some F35 info

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

For an aircraft that first flew 17 years ago, the production rate does seem abysmal. Is the F-35 made of unobtanium ?
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
I'll be 103 if I'm luckier, I think.
 
Ship # 2000 should be off the production line in 2029. Production has already surpassed 1000 aircraft.
I see that now. Good stuff.

 
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.

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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back