Trump on F-35/F-18

[Toryu 156]

You mean like the whole 10 years the Vietnam conflict took? Or like the 10 years that OEF and OIF and it's sequels?

The F-22 is seldomly deployed forward, because it's so valuable and not really needed (and because it's support is such a pain in the butt, due to it's low numbers in service).

The same applies to the F-35. Only when huge numbers are in service (and actually deployed to a war that mainly consists of bombing a 20$ tent with a 200,000$ bomb), the cost of maintenance will accept normal combat deployments of F-35s.

They're simply too sophisticated to be flown-down (hours and load-cycles wise), when a 30 year old F-16 can do the job as good.

 

The lifting-fan configuraton adds complexity and burdens the aircraft with an unneccessarily high bypass-ratio for the main engine at higher Mach. Also, the lifting-fan was the source of lots of problems and delays (almost canning the project altogether) and will continue to be troublesome.

The placement of the lifting-fan determines other internal load-distributions, such as weapon bays, fuel-tanks and avionic compartments, which in turn are supposed to be similar in all models.

 

 

Also, designing an airframe and engine for three services with entirely diferent service-requirements leads to staggering performance-issues in each service-variant. Wing-, fuselage-, and engine-sizing is based a relatively confined set of parameters, which in turn has ramifications on key performance values.

E.g. a smaller wing weighs less and thus requires less thrust for vertical take-off, so the smallest possible wing will be used in common. The F-35C in turn needs a much bigger wing, as the small wing not only lowers A2A and cruise-performance, but also won't safely fly at normal carrier approach-speeds (incl. fuel requirements and weapons bring-back capability requirements).

 

Structural load-paths have to be designed in a way that not only the lighter weight Air Force model could handle the loads, but also the Navy model would (bigger wing means different load-distribution). The larger design-descent-rate and landing-gear requirements (cat-launch forces are acting through the nose-gear) als play apart, and so do material-requirements for saltwater-environment.

 

In order to have maximal parts-commonality (which is a major design-goal of the F-35), all those issues have to be kept in mind, managed and designed accordingly.

Thus, the end-design is compromised by design-constraints of the two other versions, which in turn degrades performance of each version, even though they are a diferent airplane with different design-missions and mission-requirements.

 

I'm just giving a couple of rough examples here. The list goes on.

 

 

A larger number of Super Hornets (with CFTs, upgraded cockpits and those stealth-pods) and a lower number of F-35s is the way to go.

[MigBuster 2,883]

30 year old F-16s don't last forever and run for free you know..there are only so many SLEPs before they have to be replaced......and so they will be.

 

What little is known about F-22 deployment suggests it brings some very unique capabilities (not just Stealth and a limited AG role) particularly in areas where there are high end Air Defence systems in Syria (like S-400 etc).

 

Logically you could assume the A and C have been compromised but the end results don't suggest there is anything particularly bad about it.....just proves what an achievement it really has been. They rightly put more emphasis on the AG role and went for similar performance as 4th Gen (regarding old fashioned metrics) . The A has a smaller wing........but find a single F-35A / B pilot feeling compromised in the A-A arena at this or any moment in time.  

 

 

There is no point trying to point out what a waste of tax payers money the F-35 is and then basically say it would be better off wasted on Advanced Super Hornets which look neither cost effective or value for money........(the figures for the Saudi deal were eye watering!) 

[Toryu 156]

The F-16s do have a lot of life left in them (they're still built, after all - and taht for a very competitive price; training and ressources are in place, well established and working well), just like the F-15s, which will obviously have to, as the original replacement-plans (F-22s) have been axed long ago.

The F-35 won't be able to replace them. They're not designed to do so. Lipstick on a pig won't help there.

 

Care to elabore what kind of "unique capabilities" these are? A S-400 system can only be overcome by a good electronic warfare strategy - no matter if F-22s are involved or not. Especially if your fleet of F-22 is slim.

What about an eventual S-500? Now, you won't have that system in Dafuqistan, but sure as hell, you will see it in Russia eventually. The Chineese aren't asleep either.

They're getting their own set of ideas based on their own "stealth"-programmes.

 

There is always something particularily bad about not designing a fighter for a role it is intended to fulfill.

It's like arguing the F-111B is not a dog compared to an F-14 - and even there, the F-14 had been compromised by the ill-suited hardware of the F-111 (TF-30 engine) for almost 15 years.

It's like arguing that the F-18 is not compromised as a naval strike-fighter (particularily internal fuel-capacity and drag-figures do to the LERX and boundary-layer slot design) by it's YF-17 Air Force LWF-programme heritage. Any time there's a compromise (especially, when outside of your mission-parameters), you're worse off in total.

That's a fact, and not just whishful thinking on my side. The F-35 has been burdened by an unrealistic set of mission-requirements, all stuffed into one airframe and supposed to be redeemed by some black magic, coming from it's avionics boxes. Unfortunately, that's not how the game works: One airplane for each service would have outperformed the F-35 and donse so at a lower total price. Looks like this has to be learned anew by each generation of generals and politicians.

 

"Achievenets" don't really count - the Luftwaffe axed their VTOL-projects in the 60s, mainly because they realized that overall strike-performance was compromised too much to be of any use. All of that despite their tech-achievements (first supersonic VTOL, etc.).

The brits carried on with their Harrier, which was rather laughable in it's payload-range capabilities in it's first two Marques, but somewhat useful for some missions. Only later design-changes and other tech-implementations (ARBS, Radar, FLIR) offered a more capable airplane (largely thanks to MDD's enlarged, glassfiber wing).

VTOL projects have largely died, because for the cost (weight, reduced useful volume) of the lifting-technology, other capabilities suffered too much.

 

How many operational F-35 pilots have flown anything different than a 3gen fighter before? Given the Harrier II-heritage, I'd probably also be pretty wet-pantied about the airplane, but given the fact that it doesn't outperform a 40 year old design (F-16) in basic airwork, makes it look bad.

Bells and whistles can be retrofitted, aerodynamic performance not so much. There's only so much, a beefed-up engine can do, when you're underwinged.

 

The Super Hornet is avaiable right now, can be retrofitted for a fraction of the money, and the support structure and training is already well established.

There is significantly less financial risk in allocating more funds in that direction, while cutting a couple of orders on the F-35 side of the game.

[Stratos 3,188]

Thanks for this debate guys, I'm following you with great interest. I wonder how the EuroFighter is considered? I think countries like Spain made a good purchase as it can work on a real variety of roles, but I have no idea how stealthy is If any.

 

 

I like this idea for relatively cheap advanced striker, there is more info about this pod and the "enhanced" characteristics? what it can carry specially comes to mind as it looks pretty small. Looks like a mod to have in SF2 once Trump decide to attack N.Korea lol

[MigBuster 2,883]

F-35 Pilots have flown 4/5 Gen (A-10 to F-22) and likely don't give a **** about having bigger wings............because those in the know probably get it by now.

 

You are right the FA-18A is a good example of a jack of all trades master of very little that was compromised by being designed as a LWF and used in a different role........didn't stop it being an exceptional aircraft though did it. The redesign to the SH was nearly as radical as the F-16XL to make it fit its role better and had some similar goals such as better high AoA handling and reduced RCS. Notice they were happy to have pretty much the same performance as the FA-18C (somewhat less than the F-35A)........but unfortunately couldn't add in all the sensors, fuel and RCS shaping to remain relevant.

 

Super Hornets are not as cheap to procure as you like to think..........the point is mute anyway as already stated.

 

Regardless of these compromises the Sea Harrier still performed when it had to despite the perceived lack of kinetic ability and payload from those scratching their heads.

 

Some of the F-16s left might be taken to a 12,000hr SLEP but they will be replaced in the USAF by the F-35 regardless.

 

F-22 has very good sensor and information sharing capabilities it would seem compared to other US jets.

 

 

"Unfortunately, that's not how the game works: One airplane for each service would have outperformed the F-35 and donse so at a lower total price. Looks like this has to be learned anew by each generation of generals and politicians."

 

Well nobody plays your game it seems. ....and regarding the cost is also wishful thinking and something you couldn't prove anyway.................

[Toryu 156]

Pilots noting the little to any difference in turn-capability over the F-16C obviously do think the airplane is underwinged. What now?

 

The SH does have a much better overall performance than the F-18C (payload/ range, bringback-capability, loiter-time). It also does add a mission or two (tanker, Growler, CAS/ FAC for the two-seater).

Capability-wise, the F-18 had been a step back, compared to the A-7, but it added substantial AA capabilities, which helped it sell in Congress. The then percieved bomber and cruise-missile threat never really materialized, though. Vought cried foul and wasn't really wrong.

The SH also is a step back, when compared to the A-6, but again, it offers AA capabilities, which helped it being sold. That and the F-14 becoming too much of a financial burden.

The SH was a much more radical engineering-endeavour than the F-16XL.

 

SHs aren't "cheap", but are considerably higher value overall, given their multirole-capabilities and the fact that the most important financial burden (support and logistics) is already in place any only has to be amended for parts-changes.

 

The Sea Harrier only barely delivered and showed major flaws in the whole Fleet Air Arm concept. It should be pretty obvious by now, that the entire Falklands War was much more down to dumb luck, than to a percieved-by-some Sea Harrier superiority.

Had the FAA had still possessed their F-4Ks, the war would have ended way more favourably for Britain.

 

What makes you think that sensor-interation and information-sharing can not be retrofitted?

If the only real advantage is boxes, there is no point in buying the whole airframe around it.

The only issue in the field is "stealth", which is just a marketing name for reduced observability in a specific detection-bandwidth.

 

The funny thing is, there is proof. Built in about 4,500 copies.

It's called F-16. Purpose-built, with retrofitted capability.

You might compare that to a multi-nation clusterf*ck, called "Eurofighter"/ "Joint Strike Fighter" / "A400M" / etc.

You can interchange "muti-nation" with "multi-service". It's the same game - the difference being that "multi-service" has all the disagreeing parties already sitting in one building.

Not that the whole issue isn't trivial in the first place...

 

But what do I know - I'm just a lowly aerospace engineer anyway.

[MigBuster 2,883]

Can you provide a quote from a current F-35 pilot worrying about missing this extra wing area and perceived lack of horizontal turn rate in a realistic A-A exercise please?

 

Being an aerospace engineer (Boing related by any chance?) doesn't make you an authority on what is actually important in a combat aircraft in 2016 or the near future considering what has been discussed so far.

 

In terms of kinetic metrics like acceleration and turn rate which seem to be your priority metrics for A-A a USN pilot who flies both puts the SH about equal with the higher thrust FA-18C.

 

I'm sure there were positives about the FA-18A procurement but going with your line of reasoning it was compromised and could have been a lot better.  There are a ton of positives the F-35 brings..that you cant even bring yourself to admit can you! 

 

The FAA didn't have F-4Ks and the Ark Royal at the time of the Falklands so what I stated still stands regardless of what you want to dream about. Politics or whatever determined the way the force went and the only fixed wing jet that could do the job was the Harrier simple as.

 

Again this alternate reality about the SH being good value when everything shows it representing extremely poor value considering the published cost to real performance ratio......can you provide something! anything! (Are the JDAM SHs drop on the 3rd world cheaper as well?)

 

Retrofitting avionics...well you might get far if you chuck enough money at it.......and the politics allow it. Just because you can assume it can be done doesn't mean anyone is stupid enough to spend that money on an obsolete aircraft. Thus F-22 as is publically known performs functions combined with its other attributes that are unique and the F-35 will likely do it better in some respects.

 

So you think the F-16V being touted has the internal space and structural design to carry EODAS/EOTS/BARRACUDA do you....and still retain enough internal fuel...............

With the F-16ES (Enhanced Strategic to you) they tried to internalise both LANTIRN pods and I'm certain today they could do it............but the point is mute...who is going to spend the money on an airframe clearly at the end of its life with an RCS the size of the moon when carrying all that external stuff. You should know this just like with your beloved Hornet external stores vastly reduce and compromise performance including range, acceleration, cruise etc etc. 

 

Why do you think the SH was more radical redesign than the XL............? 

[MigBuster 2,883]

Thanks for this debate guys, I'm following you with great interest. I wonder how the EuroFighter is considered? I think countries like Spain made a good purchase as it can work on a real variety of roles, but I have no idea how stealthy is If any.

 

 

 

I love the EF / Typhoon...........kinda similar to what the F-16XL might have been but sadly the participating countries never really had the enthusiasm to make it cutting edge....low volume very high cost.........and still soldiers on with an old MSA radar here although the later tranches have been given AG capability.  Did Germany ever get IRST on their EF-2000s?.

 

As far as the UK is concerened hopefully it will be lethal used alongside the F-35 with the new ways of doing things that will enable.

[MigBuster 2,883]

The F-35 won't be able to replace them. They're not designed to do so. Lipstick on a pig won't help there.

 

 

 

This is the USAF take on this (AIR FORCE MAGAZINE Mar 2016):

 

Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III has said on numerous occasions the shortage of F-22s means the Air Force will rely on the F-35 to achieve air superiority in

future conflicts much more than originally planned. Even though the F-35 was to be a multirole jet and not a dedicated dogfighter, Anhalt said it will be superior to the F-15 in the air-to-air regime.

[Stratos 3,188]

Thanks for the info. Concerning IRST, Spain and UK have them, I'm pretty sure about that, but I think Luftwaffe never equipped the plane with it.

[+Menrva 4,192]

 

This is the USAF take on this (AIR FORCE MAGAZINE Mar 2016):

 

Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III has said on numerous occasions the shortage of F-22s means the Air Force will rely on the F-35 to achieve air superiority in

future conflicts much more than originally planned. Even though the F-35 was to be a multirole jet and not a dedicated dogfighter, Anhalt said it will be superior to the F-15 in the air-to-air regime.

 

 

That's a bit funny though, the F-22 was born as an air dominance fighter, but turned out to be a multirole jet (although to be multirole it's a must for every fighter jet nowadays). If it were up to me, I'd have more F-22s for air superiority, so those can escort F-35s in their hypothetical strike and air interdiction missions. Also, IIRC, the F-22 can carry more air to air missiles than an F-35. The F-22 still shows some limits though, AFAIK they do not support HMD visors. I simply think that the U.S. can't rely that much on the F-35 to do everything. For instance, the AMI's got the Eurofighter for air superiority (if necessary, it is multirole indeed), and the F-35s are planned to replace the dated Sea Harrier and the leased USAF's F-16s (maybe even the Tornados we have, but I am not sure about this). The F-35 was born as a strike fighter jet, let's use it for that. Uncle Sam should build some more F-22s instead, not that many though. If they are stealth aircraft, that also means they have more chances of survivability in combat-heavy scenarios. For how I love the Eagle and the Fighting Falcon, I must admit that the only way to reduce costs is to reduce the number of different airframes in current service (especially in the USAF). The F-22 and the F-35 can do what the F-15s and the F-16s do, so they can and must replace those at some time. I don't know what to think about the Advanced Super Hornet, but the F-35s can replace the Hornets as well, with all the technology of the fifth-generation. All in all, two aircraft instead of four or five different ones, the costs would be reduced quite a bit. Trump's statement comes too late, the F-35 is already in motion, now you keep it. Telling Boeing to build an alternative is another waste of money at this time. Just my humble opinion.

[Toryu 156]

Have there been any exercises with relevant aircraft of today yet?

 

Being an aerospace engineer first and foremost gives me a pretty good idea of how costs grow and inflate with expectations and requirements in a project - better than someone who knows the project mainly from Aviation Week articles. No offense there, just engineering entangled with economy. The more parties involved and the more inflated the requirements-catalogue, the worse. The problem is universal nowadays - and Boeing will tell you a story or two about their own duck-ups with their 787-programme, which is the same thing in a different colour (wonder-airplane sold by economists without cross-checking with the engineering-departments for feasibility). Or maybe ask Airbus how they're doing with their A400M wonderbird.

 

In terms of AA metrics, the SH has better AoA-potential over the overweight F-18C with similar kinetic capabilities. The mid-Lot F-18Cs were pretty short on thrust, before the F-18C got the higher thrust -402s. The most critical issue on the SH are the toe-out pylons, which would be reduced or done away with on the upgraded SH (centerline pod and CFTs).

 

The problem with the positives of the F-35 is that they are compromised by the F-35 being an airframe that is not optimised for each services role. On top, being a money-pit for 25 years now, it prevents the Navy (whose primary mission is to reign the seas and not reign the air) from investing elsewhere with a higher bang/ buck ratio.

BTW: The F-18 partially came to be, because there wasn't enough money left for procuring the initially planed number of F-14s. The Navy wasn't so much into a lightweight-fighter. The aging F-4s did play a role and somebody though the A-7s needed replacement (which they didn't). MDD not only axed Northrop over the F-18, they also lulled Congress into buying an airplane that wasn't quite needed. The Strike Fighter concept stuck and showed it's worth, but the Attack comunity was vey weary of the new airplane and rightly said that it was (then) a capability shrink compared to the A-7. There's a good book by Kelly Orr about the whole story behind the F-18.

 

What you stated about the Sea Harrier "stands" because there were about 14 unexploded argentine bombs in Royal Navy ships that didn't go off and because the French were kind enough to let the RN have a brief look at the Exocet missile capabilities and possible counter-strategies. Take those two away and the Sea Harrier looks much more like what it is/ was.

 

I already gave you a hint at the operational costs of the aircraft, which aren't rooted in the procurement/ flyaway-costs, but in the costs for training, support and logistics. The F-18/ SH has these already established and up/ running in full gear.

 

Aircraft today are "obsolete/ relevant" mainly because of the boxes in them. As I said before, today's wars aren't about delivering a nke to Moscow, but more about helping the tent-industry geting more business. The wars the F-35 was supposed to fight back in the early 90s are pretty much gone.

Take the avionics-package of the F-35 away and the airplane looks only half as cool. That's exactly what the upgraded SH does - bridge the avionics gap between the SH Block II and the F-35 and give the SH some stealth-gizmos that help reduce it's RCS. It's not the full show, but good enough at lest cost. For the Navy, this is probably the better package: Reduce the number of F-35s and put some upgraded F-18E/Fs in there - they'll use them anyway for almost anything in the air wing; might as well keep them "relevant".

 

No, I think a CFT-equipped F-16, employing the latest weapon-technology (small caliber PGMs, JSOW, etc.) and using a chin-inlet Targeting-Pod does the job well enough.

The funny thing about the boxes is that they are smaller (better say "more compact" in terms of computing-power per volume) than the boxes they are replacing. The only issue I can see is avionics cooling and providing enough power for all the gizmos.

The CFT alone is a huge selling-point on the SH, as the canted/ toe-out pylons produce sheetloads of drag. Leave them at home and carry your arms on the tip-rails, fuselage-stations and the pod and you'll have a performace-increase right there.

 

Becuse the F-16XL is a slightly stretched F-16 with a diferent wing.

The Super Hornet is a different airframe (about 25% larger and there is a relatively low parts-commonality between the two; I'd have to look that figure up, though) with different engines.

 

 

Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III has said on numerous occasions the shortage of F-22s means the Air Force will rely on the F-35 to achieve air superiority in

future conflicts much more than originally planned. Even though the F-35 was to be a multirole jet and not a dedicated dogfighter, Anhalt said it will be superior to the F-15 in the air-to-air regime.

 

Surely he says that - he wants more airplanes and he doesn't have to pay for them.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Toryu

[MigBuster 2,883]

The XL is a slightly stretched F-16 with a larger wing is it...........no it wasn't ........that is no different to me stating the SH is a Legacy with stretched and enlarged wings etc............. instead of throwing out wild assumptions perhaps you need to do a bit more research on it. 

 

Yes they have participated in exercises so far will need to check which ones.

 

I am well aware of the factors in the Falklands war thanks so no need to keep bringing up mute points like a better AEW capability....while still denying how well the SHAR did under the circumstances. The SHAR was modified after the conflict to try and mitigate some of those issues.

 

I noted what you had said............sorry but the P-51 / F-4 / F-14 had training support and logistics setup before they went into history.....how is that a valid argument for clinging onto the past. Apparently saving some pennies now but risking the entire future on what is really the past (the SH).

 

You are wrong....the F-35 is clearly a best shot at providing what might be needed for the future not the past and might have tried to cover all bases. ......... but still apparently does everything better than the SH E/F in its supposed primary role. Boeing (you guys) had a shot at this and were even further behind with the X-32............so are now left to try and flog a few warmed over aircraft that despite these claims you make (that no one else in the industry seems to agree with you on). 

 

On the one hand dismissing stealth and on the other trying to shove warmed over F-15/18 with claims on how much the RCS has been reduced........funny.

 

You could argue for keeping the Growler variant......but according to (just) you, because it is just a collection of boxes and pods you could easily just stick it all onto another platform!! 

 

You are desperately trying to make out these supposed compromises are somehow major issues and totally ignore the fact that the services provided the requirements for it in the first place that LM have worked to. Your current spin seems to be that LM got a load of money and gave us this!...........hey why not waste the money on our slightly warm Boeing stew instead.

 

The only possible reason Trump would advocate seeing if Boeing can come up with a comparable SH (which will never exist ) was to frighten LM to get the cost down even further below the SH unit cost.

 

Which ever way you spin it or whatever you think the USN will try to upgrade it in the future the SH is not good enough for the overall cost for the future. F-35 was designed with internal stores and fully integrated sensor fusion and very low RCS from the very start............you cannot and will never get anywhere near that or its growth potential sorry.

Edited January 4, 2017 by MigBuster

[Toryu 156]

The XL shared a common fuselage and everything apart from the wings (even the engine) was the same as in the current production blocks. It's a tech-demonstrator, funded by GD and only later entered the race for the F-111 replacement.

The SH, in contrast, is a whole different aircraft from the ground up, with a few shared parts.

 

The point is the Sea Harrier didn't do well at all, compared to what a conventional carrier air wing (F-4K / Buccaneer) could have done.

There would have been substantially fewer losses on the british side, had they had their "back in the days" carrier-capabilities.

 

A bit of a straw-man argument you're putting up there. The F-51 didn't do too bad in Korea at first, but with increased MiG-activity, the 200kts of airspeed-differerence made it obslete. No way of putting in an LRU that equates the difference. Luckily, the F-86 was largely just a jet P-51 with hydraulics - the tech gap back then was pretty slim.

The F-14 was a purpose-designed aircraft (same was the F-4) - quite the opposite of the F-35C. Bad example.

 

So the F-35C is a great tanker or FAC aircraft? Is it a fleet-defender? How much payload can it carry and still be "stealthy"?

Lipstick on a pig.

BTW: The RCS-refinement I'm talking about is a concession in your direction, as you seem to think it's a get-home-free trump-card (no pun intended). It's not, but if it helps sell the aircraft, why not?

 

You could stick it onto another platform, but unfortunately the external jammers would f+ck with the F-35's stealth and putting a stealth-plane in charge of jamming is a bit agricultural in the first place.

 

I'm not spinning anything. The services came up with a set of requirements, to which Boeing, MDD, LM and others' yelled "sure we can do this". Probem was that the requirements are partially working against each other, which compromises overall performance. LM's design was chosen (rightfully - Boeing's was a dog), but still has to carry that crutch of trying to dance at all parties.

In the end, LM, GE/P&W and RR got lots of money for it and couldin't deliver on time (not entirely their fault, given the specs) or on budget.

That is forseeable waste of taxpayer's money.

 

Why does the SH not deliver at lower overall cost? Got any specs on that - other than a LM-brochure?

You seem to forget that the airplane is already 100% over-cost, meaning there will probably be a 50% reducton in orders, leading in turn to a flight-hour attrition rate twice as high as planned for.

That's the problem when you try to replace a relatively cheap, hi-volume fleet with a complexity-burdened answer-to-all airplane.

[MigBuster 2,883]

Have there been any exercises with relevant aircraft of today yet?

 

 

 Northern Lightning was one:

 

http://www.hill.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/931394/f-35a-continues-fifth-generation-tradition-of-air-superiority-against-legacy-ai

 

http://pulsegulfcoast.com/2016/09/f-35-shows-superiority-legacy-aircraft

 

You don't need to provide any current pilots having serious concern over F-35 AA performance because you probably cannot .

 

 

Not really the answer I was looking for...........there is a slew of tech data released on the XL from NASA that will tell you all about it............the lead engineer on the program is easily contactable.........there are ("shock horror") industry pros available who know a lot more than you. (No offence but you sound like you are siloed on the airliner side of things) 

 

You have missed the point...could F-4s and Buccs operate from the ski jump through deck cruisers? Real great the F-4s could CAP from Ascension however despite the compromises you keep highlighting the SHAR was the only jet that could do the job at the time and it did a great job. A lot of people saw the value in the concept and ASTOVL was put down in the late 70s.....this work eventually went directly into JSF (F-35B).

 

So sticking a buddy pod on the SH makes it a great tanker does it , and the F-35 despite it's far superior sensor suite cant perform any type of Fast FAC role you state?. The notion that the SH was ever the best fleet defender despite it's compromised design is a good one.........and again the F-35C is looking superior.

 

There has been mismanagement and likely money lost that is clear but no one in the industry is surprised a cutting edge IT project of this undertaking is over budget and delayed..this is hardly unexpected. The F-35 is not the first program and wont be the last to have flaws but the taxpayer has ended up with what appears to be a very sound end result that has believe it or not learnt from some past failures such as the TFX (According to an otherwise highly critical USN case study from 2008).  

 

There is plenty out there if you want to look...the official Danish comparison even stuck the F-35 as cheaper to operate over the projected lifetime. There was some contention over that because Boeing later claimed the the SH is only a 6000 hour design when used on carriers but has more life used on land.

 

 

You don't need to provide anything to back up anything you have said...............mainly because you can't in most cases and are clearly not going to bother anyway. You have provided next to nothing to this discussion to demonstrate how the SH (despite being a great product) provides any real value to the taxpayer over the F-35.

 

If you think you are being clever by putting in little digs as you have done since your first post in this thread to go with the many assumptions and falsehoods already discussed and debunked time and time again then I guess you like digging your own grave. 

Edited January 4, 2017 by MigBuster