|
While there are certainly issues, the issues are more with the procurement process than the actual aircraft. Virtually every single aircraft program has been flogged by the press for being too expensive and less capable than the aircraft it replaced. This included the F-111, the C-5, the F-14, the F-15, the B-1, the F-16, the A-10, the F-18, the C-17, the B-2, the V-22, the F-22, and now the F-35. Overall the track record for these aircraft turned out to be outstanding, far exceeding the capabilities of their predecessors. The actual track record for the F35 has been very positive. Most the reports I've seen from pilots are generally very positive [1]. Other countries continue to buy it over other platforms [2]. Most the major complaints are around costs compared to the aircraft that are being replaced, but this isn't a fair comparison. As for the cost to fly the F-35, a unit measure the Air Force terms “cost per flying hour,” today the F-35 costs around $35,000 per flying hour. Comparative aircraft in this class are generally in the mid $20,000s, a target the F-35 is slated to hit by 2025. However, it must also be remembered, as the F-35 pilot’s above comment highlights, far fewer F-35s can accomplish far more with fewer aircraft than legacy aircraft types. It does not require a math major to understand this yields far lower real-world total costs to achieve a particular mission result. [3] [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/italian-pilots-raved-about-f... [2] https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/5/24/i... [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davedeptula/2020/07/20/f-35-pro... |
The C-5 suffered expensive wing cracking issues early in its life and even after that was fixed it had the lowest reliability of any Air Mobility asset
The F-18 was short on range and bring-back payload compared to its predecessors and had to be redesigned mid-life into a basically new aircraft
The B-1 was cancelled once and brought back as a less capable but horrifically expensive-to-maintain aircraft that failed to replace its predecessor
The F-14 was cursed with inadequate engines that hampered its flexibility and it had crippling maintenance requirements
The C-17 is one of the most expensive methods of moving payloads ever invented, since it is compromised by tactical requirements that aren't relevant to its actual role
And those are just off the top of my head.
So much in invested into so few platforms these days that they simply have to be made to work to a tolerable level. The fact that they remain in service is more a reflection on need rather than merit.