@ww,
as does others. With the difference that they could go even faster in A2A configurations and if it is just by dropping their tanks, even they rely on them anyway.

Yes- F-15s can reach M2+, but….. in combat, they’ve never exceeded M1.4. That’s the whole point- in theory other fighters in certain configurations can reach higher speeds, but how often will this occur in practice. That’s why the F-35 was designed around practical combat speeds. Aside from the F-22, T-50, and Mig 31, you’re just not going to see other fighters flying around at high Mach numbers with any regularity.

It should then be slightly worrying that the lack of F22 numbers is apparently to be compensented for by using upgraded F15’s and F35’s a2a.
I say this because upgraded F15’s will in many respects apparently have a similar overall performance to the Typhoon and Rafale, which we are repeatedly told are just complete coffins…

I don’t think anyone believes that Typhoons and Rafales(or upgraded F-15Cs) are coffins(especially with AESAs, AIM-120D, Meteor, MICA, AIM-9X, ASRAAM, advanced jammers, etc…)

The F35 as an a2a platfrom will simply not have the kinetic performance of a pure fighter and however much this can be made up for by sneaking around unseen or by sensor fusion, if it’s not in the right place at the right time or can get there you might as well not bother.

Where will the kinetic performance of the F-35 be lacking? What fighters aside from the F-22, Mig-31, and the T-50 with the new engines, will be flying faster than M1.6 with any regularity? Typhoons, Rafales, and Flankers won’t be flying that fast on a normal basis. Top speeds are irrelevant, as competitors won’t be flying M2+ with weapons.

More than 100 of the 187 will be combat coded first of all, and when operated in conjunction with upgraded ~178 F-15Cs(providing additional sensor coverage, and ECM), that will be a significant force multiplier. Then factor in that you’ll also have F-35s with A2A loadouts in the mix too.

FYI: all available funds going to the all-or-nothing, stay-the-course F-35A plan.

And this is based upon what? Each program has its own funds, and the Air Force has a lot of programs aside from the F-35A. Seeing as how the F-22 will be the premier A2A fighter in the USAF for the forseeable future, I rather doubt that it will be in a state of neglect.

Only 1 has been lost thus far in 5yrs. Do you forsee the accident rate going up significantly? Considering that 87 Block 35 are being bought, that would be almost 1 crash per year, thru 2025.

They don’t look like they open up either, which makes me think they’re not weapons bays.

I’d think it’d depend on the target list, to what kind of loadouts you’d see, and how much loiter time that you want to trade off with extra weight/drag.

I guess that I am a member “too many critics” society that you refer. I prefer to look at the cost of an aircraft in a systematic way – from a rational rather than emotional point of view. A “flyaway” cost is an non-standardized oversimplification and not reflective of the true cost of acquiring a weapons system – which an aircraft is in effect.

Well…..the F-35 is supposed to be easier to maintain than previous jets. It’s only got one engine vs. two, so that should cut some costs in terms of spares and in maintenance times. It’s got a longer range, so it’ll need less tanker support. It requires less ECM support, and is more survivable. So….these all have to be factored into cost of ownership too. Less platforms to perform a given mission, and far greater survivability- it’s not a bargain if your cheaper plane is lost to enemy fire.