" ... The design was born in the late 1980s in the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Pentagon agency that has earned an undeserved reputation for astute innovation. ..."
1980ies .. with the strategical need of those times ?
On one hand the project is too big to fail, on the other hand maybe it will die a silent death - of course after the elections, and regardless who's in charge then.
For what i read on multiple forums:
- Stealth will not be accomplished due to the two rudders - a clear blip visible on any 30-year-old radar.
- It cannot carry enough arms, even as the "normal" non-VTOL or even catapult version (the VTOL is being hampered by multiple problems, too fuew fuel and ams, due to the space needed for VTOL components)
- It cannot be used in low altitude missions (why not b.t.w.?)
- The fuselage cell is prone to cracks, especially with the VTOL and catapult versions, limiting the calculated life and needing more maintenance and state supervision
- The costs have exploded, but the machine still fails to deliver.
It seems they wanted a jet that did all - and what they get is a jet that can do all, but nothing right.
Also, from an article:
"In a decade's time, the United States plans to have 15 times as many modern fighters as China, and 20 times as many as Russia."
" ..
So, how many F-35s do we need?
100?
500?
Washington intends to buy 2,443, at a price tag of $382 billion.
Add in the $650 billion that the Government Accountability Office estimates is needed to operate and maintain the aircraft, and the total cost reaches a staggering $1 trillion.
In other words, we're spending more on this plane than Australia's entire GDP ($924 billion). ..."
I think those jets are fascinating, but i do not think it would be wise to go on spending that money on .. "defence".