Originally Posted by
Courtney Mil
I think Channel 2 is being hypothetical and positing ops in uncontested airspace where F-35 can load up the external pylons. It's a slightly fictional scenario whereby we use F-35 for one day to destroy completely the air-to-air and surface-to-air threats, put them all away until the next war and get out the 105s.
If the only metrics are farther, faster, heavier, then the question is already answered. If the question takes the whole issue in the round, then you're unlikely to get to day 2 in time for farther, faster, heavier to be any kind of advantage.
But like I said, it's a hypothetical "what if".
Slightly tangentially, how much is the F-35's technical capability compromised by its cost? Given that the forecast cost of an A variant of $75M in today's money for a platform ordered in 2018 for 2020 delivery is likely to limit numbers most nations can buy (Bs & Cs likely costing more), how much will that affect the political will to risk them in a day 1 contested environment going up against the likes of S-300, 400 etc where IADS are increasingly complex, generating a fused engagement quality operating picture from multiple potentially mobile sensors that remove the old radar gaps we'd look to exploit?
It's all well and good being able to achieve a mission on paper, but if the levels of cost-induced risk aversion are so high that putting it into that sort of scenario is unlikely to happen, why not just go for the cheaper option? How many aircraft losses would the UK be able to sustain politically before having to withdraw? How much would the F-35 have to be supplemented by other systems such as EA on top of the already high price tag?