So the F-35 gets a lot of crap, but the main 3 issues it gets attacked on IMO are cost, time it's taken, and performance.
COST
without question, the cost has been the main attack of the F-35. From the $1,300,000,000,000 program cost, to the $200,000,000 per jet, it's all been routinely attacked.
- The program cost is estimated to be $1.3T USD, but it's an estimate, and it's for everything relating to the F-35. R&D, testing, buying 2700+, operating 2700+, maintenance for 2700+, planned upgrades for 2700+, and retirement of 2700+. The $1.3T is literally every single dollar spent on the F-35, from 1996 when the JSF (joint strike fighter) program started, to 2050 when the last F-35 retires. To put that into context, if we instead operated new F-16s, F/A-18s, AV-8B IIs, A-10s, and F-15Es over that same time window, the estimate goes to $4T. The reason for that is, F-35s all use the same stuff. There's no special radar for just the F-35A, or special targeting software for just the F-35B, or anything like that. You don't need to order more parts than you actually need like you do with F-16s etc just to keep their plants open, because there's so many of them someone somewhere is going to be ordering one soon anyways. Logistics and training (only need 1 real training program for pilots and mechancis) are so streamlined, it saves $2.5T over maintaining 5 completely different fleets. Also important to note that an entire life cost estimate like that, has never been done before, because it's nearly impossible to account for future inflation or anything like that, so we never had a life cost estimate of the B-2, F-22, F-16, F/A-18, B-1B, etc. Just the F-35, so the $1.3T figure stands out even more.
- While $200M USD for a single aircraft is a lot, that doesn't accurately portray the cost. $200M isn't just what people (nations not the US) are paying for an F-35. That includes pilot and mechanic training, spare parts, maintenance contracts, etc (quick note, US doesn't order any of that, they negotiate all of that seperately, so they only pay for the airframe). For a comparison of the F-35s cost to other fighters, Australia paid $11.5B USD (including $1.5B USD of base redevelopments not just for the F-35) for 58 F-35As for a price of $198m USD each.Australia paid $6 billion AUD($4.64 billion USD on the time of announcement; 06 May 2007) for 24 Super Hornets, for a price of $193 million each. Qatar paid $7.02 billion USD for 24 Rafales, for about $293 million each. India is paying roughly €8 billion for 36 jets($9 billion USD), at a price of $250 million each. Paint a completely different picture. It's the same price, and often times cheaper, than its competition (thanks largely due to the scale of production), but people compare the $200M total order price, to a Rafale's $100M airframe cost, which is just dishonest. The reason for the higher costs, is because things like the Rafale need a lot of add ons that drive up the price extremely quick. Advanced ground targeting pods like the SNIPER or LITENING pods are additional, and required for precision ground targeting. Drop tanks are additional and needed to get acceptable ranges. None of that's needed on the F-35 (but we can touch on that in performance)
TIME
F-35s get attacked a lot for taking essentially 20 years to go operational, making many feel they're already obsolete.
- While the F-35 has taken 19 years for it to be declared operational, that's no real different from any other modern fighter. F-22 program started in 1986, first flew in 1997, and went operational in 2005. Rafale program started in 1979/1981 (depending on which you go off of), first flew in 1986, and went operational in 2001. Typhoon (Eurofighter) program started in 1983, first flew in 1994, and went operational in 2003. 20 years is the normal time it takes for a modern fighter to go from blueprints to operational, due to the complexities of modern aircraft.
PERFORMANCE
F-35s get attacked constantly for "poor" performance, and for being "able to do many jobs, bad at all of them"
- F-35s are a multirole fighter. That's a fighter aircraft designed to be able to carry out a multitude of combat roles, such as SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses), CAS (close air support), air superiority, interceptions, anti-ship, bombing, etc. This is not something new, and the F-35 is far from the first multirole aircraft. F-15Es, F-16s, F/A-18s, AV-8B IIs, Typhoons, Rafales, Mirage 2000, MiG-29, Su-30, Su-35, PAK-FA, Gripen, Tornado... They're all multiroles. They all do exactly what the F-35 says it'll do, but suddenly everyone thinks multiroles are idiotic and don't work, even though multiroles are overwhelmingly the most respected combat aircraft of our generation.
- F-35s do have worse performance than a lot of older aircraft, but it has to be viewed in context. A clean (nothing hanging off the wings/body) F-35 can't handle as well as a clean F-16. However, a clean F-35 can carry 2 AIM-120D missiles and 8 GBU-53 bombs internally, while a clean F-16 is as useless in war as a Marine without a rifle. You start adding drop tanks to the F-16 to match the F-35's internal fuel range, and it's handling drops drastically. You add 8 GBU-53s and 2 AIM-120Ds on top, and the F-16 now handles like a Buick shaped brick, while the F-35 is running circles around it. To give an aircraft 6000lbs of internal weapons and enough internal fuel for well over 1200 miles, you have to make some concessions, but you're still left with an aircraft that's more agile than the ones it's replacing with the same munitions and range capabilities. There's no question that this is more agile and has better handling than this which has roughly the same weapons and fuel capabilities.
- People also don't seem to realize how important electronics are to modern fighters, nor that when your aircraft is that small (compared to say the B-52), you more so build the aircraft around the electronics than vice versa, making it extremely hard, if not impossible, to always offer upgrades. The F-35's infrared sensors are so strong, they watched SpaceX's Falcon 9 lift off from over 800 miles away. It's EOTS' (electro-optical targeting system) camera is so strong, you can clearly identify a person in a window from over 50 miles away. The AN/APG-81 AESA radar of the F-35 is, outside of F-22s equipped with AN/APG-77V1 AESA radar, the most advanced fighter radar ever made, which allows it to see further in the skies, and better on the ground.
- People criticize the F-35 for being the future of CAS. As is though, F-16s did over 33% of all CAS in Afghanistan and Iraq, F/A-18s did over 22%, and A-10s did under 19%. Against ISIS, B-1B (yes, the bomber), does over 25%, the F-15E does over 25%, and the A-10 does under 13%. The reason? Fast movers like the F-15E, F-16, and F/A-18 will always arrive overhead faster, which is often times the most important factor in CAS, while B-1Bs can fly figure 8s overhead for as long as they want, waiting for the target to poke their head out. Virtually 100% of CAS these days is done with precision munitions, but that doesn't mean just 2000LB JDAMs like people seem to think. GBU-53s are a beloved CAS weapon, as are things like APKWS (advanced precision kill weapon system). In the event, for whatever reason, a gun run is needed though, anything with a cannon can do a gun run, it's not something unique to the A-10. The whole reason the USAF wants the A-10 gone is not because they hate CAS like many say (USAF averages 20,000 CAS missions a year, and the USAF Chief of Staff's own son is a USMC infantry officer), but because it's an old platform that's not as tough as people like to make it out to be. A-10s were pulled from the front line in Desert Storm when 6 were shot down. The famous "look at how much damage an A-10 can take!" photo, is of an A-10 that was hit basically on take off and managed to land. Outside of that lone occurance, A-10s got torn new assholes by the Republican Guard using 1960s and 1970s AA systems. Small insurgent groups though? Well, ISIS almost shot an A-10 down with a MANPAD, which they now have thousands of, due to looting Syrian military bases. It's only a matter of time before a low and slow mover gets shot out of the sky by a group like ISIS, since everyone from Hamas to ISIS to the lRA have MANPADs sadly. A-10s are not the future of CAS, high flying loiterers like the B-1B, and fast movers like the F-35 are, but that's not something a lot of people are willing to admit. USAF tried to build a new CAS aircraft in the late 80s early 90s to fix what they saw as the A-10's growing weaknesses, but Congress actually banned them from doing so (thanks to Fairchild $$). Now, it's a matter of, "well, the A-10's simply too dangerous to keep using, but the gap between precision munitions and a dedicated CAS aircraft is closing fast, so do we just push precision munitions in a bit early, or do we keep the A-10 and hope it doesn't end with the pilot getting BBQ'd on TV?".
