B is Britain, though. Probably because their f-35B are for carriers only. Most other countries just got the f-35a.
>>64536526They'd also like to get rid of the hump that black all rear vision, but that's as impossible as a second engine.
>>64542141The hump hinders visibility, but it also serves as a big fuel tank on the A and C variants, which is why they have impressive range even without drop tanks.
>>64542141The age of dogfights are over. This is a non-issue.
>>64542225Dog fights might come back because of stealth. 5th gen jets can't see each other until they merge.
>>64542115exclusively
>>64541692>That meant the other planes had to have the canopy bow and the single engine.The USAF wanted single engine because it's the F-16 replacement.
>>64542595>Dog fights might come back because of stealth. 5th gen jets can't see each other until they merge.There's no merge. The merge happened because of rear-aspect only seekers and limitations in high off bore axis shots.Now that missiles can lock on from head on and start pulling Gs almost right after clearing the rail, trying to merge is just a suicidal jousting match.
>>64542115>Probably because their f-35B are for carriers only.Britain has ground based and carrier based F-35Bs. They can't launch Cs from their carriers and they can't refuel As in the air.
>>64531255What is it going to do when it gets to its destination after you've stripped out all the weapon systems that make the bulk of its weight? Drop a frag grenade on the target?
>>64531255>lightweight version of the F-35CCarrier aircraft need to be durable because landing on a carrier is pretty much slamming into the ground at 160 mph>>64531357This
