Not exactly a traditional Warbird question, but…

[Larry Kraus]

This picture appeared in the Aviation Week Briefing yesterday.

Aren’t stealth aircraft supposed to avoid external stores to preserve stealth? I’ll admit that this looks to be more practical than a clean wing, but…

IMG_2498 by tanker622001, on Flickr

[A26 Special K]

The answer is “options”. Where stealth is not a requirement such as a ferry flight across the Atlantic, external fuel tanks can be added. If stealth is less important than a bigger ordnance load in some particular situation, options are good to have. So like many sports cars, the F-35’s come with multiple possibilities. There are certain types of munitions that won’t fit in the internal weapons bays, but still need a delivery system. Looking down the road where the F-35 will be replacing several other existing airframes, versatility becomes even more important.

[Cvairwerks]

Even with all the pylons hanging off of the airframe, the RCS did not go up that much....Still like trying to detect a gnat on a horse's butt at a 1/4 mile down range....

[RyanShort1]

Different threat environments. If you are trying to penetrate high-threat environments you trade off weapons capacity for stealth. If you are dropping bombs on people that only have Stingers, then it makes sense to carry more payload if stealth isn't the priority.

[sandiego89]

In some of the briefing materials and doctrine guidelines, there is "first-day-of war capability" where the F-35 would be clean and stealthier with internal stores only, no wing stores, no pylons. Once air superiority is achieved, or the threat reduced, the aircraft could be fitted with external stores. Slang term for a fully armed up version with internal and external stores is "beast mode".

In a permissive environment like Afghanistan 15 years ago, imagine the F-35s would have had external stores and tanks.

[bdk]

The Wisconsin ANG may need the external stores to defend themselves from Canadian aggression...