Why is the US spending so much money on non-STOVL versions of the F-35? This is the only version we need.
the stovl engine costs twice as much as the other ones
lower range/payload
>>28392634
The F-35B has a reduced range and higher unit cost than the F-35C. It's far from a useless gimmick, but STOVL aircraft suffer from a bunch of limitations that prevent them from really being a feasible replacement for the entire fleet.
>>28392682
The money saved by not needing runways would cover the cost!
>>28392814
But not the range
>>28392814
but we already have the runways anyways
>>28392776
>>28392682
>yfw the F-35C is, and always has been, more expensive than the F-35B
>>28392634
All it does is reduce range, payload, and increase maintenance costs. In exchange you can land on smaller LHDs. But US already has 10 Supercarriers anyways, so it doesn't seem that useful.
>>28393120
Well you got me there. You still have to deal with
>reduced range
>reduced max G-load (7 vs 9 Gs IIRC)
>>28393847
You contradicted yourself so fucking hard.
>>28393911
>oh no I was caught spouting absolute shit, better sidestep it so I can still whine
pathetic
>>28394005
Thanks for the insight. You sure showed me!
>>28394038
What are you on about there? I was just admitting I got something wrong. IIRC, current LRIP F-35Bs are more expensive than the F-35C, but the full-rate production should drop the F-35B below the F-35C.
The F-35B may be a tremendously capable plane, but it's still got some limitations brought about by the STOVL system. The real miracle is that it's actually competitive with conventional aircraft, which is pretty much a first for a STOVL fighter.
>>28392634
>Why is the US spending so much money on the F-35.
FTFY
>>28394082
>IIRC, current LRIP F-35Bs are more expensive than the F-35C
They're not nor have ever been, in any LRIP stage, including the ones where they have produced more Cs than Bs.
>IIRC
You've got this wonderful thing called the internet at your fingertips. "remembering" is a non-factor.
>>28394063
You literally admitted that not having them would make LHDs neutered.
You said something fucking stupid and got called out for it. Move on.
>>28392634
this has to be the most hilarious bait ive seen from you /k/unts.
>>28394126
So your admitting that the F-35B is pretty much redundant and useless in a world where US still maintains 10 Supercarriers?
Reality doesn't match your analysis, and this is matched by the procurement numbers for the F-35B.
>>28394245
>contradict self
>strawman to damage control
>>28394245
Jesus nigger-loving christ moron, read your own fucking statements. The LHDs existed before the F-35 program and have always been intended to operate with STOVL jets. What you're actually saying is that LHDs shouldn't exist at all, which is effectively a prerequisite for jump jets not existing.
>>28394245
Name another modern plane that can operate from an amphibious assault ship.
What you're arguing for is intentionally making existing ships worse for absolutely no reason.
>>28394125
When considering just the airframe sure, but for the past 3 LRIPs (6,7,8) the B has been more expensive in total (with the engine) than the C:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/03/25/f35-costs-cracks-development-/70392734/
>>28394245
Out of those 10, only a few are deployed, and about half (including those) are ready for surge deployment. Having another ~10 LHDs with F-35Bs doubles the number of ships you have that can deploy stealthy supersonic fighters.
