Despite having built the F22, LM has started from scratch with the F35. The two planes have nothing in common, airframe or the electronics. These make for two very costly programs. A cheaper degraded variant of the F22 would have make more sense, but why make it cheap of you can make it expensive ?

Not really. The F-35’s airframe was dictated by the STOVL requirement, and so was always doomed to being a fat single engine airframe. On the other hand the F-35’s avionics are a vast conceptual improvement over the F-22’s. The F-22’s avionics are largely monolithic, because its architecture dates back to the late 80s when that was the only way to accomplish things like sensor fusion. The F-35’s uses a federated architecture — different modules talking to each other using well known protocols over a network — because that allows easy component upgradeability.

It would not have “made sense” to build the F-35 the way the F-22 is built because you end up paying a lot more later to upgrade anything and having blocks of aircraft not compatible with each other — e.g. the Block 20 and earlier aircraft which will never be combat-coded because they can’t be upgraded to Increment 3.X.

As far as it goes, yes, in the end IMO it would have been better to develop an F-22C with an F-35-like systems architecture, than developing the F-35 at all. Nothing says we still can’t do that; the F-35 development cost is a sunk cost, that doesn’t mean we have to keep throwing money at it.

…But if the F-35’s problems are NOT sorted in 2 years (cracking spars, etc etc), then what? and if Mr. Gates statements will now endanger the B-version?

The cracking spar is a B model problem only, does not affect the A or C. Between issues like this and Gates’ “probation” statement that the B model is never going into production. Unfortunately that leaves the A and C versions saddled with design compromises that were made in the name of commonality with the B, all for nothing.

The program did shift, but not as a result of issues the C model was having to overcome. This is why the likelihood of Super Hornet buys being anything more than augmentation vs an alternative isn’t realistic. If we start seeing issues with C models, then it might be worthwhile to discuss, but so far all I hear are solutions in search of a problem.

The Navy pretty much has to stick with the F-35C since there is no other carrier-capable VLO airframe in the pipeline. They are the only U.S. service that “needs” the F-35 at all. Even then, the most likely outcome is that they’ll be in fleet service in much the same numbers and role as the A-6Es were in the 1980s. The notion that you’re ever going to see two, 12-plane VFAs of F-35s in CVWs is pie in the sky thinking. The Navy is far from having placed its last order of F/A-18E/Fs.

As far as the UK, they really would be better off with F/A-18E/Fs, if only so that they can afford to maintain a numerically significant force structure.

No need for new F-22s before 2020. 😎

And then what? If F-22 production is allowed to cease, restarting it won’t really be an option by 2020. And we know how long it takes to field a whole new aircraft. Is it really a good idea to let production stop when we know that multiple new aircraft that obviously invalidate the DoD’s assumptions about force requirements (that the rest of the world would remain frozen in 1990) are going to go into production in this decade?

Yup, stealth is not required for FAC-A and CAS. Marine Air exists to support Marine Ground.

Exactly. And the Marines are supposed to be expeditionary. The Navy projected cost per flight hour of the F-35B and C to be over 60% more than that of the Harrier and legacy Hornet, which makes it over four times that of the Super Hornet. What that translates into is requiring more fuel, more spare parts, and more maintainers, which does not really improve your expeditionary capability.

military experts are warning that the aircraft – reportedly capable of besting America’s F-22 in speed and maneuverability

And I stopped reading right there.

I see. That the Tornado is faster, is no doubt. As for range, don’t forget that SH is a naval figher/striker. I red somewhere that the fuel reserve for naval planes is considerably bigger than for land based planes.

It is, and the range figures being thrown around are apples to oranges anyway.

Beyond that, the Super Hornet has more advanced avionics, more flexible ordnance, and is much cheaper to operate than the Tornado. Tornado was designed as a long-range interdiction aircraft and the Super Hornet wasn’t, so it is not surprising that it is longer ranged, but that doesn’t tell the whole story.

Also from CMF, a comparison of the size of the J-20 in relation to the J-10 and the ubiquitous JAC light truck.

By this gauge this thing is about flanker size if not smaller.

Comparisons like this are never valid. The truck would have to be exactly the same distance from the fuselace centerline in order for this comparison to be valid. It is obvious just from glancing at the shadows being cast that the truck is not the same distance from each airframe.