Does it occur to you that you might be wrong about some things?

You ask for too much!

Guys, you can’t be serious if you think that Turkey, or NATO, is going to go to “war” over something as minor as this, in the middle of an Arab civil war.

@Italy: Having separate programs would have likely driven up cost due to different design teams, development, procurement, etc. Lifetime costs would also be higher for both programs due to lower economy of scale in parts and training costs.

Exactly. The problem is that people compare the costs of the F-35, with previous aircraft. What they should be comparing it to, is other alternatives to the one chosen. In that regard, 2 aircraft projects may have ended up as more expensive then the current solution.

Besides that also the F-35 seems to have a single piece wing structure …

No it doesn’t. Now of course that doesn’t mean that you can take the wing off anytime you want; I don’t know what’s involved in that. But it just doesn’t.

And how would You Mr. Mastermind put a fighter of that span into an Il-76 ???

You can fit Su-27s into An-124s the same way; you remove the wings and tails. The only suspicious thing about the way this object is being moved, is the angle at which it’s resting, and support lift underneath it. Why would you move an aircraft at that angle? (how, even!)

19K11, what you’re saying about the F-35B may certainly be the case. Designing an aircraft to be both conventional, and VSTOL, can’t be easy. The topic however is about the value of having a VSTOL aircraft to begin with.

At the end of the day, the choice taken has to be compared with another alternative. Had they designed 2 or 3 different types of aircraft, the costs may have been even higher than what the F-35 already is. We can’t know that.

And those big carriers are ALLREADY in service and paid for. And to the second part…..the Skyhawk comes to mind.

Yes, and the Skyhawk is certainly not an aircraft no one wants. Although I’m pretty sure the Harrier has operated from more carriers of more nations than even the Skyhawk.

As for the carriers already in service, yes, but there’s only so many of them. You put a dozen or so fighters on an amphibious support ship, and now you have doubled the number of ships capable of carrying air support.The amphibious support ships are already there as well.

Too high a cost compared to what? It’s not just the airplane cost, but also the assets needed to bring it to bear. In order to operate a conventional naval aircraft, you need a large carrier, and those have a cost of themselves.

For an aircraft like the Harrier which is now a very old design, has there been any other maritime jet aircraft that has served in more navies, and on more types of ships, than the Harrier?

Agreed. although I would qualify that by stating it would have been better to develop a VSTOL fighter completely seperatly from the F-35 program. Something a bit more austere

Maybe, maybe not. That’s a separate issue. But a VSTOL aircraft isn’t the product of the US marine requirement as a result of inter-branch rivalry. As was pointed out, the Harrier serves with the navies of many nations, and provides them a capability that no conventional aircraft could. It provides the ability to build relatively small carriers, by small nations. For the US Marines, it allows them to operate independently, if needed, form a carrier. It’s about flexibility, and not needing a 45,000-100,000 ton carrier for every application.

One thing is sure. You SURELY don’t know what you’re talking about either

That’s certainly possible, but you didn’t see me making any statements moralizing on the pilot’s action.

but if you have about half a brain and put it to work a bit and A and B together, it is obvious that the things in situations like Syria (not to mention others) are rather not like they are presented to be, by a longshot.

That’s quite a big assumption as to what the situation is “presented like”, or what I believe it to be.

A Gripen can’t take off and land on a Marine amphibious support ship. The US has about a dozen such vessels, which theoretically can support F-35Bs (or will in the future). Instead of having to deploy an aircraft carrier to support amphibious operations in low-intensity scenarios, the Marines can do it themselves. That allows you to reduce the number of conventional carriers needed, or reduce their workload.

Its a niche application, but it can’t be useless.