Harrier vs F-35B video

[RED]

It is amazing that anyone would care to compare a 45 year old $1.5 million Harrier with a $122 million modern stealthy airplane. The AV-8's primary job was close air support for the USMC. The F-35B's primary job is close air support for the USMC... stealthy not required. The AV-8 can carry 9,000 lbs of gravity bombs while the F-35B can carry a 12,000 lb. load but they are mostly the "smart," bombs that cost big bucks. If you are trying to take out a truck or a tank, which is more appropriate a $1.5 million smart bomb or a $500 gravity MK82 WWII style bomb?

Yes they can both take off and land on small ships, Yes they can both have a CAP mission but it is limited one. And yes it is a repeat of the F-111 that was supposed to the one aircraft that could do it all. It was a great long range bomber for the USAF, but it flunked the test for the USN and the USMC... I expect the F-35 will find a role and be a great aircraft like the F-111 but it will never be a do everything, one size fits all aircraft.

JMHO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVKufyKjf5Q

[Vern Humphrey]

The F-35B's primary job is close air support for the USMC... stealthy not required. The AV-8 can carry 9,000 lbs of gravity bombs while the F-35B can carry a 12,000 lb. load but they are mostly the "smart," bombs that cost big bucks. If you are trying to take out a truck or a tank, which is more appropriate a $1.5 million smart bomb or a $500 gravity MK82 WWII style bomb?

Yes, I remember those days in Viet Nam, when we used non-stealth aircraft to take out trucks, bridges and what-have-you with dumb bombs. There was a reason we called the F105 the "Thud!"

[Art]

The United States has an ageing fleet of combat aircraft. I was stunned to learned that at any one time as many as 50% of the fleet of Navy F/A 18s are deadlined for parts or maintenance. This is purely due to the advanced age of most of the aircraft and lack of funding. It turns out that the new replacement aircraft the F35 it turns out will not actually replace the F/A 18 because the Navy, now that they have some money has ordered some more F/A 18 Super Hornets. In fact, the F35 is not truly operational even today.

I will just about guarantee the Brits are suffering "seller's remorse" for prematurely getting rid of their naval Harriers. Their new big carriers are not "CATOBAR" capable and so are going to be limited to the F35 SVTOL aircraft for better or worse.

The F-35's stealth features which are its major selling point, are moot if it carries external stores, something nobody seems to talk about.

I'm with Red on the F35. I just hope it turns out to be better than it looks right now.

I really can't see this plane as the new equivalent of the F4 Phantom but it is truly now "too big to fail," and we're going to be stuck with it and so are a lot of other people.

[togor]

Too big to fail...hits nail on head. Every time a new platform comes along, stakeholders are encouraged to climb on, the logic being that a broader constituency improves chances of funding success. But the aggregate effect of so many requirements is a system that is asked to be too many things for too many people and consequently never really excels at anything, including meeting cost targets. With the services top heavy on brass the problem gets worse all the time.