5 ms·
I believe the Marines are also responsible for ruining the F-35 to the tune of $1 trillion over the lifetime of the plane. > The Pentagon intends to spend roug
by minikites 12y ago
I believe the Marines are also responsible for ruining the F-35 to the tune of $1 trillion over the lifetime of the plane.
> The Pentagon intends to spend roughly $399 billion to develop and buy 2,443 of the planes. However, over the course of the aircrafts' lifetimes, operating costs are expected to exceed $1 trillion. Lockheed has carefully hired suppliers and subcontractors in almost every state to ensure that virtually all senators and members of Congress have a stake in keeping the program -- and the jobs it has created -- in place.
The Marines wanted VTOL and that made the plane worse in every other way.
- walshemj 12y agoThey probably wanted a V2 harrier - which I am sure BAE would have loved to make but politics got in the way of buying a foreign plane.
- meritt 12y agoCorrect. The Marines desired a plane capable of VTOL and when DOD forced the idea of a singular fighter, they said "okay but we need VTOL" (and the other branches had their own operational needs), and thus we have this great-at-nothing-horrible-at-everything F-35.
- vonmoltke 12y agoExactly. The Marines did not ruin the F-35. The planners and politics that insisted on a single, joint service aircraft ruined the F-35.
- ZanyProgrammer 12y agoThe Marines have a mindset that they are SPECIAL. I mean that in a serious way, despite the Marines rarely doing anything that's not also done by the Army. It'd make more sense for Marine air units to fly off of Navy carriers, rather than waste money on a VTOL version of the F-35.
- wldcordeiro 12y agoWell when they make themselves such an exclusive club with a difficult test each member feels like they are special.
- bladegash 12y agoA Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) is not supported by Navy aircraft carriers (see Marine Expeditionary Unit). A MAGTF is supported by Navy Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) class ships that require VTOL capable aircraft. The AV8-B Harrier is the current aircraft that fits this role, which the F-35 is meant to replace.
- marknow 12y ago+1 correct. A carrier battle group can't be everywhere, and the immense operational options available to a VTOL contingent make the program viable. I'm a former Navy pilot, and agree that VTOL gets the job done in many tight situations.
- jfoutz 12y agoYeah, if all 10 super carriers are tied up, I'm sure we'll have plenty of resources to keep those hundred million dollar planes ready to rock. I realize sarcasm is a poor excuse for humor, but if all ten are unavailable (because of shooting and getting shot at), i think we (the US) would have a pretty rough time getting those planes working. If their not available because of non-war reasons, it seems like the mission isn't really that big of a deal anyway. I sort of think the US goes for the Cadillac solution for everything. Perhaps that's my bias because i only hear about the expensive stuff. I'd sort of expect there to be a nice gradient between really super high tech, down to cheap simple and reliable. But whatever, armchair quarterback.
- GVIrish 12y agoYes but in what major engagement that we could reasonably expect to face in the next several decades would a USMC task force be sent without a carrier group. If there is a serious need for airpower in a region there's no way we're not going to send in a supercarrier.
- philwelch 12y agoThe Marines wanted a new Harrier; they never insisted that the other services use the same airframe.
- digikata 12y agoIsn't the VTOL version basically a different plane with major differences under the skin? I'm not sure how it directly affected the designs of the non VTOL versions of the airplane...