Yes if the F-35 does everything it was designed to do and performs as well as initially intended, it'll be a decent plane. Unfortunately that doesn't look like it will be the case.
Some significant problems the project is experiencing:
-F-35 can't fly in poor weather because it doesn't have adequate protection against lightning strikes
-Stealth coating doesn't sufficiently withstand temperature around the exhausts
-Exhaust gas is too hot for amphibious ship decks for the Marine Corps variant
-Rear visibility is poor, and 3D helmet designed to address that shortcoming isn't ready yet
-Onboard software is severely flawed and behind schedule.
This program is already wildly over budget and is only going to continue exceeding its budget as they address the multitude of issues it has right now.
The whole point of this aircraft was that it was supposed to be cheaper and more versatile than the F-22. The unit cost is already going to be well over $100 million and that's with the assumption that our allies will buy a large number of them. Chances are several allies are going to drop out, and I suspect we are going to dramatically cut back the number we acquire as well, thereby driving up the unit cost.
On top of that, it is becoming increasing unlikely it will perform as billed. Not to mention that from day 1 the F-35 concept was ill-suited for the close air support role.
The US military would be far better off cutting its losses now and starting from scratch to develop a light strike fighter for the Air Force, a close air support attack aircraft to replace the A-10, maybe an interceptor for the Navy, and scrapping the Marine Corps variant altogether. That ridiculous STOVL requirement is a large part of why this project has gone so awry.
Some significant problems the project is experiencing:
-F-35 can't fly in poor weather because it doesn't have adequate protection against lightning strikes -Stealth coating doesn't sufficiently withstand temperature around the exhausts -Exhaust gas is too hot for amphibious ship decks for the Marine Corps variant -Rear visibility is poor, and 3D helmet designed to address that shortcoming isn't ready yet -Onboard software is severely flawed and behind schedule.
This program is already wildly over budget and is only going to continue exceeding its budget as they address the multitude of issues it has right now.
The whole point of this aircraft was that it was supposed to be cheaper and more versatile than the F-22. The unit cost is already going to be well over $100 million and that's with the assumption that our allies will buy a large number of them. Chances are several allies are going to drop out, and I suspect we are going to dramatically cut back the number we acquire as well, thereby driving up the unit cost.
On top of that, it is becoming increasing unlikely it will perform as billed. Not to mention that from day 1 the F-35 concept was ill-suited for the close air support role.
The US military would be far better off cutting its losses now and starting from scratch to develop a light strike fighter for the Air Force, a close air support attack aircraft to replace the A-10, maybe an interceptor for the Navy, and scrapping the Marine Corps variant altogether. That ridiculous STOVL requirement is a large part of why this project has gone so awry.