1:48 Saab Gripen B

[KSaarni]

Nice choices for Finland. Although the F-35 is a very expensive aircraft. I watched an episode of Air Warriors on the F-35 not too long ago. I personally don't like the looks of the F-35. Too futuristic for my taste.

I am not either so fond of the F-35, not at all used yo it looks, not at all..

- Kari

[Stikpusher]

Nice choices for Finland. Although the F-35 is a very expensive aircraft. I watched an episode of Air Warriors on the F-35 not too long ago. I personally don't like the looks of the F-35. Too futuristic for my taste.

When you see them in person, they start to grow on you. My personal thoughts on it are that it is a fine replacement for the AV-8, Legacy Hornets, and F-16. The A-10? No way Jose! But especially for the Marines, it gives a major upgrade in capabilities for VSTOL aircraft. Especially operating off of the Essex class ships. I mean let’s face it, the aircraft that it will replace are old now. Designed in the 70s and first fielded in the 80s, they have been in service since the Cold War. And with the re appearance of near peer adversaries who are getting pretty bold in their actions, waiting for another design to come along is not an option.

[BlackSheep214]

An interesting tidbit from that episode of Air Warriors. Did you know after each flight mission return to base, they have to check for any minor imperfections in their stealth coating? Even the slightest imperfection, they have to repaint that whole affected stealth coating.

Don't get me wrong, it is a great stealth fighter with advanced technology. However, it does have its drawbacks: Weight, decreased acceleration, it burns more fuel, very limited capability in a dogfight, the manpower to build (6000 engineers compared to 50 for the F-117 Nighthawk) and cost. Is it worth the $150 trillion dollars each? No.

Here's a link explaining why the F-35 Lightning is so expensive:

http://www.migflug.com/jetflights/f-35- ... -ever.html

[Stikpusher]

Until the 35 goes to war against the sort of enemy that it was designed to fight, a high threat environment, we won’t know if it is worth the cost or not. Dropping bombs against an insurgent force in the Misdle East that has no air defense capabilities can be done by anything that we have had operational for the past 30 years or so. Sort of like the F-117’s first combat sorties in Panama. Using it just to say it has been used. But if they have to “go downtown” against an integrated air defense system, the JSF is the best bet that we have currently operational. B-2 and F-22s are too few in numbers and have other primary missions. The F-117 has been retired.
I’m sort of reminded of the early 80s during the early years of the Reagan rearmament programs. The press derided every new expensive aircraft, ship, tank, and other weapons system that was being developed and fielded. When they were all put to the acid test of combat in 1991 in Desert Storm, those items performed as promised, if not better. Does the F-35 have issues? Certainly. So did the F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, M1, M2, MLRS, etc... in their early days. Now those are the combat proven gold standard.