Quote:I don't claim to be an expert in any field necessary to understand this but, I do wonder how hard it has to be to develop a jet that can maneuver, fire rockets, fire bombs and land on a carrier.... Those are the requirements right? Or is there another function I am missing? I am truly interested in this. 

 

In addition, couldn't they just fully upgrade all the tech and roll out new F-16's if they are still the top dogs?

The argument against F-16s is that they're a 40-year-old platform. Never mind that they're a 40-year-old platform that can still kick the crap out of anything today, but, you know...

 

The JSF's problem, imo, is that it's designed to do too much. It's supposed to replace the USAF's F-16s (meaning it needs to be an air superiority fighter with ground attack capability), the Marines' AV-8B Harriers (meaning it needs strong ground attack capability with vertical takeoff and landing) and to help replace several Navy aircraft with varying missions (meaning it needs to take off and land from carriers).

 

You can make minor tweaks here and there, for example, a weaker landing gear on the USAF version since it won't be slamming into moving target runways at 160 kts. or an auxiliary lift jet in the Marines' version, but at the end of the day, you're trying to build a single airframe that can be the best air superiority fighter in the world, one of the best light bombers in the world, and one of the best forward air support aircraft in the world. If you're keeping track at home, that means that the same aircraft has to be able to do the jobs of the F-14 Tomcat and the A-10 Warthog. Find me two more dissimilar combat aircraft in the world. I triple-dog-dare you.

 

Optimization for multiple roles means superiority in none. It's the same reason that you don't ask one player to be your starting running back, your kicker and your free safety, no matter how good that player is in all three roles. If you have a running back that can play some safety and be an emergency fill-in, cool, but you don't sign a running back expecting him to be your top safety as well.

 

The F-35 is a story of compromises (and going back and reading about its history is actually someplace between funny and sad), and when you make too many compromises, mediocrity is the result. I wouldn't be shocked if, ultimately, one or more of the F-35 variants ends up on the scrap heap as a result. No one person or party is to blame. Trying to fill three completely different jobs with one airframe was a terrible idea from the start, and now we're seeing what happens when a bean-counter walks into the room and asks if we could save some money by designing one aircraft instead of three.

---