3 ms·

Oh and if you compare the flyaway cost of the F-35A to the F-16 Block 60 or 70/72, the F-35 is cheaper...

by greedo 6y ago

Retric 6y ago
The US doesn’t have any Block 60 or 70/72 so it’s a tricky comparison due to low production numbers. Looking at the US’s actual fleet the F16 was a much cheaper aircraft and likely would have stayed at roughly those numbers. Anyway, we already had the F22, the F35 was supposed to be the cheaper alternative and it mostly delivered on that. But now we have a very capable aircraft with far to many roles to excel at all of them while still being quite expensive to operate.
- greedo 6y ago
  Roles for the F-35: 1. Supersonic stealthy STOL for the USMC. Check 2. Supersonic stealthy replacement for A-7/F-18. Check 3. Supersonic stealthy replacement for F-16. Check Despite its detractors, the F-35 is an excellent aircraft that is doing quite well in squadron usage. The USMC loves their B model, operating off of their mini carriers. The USAF is getting enough on the line that sustainment costs are bending down, and flyaway costs are cheaper than the newest F-16s that would get crushed by the F-35. The only service that isn't as in love with the F-35 is the Navy. They've slowly been realizing that the short legs of the F-18 have hampered them in the Pacific. The F-35 has better range, but is still far shorter than older strike aircraft like the A-6.
  - Retric 6y ago
    To be clear I think the F35 is a very solid aircraft, but don’t gloss over the details. The F35 is aiming to be both an air superiority and strike aircraft, and do electronic warfare and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, while being stealthy and cheaper than the F22. Now add F18 missions like fighter escort and fleet air defense which add yet more demands. You get less stealth, less speed, less range, less payload, and or fewer sensors etc than an aircraft dedicated to a smaller range of roles. Meanwhile you need to pay for all the capacity that aren’t particularly relevant when doing any specific mission. Sure, generally being capable of Mach 2.2+ for example isn’t such a big deal. However, if you’re deep in enemy territory and low on munitions it’s quite valuable to quickly escape any reinforcements that show up. On the other hand when escorting a fleet all that extra engine is mostly wasted and costing you fuel.

Oh and if you compare the flyaway cost of the F-35A to the F-16 Block 60 or 70/72, the F-35 is cheaper...

by greedo 6y ago

Oh and if you compare the flyaway cost of the F-35A to the F-16 Block 60 or 70/72, the F-35 is cheaper...

The US doesn’t have any Block 60 or 70/72 so it’s a tricky comparison due to low production numbers. Looking at the US’s actual fleet the F16 was a much cheaper aircraft and likely would have stayed at roughly those numbers. Anyway, we already had the F22, the F35 was supposed to be the cheaper alternative and it mostly delivered on that. But now we have a very capable aircraft with far to many roles to excel at all of them while still being quite expensive to operate.

greedo 6y ago
Roles for the F-35: 1. Supersonic stealthy STOL for the USMC. Check 2. Supersonic stealthy replacement for A-7/F-18. Check 3. Supersonic stealthy replacement for F-16. Check Despite its detractors, the F-35 is an excellent aircraft that is doing quite well in squadron usage. The USMC loves their B model, operating off of their mini carriers. The USAF is getting enough on the line that sustainment costs are bending down, and flyaway costs are cheaper than the newest F-16s that would get crushed by the F-35. The only service that isn't as in love with the F-35 is the Navy. They've slowly been realizing that the short legs of the F-18 have hampered them in the Pacific. The F-35 has better range, but is still far shorter than older strike aircraft like the A-6.
- Retric 6y ago
  To be clear I think the F35 is a very solid aircraft, but don’t gloss over the details. The F35 is aiming to be both an air superiority and strike aircraft, and do electronic warfare and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, while being stealthy and cheaper than the F22. Now add F18 missions like fighter escort and fleet air defense which add yet more demands. You get less stealth, less speed, less range, less payload, and or fewer sensors etc than an aircraft dedicated to a smaller range of roles. Meanwhile you need to pay for all the capacity that aren’t particularly relevant when doing any specific mission. Sure, generally being capable of Mach 2.2+ for example isn’t such a big deal. However, if you’re deep in enemy territory and low on munitions it’s quite valuable to quickly escape any reinforcements that show up. On the other hand when escorting a fleet all that extra engine is mostly wasted and costing you fuel.