Franken Fighter is likely going to be that bird's nickname.
I wonder: which of the two original Aircraft serial numbers will it use, or will it get a fresh one?

But if the F-35 is no better than a 4th Gen platform (and 95% of the missions don't require stealth capability), it sort of begs the question of why we need to replace all the 4th Gen aircraft with (much more expensive) F-35s...

For example, for CAS mission, everyone is saying the A-10 isn't survivable - hence we need the F-35 to replace it. But if the F-35 is carrying a bunch of external stores (negating stealth), it wouldn't be survivable either - at least the A-10 is built to take lots of punishment and still get the pilot home - one shot into the F-35's single engine and it's not going home.

Just suggesting we need some consistency in the value of stealth...

Tdracer, my worry comes from the bird strike and the fire and nose gear collapses.

The fact a bird strike can write off a modern fighter does not bode well for keeping them flying if damaged in a war situation, if you need an autoclave or some other exotic material to carry out BDR where a previous Gen fighter could be patched with a coke can and some pop rivets, have we really moved on?

Survivability and sustainability are two major factors I see as important in a fighter aircraft

What Nutty said.

You seem to be missing the point that the F-35 can - if, and when required - go out there in an LO config - with a meaningful (albeit not hugely impressive) loadout.

Which makes it far more useful for those “contested environments”. Which is all that anyone has ever said.

As to the “95% don’t require it”. where did you get that data… 100% of environment in SHADER maybe, but I’d wager the ratio would be different in the South China Sea, or Ukraine.

There are plenty of other cases of bird strikes where the jet has lived to fight another day. Just as there are other cases where aeroplanes have been lost to bird strike. 2nd Gen Hunter damaged beyond economical repair by bird strike

again - I’ll take the option where my survivability is higher, because the bad guy cannot complete the kill chain, over being repairable if I’m hit AND lucky enough to survive!

Having the stealth card to play when necessary is important, but when F-35's are about you're not fighting one aircraft, you're fighting all of them. They have access to each others sensor data, as well as data from many other surface, airborne and space sensors. Your A-10 would be the equivalent of you walking into a forest at night that's full of telepathic big cats that can all see better, hear better and smell better than you can. It works because the technology is part of the fabric of the F-35 system. In theory you could try to put the same technology into an old 4th gen type, but it wouldn't work as well and would end up costing more than an F-35 anyway. The game has changed, and those constantly dreaming of a renaissance of their favourite cold war relic are whistling in the wind.

A fat lot of good if that aircraft costs so much that only a limited force is available, take the UK, not enough to full equip a poorly designed carrier, stupidity in the lack of catapults and angled decks limited the ship to what she can operate jet wise to a single type, so much for Nato interoperability.
Couple that with being unable to fully equip the carrier and the fact that if they did and the carrier is sunk, all those megga expensive toys are gone in one go.

It's ok to walk away from your written off F35, but attrition with the amount of jets available to the Uk will these days see us defenceless within weeks. It does give one the feeling that to produce an aircraft that is able to operate vertically that something had to give, and that is the aircrafts weight which means its physical strength.

Yes it may give you greater survivibilty but that is a fat lot of use if you keep them all at one of our dwindling number of airfields or on a carrier and you get a pre-emptive strike and they are taken out before they ever get off the ground.

While earlier generation fighters may not be a total solution, the fact they can be repaired and put back into service in a short period of time whilst being financally viable to purchase in greater numbers has a lot going for them, take the Israeli F-15 that had a wing sheared off in combat training, a replacement wing was installed and it was back in the air in a short period of time, try that with an F-35.

Excellent article detailing delivery schedule by tail number and software / upgrade cost considerations

Building up the Lightning Force – when will the UK get its F-35 jets? | Navy Lookout

Not saying the F-35 isn't needed or Stealth doesn't have value, but do we really need the entire force to be stealthy F-35s if most of the time the stealth isn't needed? F-35s cost 2-3x what the gen 4 fighters cost - and are more difficult to maintain - so you can't afford as many. As the old saying goes, quantity has a quality of it's own.

Oh, and as for the "95%" number:
Pretty sure you read that post, since you quoted it in one of your earlier posts :ugh:

I don't think you have the luxury of pre-supposing which enemy you might face in an uncertain future and what missions might be required. I would not be as willing as you to send pilots into combat in second string equipment. F-35 and it's planned successors are not a single aircraft, but part of a flexible air combat system that will become even more effective when they start operating in conjunction with low-cost UCAV's providing the necessary quantity. That is the future, and wasting money on obsolescent types should play no part in it.

But the F-35s (and apparently the F-22) are very difficult to maintain and repair. An integrated system is fine on paper, but will it add much value when half your (smaller) fleet is AOG with maintenance issues?
In the Gulf wars, stealth aircraft were few - so they went in first to knock down the air defenses to pave the way for the gen 4 stuff - based on the loss rates it was an effective strategy.

tdracer
There are a number of "UAV wingman" things going on which address at least partly your points (stuff that's in the public domain).

tdracer, I'm not going to fact check you. You should be aware, that most of what you posted is wrong. So I can only assume it's deliberate.

Firstly, they aren’t 2-3x what 4th Gen cost (which vary between ~$80M for a F-16/18 to ~$115M for a typhoon; the F-35A is $83M and the B/C are around $110-120M).

Secondly the missions they will perform in a contested environment are significantly more effective - and will need less aeroplanes to achieve, with less losses.

re 95%; apologies for my goldfish syndrome - but as pointed out it’s a made up number devoid of context.

Continuing the theme of fact checking, I know of a country which will be looking for a pretty big credit note if B models cost the same as C ….
And as for Typhoons being the same price …..

It's always basically impossible to get an actual cost because flyaway prices typically exclude R&D as a sunk cost, but fwiw the closest apples to apples comparison you're likely to find is the latest F-15EX Costs vs F-35A: lot 4 should be 90mil USD per ac for F-15, Vs 80.5mil USD for F-35A over the next 3 lots.

That's a pretty good comparison of how expensive a 4th gen fighter is when you attempt to throw the latest toys at it: the answer is pretty much the same price.

Cost per flying hour is harder to establish on a global basis, but once again the USG provides us apples to apples comparison through the 2020 GAO report (can't find a more recent one - if anyone else has, grateful).

Broadly, while A-10 is admittedly cheaper per flying hour, F-35 is basically in the same price bracket as the other 4th gen fighters, and actually arguably cheaper. Same can't be said for the Raptor, but that's really to be expected. I'd argue that's sort of the point of the F-35 - 5th gen for the masses. It gets a lot of bad press, but when you actually try and find credible information, the numbers start to stack up, which is probably why they're winning competition after competition - why would you buy a Typhoon/Rafale/F-15 when you can buy F-35 for the same/less (unless you don't have access to the program or you have an industrial base to protect).

Noting these numbers are from 2020 in 2013ish adjusted dollars because... US govt accounting....

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....30b603c2d2.png

Comparison of what you get for the $ is not simple when comparing F-15EX with F-35A - with only 2 x trial F-15EX currently in-service (with a 3rd soon) to base current maintenance costs on.

The F-15EX's major advantage in life cycle cost is the long design airframe life of 20,000 flight hours - compared to 8,000 on the F-35A.

You also have the huge weapon load carrying capacity of the F-15EX.

It will be interesting to see to what extent the next administration over here in the USA from January 2025 does regarding F-15EX procurement - whether the original F-15C replacement quantity of 144 is restored and whether there are additional orders for F-15E fleet recapitalization.

When Gen CQ Brown was CSAF - before he moved up to Chairman JCS - the NGAD / UCAV / F-35A / F-15EX mix still needed further study.

The only reason the F-15EX orders have been all over the place under Biden - 144 > 80 > 104 currently - is funding priorities within the USAF budget.

At least the Indonesian order for F-15EX will now keep the line open into 2025 for a decision.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...want-out-of-it

https://www.boeing.com/defense/f-15ex/

Bravo to pba and RAF. Good points raised.
Isn't one of the issues for F-15 EX cost numbers the smaller production runs?
Thanks for your further analysis and chart. :ok:
Ooh, nice catch. (I wonder what that does to the expected depot/overhaul cycle for both models).
I'd like to see the 144 restored. (I still think the decision to curtail the F-22 buy was a poor one, but that's one man's opinion).

Glad to see the line keeping warm.
Doubtless, the various salesmen are traveling the world looking for the next order that they can get - and then get approved by Congress. Nothing is simple.

The stealth is good to have, but only as long as the other side hasn’t developed a method of detection and the capability to hit your invulnerable aircraft, ask Gary Powers about that.