Quote:If you want to chop down a tree, you get an axe, right? What if you need to hammer in a nail? You'd get yourself a hammer. Of course, if you're a government contractor, you could spend $300 billion to design a tool that's an axe on one end of the handle and a hammer on the other. Is it going to do either job particularly well? No, but in theory, it's cheaper to buy an axehammer than it is to buy an axe and a hammer. See what I'm getting at?

 

The same concept applies to the JSF. Google "F-14 Tomcat" and "A-10 Warthog". Take a look at those two planes, maybe spend a couple of minutes reading up on what they were designed to do. The F-35 is supposed to play a part in replacing both of them. You can throw all the money and technology you want at an aircraft (and the government certainly has), but the mission requirements are just too divergent for it to ever be a solution that satisfies everyone. Right now, I think it'd be a stretch to say that it's satisfying anyone.

I am aware of the Warthog. I built model planes as a kid and had 4 of them. I suppose my confusion lies in the idea that I I thought the attempt was to replace three jets of similar style to the F-14, F-16 etc.. and just add enough utility that all branches would could use it. I mean what kind of fighter can house the cannon in the front of the warthog or the amount of armament it can carry on the wings?

---