• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

JEDI

JEDI

Lifer
en.wikipedia.org

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II development - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org


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. 😱
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. 😱)
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! 😱
so much for the cost savings that was at the heart of this project when it began in the 1990s.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
The stealth aspect is negated by fact that the victims will hear them coming. They are unbelievably loud, in the league with harriers.
 
IronWing said:
The stealth aspect is negated by fact that the victims will hear them coming. They are unbelievably loud, in the league with harriers.
Click to expand...
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:
Brainonska511 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
DigDog said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
ElFenix said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Brainonska511 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.)
 
JEDI said:
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.)
Click to expand...
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?
 
Red Squirrel said:
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.
Click to expand...

No F35 order for Canada yet. Likely not happen.
 
Brainonska511 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
K1052 said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's exactly my thought. We're paying for this duplication of capabilities with no clear rationale as to why.
 
Brainonska511 said:
That's exactly my thought. We're paying for this duplication of capabilities with no clear rationale as to why.
Click to expand...
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:
JEDI said:
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?
Click to expand...

The A-10 and helicopters do have significantly different capabilities in speed, range, loiter time, and armament.
 
K1052 said:
The A-10 and helicopters do have significantly different capabilities in speed, range, loiter time, and armament.
Click to expand...

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.
 
NTMBK said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JEDI said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
IronWing said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
JEDI said:
27 years later, Is the F35 Joint Strike Fighter worth the $115M price tag?
Click to expand...

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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top