F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[rip]

The argument put forward that the F-22 is comparable to the F-117 or that it is obsolete doesn’t hold water.

Since many of the systems put on the F-22 were “first of a kind systems” they knew when they were built it that they would have to be replaced when they designed the aircraft and provisions were made within the design and the planning of the program to upgrade or replace them throughout the air crafts lifetime. The learning curve on completely new kinds of systems are much steeper than on more mature concepts and they become obsolete far faster than the more mature features of the air-craft like the air frame.

Second, the F-22 is an air superiority fighter not a fighter bomber. No part of its design was compromised in any way that detracted from its air superiority role of clearing the skies of all enemy air craft. A fighter bomber is designed to primarily be a bomber that can hold its own as a fighter when it is attacked and thus dos not require fighter escorts. At least it is, after it jettisons it ordnance to lessen its wait it can then hold its own.

Yes the F-22 can deliver air to ground ordnance but it would only do that mission after complete air superiority has been established. Then at that time it will give it something to do after all of the enemy’s air-craft have been destroyed but as a bomber it is second rate and always will be. But then that is not the job it was designed to do.

Let’s have some clarity here; the primary and greatest threat to friendly air operations is the enemy’s fighters. It has been a long time since anyone in the West has had to go up against a first rate fighter command armed with front line air-craft and flown by first rate pilots but that doesn’t mean that we will not ever see them again.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The argument put forward that the F-22 is comparable to the F-117 or that it is obsolete doesn’t hold water.

Indeed it is. In fact it has at this time, largely replaced the strike role that the F-117 undertook and is flown by the same squadrons that used to fly F-117. It is only in some aspects of the F-117's mission that F-22 is unable to completely replace it (2000lbs laser guided weapons and moving target engagement capability).

Second, the F-22 is an air superiority fighter not a fighter bomber. No part of its design was compromised in any way that detracted from its air superiority role of clearing the skies of all enemy air craft. A fighter bomber is designed to primarily be a bomber that can hold its own as a fighter when it is attacked and thus dos not require fighter escorts. At least it is, after it jettisons it ordnance to lessen its wait it can then hold its own.

Kind of hard to make this a compelling argument when F-22 entered service with an ability to employ 500lbs and 1000lbs JDAM's and the only major upgrade to it's weapons capability it has received so far is the Small Diameter Bomb...

Yes the F-22 can deliver air to ground ordnance but it would only do that mission after complete air superiority has been established. Then at that time it will give it something to do after all of the enemy’s air-craft have been destroyed but as a bomber it is second rate and always will be. But then that is not the job it was designed to do.

Nonsense. The first aviation combat mission of Desert Storm was the destruction of an Iraqi air defence installation. Not a single air to air battle had been fought at that point. The F-22A is going to undertake whatever mission it is capable of, whenever required in an operational theatre. If this means launching a 1000lbs JDAM to knock out a radar site, than that is what it will do.

And even before this, well before any weapons are launched the 'electronic battle' will be well underway and the F-22A has a huge part to play in this that has very little to do with it's air superiority role so this claim is a nonsense from more than one direction...

Let’s have some clarity here; the primary and greatest threat to friendly air operations is the enemy’s fighters. It has been a long time since anyone in the West has had to go up against a first rate fighter command armed with front line air-craft and flown by first rate pilots but that doesn’t mean that we will not ever see them again.

No. The enemy's air defence system is the greatest threat. Red air is only one aspect of that. Radar sites, communications links, ground and naval based air defence systems are equally as high a value target as an enemy fighter. What use is a fighter without GCI or AEW/AWACS support in the scheme of things? Not very much...

Again a bit of research on operations would show you that the C4ISREW nodes are the highest priority targets in the opening moments of a military operation in the modern age.

Attacking these aspects is as much a part of the F-22's mission as shooting down other jets is...

 

[psydev]

I was wondering if any of you had any insight about Winslow Wheeler, who was recently quoted on CBC news about Canada's acquisition of F-35s which has sparked considerable debate in the country. He was quoted as saying,

"The history of multi-role fighters, even for single services, is terrible. They do nothing well. ... The F-35 never will be able to fulfil its mission, because it is too heavy to fight other aircraft in the air, but too fast, thin-skinned and lightly armed to support troops on the ground."

This seemed wrong to me, though I am not an expert. I have never heard of multi-role fighters described as unequivocal failures. I checked the T:W ratio of the F-35 and it seems superior to 4th gen fighters, and descriptions of it didn't indicate it had serious problems maneuvering. I don't see why it can't "fulfill its mission", since it can drop bombs as well as any F-16, (although the idea of replacing the A-10 with it in 2028 seems a bit dubious to me, but that is not the main point, nor his).
I looked him up and he has some articles with reasonable arguments, but he has one called "Oinkers in the inventory" where he compares the f-35 to the f-111 and describes the program as an overpriced failure, "bomb truck", etc. It seems kind of unhinged.
(I can't post the link since I'm new here, but it's called ' "Oinkers" in the Inventory: A Tale of Two Pigs' at CDI.org's website).

Do any of you know of him and can comment on his credibility or that of CDI? If his comments are as dubious as they seem, it is unfortunate that he is being quoted in more than one Canadian media outlet. Please tell me what you think.

 

[rip]

Indeed it is. In fact it has at this time, largely replaced the strike role that the F-117 undertook and is flown by the same squadrons that used to fly F-117. It is only in some aspects of the F-117's mission that F-22 is unable to completely replace it (2000lbs laser guided weapons and moving target engagement capability).



Kind of hard to make this a compelling argument when F-22 entered service with an ability to employ 500lbs and 1000lbs JDAM's and the only major upgrade to it's weapons capability it has received so far is the Small Diameter Bomb...



Nonsense. The first aviation combat mission of Desert Storm was the destruction of an Iraqi air defence installation. Not a single air to air battle had been fought at that point. The F-22A is going to undertake whatever mission it is capable of, whenever required in an operational theatre. If this means launching a 1000lbs JDAM to knock out a radar site, than that is what it will do.

And even before this, well before any weapons are launched the 'electronic battle' will be well underway and the F-22A has a huge part to play in this that has very little to do with it's air superiority role so this claim is a nonsense from more than one direction...



No. The enemy's air defence system is the greatest threat. Red air is only one aspect of that. Radar sites, communications links, ground and naval based air defence systems are equally as high a value target as an enemy fighter. What use is a fighter without GCI or AEW/AWACS support in the scheme of things? Not very much...

Again a bit of research on operations would show you that the C4ISREW nodes are the highest priority targets in the opening moments of a military operation in the modern age.

Attacking these aspects is as much a part of the F-22's mission as shooting down other jets is...

We must disagree. You seem to be caught up with the issues of the moment.

[Mod Edit: Despite the fact that various members of the Mod team have tried to steer your factually deficient posts to the realm of reality over the last few months, you have consistently persisted in 'making-up' arguments or 'facts' that have little or no grounding in reality. Further, in other posts, you have consistently brought up your political views at every opportunity even though the discussion is technical in nature. You were previously warned by the Mod Team against doing so. Despite a prior warning, you persist in testing the margins of the Forum Rules on what is permissible.

As it currently stands and based on the quality of your posts, you are poorly suited to be a member of this forum. I would recommend that you stop lecturing other more informed members (and read their posts to learn from them). You are banned for a month because of trolling and it is hoped that you will use this time to rethink your approach.]

 

[Aussie Digger]

I was wondering if any of you had any insight about Winslow Wheeler, who was recently quoted on CBC news about Canada's acquisition of F-35s which has sparked considerable debate in the country. He was quoted as saying,

"The history of multi-role fighters, even for single services, is terrible. They do nothing well. ... The F-35 never will be able to fulfil its mission, because it is too heavy to fight other aircraft in the air, but too fast, thin-skinned and lightly armed to support troops on the ground."

This seemed wrong to me, though I am not an expert. I have never heard of multi-role fighters described as unequivocal failures. I checked the T:W ratio of the F-35 and it seems superior to 4th gen fighters, and descriptions of it didn't indicate it had serious problems maneuvering. I don't see why it can't "fulfill its mission", since it can drop bombs as well as any F-16, (although the idea of replacing the A-10 with it in 2028 seems a bit dubious to me, but that is not the main point, nor his).
I looked him up and he has some articles with reasonable arguments, but he has one called "Oinkers in the inventory" where he compares the f-35 to the f-111 and describes the program as an overpriced failure, "bomb truck", etc. It seems kind of unhinged.
(I can't post the link since I'm new here, but it's called ' "Oinkers" in the Inventory: A Tale of Two Pigs' at CDI.org's website).

Do any of you know of him and can comment on his credibility or that of CDI? If his comments are as dubious as they seem, it is unfortunate that he is being quoted in more than one Canadian media outlet. Please tell me what you think.

Winslow Wheeler is the sort who cannot see past the heady days of the lightweight fighter. He was one of the leading proponents of the "lightweight fighter mafia" and cannot see any reason whatsoever that any aircraft should have anymore capability than an F-16A - ie: daylight only, short ranged Sidewinder armed aircraft with extremely agility.

His mode of thinking is about 35 years out of step with the rest of the World and as to his comment, his about the history of multi-role fighters being "terrible" I would suggest he is being deliberately disingenuous as the performance of the multi-role F-16 and F/A-18 has been absolutely outstanding throughout their careers and these aircraft STILL remain the benchmark for middle weight multi-role fighters.

He is not just anti-JSF, but anti-F-22, anti-F-15, anti-Super Hornet and anti-anything that doesn't measure up to his "ideal" fighter...

He is considered on par with Air Power Australia in his level of credibility (ie: none) and obsolete mode of thinking.

 

[Aussie Digger]

We must disagree. You seem to be caught up with the issues of the moment.

[Mod Edit: Despite the fact that various members of the Mod team have tried to steer your factually deficient posts to the realm of reality over the last few months, you have consistently persisted in 'making-up' arguments or 'facts' that have little or no grounding in reality. Further, in other posts, you have consistently brought up your political views at every opportunity even though the discussion is technical in nature. You were previously warned by the Mod Team against doing so. Despite a prior warning, you persist in testing the margins of the Forum Rules on what is permissible.

As it currently stands and based on the quality of your posts, you are poorly suited to be a member of this forum. I would recommend that you stop lecturing other more informed members (and read their posts to learn from them). You are banned for a month because of trolling and it is hoped that you will use this time to rethink your approach.]

Yep we are going to disagree. I can't be bothered picking this apart but suffice to say I believe you couldn't be more wrong.

APG-77, ALR-94 are integral systems to the F-22 that were planned from day dot. You are forgetting about the design issues that LO forces on an aircraft designer, especially in the still relatively "early" days of LO that the F-22 had to work with when it was being designed.

Here is a quote from the manufacturer, referring specifically to AN/ALR-94 that demonstrates what I am talking about.

The EW and sensor systems proposed for the JSF would not be affordable using today's technology. One of the most costly aspects of the F-22 system is the need to provide separate antennas for all wavebands and aspects and to make those apertures compatible with stealth. F-22 antennas are installed in cavities lined with radar-absorbent material and covered with specially formulated materials which allow the signals of interest to pass through, while absorbing hostile signals. On the JSF, the goal is to reduce the cost and complexity of the antenna systems by making the antennas simpler and using a single antenna or aperture for many tasks.

The ability to harvest the electronic battle is a PRIMARY role of the F-22. Your myopic view of fighter v fighter being the most important battlefield function of a combat aircraft demonstrates a lack of understanding in this regard.

I shall leave the discussion here.

 

[AegisFC]

I was wondering if any of you had any insight about Winslow Wheeler, who was recently quoted on CBC news about Canada's acquisition of F-35s which has sparked considerable debate in the country. He was quoted as saying,

Wheeler, Spey and Kopp are make a good living bashing a plane they don't understand and have no desire to understand on various media outlets. People in the aviation industry or who follow it usually don't take anything they have to say.

"The history of multi-role fighters, even for single services, is terrible. They do nothing well. ... The F-35 never will be able to fulfil its mission, because it is too heavy to fight other aircraft in the air, but too fast, thin-skinned and lightly armed to support troops on the ground."

Yes because the F-4 Phantom is a horrible plane that never met with export sucess and was such a failure because of its multi-mission capabilities that it was doomed to a short serivce life.

(although the idea of replacing the A-10 with it in 2028 seems a bit dubious to me, but that is not the main point, nor his).

On the face of it yeah but these days the A-10 is mostly used as a truck to carry a load of PGM's.

I looked him up and he has some articles with reasonable arguments, but he has one called "Oinkers in the inventory" where he compares the f-35 to the f-111 and describes the program as an overpriced failure, "bomb truck", etc. It seems kind of unhinged.
(I can't post the link since I'm new here, but it's called ' "Oinkers" in the Inventory: A Tale of Two Pigs' at CDI.org's website).

Do any of you know of him and can comment on his credibility or that of CDI? If his comments are as dubious as they seem, it is unfortunate that he is being quoted in more than one Canadian media outlet. Please tell me what you think.

He was an influential figure in the LWF program of the 70's and sees anything that isn't an F-5 or an F-16A as heavy and gold plated. He doesn't understand tactical networks, distributed sensors or a number of other developments that have taken place since the F-16A was developed.

 

[Jezza]

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDlCTH723AE&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - First Production F-35A Flies (Feb 25, 2011)[/nomedia]

First Production F-35A Flies (Feb 25, 2011)

 

[Aussie Digger]

YouTube - First Production F-35A Flies (Feb 25, 2011)

First Production F-35A Flies (Feb 25, 2011)

CF-2 is due to fly in February and CF-3 is due to fly in March. I imagine that AF-7 won't be far behind AF-6 as both would have been flying by now if they didn't have to be retrofitted with flight test instrumentation, but due to the delays in the program to date, they had to.

Still, there will be plenty of new aircraft flying over the next few months and it will be interesting to see what the military pilots say about it as the flight test program progresses. At least that will shut up those who profer the asinine argument that the test pilots to date are all L-M stooges and are being told what to say about the aircraft from L-M scripts...

 

[Cailet]

At least that will shut up those who profer the asinine argument that the test pilots to date are all L-M stooges and are being told what to say about the aircraft from L-M scripts...

Countdown to them saying that the military pilots are all being pressured by the brass to say nice things in 10... 9...

 

[psydev]

Winslow Wheeler is the sort who cannot see past the heady days of the lightweight fighter.

Thanks for all the replies. I have further questions about the CBC article. From the article:

"Bill Sweetman of Aviation Week, the author of two books on the F-35, says the rising costs of the fighter jet could be a "death spiral."

"The risk is that as the unit costs go up numbers come down, can the production process adapt?," Sweetman said in a telephone interview with CBC News.

What do you think of Bill Sweetman and his statements?
Also, while he is only talking of production costs, I have heard it claimed (mostly by Wheeler) that modern fighters will spend much more time in maintenance, which will both keep them out of the air and will increase operating costs considerably. Do any of you think that is plausiblly true or likely?

Thanks,

 

[jack412]

he should have added sweetman to his list
"Wheeler, Spey, Kopp and Sweetman are make a good living bashing a plane they don't understand and have no desire to understand on various media outlets"
the blogger ELP is another one, but he's not making money

i was surprised with sweetman, that he doesnt even understand how FMS work, foreign military sales

you bring up a good point, that is far more important than whether the full production f-35a costs $60m or $100m
life-time cost is where the true costs are and as far as i have seen, it is still up in the air, it seems, worse than first predicted and better than whats being hyped
i read, the navy study was based on wrong numbers and refuted

 

[gf0012-aust]

I have heard it claimed (mostly by Wheeler) that modern fighters will spend much more time in maintenance, which will both keep them out of the air and will increase operating costs considerably. Do any of you think that is plausiblly true or likely?

Thanks,

maybe he should look at red flag availability rates and then factor in platform complexity and capability.

anyone can make throw away comments and ignore empirical evidence. its easier to be the detractor if you have no responsibility...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Thanks for all the replies. I have further questions about the CBC article. From the article:

No problem.

What do you think of Bill Sweetman and his statements?
Also, while he is only talking of production costs, I have heard it claimed (mostly by Wheeler) that modern fighters will spend much more time in maintenance, which will both keep them out of the air and will increase operating costs considerably. Do any of you think that is plausiblly true or likely?

Thanks,

I think Sweetman is someone doing a good job.

So long as you understand of course that his job is to sell magazines and as we all know "controversy sells"...

If you mean, "do I think he is giving a fair picture of the F-35 program?" Hell no.

As to Wheeler, even if you consider him credible on the capability of modern fighters, he is no authority at all on maintenance aspects of ANY fighter, let alone ones designed 30 years since he's been out of the loop...

 

[Pathfinder-X]

There are always naysayers to any weapons program. Whether those negative comments are based off reality is a different matter. Also you need to be weary of what the authors' agendas are (i.e Kopp and Goon).

With that said, the cost of the F-35 program is a concern here in Canada. I was talking to a CF buddy on the subject the other day. There is a pretty good chance that the F-35 orders might get axed if the Grits have their way, especially to bind NDP on their bandwagon. The public is fairly divided in the subject, but I would say that there are slightly more disapproval. I suspect there will be far more drama in the future as politicians fight over every bits and pieces.

 

[fretburner]

No. Look at the aircraft the F-35 is primarily replacing: F-16, F/A-18, Harrier. The F-22 has already replaced the F-117 in some of it's roles. F-35 will perform others, but F-35 is first and foremost a multi-role fighter. It is in concept closet to a stealthy version of the aircraft the F/A-18 was when it first entered service (minus the carrier capability in the -A version).

An aircraft with a good radar system and equally capability at air to air and air to ground missions. Except the F-35 also offers vastly superior range on internal fuel, better agility and maneuvering more akin to the capability of the F-16, which was initially intended as a day only light weight fighter. It was evolved to become more F/A-18 like with multi-mode radar, precision guided weapons capability etc, but that was not it's original intent.

F-35 will do all of this as well as SEAD, from it's inital operational capability (Block 3)...

The low observability inherent in the F-35 design, is what the US thinks a multi-role fighter will need in the future battlespace to be survivable. It includes penetrating heavily defended airspace sure, but that is not it's only purpose.

I understand that while it's primarily going to be a strike fighter, the F-35A is a true multi-role aircraft . However, given the expected/forecasted costs and the challenges of developing 3 practically different aircraft... buying more F-22As might allow LM to develop the C and perhaps B faster where the Navy and Marine Corp don't have an alternative 5th generation fighter.

It employed primarily laser guided bombs, which are precise, but I'm not sure was all that much more precise than other modern aircraft employing the same weapons. The F-117 was certainly capable of carrying 2000lbs weapons internally in it's weapon bays and I'm sure they picked whatever munition was assessed as being required for the mission at hand. They didn't carry a standoff weapon as we know them today, no.

In terms of penetrating enemy air defence systems, it is quite the opposite. The US is looking at IMPROVING it's ability to penetrate enemy air defence systems in a vast variety of ways with manned, unmanned, standoff weapon systems and electronic systems all being pursued vigorously to achieve this very thing.

That's the thing -- for the most part, you won't need 2,000lb bombs. The F-22As can carry SDBs and 500-1,000lb JDAMs right? Aren't these JDAMs the most widely used precision weapons? (They're categorized as precision weapons right? I know laser-guided bombs are most precise)

It is one major reason why the F-35 is considered so vital to their future force structure. Especially in the Navy and Marines, where F-35 will be the only manned LO aircraft they are likely to see in the next decade or 2.

The USAF by contrast will operate (at least) 3 separate LO manned aviation systems designed to do this very thing within the next decade.

Which is exactly my point -- focus on a C and B. Buy more F-22As now.

Of course the production cost of the F-22 is going to go down. It's production will be finished in 2012... It's support costs won't appreciably go down though. The LO treatments on the aircraft are particularly support intensive from all reports and it is an aging aircraft too. As Swerve has mentioned, most of it's systems are mid-90's level systems and the computer code used is early-mid 90's type machine code as well. The supportability of this architecture is what has primarily killed off the F-22 as a useful platform.

Still... nothing can touch the F-22A on A2A and possibly A2G as of this time. The F-35 would certainly be a better A2G fighter, but I doubt it can beat the F-22A in A2A engagements. And if what I've red on the web is correct, the F-22A will soon be able to share info with other stealthy fighters/bombers.

The F-35 is no more a "bomb truck" than the F-16 or F/A-18 is. All are meant to be equally adept at both air to air and air to ground missions. Lockheed Martin who are tendering advanced F-16 versions in many fighter competitions around the world would not be describing the F-35 as the 'second best air to air fighter" in the world if it were demonstrably untrue and as always there is MORE to combat capability than who has the biggest, fastest, mostest...

Regards,

AD

I don't have any reason to believe that the F-35 will be the 2nd best A2A fighter and best A2G fighter when it becomes operational. But why settle for 2nd best? Especially when it's likely that you'll spend the same amount of cash to acquire the aircraft?

Unfortunately they jacked up the budget numbers for the FY2012 F-35. They did a cut&paste job on the Fy2010 and FY2011 jets (page 59) and kept changing what was used for Flyaway Cost (page 57).

Sorry but history does not bare this out. From the FY2006 buy forward the F-22's flyaway cost kept getting bigger and bigger, mostly due to inflation. It topped out at $150mil for the FY2009 buy.

What projected cost vs what estimate?

Estimates from some USG office. I believe it was like $120M right now, and will likely go up.

While the F-22 may be cheaper to maintain today vs what it was years ago, it will NEVER be cheaper to maintain than a F-35. Several factors are twin engines, RAM that is more sensitive to damage, a higher rate of fuel burn, a larger airframe, etc.

Roger that. I did mention they're making advances in maintaining those all-important RAM coatings, but the 2 engines vs 1 will always be more expensive.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I understand that while it's primarily going to be a strike fighter, the F-35A is a true multi-role aircraft . However, given the expected/forecasted costs and the challenges of developing 3 practically different aircraft... buying more F-22As might allow LM to develop the C and perhaps B faster where the Navy and Marine Corp don't have an alternative 5th generation fighter.

Not sure I get this argument all that much. The F-35A is being developed to replace the F-16's which are wearing out faster than USN F/A-18's. You are advocating replacing F-16's with F-22A's?

Please bear in mind, that even LRIP IV F-35A airframes are still $30-$40m cheaper than end of production run F-22 aircraft and whilst the cancellation of one airframe would free up more resources to develop the other variants, I'm not sure it's an economic proposition to cancel the intended largest platform within the F-35 program. The price of the remaining 2 variants (that represent roughly 1 quarter of the entire intended domestic production run - 680 aircraft out of 2443 for US) would absolutely sky rocket. The effect on the whole program would be terminal.

On top of which, this plan also ignores that the -A model is the platform that is performing best in the program. The -B model is the one on life support in reality.

That's the thing -- for the most part, you won't need 2,000lb bombs. The F-22As can carry SDBs and 500-1,000lb JDAMs right? Aren't these JDAMs the most widely used precision weapons? (They're categorized as precision weapons right? I know laser-guided bombs are most precise)

It is not the weight of the weapon that is relevant here. 2000lbs class weapons refer to the physical size of the weapon capable of fitting inside the internal bays. F-22 won't be fitting laser guided weapons in it's internal bays. Nor standoff weapons either.

Which is exactly my point -- focus on a C and B. Buy more F-22As now.

See the problems with this above.

Still... nothing can touch the F-22A on A2A and possibly A2G as of this time. The F-35 would certainly be a better A2G fighter, but I doubt it can beat the F-22A in A2A engagements. And if what I've red on the web is correct, the F-22A will soon be able to share info with other stealthy fighters/bombers.

Not sure what the point of this remark is. F-35A isn't replacing the F-22 in the air to air role. They are complimentary in the same way that F-15 and F-16 are. In the USAF.

Plenty of nations however use the F-16 as their frontline fighter and never needed the F-15. The F-35A is a massive improvement over the F-16 as an air to air fighter and whilst it will not be as capable in that role as the F-22A under which circumstances can you possibly conceive that the F-35 would NEED to fight against the F-22?

As to the F-22A's air to ground capability. Yes it has a strong capability with 1000lbs JDAM and SDB. But please don't make the mistake that there is any difference between high altitude supercruise launch of such weapons and high altitude supersonic (through use of reheat) and in many regards there are any number of superior air to ground aircraft in the world than F-22.

I don't have any reason to believe that the F-35 will be the 2nd best A2A fighter and best A2G fighter when it becomes operational. But why settle for 2nd best? Especially when it's likely that you'll spend the same amount of cash to acquire the aircraft?

It will not be the "same amount of cash". F-22 is far more expensive than F-35A even at the end of it's production run, whilst F-35A is still being bought in LRIP. The difference in FRP will be huge.

Then there is through life support which is typically greater than the acquisition costs. The F-22 will be far more expensive to sustain too.

Roger that. I did mention they're making advances in maintaining those all-important RAM coatings, but the 2 engines vs 1 will always be more expensive.

I can only agree...

 

[SteelTiger 177]

Why does the Navy and Marine versions have their 20mm guns mounted externally?Don't the designers know that's going to effect the aerodynamics as well as the stealth of the F/A-35.The USN variant is alomost the same as the USAF variant.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Why does the Navy and Marine versions have their 20mm guns mounted externally?Don't the designers know that's going to effect the aerodynamics as well as the stealth of the F/A-35.The USN variant is alomost the same as the USAF variant.

They feel the benefits of not carrying it all the time (space used for fuel instead) far outweigh the negatives of drag and RCS increases (mostly used for CAS anyways).

 

[SpudmanWP]

The Marines are looking to end the "2-year" probation early based on the pace of testing & planned fixes for known problems.

US Marine wants early end to F-35 fighter probation | Reuters

The U.S. Marine Corps' top general said he wants an early end to a two-year "probation" imposed on the short-takeoff version of the Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jet and is encouraged by its progress since a major program restructuring.

...

"My sense is I'm optimistic," Amos said. "We are on a two-year watch. It's my hope that we can get off that well before two years."

Amos said he planned to offer Gates a set of metrics this spring that would measure progress on the plane and allow the Pentagon to lift the current probationary status.