F-35

[antonkr]

So F-35.

A stealth aircraft that cannot be stealthy enough

A fighter that is not good enough to be a fighter

A CAS that is not good enough to provide CAS

And more importantly 25 Billion dollars

25 billion dollars spent so far on it

 

What do you think? Worth it, or will more waste of tax-payers money?

[Aurielius]

So F-35.

A stealth aircraft that cannot be stealthy enough

 

I have no idea where you get that fact from but it's quite wrong.

 

A fighter that is not good enough to be a fighter

 

I have seen the released specs and it's capacity to perform a CAP and win is beyond dispute.

 

A CAS that is not good enough to provide CAS

And more importantly 25 Billion dollars

 

 

The F-35 is a fifth generation ATF fighter, the development of a new generation is what costs money, subsequent aircraft will utilize the advances and be slightly cheaper as was the F14's to the later F-18's.

 

What do you think? Worth it, or will more waste of tax-payers money?

 

Air superiority costs money, we have been drawing down our forces, so we actually have fewer in inventory than 20 years ago. The current analysis estimates that the F-35 will be competent at a 1 to 5 ratio in combat. For honesty sake I'm biased being a former aviator and like having a cutting edge technological advantage over an enemy in actual combat. If you want air dominance in the future then that does not come at discount prices.

[HeyYou]

Wasn't that ratio 1 to 10 with the F-86 in Vietnam?

[antonkr]

So F-35.

A stealth aircraft that cannot be stealthy enough

 

I have no idea where you get that fact from but it's quite wrong.

 

A fighter that is not good enough to be a fighter

 

I have seen the released specs and it's capacity to perform a CAP and win is beyond dispute.

 

A CAS that is not good enough to provide CAS

And more importantly 25 Billion dollars

 

 

The F-35 is a fifth generation ATF fighter, the development of a new generation is what costs money, subsequent aircraft will utilize the advances and be slightly cheaper as was the F14's to the later F-18's.

 

What do you think? Worth it, or will more waste of tax-payers money?

 

Air superiority costs money, we have been drawing down our forces, so we actually have fewer in inventory than 20 years ago. The current analysis estimates that the F-35 will be competent at a 1 to 5 ratio in combat. For honesty sake I'm biased being a former aviator and like having a cutting edge technological advantage over an enemy in actual combat. If you want air dominance in the future then that does not come at discount prices.

I did see a lot of data saying that F-35's stealth is simply said, not nearly as good as F-22 and of course not even talking about B-2s.

But with carrier operations is it being VTOL even that important? And the regular non-VTOL version already seems to be having trouble http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/01/dn-design-blamed-for-f35c-tailhook-issues-011712/

The question really comes out to if it is trying to do too many things at once.

I can't see how an F/A-18 cannot do as much if not better then what F-35 is doing already, and of course let's not forget about the recent upgrade to the workhorse A-10, with the C upgrade.

[HeyYou]

Wait, the F-35 is single engine??? Really???? For a Naval Aircraft, that doesn't seem like the brightest idea...... at least on a multi-engine aircraft, if one fails, you still have some hope of getting back to the carrier..... not so on the -35....

[marharth]

Wasted military spending in the USA? That is such a huge surprise.

[Aurielius]

Wait, the F-35 is single engine??? Really???? For a Naval Aircraft, that doesn't seem like the brightest idea...... at least on a multi-engine aircraft, if one fails, you still have some hope of getting back to the carrier..... not so on the -35....

It is a standard VTOL arrangement. The only hang up is that you have only 320 seconds worth of time when in VTOL mode to put it on the deck, which explains why we are always in a such a hurry to land compared to some services.

 

Edit: As pointed out by Syco21.. there is only a STOL version though it still retains vertical landing ability.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Aurielius

[Dazaster]

If Steve Austin cost $6 Million in 1974, today that'd be $6 Billion easy, so $25 Billion for a whole plane sounds cheap at the price. Britain won't be buying any, we've just made a deal with Burma to take back 25 brand new Spitfires! (fact: they were buried just after WWII and their locations were lost. They've just been found and will soon be returned, probably as the RAF's front-line fighter)

[SilverDNA]

If Steve Austin cost $6 Million in 1974, today that'd be $6 Billion easy, so $25 Billion for a whole plane sounds cheap at the price. Britain won't be buying any, we've just made a deal with Burma to take back 25 brand new Spitfires! (fact: they were buried just after WWII and their locations were lost. They've just been found and will soon be returned, probably as the RAF's front-line fighter)

 

25 Billions For a Plane ???

No wonder 2 planes would be enough to bring the US healthcare minimum and a bit of Plus to the fund the next year.

Priorities.... and the US.

[dazzerfong]

No, Silver, it's not $25 billion for A plane; it's $25 billion for PLANES.

 

I reckon the F/A-18 E/F would do for a long time: the F-35 (other than its V/TOL capability, which is only restricted to the Navy or Marine version) underperforms from the F/A-18.

 

Anyway, is it just someone editing Wiki, or is the F-22 ($150 mil flyaway cost) cheaper than the F-35 (+$197 mil flyaway cost)?

Edited April 15, 2012 by dazzerfong