[Causality1]

That's the issue, trying to make one airframe fill three drastically different roles and hence failing at all of them. Every time the F-35 turns in a miserable performance report its mission profile is changed to make it look like less of an embarrassment.

[thereddaikon]

The F-35 wasn't intended to do everything. There are certainly those who have tried to make it do everything but that wasn't the intent of the program.

For example it was never meant to be an air superiority fighter. While it does have a great radar, missiles and even a gun on the air force version it was never meant to fill the role of an F-15 or F-22. The air force wants to replace the F-16 with the F-35.

The new Digital Century program shows the AF hasn't forgotten about the importance of dedicated platforms. However given the cost and development times of modern aircraft it takes a new approach to make them practical.

The navy has also been clear about the role of the F-35. It wont ever be used as an F-14 replacement. They are actually working on that separately.

As for other customers, different militaries have different missions and needs. It is true the F-35 is capable of filling most roles if needed. Some nations may rely on it as their air defense backbone. That's a secondary capability but when you only have the budget for one fighter and this is the only 5th gen on the open market then its defacto the best option.

[Causality1]

The air force wants to replace the F-16 with the F-35.

Shame that in exercises the F-35 loses visual-range fights with the F-16 even when the F-16 is carrying external fuel tanks.

The issue is that it's almost universally worse than all the specialty aircraft it replaces at that specialty job. It's worse at fighting insurgents than the A-10. It's worse at dogfighting than the F-16. It's worse at air superiority than the F-18.

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/us-admits-f-35-failed-to-r...

[Alupis]

> The F-35 wasn't intended to do everything.

Yes it was... and Congress decided to tell the military what it needed instead of the other way around - hence the "jack of all trades, master of none" that is the F-35.

The F-16 is considered an air superiority fighter[1], although it is used in multi-role missions as well.

It's fly-away cost in 1998 was around $18.8MM[1], which is about $31.9MM today... or less than half the cost of each F-35.

Congress forced the idea of the F-35 onto the military as a low cost modern do-it-all aircraft. Then the Marines drove a huge part of the F-35 development, which ended up requiring VTOL/STOL capabilities etc, things no other branch wanted or needed and where subsequently ripped out of their variants anyway.

The final result are three different airframes that look similar, but don't share many parts, and don't outmatch the incumbent plane in each category (A-10 for CAS, AV-8B for VTOL/CAS, F-16/F-15/F-18/F-22 for AS and multirole, and probably a few others I'm leaving out).

So... why continue with the F-35? Sunk cost fallacy, mostly. It would be far better to take the lessons learned from this bleeding-edge program and apply them to new, purpose-built aircraft that each branch actually wants and needs.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting...

[dragontamer]

In Hearts of Iron, you play as a country during WW2.

As Germany, you face threats from Britain (ships, fighters and bombers), France (mostly land forces) and Russia.

What do you build?

Air superiority fighters win dogfights (F22 today) but are only useful vs Britain.

Close Air Support (A10 today) beat tanks, but lose in the air.

Multirole fighters (F35 today) work in all three theaters, but not as well as the specialists.

Given that the next war might be vs Russia (Crimea situation), Taiwan / China (Naval), or maybe even terrorists in Africa or Middle East, multirole is the obvious airplane to build today.

-----

So Air Force wants a multirole fighter that can take off from airstrips / airports.

Marines want a multirole fighter that can take off of Wasp Amphibious Assault Ships (ramp launch)

Navy wants a multirole fighter that can take off of their Aircraft Carriers (catapult launch).

This gives F35A, F35B, and F35C variants. But since they all wanted a multirole fighter, it makes sense to try to make the three variants as similar as possible. You want to standardize the gun, standardize the bullets, standardize the fuel, standardize the software.

[indymike]

> That's the issue, trying to make one airframe fill three drastically different roles and hence failing at all of them.

Really, you can thank the the F-4 Phantom II, F-16 and both versions of the F-18 (the A and C, which is a much larger aircraft) for this. All of these planes excelled as both fighter and attack aircraft, and showed it was possible to do both missions well enough.

[rjsw]

The F/A-18 E is the Super Hornet, the A and C are the same airframe.

[indymike]

You are correct.