Salute!
Good point, old man, but I was pointing out actual stats from Falkland with the predominant Brit membership here. The models were a good representation, IMHO, of good training and a new missile with capabilities and performance unseen during our 'nam experience.
+++++++++
Back to the the original issue - down range support costs and final fleet numbers.
As with most high tech planes I am/was familiar with, the fancy gizmos need replacement and the techs need to be well trained. There is an economy of scale when you add one or two planes to the squad. You do not need more techs, and just adjust sortie rate a small amount. Ditto for the pilots. All I hear from the 35 folks is lack of parts, as there is not a lotta soldering connections and such in the back shop anymore. Long are the days of fixing the waveguides for our radar or even replacing a circuit board. It is plug and play, and ya need many boxes to plug!
Secondly, some of our present systems are using cannonball parts because the original manufacturer has gone outta bidness. Go ask USN sub dudes about the Trident missile guidance unit. So THAT is an area of concern in the tech industry which is moving at Warp 3 or faster.
My not so humble opinion is the anti-35 folks are akin to the never-crump folks... find any pissant issue and make a big deal of it rather than attacking the problems and fixing them.
I hate to see discussion about reducing the buy, and went thru it with the F-22, then the B-2, and the beat goes on. Even with poor maintenance of the stealth features, the F-35 has more capability for most missions than anything else now flying or even being tested. If I loose half my cloaking device, I am still better off than in a Viper or Mudhen or Tiffie or Flanker or .........
Gums sends...