we lost the capacity to build them? i wasn't aware of that. when did that happen? maybe we could pay the Chinese to build them?

It would be akin to asking Ford to start making 1976 Mustangs again. Just a lot more complicated and expensive.

Not even sure if the company that built A-10s is even still in business.

As far as the a-10 goes, I was just reading where the new retrofit has extended their service life to 2028 and beyond.

Not really, no.

Would it cost a few billion in development and $200 million per plane?

no, it would not.

It would be a lot more than the "last one they bought" cost. Then if you add in the costs associated with what would be a defunct JSF program, then yea. They would be a lot of money.

What would be the advantage of discarding the advances of the JSF and taking a step or three backwards and building more legacy airframes?

The F-15 is still in production as is the F-18
Dunno about the F-16.

The pentagon forces manufactures to scrap the tooling after production ceases thus to insure there's no going back. It costs money to store of em', also.

So your plan is to keep throwing good money after bad.

If you're going to be spending money, does it make sense to step forward or backwards?

Google says F-15's are built in export variations. I was unaware that people were still buying F-15s. The F-16s are built for export as well.

The Harrier and A-10 are definitely dust in the wind, however.

It makes sense to put money into developing drones, cyber warfare and keeping the fleet going. That's an appropriate step forward.

Seems we can produce brand new versions of pretty much anything. Let's do that rather than getting a few politicians re-elected.

A strong economy is one of the best weapons we have.

The F35 weakens our economy. It weakens us as a country.

The F15 has never been defeated in aerial combat against an enemy. The did have an issue with a select run of them having the possibility that they would break apart just aft of the canopy and a couple have. That has been fixed. The F16 was and is a good lightweight fighter that happens to be a decent platform for moving mud. The F/A 18 was designed as a multirole aircraft from the start, just as the F35. The YF17 was slightly smaller and was in the flyoff against the F16 is what the F/A18 was based on but the YF17 and F/A18 are not the same airframe. The F14 was a very capable aircraft as well. That being said, they are old and should be replaced. The F15 with the F22 and the F16 and F/A 18 with someting else. I don't believe that the F35 is the answer here but that deciscion has long passed under the bus. I am not sure the right decision was made between the two competing aircraft, but I am not privy to all the information available. I do know that in the history of the US of A a jack of all trades made from scratch airframe has never worked because everything is too much of a compromise. A single airframe to work between the Navy and Airforce is tough enough, and yes the F4 was an exceptional design at the time, designing an airframe for VTOL as well makes no sense. I like the commonality angle, but for components only not entire airframes. I know the airframes arent the same but similar in the A/B/C models. They should talk to each other as well, but we cant get the F22 and F35 to talk and they are from the same manufacturer.

Shaun, as for contemporary enemy aircraft there are several from other countries that are newer and as capable as our older fleet. They are also building 5th generation aircraft to go against our 4th generation fleet and F22s. Keep in mind also that we are outnumbered by two countries where a 2:1 kill ratio would still be a losing ratio.

This is all from a layman's perspective so take it for what it is. There are far more qualified people here that probably have the info that would help settle the debate but would be prohibited from dispensing such info.

Sorry, that was a long post to say we are probably now nearly evenly matched in hardware for a close in dogfight but I don't think the F35 is the answer. An aircraft with common parts similar to the auto industry would work better. You know, engine, transmission, steering wheels...

Thanks for all the feedback.

My original post was prompted by the sequester. I think its important for our country to have a top rate air force. I'm not qualified to say if the F-35 is the right plane for the job. We certainly should not pull the plug on it, given the massive investment already. But we could slow the program down. Sounds like the software hasn't even been started yet. Spend 5 years getting the platform setup properly (like a 944 ;)).

Good article here: The Pentagon's F-35: The Most Expensive Weapon Ever Built - TIME

Even if you do, you had better be absolutely certain of it, as the risk if mistaken is high.

Req. creep and multi-platforming the thing slows down deployment, letting the fast rising curve of drone capability catch up and assume more and more missions.

Then there is the issue of sunk costs...

I would question the finance of the F-35 project in general but in the same vain I would challenge anyone who thinks we're good with what we have to read their history books.

By staying ahead of the curve and not kicking back if a situation does arise where force is required - our forces will be better prepared to deal with it quickly and with fewer casualties on our side.

In a fair fight both sides take a lot of damage. We should be making sure that it isn't a fair fight and the advantage is ours.

The f-35 may not be the answer - I can handle that. I cannot say we should stick with the planes we have though - it's bad policy and not good for our future in many different ways that I already outlined.

Beyond that, drones are much more vulnerable to ASAT capabilities than a manned fleet, as long as the latter has point to point C&C at the tactical level.

One could argue that it strengthens a segment of the economy vital to both military ar ops., manf. and to the direction that comm'l aviation is headed now too.

If you enjoy losing arguments, sure.

I am finding this an interesting thread as our government is dithering (as per usual) over plans to purchase F-35's. The buggers have to do something fairly soon as our fleet of F-18's are pretty much near the end of their service life. I have some strong opinions about the present state of Canada's armed forces - a lot of very brave & dedicated personel are having to make-do with obsolete & worn out equipment. I'll bet a lot of my American brothers & sisters could make the same case. The world just ain't that safe at the moment. I hope that last bit isn't too parfy.

Cheers
JB

If I remember correctly, this is a quite unique (and brilliant) program. The PM has sourced the program out to literally all 50 states doing a piece here/piece there scenario. Why is this brilliant? Each of those pieces brings jobs/responsibility to that state/congressional district. Typically, politics plays a huge role in our acquisition programs because every politician wants to be able to say that they brought jobs to their district--military industrial complex does just that. Politicians in other districts have no vested interest in a program that doesn't benefit their citizenry, so they're quick to try to cut that program (especially if it's as expensive one as this). With the way the PM marketed out bits/pieces all over the country, now none of the politicians really want to scrap the program because they all have a vested interest since it's employing people in their district. NO politician wants to be "that guy" who lost jobs for their state.