Article

2014-06-03 Home Front: WoT

7 Things The Marines Have To Do To Make The F-35B Worth The Huge Cost

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Squinty 2014-06-03 00:00|| || Front Page|| [7 views ] Top

#1 I understand they've spent $400B for the program so far. Somehow the military needs to save a bunch of money over the next few years. Who thinks they're going to order the full 2000 planes?

Posted by gorb 2014-06-03 01:04|| 2014-06-03 01:04|| Front Page Top

#2 If the F-35 was deployed 5 years ago and only cost $100 mil a pop, they would be a great fighter.

Now they are so over priced that the loss of half a squadron would bankrupt the Marines.

Posted by DarthVader 2014-06-03 01:17|| 2014-06-03 01:17|| Front Page Top

#3 They should secretly replace the F-35 serial numbers with those of A-10's. I'd wager that's a good swap.

Posted by Silentbrick 2014-06-03 09:43|| 2014-06-03 09:43|| Front Page Top

#4 They should secretly replace the F-35 serial numbers with those of A-10's. I'd wager that's a good swap.

Emotionally, I agree with you. However anybody in Congress who thinks that you can replace the A-10 with the F-35 is smoking something. The F-35 lacks comparable capabilities (e.g. GAU-8 Gatling gun) while having a higher operating cost.

The A-10 is a significantly cheaper aircraft to maintain, costing about $17,564 per flight hour. In contrast, the F-35A nearly doubles that with a hefty $35,200 per flight hour. Accounting for this difference are facts like the A-10s 1:5 fuel consumption ratio.

Close air support heavily depends on the aircrafts loiter time. Loiter time is defined as the ability to cruise at slow speeds over a small area. Loiter range is, in part the function of range the greater the range, the longer it can spend over an area of interest, where ground support may be needed. Compared to the F-35A, which has a range of about 1,200 nautical miles (the B version is even less), the A-10 out flies its potential successor by about twice the distance, reaching a distance of 2,240nm. That additional range allows the A-10 to loiter above areas of battlefield activity further from its takeoff origin without the need to refuel.

The A-10 was built to be survivable. The A-10 however needs a long runway.

This is why the "7 things ..." article appealed to me. You can't just plug the F-35 into the A-10 role. The F-35 is good at very different things so if you are stuck with the F-35 you better change the game plan to optimize the F-35's value.

Posted by Squinty 2014-06-03 14:37|| 2014-06-03 14:37|| Front Page Top

#5 I think the suggestion was more along the lines of buying up a boatload of A-10s instead of one of the F-35. I understand the military branches wanting to be independant but we are in budget crunch time and it just doesn't make sense for all to get the super-shiniest toys. They should worry abou their core tasks and let the Air Force or Navy worry about the F-35B.

Posted by rjschwarz 2014-06-03 15:05|| 2014-06-03 15:05|| Front Page Top

#6 The A-10 is much better a close air support than the F-35 but you can't launch a warthog from an amphibious assault carrier. Either or is a false premise; they don't do the same things. Budgets not withstanding, you need both.

Posted by Squinty 2014-06-03 21:34|| 2014-06-03 21:34|| Front Page Top

23:54 JosephMendiola
23:43 JosephMendiola
23:41 JosephMendiola
22:46 OldSpook
22:37 Procopius2k
22:28 USN, Ret.
22:20 USN, Ret.
22:05 Bill Clinton
22:00 Bill Clinton
21:34 Squinty
21:23 Frank G
21:13 gorb
20:35 SteveS
20:25 Uncle Phester
20:20 OldSpook
20:13 Squinty
20:02 Besoeker
19:56 Matt
19:53 mossomo
19:52 mossomo
19:51 JosephMendiola
19:51 Bubba Graiting8281
19:50 Uncle Phester
19:30 trailing wife