Sorry if I made it appear that sustainability took a back seat during the F-35's development. That was most certainly not the case. The contractor teams worked mightily and inventively to maximize sustainability within the constraints they were given. Stealth was one such constraint. A large airframe with only one engine was another. A single airframe/engine package for CTOL, CATOBAR, and STOVL operations was another. And given all those constraints, the contractors and government came up with some amazing solutions. But the fact remains, all those constraints have a price. And not just in terms of dollars
Putting a "first day of the war" airplane on our carrier decks was important and a huge breakthrough. But USN seems to recognize that a "first day of the war" capability is not required in all their strike assets and has chosen (I believe wisely) to keep lots of non-stealth aircraft in their future strike fleet. And has retained the option of making those non-stealth aircraft more stealthy to make them more "first day of the war" capable. I'm not sure if USAF is doing the same. USAF seems to be totally enamored with stealth and if the airplane does not have stealth, it won't be considered by USAF in the future. I think such reliance on stealth is first off too expensive and second off too risky. It's a matter of when, not a matter of if an adversary will develop a counter to stealth. I think USN's approach of stealth and non stealth with electronc jamming is a better and less risky approach. Again, just my opinion.
Last edited by KenV; 11th Nov 2014 at 17:07.