>>63829870
F35-C has half the range of the Super Hornet, it can't carry weapons or fuel externally without compromising radar cross-section. The f35 has a higher maintenance costs. The F35-A has similar deficiencies compared to a modern strike eagle.
>>63829861
>The f35 didn’t come out in the 2020’s
You didn't actually read my post. Block 4 is the upgrade package that brings the F35 up to the specs the Pentagon actually wanted. Previous models lacked various capabilities that will have to be retroactively added to bring the fleet to block 4 standard.
>Clearly the plane is best in class
Never has been, unless you come up with some reason to exclude the F22
>Just because we’re *maybe* making more f15ex
No it's a done deal. These planes are replacing old F15-Cs right now.
>making more f15ex to fill non stealth roles means nothing about the f35
The premise of the JSF program was that they're WEREN'T going to enough roles to justify the existence of a fleet of non-stealthy combat jets. That's why it was necessary to build a family of low-RCS jets to replace all late the late cold-war era designs. The JSF was suposed to be an inexpensive multi-role plane that formed the mass of an air-force, not an high-end speartip the way it's used now. If that was the plan from the get-go, it would have made way more sense to build navalized/multirole/export-friendly designs based on the more capable F22 and continue to upgrade the low-end force with gen4++ designs. It likely would have save a lot of money in the long run. The F35 isn't a failure because it's a bad platform per see, but that it hasn't and will never deliver on the fundamentally flawed concept it's built around.
