-----
--- 57864021
Personally,i'd add slots for side winders,kinda like the F22,stupid ass idea but hey,would be cool.
--- 57864045
>>57864021 (OP)
Chinese language mode
--- 57864072
>>57864045
traditional chinese,right?
--- 57864078
that'll be added on the F-35E Lightning Strike
--- 57864083
>>57864021 (OP)
A second engine
--- 57864089
>>57864021 (OP)
A tail gunner.
--- 57864095
>>57864078
yeah i thought i was insane that i remembered something like that but yeah,the F35E.

like Holy shit
--- 57864123
but fr a double seater F35 would be awesome as fuck
--- 57864128
>>57864021 (OP)
Cup holder.
--- 57864227
>>57864123
didn't the Israeli's want a 2 seater variant?
--- 57864228
>>57864083
This
--- 57864247
>>57864228
2 engines seem useless,2x the fuel consumption,2x the heat signature
--- 57864257
>>57864247
It looks cool though
--- 57864273
>>57864257
i agree
i wanna get like a shit ton of money so i can make stupid retarded concepts like a stealth F14
--- 57864342
>>57864273
>He wants a NATF
--- 57864364
>>57864342
and the arma A-164 wipe out too lol,i just like triangular stealth designs,im a sucker for POLYGONS
--- 57864387
>>57864021 (OP)
I'd extend the tail booms, because I love that aesthetic. 
For actual capability enhancement, a stealthy pod that mounts inside of the existing weapons bay, but expands it, and fill it full of Peregrines.
--- 57864442
>>57864257
It's also safer in case one of them malfunctions. Jet would be fine with returning to base with one still working.
--- 57864457
A generous return policy.
--- 57864504
>>57864021 (OP)
The ability to be used by coast guard cutters
--- 57864507
>>57864021 (OP)
I would replace the stealth coating with a full-body American flag theme. There wouldn't be an exact specification, just a general standard the mechanics/pilots/planners/etc. collaborate on whenever the previous paintjob is wearing out. 
Let the shithole countries know who's dabbing on them every time we go up.
--- 57864589
>>57864045
當然
--- 57864655
>neuron activation
--- 57864804
>>57864128
Beat me to it.
--- 57865207
such a beauty of an aircraft
--- 57866298
Big delta wings.
Turn it into an F-35XL
--- 57866383
GAU-8
--- 57866394
>>57864273
omg a stealth f14 would be tits.
--- 57866405
>>57864021 (OP)
Thrust vectoring. It's honestly the one feature that would put it over the top.
--- 57866438
People think the F-35 is slow, but it's not. It's mach 1.6 top speed is largely because the stealth starts burning off at sustained speeds above like mach 1.4 or something, so it's limited to very brief jaunts at like mach 1.5 or mach 1.6. Also, many planes only reach their top speeds of mach 2.0 or 2.2 or whatever when they are stripped of all their exterior missiles, gas tanks and munitions, and with like half a tank of fuel or less. The F-35 can roar to mach 1.6 with ease, with a full interior loadout and fuel load.
--- 57866455
>>57864021 (OP)
>>57864089
--- 57866478
>>57864021 (OP)
An afterburner that won't damage the aircraft if it's used.
--- 57866516
>>57866478
The afterburner doesn't damage the F-35. WTF are you talking about?
--- 57866614
>>57866438

that number is also not true, just like the range on all US missiles are understated.
--- 57866616
>>57864021 (OP)
AI with cute voice called 35-chan
--- 57866619
>>57866516
Wrong. Pilots have time limits (measured in tens of seconds) for how long they can use afterburner. This effectively makes the F-35 a subsonic aircraft that can't use BVR weapons (requires high altitude supersonic launch). Keep posting shill cope though.
--- 57866649
>>57866619
No they don’t
--- 57866662
>>57866649
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/marines-f-35-has-afterburner-trouble-68962
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/04/24/the-pentagon-will-have-to-live-with-limits-on-f-35s-supersonic-flights/
https://www.quora.com/How-long-can-the-F-35-fly-with-full-afterburners
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a32304032/f-35-supersonic-flight/

nu/k/ope
--- 57866666
>>57866662
Which was lifted when they couldn’t repeat the incident.
--- 57866670
>>57866666
>source: I made it up
--- 57866724
>>57864021 (OP)
>Personally,i'd add slots for side winders,kinda like the F22,stupid ass idea but hey,would be cool.
I was thinking about the same thing when I saw the title of the thread. It's a shame it doesn't have sidewinders. I understand it is not meant to engage in missions that would require the use of sidewinders but man it feels wrong to have a multi-role aircraft without short range air to air capability (assuming guns are useless nowadays).

>>57864083
>>57864228
>>57864247
>>57864257
>>57864273
>>57864442
Adding a second engine is "the tradeoff". As long as you can achieve the specs with a single engine there really is no reason to use two engines. Two engines are only useful if: i) single engine can't meet thrust requirement, ii) single engine is too large in diameter, iii) single engine is too unreliable.

Some arguments:
1) It would've been better performance! Yeah, it could've but F-22 already exists. If you're producing something to replace F-16, it needs to be more affordable than F-22 and F-35 is indeed more affordable than other comparable aircraft. I mean come on, French are selling Rafale for the price of F-35.

2) It would've been more reliable as there's a backup engine! If you already achieve reliability goals with a single engine, there's no reason to have a second one. Sure, you can have a backup engine but it's just overkill, it's not an optimized solution it's just throwing more of the most expensive component in the platform into the problem for edge cases (getting shot and losing only one engine when both are so tightly packed together is not really a case you need to cover, and if the engines are failing regularly they're trash engines, having two of them is a bad solution without engine improvements).

3) It would've been cool! Yes, it would have. I agree 100%.
--- 57866745
>>57866405
Thrust vectoring to achieve what goal? Dogfights don't happen nowadays and modern missiles have really high hit probability that being more maneuverable doesn't help to avoid missiles. F-35 gets a lot of poop for being less maneuverable than F-16 but the difference is not that huge and the difference only impacts some really edge use cases. Also, both airplanes would hit the pilot limits before they hit the airframe limits if you push them to breaking point.

Thrust vectoring would've been very cool though. It's just not optimum.
--- 57866775
>>57866614
>understated missile range
You're technically right, but also technically wrong.
I wouldn't waste missiles for a 10% kill chance situation even if the range doubled.
--- 57866776
>>57866619
>F-35 a subsonic aircraft that can't use BVR weapons (requires high altitude supersonic launch).
BVR engagement doesn't require supersonic cruise. Having speed helps, but if the difference that would make is important in the engagement then you probably have trash hit probability and shouldn't engage anyway.

Also, I find it funny that people seem to think every "cool twin engine" plane is supersonic cruise capable. Like literally only a handful of aircraft are capable of supercruise. Most fighter jets and F-35 can only maintain supersonic speeds for a limited duration anyway.
--- 57866897
Photon torpedos
--- 57867110
>>57864021 (OP)
chrome or gold plating
--- 57867150
>>57866775

With AI, missiles are going to be a lot smarter. It will busy itself with processing AWS services and then finally switch off with a sigh at 100km+ distance and drive the point into the J-20 belly and bellow in explosion
--- 57867151
>>57864021 (OP)
Kenny Logins soundtrack that plays on a loop and can't be turned off
--- 57867183
>>57866619
KEK. It can supercruise for hundreds of miles. Nice attempt at knowledge tho, Sparky.
--- 57867200
>>57866745
Because it's the only weakness of the platform as far as I can see. Great stealth, great sensor suit, great weapons, great pilot-ability. But it doesn't have the turn rate of a F-22 or SU-57. Simple thrust vectoring would put the F-35 on another level should it get into a dogfight. And believe me, if we ever did get into a war with a country with a real air force, the F-35 would invariably find itself in close-up encounters. It's just bound to happen. Missiles don't always hit, and then all of a sudden enemy craft is close enough to either see the F-35 or pick it up on radar.
--- 57867211
>>57867200

Tom could do it by lowering the thrust on one engine. it's not rocket science
--- 57867236
>>57867211
>Thinking you can do split throttle on a single-engine plane
>Thinking split throttle achieves the same thing as thrust vectoring
wew, lad
--- 57867355
>>57864021 (OP)
A pussy so I can fuck it.
--- 57867362
>>57866724
lmao you fuckin nerd they can use AIM-9X
--- 57867366
Being able to turn invisible.
You never said it had to be a REAL feature
--- 57867367
>>57866776
Our inventory of BVR missiles need to be fired at high altitude and supersonic speeds (something that the F-35 is currently specifically prohibited from doing) in order to achieve their full range.

>>57867183
>current government communications state that it's not allowed to use sustained afterburner
>umm ackshyually it can supercruise (something it was never even designed to do)
the absolute state of nu/k/ope
--- 57867375
Nuclear weapons. Fuck escalation management. Every F-35 should be capable of deleting a chinese hive.
--- 57867383
>>57864655
Uuuwaaahhhh muscle tomboy belly
--- 57867469
>>57867383
inorganic forced meme
--- 57867970
>>57864021 (OP)
Stealth payload.
--- 57868099
>>57867375
F-35A can internally carry two B61 nukes
Pretty fucked up that stealth nuclear bombers were a very limited national asset and now what will be the most common tactical fighter is one.
--- 57868130
>JDAM dildos with GOATSE on the tips
--- 57868215
>>57864021 (OP)
Cup holders, at least 4 of them.
--- 57868376
At this point a new long range missile is needed, one with ideally the same dimensions as the AMRAAM, possibly using a Ramjet/Ramrocket.

Also a smaller low cost missile that can be carried internally in the style of 'CUDA', doesn't have to be especially agile, just cost efficient for targeting drone aircraft and cruise missiles.
Would be useful for thinning out drone and cruise missile attacks, on land or against fleets.

Also lastly the engine upgrade would be really great for improved range.
--- 57868538
Shit Lockheed should have have at launch
>uprated engines to supercruise effectively
>better weather protected stealth coating

Shit I want
>Airborne laser in the space behind cockpit on the F-35A
>Specific EW variant that can do everything the Growler can do, and more, without the need for external pods
>SDB support for bomb bay
>SDB like missiles for bomb bay
>Full compatibility with stealth drop tanks, either centreline or 2 on wings - with the ability to be dropped with precision as bombs if needed, maybe integrating the fuel-mix that newer Tomahawks use. 
>Stealth conformal centreline weapons bay for ACLM or extra Meteors/AIM-260

Shit I can dream of
>F-35 with dual seats in place of liftfan/extra fuel (made up by with stealth drop pods) for use for strike roles and loyal-wingman control/coordination
Won't happen because Israel requested it and got told it wasn't feasible
>F-35A but with F-35C wings without hinges, adding 2 extra external hardpoints and increased range for deep strike
Won't happen unless congress blocks export of B-21 to countries like Britain, Australia, Canada and Israel
--- 57870321
>>57864021 (OP)
paint it white
--- 57870413
>>57864021 (OP)
I mean it does have external hardpoints. They're just not stealthy. 

Personally, I'd like to give it a second seat for a drone controller or WSO.
--- 57870452
>>57864021 (OP)
A vagina so I could fuck it
--- 57870469
>>57867200
The problem with that is that the F-35 is just too stable for dogfighting. Modern dogfighters are designed somewhat unstable in that once they start turning they want to keep turning or even turn even sharper. This makes them more speed efficient when in a turn-and-burn encounter but less fuel efficient when cruising. It was noted that the F-35 looses more speed in a turn than dedicated air superiority fighters like the F-16 and F-22 indicating that it's more stable.
--- 57870525
>>57864021 (OP)
Non-binary rest room
--- 57870566
>>57867367
>Our inventory of BVR missiles need to be fired at high altitude and supersonic speeds (something that the F-35 is currently specifically prohibited from doing) in order to achieve their full range.
No, they don't. The longer the missile's range, the less the speed of the platform matters. F-35 is capable of using AIM-120. Which missiles are you talking about? Where did you read this information?
--- 57870643
>>57866662
--- 57870648
>>57867200
>And believe me, if we ever did get into a war with a country with a real air force, the F-35 would invariably find itself in close-up encounters. It's just bound to happen. Missiles don't always hit, and then all of a sudden enemy craft is close enough to either see the F-35 or pick it up on radar.
No. If you get into a dogfight, you're more likely to use your sidewinder (which is why I wish F-35 had better sidewinder support) and run away than get into a maneuvering contest with the enemy aircraft. More importantly, F-35s shouldn't be put into situations where dogfight is necessary when there are dedicated air superiority fighters available. So, I don't believe you.

>>57870469
F-22 is a lot more maneuverable and a lot more stable compared to F-16 even if you exclude thrust vectoring. Being unstable is not the only thing that determines how maneuverable an aircraft is. F-35 for sure is less maneuverable than F-16, but in my opinion the difference is greatly exaggerated because it lost some dogfights (not all tests) against F-16 it's intended to replace. The cases it lost aren't really the modern usecase scenarios for the F-35. Also, people seem to compare F-16 unloaded, no external tanks with F-35 full load, this is not a fair comparison.
--- 57870672
>>57864072
Anon...
--- 57870706
>>57867200
The F-35's stealth capability is nearly unrivaled though. If you can't hit with an AIM inside like 20km (probably couldn't be detected at even that range), you need a new missile, not thrust vectoring. Adding thrust vectoring would up the cost for negligable tactical benefit. For the amount it would cost to upgrade the whole fleet i think i'd rather just have more of them

For everyone talking about sidewinders >>57866724 
One of the F-35's advantages is the internal weapons carriage, which improves aero performance, drag characteristics, etc. If you throw sidewinders on it, you negate those benefits. It's just not meant to be some dogfighting interceptor in the traditional sense. It's a true multirole that is meant to sneak up on you, outmaneuver you before you even know it's there, and kill you while you have your thumb up your ass. If it ever gets in a turn and burn scenario, the pilot will have had to royally fuck up
--- 57870756
>>57870706
So what you’re saying is, sidewinders on over-wing pylons?

Kinky, but alright
--- 57870763
>>57870706
>If you throw sidewinders on it, you negate those benefits.
Retard. F-22 is capable of using sidewinders from internal bays. You can definitely fire sidewinder from internal bays and you can use AIM-9X in stealthy configuration without having to expose the thing longer than you need to fire the missile. The problem is that F-35 doesn't have the rails to do so. But if I remember correctly it'll be getting ability to use the sidewinder at some point.
--- 57870783
>>57864021 (OP)
sidecar with a machine gun
--- 57870828
>>57870763
>AIM-9X in stealthy configuration without having to expose the thing longer than you need to fire the missile.
Correction: You "probably" can in the future. I don't know if it's currently available. AIM-9X just has some capability to lock on after launch not sure if it's actively used now.
--- 57870835
railgun and laser cannon. Missiles are for boomers and 3rd world countries
--- 57870947
Remote variant so the airframe can be pushed to its absolute limits.
--- 57871098
>>57870706
>If it ever gets in a turn and burn scenario, the pilot will have had to royally fuck up
Like using supply vehicles for frontline fighting?
--- 57872161
>>57868538
>>better weather protected stealth coating
Done as of the mid-2010s.
>>SDB support for bomb bay
Done.
>>Specific EW variant that can do everything the Growler can do, and more, without the need for external pods
It already has this to an extent, but Block IV will apparently give the Growler a run for its money
The rest would be great.
>maybe integrating the fuel-mix that newer Tomahawks use.
The newer TLAMs just disperse and then touch off the unspent JP-10 to create thermobaric effects.
--- 57872208
>>57864021 (OP)
A second engine
If it is named after picrel it should have TWO engines not one, no exceptions
--- 57872384
>>57867355
She already has a very hot pussy, you're just not big enough for her
--- 57872716
>>57870648
That still leaves the F-35 as far more stable than the F-22 . This doesn't only mean that the F-35 is going to be slower to turn but it's also going to loose a lot of speed in those turns. In a world with High Offbore Shooting, this is basically a death sentence. Having one engine also means you aren't getting the same performance like you'd get from an F-22 because you can only vector the thrust one way. No thrust vectored rolling or throttle steering. Add to this EODAS and helmet mounted cueing and there's little benefit from thrust vectoring.
--- 57872877
>>57872716
>In a world with High Offbore Shooting, this is basically a death sentence.
You're still living under the illusion that you can actually avoid modern missiles within human limits or that you can outmaneuver more than one (assuming missiles being used within their specs, not extreme range).

The reality is that in the next wars dogfights are not expected to happen, being seen and being shot at first is the death sentence. Not being able to outmaneuver a missile is kinda expected, missiles are a lot faster and a lot more maneuverable for its speed than any aircraft except SR-71 which can outrun missiles.

Let's think about a couple of hypothetical air to air scenarios.
- You engage over long distance (beyond the range of sidewinder). The first one to notice and shoot wins 99% of the time in a contested airspace. No need for maneuverability.
- You didn't detect a target and when you finally detected a target it was close enough for sidewinder. You would send the sidewinder their way and if you're in sidewinder range it would kill >90% of the time (at least mission kill). You wouldn't continue the engagement though, you would turn around and get away from them if you're in sidewinder range. Why? Because you only have 2 sidewinders so if it's not a kill you're in deep trouble, better take the initiative to get out of certain enemy close range missiles than to engage in dogfight. Average need for maneuverability. You don't need to stay on someone's tail, you just need to get a lock in still miles distance and run away.
--- 57872938
>>57872161
>Done as of the mid-2010s.
Afaik F-35C's in Naval service have degraded coating. It's still a remarkable feet of engineering BUT the salt air does shit.

>The newer TLAMs just disperse and then touch off the unspent JP-10 to create thermobaric effects.
I was thinking that they can use the extended fuel tanks up to say 90% and then drop them as bombs. Obviously not as destructive as purpose built bombs but having 2 extra bombs may still be useful.
--- 57873067
This is a tough ask without knowing what features it DOESN’T have or won’t be getting. Ie, adaptive cycle engines are coming. Sensors are already at the top of its size / weight class. In-flight launch and recover drone modules which are still in development. Umm…maybe a rear-ward facing radar? Super-packed SDB rails if they’re not already coming. Internal drop tanks?
--- 57873735
>>57872877
So there's even less of a reason to include thrust vectoring.
--- 57873742
>>57864021 (OP)
Carry handle
--- 57874071
>>57864021 (OP)
Replace machinegun with laser weapon that can rotate independently of the craft's nose.
--- 57874183
>>57864021 (OP)
Supercruise :^)
--- 57874228
>>57864021 (OP)
Rethink using GPS for JDAMs.
--- 57874916
>>57864342
oh god muh dick
--- 57875470
>>57864021 (OP)
Turbocharger.
--- 57875518
>>57867236
>Taking a joke seriously
--- 57875556
>>57873742
Yes.
--- 57875685
>>57864021 (OP)
Peregrine missiles.
--- 57875707
>>57866619
>This effectively makes the F-35 a subsonic aircraft that can't use BVR weapons
retard alert
--- 57875831
>>57864089
Bump
--- 57875846
>>57866616
AI + drone mode. No pilot