Struggling in US, F-35 fighter pushes sales abroad

[MAKO69 186]

Article on F-35 Edited January 27, 2012 by MAKO69

[liamp51 6]

Very interesting read. Thanks!

[JediMaster 451]

The export part was designed into the program from day 1.

[+Jarhead1 27]

If I recall correctly, this is the only aircraft since the F-4 Phantom to be serving USMC, USAF, and USN, so how is it a bust? If it does what its designed to do then isnt that the whole point? And apparently the government hasnt utilized the common sense that the more aircraft they buy, the cheaper the cost per aircraft will be. But what do I know? I am just a civilian now. God forbid I have the common sense that the government lacks!

 

 

[+streakeagle 871]

The one size fits all fighter always makes sense on paper. Should the USN have accepted the F-16 instead of the F-18? Should the USAF and USN only had F-16s and no F-14s, F-15s, or A-10s? An F-35 is not an A-10. Nor is it an F-22. It is at best an F-16 with stealth and updated avionics. When you put all of your eggs in one basket, it better be a damn good basket. Only time will tell.

[+ST0RM 145]

If I recall correctly, this is the only aircraft since the F-4 Phantom to be serving USMC, USAF, and USN, so how is it a bust? If it does what its designed to do then isnt that the whole point?

 

It doesn't. That's the point. The requirements had to be adjusted as the aircraft progressed (or not). Now it's overdue and over budget. The B-model isn't needed and doesn't do what it should. So it may get cut reducing the numbers and driving the cost per aircraft up.

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

Scrap the B and the silly "USS America" Harreir carrier thinga ma bob. B is an albatross around the Departmnet of the Navy's neck. That would save alot of money.

[MigBuster 2,884]

:lol: :lol:

 

Judging by that article which even quotes Carlo ***p as a source - I'm just impressed they managed to put a photo of an F-35 on there - tbh not sure they would recognize the difference between the F-35 and the Space Shuttle!

 

 

— unlike the twin-engine F-22 or F-15 — could also be an issue. If the engine goes out, planes and pilots in the Arctic could be lost.

 

Well better scrap the F-16s as well then quickly!

[MAKO69 186]

I think the problem is the time frame these planes should have been online has been mired by political red tape and micro managing. They have no one to blame other than themselves for slowing the program down.

[TX3RN0BILL 3]

It could be just my opinion but I think it's an extremely negative thing to have all eggs in the same basket. I think the U.S. airforces (saying it that way to cover the 3 services) were better served in the times when there was more competition in terms of aircraft-manufacturing companies. Lockheed has grown too big for the airforces's own good. I dare not think of how WWII would have been if there was basically only 1 company in the game... Good were the times when Northrop, Grumman, Vought, Republic and McDonnel Douglas existed as strong independent companies... Now the industry really has come to the state that they can't scrap a plane no matter how bad it is just because too much is at stake... NOT a good sign in my book!!!

[JediMaster 451]

That all goes back to the mistakes made 20 years ago with the defense drawdown and industry consolidation combined with the other mistake of programs costing more and more for fewer and fewer planes.