|
AW1Steve -> RE: OT:Is the F-35 Worth it? (3/27/2016 6:20:14 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: geofflambert
I knew you'd come back, Steve. [:)]
Boeing is currently building fighters as well, and may find a way to keep going or make a comeback. Anyways, the F-22 cost (as stated by wiki p) is $150 M and is much less versatile than the F-35 which is priced (by wiki p) at $106 M. Carrier aircraft are just a lot more valuable to the US and allies. My vote is yes, they are worth it, but I won't mind us building some more F-18s for stability while bugs are fixed when they pop up. We've had at least one case of the entire F-35 fleet being grounded for a short period and we need a reliable alternative until the F-35 has been in service for 2 or 3 years more.
Boeing builds the F-18 and it's various versions. Here's the problem. It was designed as the lightweight F-17 , and went up against the F-16 in the mid to late 1070's. It lost. About the same time the USMC was planning on taking delivery of the F-14. The Marines considered the Tomcat to be "too-much" plane , and wanted something cheaper, simpler, easier to maintain (especially under field conditions) but said plane had to be capable of conversion to CV duty and most of all should have two engines for overwater flight safety. That let out the F-16. So McDonald Douglas customized the brand new F-18. Hey presto the USMC has a short range throw away fighter bomber. The Navy need a replacement for the A-7, and would soon need a replacement for the A-6. And By the way , we have a problem with the two Midway class CV's, they can't carry Tomcats. So the Navy began buying them. The fighter never had the range , sophistication , etc, etc to please everyone, so it became the "good enough" fighter bomber. The problem was when the A-6 replacement became scandal ridden and over complicated there was no quick replacement in sight. So the F-18 became the F/A18 , the fighter-bomber-tanker-reconnaissance-electronic-mailplane -cook and bottle washer. It did all of these functions more or less adequately, in a time period when Navy and Marine war planes (or for that matter the Navy or Marines) were not high on Congress's budget plans. Does it help fight war on land " Does it support us in Afghanistan? Yeah , ok, we'll spend money on it.Everything else goes on hold.
Then the Tomcat retires due to excessive maintenance costs. While the Tomcat was an outstanding fighter bomber , it was always in too short supply to use in that role. It was the best fighter the Navy had , some would say in the world. The only extra job it was permitted was flying RECON with a special TARPS pod. But ironically in it's twilight it was allowed to be tried as a attack plan and the F-14B "BombCat" was born , and it was very, very good.
So we now reach a point where naval and Marine aviation is driven entirely by costs. The S-3 Viking is retired , leaving no fixed wing , medium ASW available to CV's. Only helo's , which are pulled in 6 directions doing logistics, patrol, Short-range ASW , and a dozen other housekeeping chores. CV's have only ONE plane to carry out air dense (short range) attack (short to medium , there is NO long range CV attack any more) and limited early warning. That's it. And the F-18, even though bears very little resemblance to it's sire, is a early 1970's design that greatest attribute has been it was "affordable". Now the USMC needs another "affordable" , a need also shared by the RN, the RAF, RAAF, USN, JMSDF and a host of allies. This plane must replace the AV-8. various Harriers, the F-16, F-18, EA-6, and possibly the A-10. It must be land based , conventionally CV based (catapults and tail hooks) and VTOL. WOW! Well, like it or nothere is no other plane in sight that can do all that. Even though it's another jack of all trades, master of none, SINGLE-engine , try to satisfy everyone air plane. So it's not so much a matter of "is this a great plane?' and more of a "do we have any other real choice?".
Things designed by committee are seldom pretty , and rarely satisfy all involved. This plane really should be called the "Camel" in my opinion as we all know a Camel is a horse designed by committee.
But in it's defense , I'd like to point out that every single weapons system in at least the last 300 years has been sagely criticized by the press. You can read in the morgues of the London times editorials and letter of what a waste it is to purchase this "new fangled" musket (eventually called the "Brown Bess" that would serve England in some form for the better part of 150 years!).
|
|
|
|
