Back to Squawk list
  • 22

F-35A Joint Strike Fighter Comes Up Short On Range

Combat radius, the maximum distance of an out-bound leg with a full load of weapons and fuel, has dropped to 1,080.4km (584nm) for the F-35A, according to a leaked copy of the 2010 F-35 selection acquisition report (SAR). That falls slightly below the specification for a minimum combat radius of 1,091km, one of seven mandatory “key performance parameters” that apply to the CTOL variant, the report dated 31 December states. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Matt Haines 0
Hopefully this thing kicks some major ass because with all these costs and shortcomings I don't know how it will ever be in production.

george bruton 0
What a joke the JSF has turned out to be... was suppose to be a partnership to create a superior low cost (60million) fighter. Now it has become the most expensive (I believe more then the f22) and is falling short on specs. Nice....
I want a contract to design something for the military. Doesn't matter what it is, or how much it is supposed to cost, by the time I get done, no-one will remember what it was supposed to be, what it was supposed to do, or supposed to cost....that's why the military has a warehouse full of 40 pound sledge hammers, with 4 inch handles, painted pink and which cost $76,400 each.... now that supplier knew how to squeeze the pig..
Michael Yockey 0
This is the problem of designing something to perform too many and varied functions.
Jason Bischel 0
I'm thinking it's gonna be used as a first strike instrument, just like the F-117, or a last defense line for a carrier group. One thing is for sure, the F-16, F-18 and F-15 are gonna be in use for a long, long time.
Ricky Scott 0
Its a shame they chose sexy over functional.

We had a fully ready for production airplane that met all the goals an was ready to enter flight test and production.

The airforce chose the sexy not even designed yet underbid piece of junk.
Jason Bischel 0
It could be that obama cut f-35 funding just like he cut the F-22 fleet. If the funding was cut, then everything that could have made the JSF halfway decent went into the trash leaving a heap of scrap metal.
Frank Buttrey 0
This is really indescriblely embisilic. You'd think, since this is a "JSF," those involved could come up with something that works. Of course, gov. interference being what it is and all. Have I heard this tune before...?? "Shame, shame we know your name!"
Jason, please tell me under what authority could the President cut a budget item? Funding is done in the House of Representatives, as required by Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 of the Constitution. You might try reading that document before you start your political rants. Oh, and Article I, Section 8, clause 12, requires that all military appropriations are limited to a two year time frame, after which a new appropriation bill is required, which is, again, up to the House to initiate.
Jason Bischel 0
What political rants? You sound like someone who voted for that jackass. I made one comment and you call it a "political rant"? Everyone who voted for that communist is always overly defensive about anything in relation to him. I'm sorry, but the fact he is a communist, muslim-loving wack-job is more than a good reason to have him shot. There's your political rant, now back to the topic at hand. If he had the authority to cut the F-22 fleet, he also has the authority to cut funding for the JSF.

The same authority he used to cut the F-22 fleet, which was supposed to be 187 aircraft but now is barely 70% of that.
The Pentagon, and the Secretary of Defense made the decision to cut the F22 at the level that existed, for a variety of reasons, including the F35 development, as well as the lack of demonstrated need by the military for more F22, given the world political climate. It is very hard to root out terrorists in the Khyber Pass with a fighter at mach 2. And, yes, your first post was very anti Obama and yes, I took offense. Not because I support him, but because you were wrong. Instead of doing a knee-jerk reaction to the discussion, try doing a little research on the issue. He did not "Kill" the F22, he followed the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense, and limited the procurement. It had nothing to do with funding or appropriations. And, your suggestion that he should be shot is a federal criminal act.
Jason Bischel 0
Being offended is a part of life and you're going to have to learn how to cope. I'm offended everyday by obama's blatant disregard for the rights of all Chrstians in America. If you don't believe he has, that's your problem of not doing any research of your own. You totally missed my point about the F-22, I didn't say he "killed" it, I said he cut it to only 70% of what was planned. You're so intent on arguing with me that you don't actually read anything I write, so get off the subject and stop making this a big deal. Like it or not, I still have free speech and I'll continue to say that obama should be shot for being a spineless, communist coward who should never have been allowed within a 1000 miles of Washington. Thank Christ his term is almost over.
Randy Michel 0
From an military aircraft manufacturer standpoint, there aren't as many players as there used to be, and when you have only two or three big ones in the US, they now have more control over price and cost manipulation over their products as opposed to 20 years ago when you had more competition to pressure lower costs and common sense played a bigger role in the decision making process as opposed to now. I read in an article that the F/A 18 E/F models were under consideration by the Air Force to field as in interim replacement for the F-15 C/D's and as a stopgap for the low F-22 fleet number. Back in the late 80's - early 90's, Grumman proposed a Super Tomcat 21 variant that offered new-tech weapon systems, engines, and thrust vectoring, but that was shot down by Mr. Cheney who didn't want another Grumman aircraft, because he viewed Grumman and the F-14 as a jobs program. The conclusion to the problem we're in now, is that greed on the manufacturers end and ego on the govt's end caused us to be in this mess about future fighter replacements.
David Sims 0
You would think the Pentagon would have learned their lesson. How many times will they try to design one aircraft to do everything for everyone. They have tried this idea before, and failed.
KauaiGolfer 0
Nice going JB. You've now attracted the attention of the Secret Service.
Chris Bryant 0
I'm not surprised by the fact the JSF has short legs. Back when I worked for then Martin Marietta, I'd hear all day from the guys in VA-55 pissing and moaning how they spend all their time gassing up the Hornets.


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.