6 ms·

The STOVL capability of the F-35B comes with a cost. According to the Congressional Research Service, the projected flyway cost for the various models are : F-

The STOVL capability of the F-35B comes with a cost. According to the Congressional Research Service, the projected flyway cost for the various models are : F-35A : 77.7 million USD F-35B : 105.5 million USD F-35C : 89.7 million USD

gaius 10y ago
The B is the most expensive and least capable in terms of range/endurance and weapons carried.
- Alupis 10y ago
  > The B is the most expensive and least capable in terms of range/endurance and weapons carried. And oddly enough, it's the model that drove most of the program's requirements. Why civilians in congress thought it was a good idea to have a one-size-fits-all Fighter/Attacker is beyond me, but then to effectively allow Marine requirements to pollute specifications for the two branches of the military that operate the most aircraft is another thing entirely.
  - WesleyLivesay 10y ago
    Actually, I know exactly why they thought it was a good idea. At the time they were sold a platform that would have a large amount of part commonality, be very low purchase cost, and low maintenance cost. With the latter assisted by the fact that the entire US Military establishment would be using it. I feel that explaining why the civilian government thought it was a good idea is one of the easier things to explain in the entire F-35 saga.
    - gaius 10y ago
      They should have paid more attention to the RAF's experience of trying to make the Tornado fulfil all roles...
      - WesleyLivesay 10y ago
        No doubt. I think the allure of a one-size-fits-all aircraft is just too tempting. For each new generation people just throw away the failures of the past by claiming that NOW we have the technology to not have those same issues.
      - gsnedders 10y ago
        The RAF didn't even operate one variant of the Tornado (the ECR), using the IDS for those purposes (the GR1/4)! Another question is why was the F-4 so successful across all branches of the US military?
        Scramblejams 10y ago
        This is an instructive question that should be asked more often in the context of the F-35. A key difference in the F-4's gestation is that the Navy pretty much single-handedly drove all of its requirements. (The USAF didn't really want any part of it, and in the end it was shoved down their throats.) And if you think about it, the Navy's requirements tend to be more stringent. The Navy requires more range (blue water ops and less tanker support), more durable stealth coatings and features (shipboard life is hard on an airplane), better fatigue life (carrier landings take their toll), more corrosion resistance (saltwater exposure), simpler maintenance (all work done in crowded decks with limited ability to fly in new parts), lower approach speeds (the slower the plane lands, the more flexibility the captain has in how s/he drives the boat) and so on. So when the F-4 was designed, it was born out of a relatively (!) unconflicted set of requirements, rather than being a grand compromise on behalf of every customer. This is how I think the F-35 should have gone -- the Navy should have set the requirements, the USAF should have been allowed to add their own refueling gear, and if the Marines wanted VTOL that bad they should have gotten together with the Brits and modernized the Yak-141 airframe to which Lockheed bought rights, as any other alternative would have been too expensive.
        nickff 10y ago
        The F-4 was likely deemed successful because it could launch off most US aircraft carriers, and it was the best they had at the time, so they made it work. The Phantom II was not a perfect machine, but the large radar, heavy weapons load, carrier-capability, and high-speed made it quite useful. On the other hand, it had no internal gun, guzzled fuel, had a very smoky engine, and wasn't very maneuverable.
M_Grey 10y ago
All to fight a nonexistent threat; a threat that will still be generations behind when we start wasting trillions on the next pentagon boondoggle.
- Shubley 10y ago
  Having visited China, I can assure that it does exist. As for 'generations behind', this is the whole point and the linchpin of global military stability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_T._Allison#Thucydides_Trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_T._Allison#Thucydides_T...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

gaius 10y ago

The B is the most expensive and least capable in terms of range/endurance and weapons carried.

Alupis 10y ago
> The B is the most expensive and least capable in terms of range/endurance and weapons carried. And oddly enough, it's the model that drove most of the program's requirements. Why civilians in congress thought it was a good idea to have a one-size-fits-all Fighter/Attacker is beyond me, but then to effectively allow Marine requirements to pollute specifications for the two branches of the military that operate the most aircraft is another thing entirely.
- WesleyLivesay 10y ago
  Actually, I know exactly why they thought it was a good idea. At the time they were sold a platform that would have a large amount of part commonality, be very low purchase cost, and low maintenance cost. With the latter assisted by the fact that the entire US Military establishment would be using it. I feel that explaining why the civilian government thought it was a good idea is one of the easier things to explain in the entire F-35 saga.
  - gaius 10y ago
    They should have paid more attention to the RAF's experience of trying to make the Tornado fulfil all roles...
    - WesleyLivesay 10y ago
      No doubt. I think the allure of a one-size-fits-all aircraft is just too tempting. For each new generation people just throw away the failures of the past by claiming that NOW we have the technology to not have those same issues.
    - gsnedders 10y ago
      The RAF didn't even operate one variant of the Tornado (the ECR), using the IDS for those purposes (the GR1/4)! Another question is why was the F-4 so successful across all branches of the US military?
      - Scramblejams 10y ago
        This is an instructive question that should be asked more often in the context of the F-35. A key difference in the F-4's gestation is that the Navy pretty much single-handedly drove all of its requirements. (The USAF didn't really want any part of it, and in the end it was shoved down their throats.) And if you think about it, the Navy's requirements tend to be more stringent. The Navy requires more range (blue water ops and less tanker support), more durable stealth coatings and features (shipboard life is hard on an airplane), better fatigue life (carrier landings take their toll), more corrosion resistance (saltwater exposure), simpler maintenance (all work done in crowded decks with limited ability to fly in new parts), lower approach speeds (the slower the plane lands, the more flexibility the captain has in how s/he drives the boat) and so on. So when the F-4 was designed, it was born out of a relatively (!) unconflicted set of requirements, rather than being a grand compromise on behalf of every customer. This is how I think the F-35 should have gone -- the Navy should have set the requirements, the USAF should have been allowed to add their own refueling gear, and if the Marines wanted VTOL that bad they should have gotten together with the Brits and modernized the Yak-141 airframe to which Lockheed bought rights, as any other alternative would have been too expensive.
      - nickff 10y ago
        The F-4 was likely deemed successful because it could launch off most US aircraft carriers, and it was the best they had at the time, so they made it work. The Phantom II was not a perfect machine, but the large radar, heavy weapons load, carrier-capability, and high-speed made it quite useful. On the other hand, it had no internal gun, guzzled fuel, had a very smoky engine, and wasn't very maneuverable.

M_Grey 10y ago

All to fight a nonexistent threat; a threat that will still be generations behind when we start wasting trillions on the next pentagon boondoggle.

Shubley 10y ago
Having visited China, I can assure that it does exist. As for 'generations behind', this is the whole point and the linchpin of global military stability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_T._Allison#Thucydides_Trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_T._Allison#Thucydides_T...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]