U.S. to make final decision on future F-22.

[Dr Freud]

That video is very biased! I know the F-22 is the best fighter jet in the world and nothing comes close to it....except for maybe the F-35.

I definitely agree F22 is by far the best fighter out there,- when it actually fly instead of being in the hanger. ( Su35 wvr doesnt count)

I definitely dont agree F35 comes anywhere close to it as a fighter, its far too slow.

F35 comes into its own when it can fly with radar off, as in when it has AWAC coverage, attacking defended ground targets.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I definitely dont agree F35 comes anywhere close to it as a fighter, its far too slow.

F35 comes into its own when it can fly with radar off, as in when it has AWAC coverage, attacking defended ground targets.

The F-35 is not a slow fighter, in fact it will be just as fast if not faster than current fighters. Its top speed is Mach 1.8 or 1200mph. Most modern fighters never go past Mach 1.6 or Mach 1.8 these days in combat anyways. The F-15 has never gone past Mach 1.6 in its combat history.

I'm so sick and tired of people calling the F-35 a bomber. The F-35 is a multi-role fighter, just like the F-15E, F/A-18, F-16, Eurofighter, F-22 and the SU-30/35BM.

The F-35 will also be replacing the F-15. The F-22 will not replace the F-15 Eagle but will replace the F-117s. There is just not enough F-22s to replace the F-15s, so the Pentagon has stated they the USAF will replace the F-15s with the F-35s. There is only one fighter in the would that can beat the F-35 in air combat and thats the F-22 Raptor. The F-35 will be a much better air superiority fighter than the F-15 and better than any Su-30 or SU-35BM it might face in air combat.

The F-35 will be a better air superiority fighter than the F-15 Eagle in every category in terms of speed, internal fuel, range, stealth, maneuverability and weapons payload.

The only people who call the F-35 a ground attack only aircraft are kids who have a lot to learn about military aircraft.

One of the requirements for the F-35 program is to be 4 times more capable than legacy fighters in air to air combat and be second only to the F-22 Raptor.

End of discussion!

 

[Dr Freud]

I didnt say it was a poor fighter, (actually i think its good) i said it doesnt even come close to F22! because F22 make mach 1.7 military, and 2.4+ a/b. Thats about the speed of an a2a missile.
F35 do ruffly half that.

The F-35 will be a better air superiority fighter than the F-15 Eagle in every category in terms of speed, internal fuel, range, stealth, maneuverability and weapons payload.

I'm not sure where you get your numbers: when i compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15E_Strike_Eagle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Eagle and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II It says :
F15 mach 2.5+ vs F35 mach 1.6+; range F15E 2100 nmi vs F35A 1200 nmi
payload roughly same, but F15 do win again.

Its too early to make a final judgement on maintenance, but i suspect it will compare very poorly to say, Mirage 2000 6.8 h MTBF; Gripen 7.6 h MTBF

One of the requirements for the F-35 program is to be 4 times more capable than legacy fighters in air to air combat and be second only to the F-22 Raptor.

Requirements are flexible these days.

The F-22's MTBM (total) requirement is 3.0 hours
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel4/5955/15936/00741473.pdf?temp=x

Yet as of 2007, the F22 where still flying less then 1 hour between maintenance actions (GAO-07-406SP). Primarily because of all the problems with maintaining the stealth characteristics (GAO-01-310). And i assume F35 uses the same materials.

If we assume the gap between requirements and reality are similar between F22 and F35, (it is, after all, same ole Lockheed Martin) it would mean F35 is approximately 1.2 times better, which still isnt bad. Of course, that can differ, either way.

 

[swerve]

Easily?
IIRC it took a French traitor, at least 3 prearranged SAM sites, preplanned interceptor vectors, the bad habit of NATO to use the same route again and again and daylight to take down 1 F117.
That's not what I would call a war winning situation...

Not the "French traitor" myth yet again! I'm getting tired of this.

The French officer who gave files to the Serbs had been under arrest for 5 months when that F-117 was shot down, and NATO had known exactly what he'd told the Serbs for almost as long. How could his actions (which he claims were under orders, not treachery) have any effect on the shooting down?

And in any case, the information he'd given them didn't include that sort of detail. It was lists of targets, resource planning, that sort of stuff, not mission planning at the level of entry & exit routes. An overview of what in Serbia would be hit, & thus an inventory of the expected damage Serbia should expect to suffer. He claimed he was told the point of giving the information to the Serbs was to frighten them into giving in, i.e. a tactic of war.

 

[Feanor]

The point is that stealth is not a guarantee. Even the outdated and poorly prepared Serbian SAM network managed to shoot down an F-117. The question is what can a Russian (or Chinese one made up of the same systems? nationality isn't the point here) SAM network with large quantities of S-300PMU1/2 and S-400 systems, complemented by tactical Tor-M1 and Tor-M2 systems do to an F/A-22A strike group; especially when acting within range of a Voronezh class strategic RLS? Iirc this is the kind of mission the Raptor is meant for in terms of SEAD.

The Su-35M has not even entered production. Moreover it hasn't even completed testing. How can you say whether it will or won't be able to go up against the F-35? It's not even known what avionics it wil have. The engines were tested recently, and the airframe appears to be the classic Flanker airframe. Not much is known beyond that. Your judgement call was premature, especially given reports that the Su-35M will carry 5th gen. avionics.

 

[Falstaff]

The only people who call the F-35 a ground attack only aircraft are kids who have a lot to learn about military aircraft.

That's a very interesting statement for you to make, because some weeks ago you were claiming a 100 mile AMRAAM variant. Perhaps in this respect you should keep your profile a bit lower?

There are a lot of very detailed threads regarding the F-35's and the non-existant Su-35's capabilities with a lot of very qualified posts, and I personally think you should keep with the topic, which is very interesting, instead of making this a A vs B vs C thingy.

 

[merocaine]

Easily?
IIRC it took a French traitor

Which internet conspiracy site did you get that one from?

The Officer had absolutely nothing to do with it, nothing, no connection what so ever, I don't understand why intelligent people still insist on believing it.... The only reason I can think of is the fact he was French, so people want to believe it, it fits with there prejudices that they can't be trusted in NATO, Kfor ect.

 

[rjmaz1]

I didnt say it was a poor fighter, (actually i think its good) i said it doesnt even come close to F22! because F22 make mach 1.7 military, and 2.4+ a/b. Thats about the speed of an a2a missile.
F35 do ruffly half that.

The F-22's range at Mach 1.7 is less than a small trainer aircraft. You must be thinking that the F-22 can cruise at mach 1.7 for 1000+ miles. The F-22 may be reasonably fuel effecient compared to other aircraft at mach 1.7 however its still guzzling fuel like no tomorrow. Supercruise is not as useful as you might think.

To hit its strike combat radius it cruises at subsonic speed the whole way. Thats the same speed as the F-35 and at subsonic speeds the F-35's combat radius is very similar if not identical.

I'm not sure where you get your numbers: when i compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15E_Strike_Eagle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Eagle and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II It says :
F15 mach 2.5+ vs F35 mach 1.6+; range F15E 2100 nmi vs F35A 1200 nmi
payload roughly same, but F15 do win again.

I actually had the same argument with F-15 Eagle however he was the one taking your stance, atleast he has seen the light.

The F-35 will equal or outmatch the F-15C/E in nearly every way. A greater fuel fraction combined with internal weapons more than makes up for the lower thrust to weight ratio. All F-15's cruise at subsonic speeds, to travel supersonic gives a large drag increase and you take a large reduction in range. The Eagle either doesn't have the fuel or has to carry no weapons which is useless.

An F-15 has never hit Mach 2 in combat. Its top speed was hit by flying in a straight line until the tanks ran dry. The fastest public speed of an F-15 in combat was roughly Mach 1.6 over Iraq when it was chasing some Mig-25/31's. They had to give up the chase as they ran out of fuel and had to hit the nearest tanker. This was an F-15C with no conformal or external tanks and no bombs creating drag.

The F-35's top speed is somewhat limited due to its fixed air intakes so the aircraft hits a wall at a certain speed but below this point the aircraft is still accelerating. A low top speed in no way indicates a low cruising speed. The F-35 may accelerate to mach 1.5 quicker than an eagle and due to its higher fuel fraction and clean configuration it will most likely be able to sustain it for longer. Sure the F-15 may then outpace the F-35 past Mach 1.5 but it will be limited by fuel.

An F-15 without conformal or external tanks has a range significantly less than an F-35 as the F-35 has a large internal fuel capacity. An F-15 with conformal tanks is somewhat similar in range. Put some external drop tanks on the F-15E as well and you will get the massive 2100 mile range however this is compared to a clean F-35.

Put external tanks on the F-35 and its range will again be similar if not greater than the Eagle.

Where it counts and where its been proven to be needed in combat the F-35 trumps the Eagle across the board.

 

[Falstaff]

Mods, please!

 

[F-15 Eagle]

That's a very interesting statement for you to make, because some weeks ago you were claiming a 100 mile AMRAAM variant. Perhaps in this respect you should keep your profile a bit lower?

I said there is a possible AIM-120D variant that is capable of a 112 mile range. Maybe your the one that could keep your profile low?

I didnt say it was a poor fighter, (actually i think its good) i said it doesnt even come close to F22! because F22 make mach 1.7 military, and 2.4+ a/b. Thats about the speed of an a2a missile.
F35 do ruffly half that.


I'm not sure where you get your numbers: when i compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15E_Strike_Eagle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Eagle and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II It says :
F15 mach 2.5+ vs F35 mach 1.6+; range F15E 2100 nmi vs F35A 1200 nmi
payload roughly same, but F15 do win again.

The only way a F-15 will be able to go Mach 2.5 is if they have no weapons or fuel tanks, they are at 50,000 ft or more where the air is thin so less drag then they might be able to. But that means they would only be able to go Mach 2-2.5 for only 10 minutes in a straight line wasting fuel and that makes no logical sense whats so ever. Why would they waste jet fuel with its high prices these days for nothing?

The F-22's range at Mach 1.7 is less than a small trainer aircraft. You must be thinking that the F-22 can cruise at mach 1.7 for 1000+ miles. The F-22 may be reasonably fuel effecient compared to other aircraft at mach 1.7 however its still guzzling fuel like no tomorrow. Supercruise is not as useful as you might think.

To hit its strike combat radius it cruises at subsonic speed the whole way. Thats the same speed as the F-35 and at subsonic speeds the F-35's combat radius is very similar if not identical.


I actually had the same argument with F-15 Eagle however he was the one taking your stance, atleast he has seen the light.

The F-35 will equal or outmatch the F-15C/E in nearly every way. A greater fuel fraction combined with internal weapons more than makes up for the lower thrust to weight ratio. All F-15's cruise at subsonic speeds, to travel supersonic gives a large drag increase and you take a large reduction in range. The Eagle either doesn't have the fuel or has to carry no weapons which is useless.

An F-15 has never hit Mach 2 in combat. Its top speed was hit by flying in a straight line until the tanks ran dry. The fastest public speed of an F-15 in combat was roughly Mach 1.6 over Iraq when it was chasing some Mig-25/31's. They had to give up the chase as they ran out of fuel and had to hit the nearest tanker. This was an F-15C with no conformal or external tanks and no bombs creating drag.

The F-35's top speed is somewhat limited due to its fixed air intakes so the aircraft hits a wall at a certain speed but below this point the aircraft is still accelerating. A low top speed in no way indicates a low cruising speed. The F-35 may accelerate to mach 1.5 quicker than an eagle and due to its higher fuel fraction and clean configuration it will most likely be able to sustain it for longer. Sure the F-15 may then outpace the F-35 past Mach 1.5 but it will be limited by fuel.

An F-15 without conformal or external tanks has a range significantly less than an F-35 as the F-35 has a large internal fuel capacity. An F-15 with conformal tanks is somewhat similar in range. Put some external drop tanks on the F-15E as well and you will get the massive 2100 mile range however this is compared to a clean F-35.

Put external tanks on the F-35 and its range will again be similar if not greater than the Eagle.

Where it counts and where its been proven to be needed in combat the F-35 trumps the Eagle across the board.

Thank you rjmaz1

I guess thats why the Pentagon cut the F-22 program to 183 jets and went for the F-35, though Congress will vote this October on if they might extend the F-22 production line or not.

The capability of the F-35 is very very close to the F-22 except for having supercruise and thrust vectoring but that does not mean they can't put it on the F-35 in the future. When no external weapons are used the F-35 maybe able to go Mach 1.8 for a short time though more likely Mach 1.5-1.6 in most cases, which is really fast for a modern fighter. When using external and internal weapons, the top speed maybe reduced to that of a fully armed F-15 or F-16.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Mods, please!

Please what? Were only telling you the facts about fighter jets.

 

[Waylander]

Ouch, some bad memory and a heavy wind blows into my face.

I'm sorry that I got the facts wrong but as I said I was not sure (I thought the "IIRC" made that clear).

And I defenitely have no problems with Frenchmen whatsoever. In fact I admire this nation a little bit when it comes to how they handle their foreign politics.

 

[Dr Freud]

Supercruise is not as useful as you might think.

Supercruise is more useful then you might think.

An F35 imbibe ~4.4 times more fuel at A/B then at military setting.
This, in combination with sub-performance-cruise, makes it flat out impossible for F35 to catch almost any other plane before bingo fuel, and this is my biggest reservation for using F35 as a fighter.

The Eagle either doesn't have the fuel or has to carry no weapons which is useless.

F15 # Combat radius: 1,061 nmi (1,222 mi, 1,967 km) for interdiction mission
F35# Combat radius: 600 nmi (690 mi, 1,110 km)

The fastest public speed of an F-15 in combat was roughly Mach 1.6 over Iraq when it was chasing some Mig-25/31's

1# The combat over Iraq wasnt a public event.
2# There has never been any MiG 31 in Iraq.

They had to give up the chase as they ran out of fuel and had to hit the nearest tanker.

Yes, Mig 25 is very fast, and so is F22, you cant hunt down such planes, imagine trying to hunt down mach 2+ Mig 25/F22/F15/most every plane
with mach 1.6+ F35. -No can do sir.
And here i dont even mention the fact that F22 is faster at dry thrust then F35 afterburning.

An F-15 without conformal or external tanks has a range significantly less than an F-35 as the F-35 has a large internal fuel capacity. An F-15 with conformal tanks is somewhat similar in range. Put some external drop tanks on the F-15E as well and you will get the massive 2100 mile range however this is compared to a clean F-35.

F15# Combat radius: 1,061 nmi (1,222 mi, 1,967 km) for interdiction mission
F35# Combat radius: 600 nmi (690 mi, 1,110 km)

 

[rjmaz1]

Supercruise is more useful then you might think.

An F35 imbibe ~4.4 times more fuel at A/B then at military setting. This, in combination with sub-performance-cruise, makes it flat out impossible for F35 to catch almost any other plane before bingo fuel,

Most other fighters use 4+ times more fuel at afterburner setting also.

Sure the F-22 would have an advantage if the goal was to transit at supersonic speeds only. However you are also assume that both the F-35 and F-22 would be covering the same amount of territory. With the lower price of the F-35 you could afford more F-35's. This translate into the area that each aircraft will have to cover will be reduced.

With a reduction in area the transit time to any point of coverage is reduced and makes up for any reduction in transit speed.

With a reduction in area you can consume more fuel so the F-35 may be able to hit afterburners more often than the F-22. Again this equalizes the speeds of each aircraft.

Another way to put it. The A2A ability of the F-22 is estimated to be 4 times greater than the F-35. So if you had a 1000x1000 mile square of airspace you would require four F-35's to perform the role one F-22. In this case four F-35's may equal one F-22.

HOWEVER if you had FOUR 1000x1000 mile squares to cover you can have an F-35 covering each square. With the single F-22 it would have to cover all four squares which is impossible due to it having no greater range than a single F-35. So in this case 4 F-35's may be 100 times better than a single F-22 as the F-22 cannot perform its mission.

You cant just compare specs from wikipedia articles its much more in-depth than this.

F15 # Combat radius: 1,061 nmi (1,222 mi, 1,967 km) for interdiction mission
F35# Combat radius: 600 nmi (690 mi, 1,110 km)

The F-15 has external tanks in addition to the conformal tanks.
The F-35 requires no external tanks to reach its 600 mile radius. Are you saying the F-35 cant fly further with external tanks? That would be a rather silly conclusion.

Also the MINIMUM requirement of the F-35A is for 600+ miles. It will most likely exceed this range requirement just like how it has exceeded its other requirements (atleast the ones that have been made public)

1# The combat over Iraq wasnt a public event.
2# There has never been any MiG 31 in Iraq.

I said Mig-31/25 as i couldn't find the article as i posted it on these forums a couple years ago.

A lot of research was conducted by the USAF. A report was produced on combat speeds of fighter aircraft during the gulf. You are indeed correct that you wont find this report on wikipedia.

Yes, Mig 25 is very fast, and so is F22, you cant hunt down such planes, imagine trying to hunt down mach 2+ Mig 25/F22/F15/most every plane
with mach 1.6+ F35. -No can do sir.

Easy. If the F-22 was on an interdiction/long range mission it would transit at subsonic speed and have no fuel to even hit the throttle. Can an F-35 traveling at mach 1.6 chase down a Mach 0.9 target? Sure can do sir!

And here i dont even mention the fact that F22 is faster at dry thrust then F35 afterburning.

Not long ago the top speed of the F-22 was Mach 1.8+ That was the ATF minimum requirement which the F-22 exceeded. You are assuming the F-35's top speed will be Mach 1.6 and that it will just manage to reach its minimum requirement.

You are making a lot of assumptions with a narrow minded view.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Supercruise is more useful then you might think.

An F35 imbibe ~4.4 times more fuel at A/B then at military setting.
This, in combination with sub-performance-cruise, makes it flat out impossible for F35 to catch almost any other plane before bingo fuel, and this is my biggest reservation for using F35 as a fighter.
F15 # Combat radius: 1,061 nmi (1,222 mi, 1,967 km) for interdiction mission
F35# Combat radius: 600 nmi (690 mi, 1,110 km)
1# The combat over Iraq wasnt a public event.
2# There has never been any MiG 31 in Iraq.
Yes, Mig 25 is very fast, and so is F22, you cant hunt down such planes, imagine trying to hunt down mach 2+ Mig 25/F22/F15/most every plane
with mach 1.6+ F35. -No can do sir.
And here i dont even mention the fact that F22 is faster at dry thrust then F35 afterburning.
F15# Combat radius: 1,061 nmi (1,222 mi, 1,967 km) for interdiction mission
F35# Combat radius: 600 nmi (690 mi, 1,110 km)

You just don't get it. nfloorl:I had a very similar argument before and I said the exact same things that you are saying but I realized that I was wrong.

The F-15 can't go past Mach 1.6 with the full load of weapons it carries there is too much drag, the supercruising speed for the F-22 is Mach 1.58 last time I checked. Iraq did have Mig-25s during the 1991 Gulf War and they did outrun the F-15s, and the USAF also did not have F-22s at that time. A F-15 with external fuel tanks(which means no weapons) has the same range as a clean F-35 with no fuel tanks. The F-35 and F-22 both have the same top speeds with afterburner.

For the last time fighter jets CAN'T go past Mach 1.5-1.8 in air combat. The F-15 or any other fighter has never gone past Mach 1.6 in combat. When they say the F-15 can go Mach 2.5 is only becasue that is its estimated top speed, used math but they never flew the F-15 that fast. There is no reason to make a Mach 2 fighter since they never go that fast in air combat.

The F-35 is a Mach 1.8 class jet with a top speed of 1200mph according to LM, not Mach 1.6 as you say. Besides it really does not matter how fast a fighter can go anyway when you take into consideration that a air to air missile flies at Mach 4 and can pull 30 or more Gs like the AMRAAM does.

I don't know why you don't think the F-35 is not a real fighter when the truth is that the F-35 is just as much of a air superiority fighter as a F-22 Raptor, Eurofighter, F-15/16/18 or Mig/Sukhoi.

To be blunt the F-35 will be the second best fighter jet in the world with only the F-22 that is better.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The A2A ability of the F-22 is estimated to be 4 times greater than the F-35. So if you had a 1000x1000 mile square of airspace you would require four F-35's to perform the role one F-22. In this case four F-35's may equal one F-22.

HOWEVER if you had FOUR 1000x1000 mile squares to cover you can have an F-35 covering each square. With the single F-22 it would have to cover all four squares which is impossible due to it having no greater range than a single F-35. So in this case 4 F-35's may be 100 times better than a single F-22 as the F-22 cannot perform its mission.

Oh but the F-35 Lightning II is 4 times better than our current legacy fighters in air combat, including the F-15 Eagle.

 

[rjmaz1]

For the last time fighter jets CAN'T go past Mach 1.5-1.8 in air combat. The F-15 or any other fighter has never gone past Mach 1.6 in combat.

Well the F-15's could have gone faster but the scenario would have been unrealistic. So you are indeed right.

Oh but the F-35 Lightning II is 4 times better than our current legacy fighters in air combat, including the F-15 Eagle.

Yep, i find it hard how they calculate that its 4 times better. The calculation must be done covering an area that is small enough to be covered by a single aircraft.

Again if you had a large area to cover which was larger than what an unrefueled F-35's could cover then the F-35 could defend against the enemy at all in the area's where it cannot reach. Multiple F-16's would do a better job as they could at least provide some sort of coverage in the area's where the F-35 could not reach.

I can understand how the US places a requirement for a certain increase in capability. However quantity is just as important if you have a large area to cover such as Australia which is why the F-22 was never the right aircraft for us.

Getting back on topic. The USAF can easily get away with under 200 F-22's as it will have 1000+ F-35's to cover any non vital area's. I see the F-22 production line closing and it may be a good thing. Every additional F-22 being purchased may result in 2 F-35's not being ordered. That would result in fewer aircraft, Quantity is just as important as quality up to a point. Just look at how many

To think of how few F-117's were required to bring Iraq down to its knee's. With SDB a single squadron of F-22's could hit more targets than the entire fleet of F-117's. With the F-22 being able to escort themselves you greatly reduce the number of escorts required and number of air dominance F-22's required.

I wouldn't be surprised if 50 F-22's and 50 F-35's with sufficient in-flight refueling could have replaced the 1000+ aircraft used in Desert Storm. So 200 F-22's could be enough for a full blown China/US conflict.

 

[Sea Toby]

You could easily shoot down an enemy's air force, but if they can't bomb its not worth much on the ground. An aircraft that flies further than its mission range must either receive fuel in the air or have another friendly air base to land within its ferry range. An aircraft's ferry range is probably related to its most economical speed. I doubt whether its most economical speed is anywhere near Mach 2.

 

[Dr Freud]

You are making a lot of assumptions with a narrow minded view.

1# There was no assumptions at all here, it was either copied from wiki, or the simplest possible math.
[Admin: Text deleted: Language please. Read the forum rules]
3# You ended up in transit regardless the topic.
4# You are making assumptions:

So if you had a 1000x1000 mile bla bla

Also the MINIMUM requirement of the F-35A is for 600+ miles. It will most likely exceed this range requirement just like how it has exceeded its other requirements

You are assuming the F-35's top speed will be Mach 1.6 and that it will just manage to reach its minimum requirement.

The specs are allready there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II
I'm not going to waste more time on you.

 

[Dr Freud]

the supercruising speed for the F-22 is Mach 1.58 last time I checked.

The F-35 and F-22 both have the same top speeds with afterburner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor
# Maximum speed:

* At altitude: Mach 2+[71][72] (1,325+ mph, 2,132+ km/h)
* Supercruise: Mach 1.72 (1,140 mph, 1,825 km/h)[1][70] at altitude

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II
# Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[65] (1,200 mph, 1,931 km/h)
# Range: A: 1,200 nmi; B: 900 nm; C: 1400 nm[65] (A: 2,200 km; B: 1,667 km; C: 2,593 km) on internal fuel

A F-15 with external fuel tanks(which means no weapons) has the same range as a clean F-35 with no fuel tanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Eagle
# Combat radius: 1,061 nmi (1,222 mi, 1,967 km) for interdiction mission
# Ferry range: 3,100 nmi (3,570 nmi, 5,745 km) with external conformal fuel tanks

The F-35 is a Mach 1.8 class jet with a top speed of 1200mph according to LM, not Mach 1.6 as you say.

1200 miles/hour = 1.617649003570677 Mach [Dry Air @ 273 Kelvin]
http://www.sciencelab.com/data/conversion_calculators/speed-conversion.shtml

Dont present any more numbers without a mathematical formula and/or a link that i can evaluate ok ?