If you are simply comparing ordnance delivery in uncontested space you will find it very hard to meaningfully demonstrate that a 5th generation asset is "twice as effective" because the condition boundaries you limit yourself to do not take into account the greater and more important logistical and cost implications. To meaningfully demonstrate "effectiveness" of the F-35 you are tasked with a more complex scenario with offensive counter-air, SEAD etc factored in, in which case you might make a far more valid argument that the overall flight-hours required to gain air-superiority, the problem in this case is that you need to model the scenario under realistic conditions which one clearly can't do, because there is not nearly enough publicly available information to do so and more importantly, much like Carlo Kopp doing his "analyses", unless you are recently operationally involved in major air-operations you simply won't be making relevant assumptions/conclusions. 

 

This is the limitation we face as interested observers.

 

R 

First, at the current time the F-35 has not reached the final production version, so who knows what its capabilities will be.  Your calculation needs to consider the possibility that the pieces of the F-35 never quite come together.

 

How many F-35 are non functional due to maintenance issues?   How many F-35s will be lost due to engine failure vs twin engine F-18E/F?  What if the issues with the F-35's magic helmet are never resolved, will the pilot be able to fly the plane and operate the weapons and other systems simultaneously, f-18F has a 2 person crew?  While the money is already spent, if you stuck with the F-18 and spent the money saved on fancy new weapons would the result be more lethal?  What if a nervous fleet commander changes his mind and wants 3 planes to return and protect his fleet?  All of a sudden your 3 F-35s are hitting 0 targets.        

Jess bro,

 

If you want to put 20 hardened targets which are 600nm from your base (or last air refueling) at risk, per your scenario, then yes, a CL tank on your Super should suffice if armed with 4x JASSM/-ER or even JSOW-ER rounds.  Let the stand-off rounds cover the combat radius, not the platform.  

 

And as was suggested also... add the CFT onto the Super Hornet and you'll get 5x heavy class stand-off rounds.  Besides, JASSM will penetrate more effectively in destructive power than will SDB in the first place so you might also consider 2x SDB employed per JASSM employed.  Cost wise... you'll probably be able to afford 100 JASSM-ER + the 6 F-18E for the Weapon Unit Cost of 5 F-35C (no weapon included).

Some more points.

 

1. You are correct in your assesment. Throw in S-300s Su-30s TorM-1s and hardened aircraft shelters and the F-35 proves its worth versus a defended target.

 

2. Since we are discussing some capabilities that are not flying yet (conformal F-18 tanks), why not put a weapon on the F-35s center line? Maybe a JSM/NSM missile, For a total load out of 4X JaSSM 8XSDB and 1X NSM.
3. You mentioned tryign to squeeze SBds on the wing racks of the F-18. How do you evade counter air with 8k Lbs of weapons on the wings? wont your range, time on target and turning go down the tubes? When you get shot at now you must

Dump ordanence to evade. Id rather have 2X  internal NSM or 8X internal SBD. Do you not exspect to be met by a neer peer 600 miles out? can we assume that we wont be shot at? The F-35 could dumps its externals and still continue to a target.

4. IMO The F-35 is  is still worth 2X hornets since you can either A. Load it Up with more weapons than the hornet, and hit more targets increasing sortie rate or, B Load it UP with 2 internal standoff weapons and or 8x SBD But still fly at Mach 1.6 and 7-9gs. Dont focus so much on the SDB itself. Just under stand that the F-18 turns into a  flying brick trying to do the same thing.

Jessmo, I'd recommend you start a new thread on a different hypothetical on which others can formulate specific cost-effective and tactical assessments per your alternative scenario in question.

 

That is, if you keep changing the scenario throughout the thread, then imho the original intent of posing a question to the public for feedback becomes diluted.  It's an interesting and valid question  you posed in general, don't get me wrong, I'm just saying we could go in circles forever on this one if we keep changing the scenario and goal posts mid-thread.  Respects-