Another JSF thread

[Skywalker]

I know they had issues with the original tailhook design - but other than that, why has this variant taken the longest to bring to IOC? Wouldn't the STOVL variant be more sophisticated in terms of hardware, software, and procedures?

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I know they had issues with the original tailhook design - but other than that, why has this variant taken the longest to bring to IOC? Wouldn't the STOVL variant be more sophisticated in terms of hardware, software, and procedures?

The navy already has a lot of newer jets, and is buying a relatively small number

 

[ChuckMK23]

at > $300MM USD per jet its's SIX times the cost of the very capable Super Hornet. Big Navy is not rushing towards this program. It's a flat budget world right now. Frankly I don't know how the Navy can remotely afford to get to IOC in any numbers - and maybe shouldn't. We'll see

 

[Hair Warrior]

at > $300MM USD per jet

I don't think that's the latest figure. Lockheed's website has Lot 7 Charlie variants quoted at $116M. Not sure why the price says "not including the engine."

Ref.: https://www.f35.com/about/fast-facts/cost

 

[Renegade One]

I know they had issues with the original tailhook design - but other than that, why has this variant taken the longest to bring to IOC? Wouldn't the STOVL variant be more sophisticated in terms of hardware, software, and procedures?

IIRC, B-model had the highest priority of the 3 models due to the USMC's most pressing needs.

 

[SynixMan]

I also understood the Navy's version had some beefed up landing gear, structural components, and wing fold design stuff that basically put it #3 in the design queue. Air Force and Marines came first.

Edit: Also LOL at the legacy Hornet fleet not having "aircraft issues".

 

[ea6bflyr]

at > $300MM USD per jet its's SIX times the cost of the very capable Super Hornet. Big Navy is not rushing towards this program. It's a flat budget world right now. Frankly I don't know how the Navy can remotely afford to get to IOC in any numbers - and maybe shouldn't. We'll see

FIFY; We are buying capability....we have to have what the Jones' have down the street:

 

[Uncle Fester]

Frankly, we've got a bit complacent after 25 years of no peer competition, bombing insurgents and fighting Brand X countries whose pilots shuck their vintage MiGs at the first RWR hit from a US fighter. We cannot get sucked into an attitude of "what we have is good enough," because the opposition is not standing still and they have interests directly opposed to ours.

 

[AFUAW]

All those F-35B models that the Marines are buying and have declared IOC with are LRIP models. There are still a lot of issues to figure out with the F-35 (all variants), and all those LRIPs will have to be modified at a very significant cost. In the meantime, the Navy has Super Hornets to more or less fill the gap until the F-35C is truly ready.

For comparison purposed, the Navy has a fair number of LRIP Super Hornets that saw little use in the Fleet due to their quirks. Even with 25+ years of F/A-18 experience, the LRIP Super Hornets were never really Fleet suitable. LRIP F-35s have even more issues. The Navy is taking the approach of holding off buying F-35s until more issues are sorted out. The Marines need F-35s now so that Marine strike fighter aviation continues to exist.

 

[Uncle Fester]

...the Navy has a fair number of LRIP Super Hornets that saw little use in the Fleet due to their quirks.

Not to thread jack, but are those the Rhinos they're planning to give the Blues?

 

[ChuckMK23]

Decent commentary: http://warontherocks.com/2016/08/computing-the-value-of-stealth-its-not-that-simple/