Supply chain issues are affecting everyone industry wide. There is only so much material and parts to go around.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The last few years they have been producing around 150/yr. It was slower early on as there was concurrent development. Also don't be misled by the first flew date - that is somewhat meaningless. Real production only really began about a decade ago and even then it has been in "Low Rate Inital Production" (LRIP) since. Larger production rates could have been done especially if JPO (primarily the US Govt) allowed multi year production contracts. Remember also that something like 1000 have been produced to date.For an aircraft that first flew 17 years ago, the production rate does seem abysmal. Is the F-35 made of unobtanium ?
If only bleeding edge aircraft could be built out of BS. There's so much available.Supply chain issues are affecting everyone industry wide. There is only so much material and parts to go around.
Good to know. Are they reaching or exceeding that?The production rate was never envisioned to be over 175 a/c a year......
I'll be 103 if I'm luckier, I think.Well, it took fifty-two years from 1972 until today to produce less than 2,000 F-15 Eagles of all sorts (F-15A/B/C/D/J/DJ/E).
So, if we can see the 2,000th F-35 by 2058, fifty-two years after the first production Lightning rolled off the line in Dec 2006 that will be on about par.
I'll be 87 years old then, if I'm lucky.
Ship # 2000 should be off the production line in 2029. Production has already surpassed 1000 aircraft.So, if we can see the 2,000th F-35 by 2058, fifty-two years after the first production Lightning rolled off the line in Dec 2006 that will be on about par.
I see that now. Good stuff.Ship # 2000 should be off the production line in 2029. Production has already surpassed 1000 aircraft.
I do agree, though, that the UK (in reality the RAF/FAA) were overwhelmingly led by former Harrier mates who wanted to keep doing the STOVL thing. Looked at objectively, the F-35C was a much better choice, offering more weapons carrying capacity and longer range. Sadly, the UK didn't opt for it and instead went with the F-35B which lugs around an entirely separate lift engine as dead weight that's only used during take-off and landing.
At over £20 billion for two carriers and forty-eight F-35s, not including the cost of rotaries and personnel, I think the Brits would have been better off with another six Astute class SSNs at £2 billion a piece (along with more Type 45s). It's below the surface where the RN can strike the greater terror upon Britannia's foes.* Keeping in mind the UK's much smaller defense budget and their hard fight to even have and keep ANY aircraft carriers.
Looked at objectively*, the F-35B was a much better choice - offering a higher sortie rate; operability in higher sea states and worse weather; reduced training requirements for the "flying-off and landing-on" phases of carrier ops; significantly reduced personnel, materials, equipment, and maintenance costs by not installing the EMALS catapult system or the AAG arresting system; lower cost per airframe than F-35C; and a virtually eliminated need for extra "recovery tanker" aircraft to cover failed landings that almost never happen with the F-35B.
* Keeping in mind the UK's much smaller defense budget and their hard fight to even have and keep ANY aircraft carriers.
Combat radius (same payload):I can buy the reduced training requirements. However, not sure about the "signficantly" modifier for reduced personnel, materials, equipment and maintenance costs. Yes, they would likely be lower but not sure the delta is as substantial as you make out.
The key challenge from my perspective is that the F-35B has a considerably shorter range than the F-35C. That means the aircraft carrier must get more than a few hundred miles closer to the target. Given the pacing threat that China presents, that seems a rather short-sighted decision, IMHO...and puts these capital ships at considerably higher risk of being sunk.
If you're going to spend the all the cash the UK did on F-35s and 2 new, and rather large, aircraft carriers, scrimping on the catapult and arrestor gear smacks of spoiling the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar, IMHO.
Combat radius (same payload):
F-35A 590nm (1,093km)
F-35B 450nm (833km)
F-35C 600nm (1,100lm)
That 450nm combat radius matches the AV-8B and exceeds the F/A-18C/D (400nm).
It also exceeds the 405 nm combat radius of the FA.2 Sea Harrier.
Comparing the F-35B to the FA.2 (and GR.7/9) is exactly what the RN did - those being their most recently-operated carrier aircraft, and thus what they had the most experience with planning missions/strikes for.Comparing the F-35B to the SHAR FA2 or the F/A-18 is irrelevant. The QEII class carriers were designed from the outset for the F-35. Buying the B-variant that has 150nm shorter range than the C-variant means that those expensive carriers, that are high-value targets for any adversary, must get 150nm closer to the threat before they can launch. While those figures are for comparable loads, they fail to account for the fact that the B-variant has less weapon load capacity which means more sorties to deliver the same weight of weapons.
The whole point of aircraft carriers is power projection. With the F-35B, the UK can't project as far and it can't deliver as big a punch when the aircraft get to their destination. That's strategically short-sighted, IMHO.
Comparing the F-35B to the FA.2 (and GR.7/9) is exactly what the RN did - those being their most recently-operated carrier aircraft, and thus what they had the most experience with planning missions/strikes for.
For the RN they still launch from the same distance, no problem.
What cost the loss of one of the two carriers to budget costs before the first shot is ever fired?
And of the significant likelihood that your sole remaining carrier is unavailable when one is needed right now?
Remember, the RN has already had that happen.. remember when POW was scheduled for exercises with the USN in the western Atlantic but her starboard prop shaft failed and she went into drydock for repairs... but QE was sent instead?
And when QE was pulled from a NATO exercise with the same problem just fixed on POW - and POW went in her place?
Two carriers, even with slightly less-capable aircraft, is far better than only one with slightly more-capable aircraft.