27 years later, Is the F35 Joint Strike Fighter worth the $115M price tag?

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
29,391
2,736
126


Originally designed as a single plane for 3 branches of the military (Air Force, Marines, Navy), it became 3 planes.

- F35A Air Force: no harrier-like jumpjet technology. Replaces the F117 Nighthawk bomber, A10 WartHog close air support, and F16 Falcon(?)
- F35B Marines: new Jumpjet tech to replace the old harrier tech. Replaces the Harrier jet that costs $39M each
- F35C Navy: no jumpjet tech, increased wingspan/fuel and upgraded heavy duty landing gear. Replaces the F18 Super Hornet that costs $37M each

This plane started last century. :eek:
27years later, it's finally out of the development phase and into the mass production phase.
years delayed/overdue with major cost overruns.

In 2010, Pentagon officials disclosed that the F-35 program had exceeded its original cost estimates by more than 50 percent. (Original estimates in 2001 were $50M each. :eek:)
Despite being intended to share most of their parts to reduce costs and improve maintenance logistics, by 2017 the design commonality was only 20%.

since it was split into 3 planes, it would have been cheaper for each branch to develop their own planes. :(


edit:
updated with prices of the planes the F35 are replacing.
the older planes cost 1/3 the price for Marines/Navy version!!!

and i cant see the F35 being a great replacement for the A10 Warthog.
also, not to mention that the A10 is one of the cheapest planes to operate at $5000/hr.

the F35 costs $44k/hr to operate! :eek:
so much for the cost savings that was at the heart of this project when it began in the 1990s.
 
Last edited:

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,445
126
iirc the vast majority of issues are with the B variant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KMFJD
Dec 10, 2005
25,022
8,298
136
iirc the vast majority of issues are with the B variant.
Everyone wanted their own toy. This country needs to have a serious policy discussion about what we want the military to do. Since we don't want to do that, we'll continue to feed this bloated monster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skyking

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
13,746
2,263
126
i've read on social media from alleged pilots both that it's amazing and that it's trash.

Amazing: better maneuverability and ease of use
Trash: overly expensive and cannot match the "brute force" of having many more, less sophisticated, easier to field but equally functional previous models.

i do not have the knowledge to have an opinion on the matter so i will leave it at this.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,165
28,813
136
The stealth aspect is negated by fact that the victims will hear them coming. They are unbelievably loud, in the league with harriers.
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,866
1,515
126
They have grown on me over the past few years...here are two pics I took from the 2018 airshow in Fort Worth, Tx
08.jpg
06 - Copy.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: VashHT

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
29,391
2,736
126
The stealth aspect is negated by fact that the victims will hear them coming. They are unbelievably loud, in the league with harriers.
it's not like they have a klingon cloak.
it's stealth vs being targeted by missiles.
i dont think noise plays any part in being targeted???
 
Last edited:

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,445
126
Everyone wanted their own toy. This country needs to have a serious policy discussion about what we want the military to do. Since we don't want to do that, we'll continue to feed this bloated monster.
seems like the marines should have had their own toy instead of everyone else coming on board trying to make the marines' toy into AF and navy toys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajay and KMFJD

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
68,413
12,593
126
www.anyf.ca
Our government bought a whole bunch of them years back, I don't even know if they got used yet or if the protective plastic on the display is even pealed off. What a waste of money that was! They could have at least trained the snowbirds on them, the snowbird planes are super old.
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
29,391
2,736
126
Amazing: better maneuverability and ease of use
Trash: overly expensive and cannot match the "brute force" of having many more, less sophisticated, easier to field but equally functional previous models.
the older planes that the F35 are replacing costs 1/3 the price!
- F35B Marines: Replaces the Harrier jet that costs $39M each
- F35C Navy: Replaces the F18 Hornet that costs $37M each
 
Last edited:
Dec 10, 2005
25,022
8,298
136
seems like the marines should have had their own toy instead of everyone else coming on board trying to make the marines' toy into AF and navy toys.
I question whether they really need their own fighter jet to begin with. Why can't we use the aircraft operated by the USN for when they need air support?
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
29,391
2,736
126
I question whether they really need their own fighter jet to begin with. Why can't we use the aircraft operated by the USN for when they need air support?
because the maries have wasp carriers (10+ of them!).
they're small carriers mainly for choppers/harriers but have a short run way.
dont know why they have a run way tho.

but now with the new f35 jumpjets that can angle thier exhaust 45 degrees, they can take off like a regular jet with a heavy load but only need short runways.
then come back to the wasp empty and land vertical.
(cant lift off vertical with heavy ordinance load.)
 
Dec 10, 2005
25,022
8,298
136
because the maries have wasp carriers (10+ of them!).
they're small carriers mainly for choppers/harriers but have a short run way.
dont know why they have a run way tho.

but now with the new f35 jumpjets that can angle thier exhaust 45 degrees, they can take off like a regular jet with a heavy load but only need short runways.
then come back to the wasp empty and land vertical.
(cant lift off vertical with heavy ordinance load.)
I know they have those helicopter carriers. We should remember that they can also launch attack helicopters and V-22s from them. But do they **need** the F-35B? Why can't we just use traditional carrier- or land-based support?

We need to be asking what role are both these ships and planes filling in our national defense strategy? Should that even be a part of our strategy? We're spending tremendous amounts of money in the name of national defense. What are we really getting for all this money, besides a jobs program and enriching government contractors?
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
96,905
16,171
126
Our government bought a whole bunch of them years back, I don't even know if they got used yet or if the protective plastic on the display is even pealed off. What a waste of money that was! They could have at least trained the snowbirds on them, the snowbird planes are super old.

No F35 order for Canada yet. Likely not happen.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,990
37,161
136
I know they have those helicopter carriers. We should remember that they can also launch attack helicopters and V-22s from them. But do they **need** the F-35B? Why can't we just use traditional carrier- or land-based support?

We need to be asking what role are both these ships and planes filling in our national defense strategy? Should that even be a part of our strategy? We're spending tremendous amounts of money in the name of national defense. What are we really getting for all this money, besides a jobs program and enriching government contractors?

My expectation is that it would be highly unusual for one or more amphibious assault ships to engage in significant combat operations without a carrier strike group to cover.
 
Dec 10, 2005
25,022
8,298
136
My expectation is that it would be highly unusual for one or more amphibious assault ships to engage in significant combat operations without a carrier strike group to cover.
That's exactly my thought. We're paying for this duplication of capabilities with no clear rationale as to why.
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
29,391
2,736
126
That's exactly my thought. We're paying for this duplication of capabilities with no clear rationale as to why.
now i understand.

marines = aircraft that that takes off horizontal
air force = land bases
navy = carriers

yeah, i dont see the need for the marines to have even the harrier jet much less the super expensive f35B jumpjet.
when was the last time the harrier went into battle without other planes? (and those planes were superior to what it does?)

speaking of duplication, why we do need the A10 warthog for close air support when we have a ton of cheaper Apache and Cobra attack choppers?

does the Marine air power only cover marines and not Army for land missions?
 
Last edited:

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,990
37,161
136
speaking of duplication, why we do need the A10 warthog for close air support when we have a ton of cheaper Apache and Cobra attack choppers?

The A-10 and helicopters do have significantly different capabilities in speed, range, loiter time, and armament.
 

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,308
5,331
136
The A-10 and helicopters do have significantly different capabilities in speed, range, loiter time, and armament.

And are those worth the extra logistical complications? You need sites suitable for landing both choppers and planes. You need pilots trained in both. You need ground crews trained in both. You need parts for both. They probably take different fuel types, too. And of course different munitions.

If (God forbid) a large scale war broke out, all these things would hamper the US' ability to actually fight a war.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,990
37,161
136
And are those worth the extra logistical complications? You need sites suitable for landing both choppers and planes. You need pilots trained in both. You need ground crews trained in both. You need parts for both. They probably take different fuel types, too. And of course different munitions.

If (God forbid) a large scale war broke out, all these things would hamper the US' ability to actually fight a war.

In this case I'd say yes.

Do the marines really need to operate their own unique fighter/bomber aircraft off mini-carriers that are being looked after by a CVN and it's battle group? Probably not.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,165
28,813
136
now i understand.

marines = aircraft that that takes off horizontal
air force = land bases
navy = carriers

yeah, i dont see the need for the marines to have even the harrier jet much less the super expensive f35B jumpjet.
when was the last time the harrier went into battle without other planes? (and those planes were superior to what it does?)

speaking of duplication, why we do need the A10 warthog for close air support when we have a ton of cheaper Apache and Cobra attack choppers?

does the Marine air power only cover marines and not Army for land missions?
The Pentagon has consistently said that they don’t need the A-10. Congress has consistently said, “too bad, you get the A-10.” My concern is that if the A-10is retired, the Pentagon will come back with a “need” for a shiny new replacement that will cost ten times as much as the A-10.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
96,905
16,171
126
The Pentagon has consistently said that they don’t need the A-10. Congress has consistently said, “too bad, you get the A-10.” My concern is that if the A-10is retired, the Pentagon will come back with a “need” for a shiny new replacement that will cost ten times as much as the A-10.


A-10 has enough ammo for like 17s of firing the big gun. It's almost 50 year old, time to retire.

AC-130 was introduced in 66, don't know how long the plan to keep it.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,109
136
27 years later, Is the F35 Joint Strike Fighter worth the $115M price tag?

Well, the only real validation point for the value of military hardware is its success in war. So, no way to answer that for sure. Peace doesn't prove the value of a weapon, even if that weapon deters an enemy (not quantifiable).