Where do you come up with this crap? Nobody knows anything about these issues except some people in the program office who, I can assure you, aren't whispering things in your ear. Tell us what your qualifications are to pass judgement on the aircraft absent any access to the OT&E data?
The B is the foundation of future USMC airpower. It will get built and go into service. Period. If you think I'm kidding, low how the Marines bulldozed the V-22 through. NAVAIR cancelled that program nine different times. The Marines have a lobbying arm that is underestimated only at one's peril. If necessary there will be an inspection and repair cycle added to the aircraft's maintenance package until the Dilberts come up with a permanent cure. My guess is the cure will be figured out very soon. How expensive the cure is remains to be seen. The Harrier is tired and will be removed from service regardless, so the F-35B is a must build.
The only consideration I see is whether the Marines replace everything with the F-35B or the Navy is able to force them to replace some of the older F/A-18 force with F/A-18E/F's to fill out carrier air groups as the Navy wants.
actually i just looked back at my post and yea, kinda realized i made a bunch of mistakes here and there, so those are just my opinions. and actually i'll take back my statement regarding it like f-18c. however, i really do, dont believe in an all-rounded fighter that u can put for all walks of the armed forces. every branch has their own requirements, especially when it comes to theater, mission requirements, environments, objectives.
stating in advance, of course i dont have any qualifications or wtsoever, so if u're gonna say im wrong or disagree with wt i've said, get straight into it and can save the insults. im just a member with some thoughts, and definitely not looking for any arguments as im not as learned as some other members here.
anyways, an example i'd wanna make is a-10 vs f-35 when it comes to CAS or missions involving high levels of anti-air threats. A-10 is known for its durability and armor, and i'd doubt the f-35 have these same capabilities. however of course the f-35 has wt the a-10 doesnt: stealth. despite that though, while f-35 may have a higher mission success rate from its stealth, i'd think it has a lower survivability than a-10 since it cant absorb the beatings that the a-10 can take. of course we can say, with stealth, armor is less likely to be a matter, and armor is less useful when stealth can ensure a higher mission survival rate. however my point is that a-10 is specifically designed for ground attack role, and its design, natures will orient on wt to expect in those battlefield conditions. in contrast, f-35 may be stealthy, but as in other threads that others have mentioned before, even a stealth aircraft can be more vulnerable in hot zones, therefore stealth only ensures higher elusion rate, but definitely won't guarantee survival after being hit(while a-10 might stand more chance). correct me if im wrong, but i also get the idea that a damaged stealth figher is particularly more vulnerable with a higher radar return due to the damages or loss of certain capabilities. for these reasons, i'd naturally believe the a-10 is more capable for these roles with its design (such as thick armor) as opposed to f-35's design, which is meant to be multirole, and all- roundedness. in such a way, it may be all-rounded, but the airframe and design may not be completely oriented for the mission requirement, thus wont perform as good as those specialized in one area.
my guesses apply to why i'd think su-33, f-14, would make a better maritime fighter, su-34 for fighter bomber role, f-16/15 for dogfighting. they may not be stealthy like the f-35, but according to wt i've heard(dun ask me for source. i didnt make it up, but i dun remember where i've heard it anymore.), f-35's aerial fighting capabilities aren't all that good at all. also its max speed is <mach 2, whereas all those planes i've mentioned were capable of that.(im not implying speed is anything) f-14 was designed for the carrier, su-33 as well(also with a flanker airframe+canards, we know pretty much where it's at in terms of dogfight capabilities). f-15 was naturally for air superiority(we know where it's at), f-16 is a dogfighter,
of course if the f-35 is proven to be very capable for dogfights, then i'd take that back too. anyways my whole point is that, an all-rounded fighter is less likely to achieve/tackle the most specific requirements of a certain role, because it was meant more to be all-rounded, than to be specialized. kinda like why there's no such things as all-rounded doctors, but there are brain surgeons. (or why a 18 wheeler cant also be a rally car and for drifting)
once again, if im wrong, no need to ridicule me. just point it out, save the insults, explain why im wrong, and no need to throw a fit. thanks