# F35C...How Much !!!!



## fastmongrel (Jul 31, 2014)

We knew the F35 was going to be expensive but  

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-much-does-an-f-35-actually-cost-21f95d239398


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 31, 2014)




----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 31, 2014)

Well when you have fixed cost allocated only over fewer units than it will be more expensive. I am surprised that the USN is buying so few of them.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 31, 2014)

We cannot afford them.


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 31, 2014)

Yikes!


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 31, 2014)

Ooohhhhh kay then...at that price, the Airforce, the Marines and the Navy only get one each.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 31, 2014)

If the Canadian government is still seriously thinking about buying these, I will personally bring the government down.(and if CSIS is monitoring this, I'm just kidding). I'd write more but someone just knocked at the door, I'll be right ba

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 31, 2014)

Well ok Geo, Canada can have one also.


----------



## Crimea_River (Jul 31, 2014)

syscom3 said:


> We cannot afford them.



Nor can we but the government hasn't had the balls to cancel the order yet. It is "under review".


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 1, 2014)

I cannot seriously believe the USMC have bought this gold plated Turkey. I thought the Marines were the sensible guys who left the fancy stuff to the USAAF and USN.


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 2, 2014)

Let's see....how many Lancasters, Spitfires, Mosquitoes etc., etc., do I get for a F-35.....hmmmm.....


----------



## Marcel (Aug 3, 2014)

Oh, please, please, let a saner head in our government prevail and let us by a more affordable option. The F35 is overrated and overpriced for us.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## beaupower32 (Aug 5, 2014)

The U.S. DOD announced an agreement aimed at reducing the price of an F-35 to the equivalent of today's 4th generation fighters by the end of the decade known as Blueprint for Affordability on July 10.

The U.S. government has stated the projected cost of an F-35 purchased in 2018 will be $85 million. That’s the equivalent of $75 million today.

More than $500 million reduction in concurrency costs over the first five production lot contracts.

Unit costs have dropped more than 55 percent since the procurement of the first production aircraft.

The average aircraft unit cost for an LRIP 6 aircraft is approximately 2.5 percent lower than LRIP 5 aircraft. An LRIP 7 aircraft has an average unit cost approximately six percent lower than LRIP 5 aircraft.

LRIP 6 Aircraft Costs (not including engine):
23 F-35As CTOL - $103 million/jet
6 F-35B STOVL - $109 million/jet
7 F-35C CV - $120 million/jet

LRIP 7 Aircraft Costs (not including engine):
24 F-35As CTOL - $98 million/jet
7 F-35B STOVL - $104 million/jet
4 F-35C CV - $116 million/jet

The website that it was posted on, I wouldnt believe. Here are the numbers I have, and are no where close to what they are talking about. This is as of 29 July 2014

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 24, 2014)

A good article on the F-35.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTT35_AoFhM_


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 24, 2014)

Didn't one crash just recently? 
Still, too many gimmicks on it that can malfunction, internal weapon bay(?) etc...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 24, 2014)

Lucky13 said:


> Didn't one crash just recently?


NOPE! One had an engine fire that the press made look like a nuclear meltdown. 


Lucky13 said:


> Still, too many gimmicks on it that can malfunction, internal weapon bay(?) etc...


It has a lot of "stuff" added on to it, some of this at the direction of the Pentagon (check out the article and see the different configurations planned for this aircraft, with and without operational weapons bays). Remember, these are just options and not all operators will use some of these goodies.


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 24, 2014)

Just remembered something regarding the '35, never bothered to read any further, too modern and ugly.... 

What is it Murphy's Law say about 'stuff' break down? Instead for just the missile malfunctioning, you've got them there doors that can leave your *rse hanging over the fence as well...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 24, 2014)

Lucky13 said:


> Just remembered something regarding the '35, never bothered to read any further, too modern and ugly....


Oh Jan, you're so nostalgic, LOL!


Lucky13 said:


> What is it Murphy's Law say about 'stuff' break down? Instead for just the missile malfunctioning, you've got them there doors that can leave your *rse hanging over the fence as well...


That could be said about anything in a modern aircraft, that why we test the sh!t out of them and identify the flaws now, but the modern media either dosents understand that or chooses to ignore it.

Every modern fighter has it's bugs that needs to be worked out, the F-14 crashed on one if it's first flights! Imagine if that happened to the F-35 today!


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfM5FxnWPm4_


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 24, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Oh Jan, you're so nostalgic, LOL!
> 
> That could be said about anything in a modern aircraft, that why we test the sh!t out of them and identify the flaws now, but the modern media either dosents understand that or chooses to ignore it.
> 
> ...




You couldn't shout it out any louder could you!? 

True, Gripen crashed twice, one crash was in Stockholm, not the best of publicity, eh? 

Still, doesn't matter how much you test.....Murphy _will_ find a way, he always will!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 24, 2014)

Lucky13 said:


> You couldn't shout it out any louder could you!?






Lucky13 said:


> True, Gripen crashed twice, one crash was in Stockholm, not the best of publicity, eh?
> 
> Still, doesn't matter how much you test.....Murphy _will_ find a way, he always will!



YUP!!!


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 24, 2014)

My personal take on it as a UK taxpayer is its a whole heap of money for something that isnt what the country needs. We cant afford to do some vital upgrades on the Typhoon never mind throw gazillions into a hole in the air. In 10 or 15 years time it might be the greatest thing to fly since the invention of the wing but at the moment its an overweight, underpowered, short legged, gold plated knacker which is making the UK defence budget stink. 

It has to work and it has to work 100% better than its showing at the moment because we are too far down the line now the money will never be recovered. If in 10 or 15 years time it still doesnt live up to the bullmanure then the wests air forces are in trouble because you can be damn sure the Russians and Chinese are working on planes to cream the Fattie 35 out of the sky. 

No one should ever put all there money into one scheme however good it looks just in case it turns out to be a dirty great Ponzi.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 24, 2014)

fastmongrel said:


> My personal take on it as a UK taxpayer is its a whole heap of money for something that isnt what the country needs. We cant afford to do some vital upgrades on the Typhoon never mind throw gazillions into a hole in the air. In 10 or 15 years time it might be the greatest thing to fly since the invention of the wing but at the moment its an overweight, underpowered, short legged, gold plated knacker which is making the UK defence budget stink.


 Well that's something the MOD should have thought of when the project was being developed. BAE partnered with LMCO during the development and don't know how much if any "after the fact add ons were induced by the MOD. Lockheed just didn't offer this aircraft as an unsolicited project, there was a flyoff and winner declared and all the F-35 partners had a part in developing the procurement spec for this aircraft.

As far as a Chinese version - I'll believe it when I see it. In the mean time they're still producing a lot of licensed built products with 30 year old technology.


fastmongrel said:


> *It has to work and it has to work 100% better than its showing at the moment *because we are too far down the line now the money will never be recovered. If in 10 or 15 years time it still doesnt live up to the bullmanure then the wests air forces are in trouble because you can be damn sure the Russians and Chinese are working on planes to cream the Fattie 35 out of the sky.


By who's opinion? It's still being developed!! EVERY modern fighter aircraft has bugs to work out and this is no exception. As I showed earlier, the first F-14 crashed. The F-16 and F-22 prototypes also had crashes when they were under development and the F-15 was grounded the first week it went into service due to engine issues. The performance issues are being amplified by an anti-defense, anti-aviation media who doesn't even differentiate between the three versions and their mission.


fastmongrel said:


> No one should ever put all there money into one scheme however good it looks just in case it turns out to be a dirty great Ponzi.


I agree with that somewhat. I think too many after the fact mods are being done to the aircraft driving up the costs. This contract is firm fixed price which means that the cost over-runs have to be approved by the pentagon. I don't know how foreign operators will negotiate or enforce this but I could tell you the US media either chooses to ignore or doesn't have a clue about the way military aircraft are produced and paid for. In the mean time the flight tests at EDW continues and over 100 F-35s have been produced.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 24, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I agree with that somewhat. *I think too many after the fact mods are being done to the aircraft driving up the costs. * This contract is firm fixed price which means that the cost over-runs have to be approved by the pentagon. I don't know how foreign operators will negotiate or enforce this but I could tell you the US media either chooses to ignore or doesn't have a clue about the way military aircraft are produced and paid for. In the mean time the flight tests at EDW continues and over 100 F-35s have been produced.


How many threads exist in this forum, regarding the exact same problem with the exception that it's with WWII era warplanes?

As soon as you get more than one member of the Brass in the room, you'll have a need for more than one feature. It has always been this way.

Let's just be glad that the DoD doesn't insist that the F-35 be dive-bomb capable...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 24, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> How many threads exist in this forum, regarding the exact same problem with the exception that it's with WWII era warplanes?
> 
> As soon as you get more than one member of the Brass in the room, you'll have a need for more than one feature. It has always been this way.
> 
> Let's just be glad that the DoD doesn't insist that the F-35 be dive-bomb capable...



Yep! As I said before, people think that the "Military Industrial Complex" is a guy like Howard Hughes or Tony Stark sitting in a mahogany office some where peddling their wares on the US taxpayer when in fact it's people at the Pentagon and at Wright Patterson who justify their jobs by continually coming up with more necessities, and this is not only with the F-35.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 24, 2014)

Totally agree...and while I am thinking about it, didn't the early F-111 have a bad habit of losing it's wings until it was withdrawn from service and a new, improved titanium wing pivot installed?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 24, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> Totally agree...and while I am thinking about it, didn't the early F-111 have a bad habit of losing it's wings until it was withdrawn from service and a new, improved titanium wing pivot installed?



Horizontal stabilizer issues. The media crucified this aircraft but it became a pretty potent combat aircraft in it's own right.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 25, 2014)

When I was in the USAF in the 1980s, they were testing the Blackhawk helicopter, and losing many. We used to say that the Blackhawk killed more Marines than the Vietcong. Today, they have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan, and damn near everywhere else. As I am sure Adler will tell you, they are damn good ships now.


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 25, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> How many threads exist in this forum, regarding the exact same problem with the exception that it's with WWII era warplanes?
> 
> As soon as you get more than one member of the Brass in the room, you'll have a need for more than one feature. It has always been this way.
> 
> Let's just be glad that the DoD doesn't insist that the F-35 be dive-bomb capable...



Well, if I remember correctly, I saw somewhere that the Lancaster would cost £500.000 in todays money and with the cost of the F-22/F-35, it's no wonder that they get as much 'on the air' time as they do, don't want them to end up as poster boys now, do we?

As for the dive bombing capabilities, it's not too late yet.... 



evangilder said:


> When I was in the USAF in the 1980s, they were testing the Blackhawk helicopter, and losing many. We used to say that the Blackhawk killed more Marines than the Vietcong. Today, they have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan, and damn near everywhere else. As I am sure Adler will tell you, they are damn good ships now.



Just a question out curiosity here, how many Blackhawks to a F-35 (or F-22)?


----------



## evangilder (Aug 25, 2014)

Different mission altogether, so it's not an apples to apples comparison, Jan.


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 25, 2014)

_That many..._


----------



## stona (Aug 25, 2014)

It's still a snip compared to a B-2 bomber. We'd better hope that the F-35's raison d'etre doesn't disappear before it comes into service as the B-2s did.
Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 25, 2014)

Lucky13 said:


> Well, if I remember correctly, I saw somewhere that the Lancaster would cost £500.000 in todays money)


Consider that's just for a WW2 airframe. Today's avionics are worth just as much as the airframe.


----------



## stona (Aug 25, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Consider that's just for a WW2 airframe. Today's avionics are worth just as much as the airframe.



A Lancaster, late war, was absolutely crammed with state of the art electronics too. I don't know what the relative price of the aircraft and its electronic systems might have been, but the latter would have been a significant cost.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 25, 2014)

stona said:


> A Lancaster, late war, was absolutely crammed with state of the art electronics too. I don't know what the relative price of the aircraft and its electronic systems might have been, but the latter would have been a significant cost.
> Cheers
> Steve


State of the art electronics back then consisted of vacuum tube radios, ADFs and radar on some aircraft, now we're looking at GPS' onboard computers, and even computerized environmental systems. The gun sight on an F-35 is probably more complicated than a whole Lancaster airframe!


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 25, 2014)

If you want to talk about fly-away cost in comparisson, then look at how much the B-29 cost per final unit back during the war...


----------



## stona (Aug 25, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> State of the art electronics back then consisted of vacuum tube radios, ADFs and radar on some aircraft, now we're looking at GPS' onboard computers, and even computerized environmental systems. The gun sight on an F-35 is probably more complicated than a whole Lancaster airframe!



Indeed, but those electronic components cost relatively more than a solid state equivalent today. All those valves, gas discharge tubes (spark gap/nullode) etc were expensive to make, modern transistors and chips are two a penny. take a look at a 1940s triode to see what I mean. Even the CRT for the display was an expensive piece of kit, just look at the relative cost of a television in the 1960s and today. I used to do a bit of electronics as a hobby in the old days, much more fun than today 

I reckon a tail warning radar like 'Monica' would cost at least as much in corrected cost as an equivalent system today. How much would the infra red system to prevent 'blue on blue' incidents with friendly night fighters have cost? What about H2s or any of the other systems? These were expensive, state of the art systems in the 1940s, just as the systems fitted to modern aircraft are today.

Also a substantial cost in the development of any aircraft is in the R+D. This is spread across the units sold. The number of F-35s that must bear this cost is insignificant when compared to the numbers of Lancaster produced in WW2. R+D costs are negligible across several thousand aircraft produced, not so for something like the F-35 or B-2.

There is a bit of apples and oranges here! 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 25, 2014)

stona said:


> Indeed, but those electronic components cost relatively more than a solid state equivalent today.


I think it depends what you're looking at and what type of aircraft. For example, a P-61 flyaway cost was just under 200K (~2.6 million in 2014 dollars). Without radar and armamant I show sources saying $170K. The $30,000 difference 1944 dollars equate to just over $400,000 in todays dollars. I see articles saying the AN/APG-81 AESA Radar that goes into the F-35 costing $3 million a unit. $3 million dollars today would have been $224,000 in 1944 dollars.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 25, 2014)

Ive seen stuff published in the (RAAF) air force Newsletters. here is an extract from one of those articles

"The F-35A provides Australia with a fifth generation aircraft capability to enable air superiority into the future.

Australia has committed to 72 F-35A aircraft – comprised of three operational squadrons - two at RAAF Base Williamtown and one at RAAF Base Tindal. In addition, a training squadron will be based at RAAF Base Williamtown.

The first F-35 aircraft will arrive in Australia in 2018 and the first squadron, Number 3 Squadron, will be operational in 2021. All 72 aircraft are expected to be fully operational by 2023.

The total capital cost of $12.4 billion for this acquisition includes the cost of associated facilities, weapons and training.

Around $1.6 billion in new facilities and infrastructure will be constructed, including at RAAF Base Williamtown in New South Wales and RAAF Base Tindal in the Northern Territory.

In the future, a fourth operational squadron will be considered for RAAF Base Amberley, for a total of about 100 F-35A's.

The F-35A (commonly known as the Joint Strike Fighter) is the most suitable aircraft for Australia’s future air combat and strike needs, to replace the aging F/A-18A/B Hornets".

At $12.4 that runs to $172 million per copy, but that includes a lot of additional infrastructure and support.

Its pricey, unquestionably, but all the indicators are this will be a exceptionally capable aircraft. if it isn't, there are going to be seriously cranky customers.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 26, 2014)

Lucky13 said:


> Well, if I remember correctly, I saw somewhere that the Lancaster would cost £500.000 in todays money:



Surely someone was jesting, a lanc. has 4 Merlins, If you could build a new Lancaster for £500,000 there would be lancs all over, that is less than many people pay for a supercar or even a bloody Superman comic. Aircraft were expensive in WW2 and would be just as expensive today. As for the F35 I worry that it may be so expensive and therefore so few in service that it could be overwhelmed by massive numbers of low tech planes.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 28, 2014)

> The media crucified this aircraft but it became a pretty potent combat aircraft in it's own right.



It did, although the inlet boundary layer issues never quite disappeared. Nevertheless, exactly the same hoo haa in the media went on with the F-111 and the B-1 when it was conceived, the AMSA - America's Most Studied Airplane!



> Surely someone was jesting



I think you might be right, it costs a lot more to build a Spitfire than that. A Lanc would be a hell of a lot more.


----------



## beaupower32 (Sep 2, 2014)

pbehn said:


> As for the F35 I worry that it may be so expensive and therefore so few in service that it could be overwhelmed by massive numbers of low tech planes.



The F-35 is not going to be the only aircraft on the battlefield. I dont understand why people cant see this. You will still have all the same players we have today. The F-15, F-16, and F-22 will still be providing the air dominance role. The F-35 will be using stealth to attack ground targets. Once we have have control of the air, we will be loading up the aircraft with weapons to continue dropping bombs on target. Will the F-35 be able to defend itself, yes. It is very capable to do so.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 2, 2014)

Thanks for posting that Beau - hope alls well at "Eddie."


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 2, 2014)

Unless the gremlins find them first!


----------



## beaupower32 (Sep 2, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Thanks for posting that Beau - hope alls well at "Eddie."



Things here are good. Staying busy, lots of work happening on the planes, lots of flying as well. Lucky, we have employeed the gremlins and they do a fine job of getting into the hard to reach places. Only problem we have is they like to chew on the electrical harnesses, plus drink the jet fuel. Other than that they are great.


----------



## Marcel (Sep 4, 2014)

Well, everybody their own, but consider the situation. We are a small country. We only use our f-16's to bomb up some terrorist group in Afganistan or so. With the current cost, we can only afford 35 airframes of this F35. That's not really much. About 33% of those will be in maintenance at any given time, 50% will be abroad, training, flying missions to bomb the hell out some wooden huts with fancy laserguiden multi milion dollar bombs. That leaves only about 6 aircraft to defend our airspace. And I didn't include accidents that will happen, making this number even less.
Okay, it might be the best aircraft in the world, but that doesn't help you if you have so few. It didn't help the germans to have the me262 as they didn't have enough numbers to make any difference. Sheer numbers help. I'd rather have 60 Grippens than 35 F35's.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 4, 2014)

On the otherhand, Marcel...if the F-35 is adopted by several nations, there maybe some good deals to be had on F-18s


----------



## Marcel (Sep 4, 2014)

Yeah, I know, but the F18 was ruled out. It's too big and some of our 'brighter' politicians decided that a single engined aircraft is better. Why not have the latest version of the F-16? Would be a big improvement on our F16A's, it's rather cheap in comparison, would be easy to adopt since we had F16's for 40 years and is able to fullfill the missions that are flown at the moment. But no, we need the most modern plane, even if it means we could only afford one.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 4, 2014)

Well, there's always the F-15, if you want more bang for your buck.

As far as size goes, the F-15, F-16 and the F-18/CF-18 are all close in size (some a little longer, some a little wider) but all top performers. Though the F-15 is still a screamer at all altitudes.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 5, 2014)

beaupower32 said:


> The F-35 is not going to be the only aircraft on the battlefield. I dont understand why people cant see this. You will still have all the same players we have today. The F-15, F-16, and F-22 will still be providing the air dominance role. The F-35 will be using stealth to attack ground targets. Once we have have control of the air, we will be loading up the aircraft with weapons to continue dropping bombs on target. Will the F-35 be able to defend itself, yes. It is very capable to do so.


Beaupower, I fully appreciate that for the USA. However the UK has ordered the carrier version. We are building two carriers of which one will have the F35 and the other will probably be mothballed (a one for the price of two deal). We don't have enough vessels for a support fleet so any mission would be with a USA fleet. We would have done better just buying the planes and flying off US carriers if ever the need arose. The carriers are estimated to cost 16Bn US dollars and we don't have any other carrier capable A/C Awacs electronics warfare etc. For the UK the cost is eye watering and for the life of me I cant think of a mission they will perform that couldn't be done by anything from an F4 onwards.


----------



## beaupower32 (Sep 5, 2014)

pbehn said:


> Beaupower, I fully appreciate that for the USA. However the UK has ordered the carrier version. We are building two carriers of which one will have the F35 and the other will probably be mothballed (a one for the price of two deal). We don't have enough vessels for a support fleet so any mission would be with a USA fleet. We would have done better just buying the planes and flying off US carriers if ever the need arose. The carriers are estimated to cost 16Bn US dollars and we don't have any other carrier capable A/C Awacs electronics warfare etc.  For the UK the cost is eye watering and for the life of me I cant think of a mission they will perform that couldn't be done by anything from an F4 onwards.



Yes, I agree with you. But the 35 will give you a weapon system that is stealth capable. Nothing from the f4 on has that capability other than a select few. Also having the STOVL will give you supersonic aircraft, something the harrier can't do. Expensive, yes, but what program isn't.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 5, 2014)

It seems to me that the F-35 and the F-22 would be comparable in radar cross-section.

I know they're probably not as sneaky as the wobbly goblin, but that's my guess based on absolute untechnical eyeballing...


----------



## beaupower32 (Sep 6, 2014)

The cross section is very small. There is a story about a flight of f4s somewhere and they were on a mission. A F-22 snuck up behind them, flew under and around without the phantoms knowing, and said on the radio that they should probably go home. Pretty funny. Also rumor is the guys at red flag are mad because the Raptor guys are killing them so fast, that they are not getting the training they need.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 6, 2014)

Out of curiosity, why isn't the F-22 marketed more to NATO/Allied outfits? I thought, years ago, that the F-22 was supposed to be the bird of choice when it was being developed? It seems that they skipped over the F-22 from the F-18/CF-18 right to the F-35.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 6, 2014)

F-35 are still very capable air superiority platforms. Not as capable as the f-22, which is not for sale anyway, but still a complete generation ahead of the F-15 and F-18. Ive got some mates in the RAAF, and have heard them talking about this very issue. way over my head as far as the technology, but in summary they are saying the new F-35 will fly rings around our current F-18 Superhornets.....


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 6, 2014)

Well, several years ago (ok, it's been longer than that now, actually), I was led to believe that the F-22 was going to be a primary export platform...


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 6, 2014)

Stealth or not, as with every new technology, weapons, radar and whatnot, new countermeasures _is_ being developed behind the scenes (flying goblins or gremlins, who knows), for those nations who can't afford stealth, the heat signature from engines is something that you'll never get rid of, you can reduce it only that much, but not 100% hide it, same with stealth, that's the interesting thing with this, you never know what's around the corner and weapons are cheaper and quicker to develop than new aircraft, something _will_ show up, that will make those famous Phoenix look like granddad with a walking aid....when that happens, where do you stand, but with a very expensive turkey....

(Just the famous spanner in the works, again!)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 6, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> Out of curiosity, why isn't the F-22 marketed more to NATO/Allied outfits? I thought, years ago, that the F-22 was supposed to be the bird of choice when it was being developed? It seems that they skipped over the F-22 from the F-18/CF-18 right to the F-35.



The F-22 was prohibited from foreign sales in 1997, AFAIK it was never "offered" to other countries, but Australia and Japan expressed an interest in the aircraft. The F-22 came about from the ATF program and was never intended to have a dedicated air to ground role.


----------

