What is the point of this? They are barely similar at all

File: 1471752820122.gif (3MB, 512x288px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 512x288px

>>33255715
It's got SOME parts that it shares commonality with. Admittedly the designers massively exaggerated how similar the three variants are.

>>33255715
reminder that C tailplanes best tailplanes

>>33255715
roughly 30% is common to all 3 models, splitting the cost 3 ways

Another 30% is common between 2 models in a mix and match fashion to split the casts 2 ways between models

40% of each is entirely unique at full price

This means developing all three variants cost roughly the same as developing 2 separate projects.

>>33255715
3 different services each with their own requirements for range, STOL or VTOL, loadout etc.

But capability of a 5th gen stealth multirole fighter remains the same in all

>>33256023
Wouldn't two projects have been better?

The F-35B is too limited and a separate design may have been better i.e. better capability on its own and less restricting on the A & C variants

Alternative B & C could be similar and a different CTOL airframe

>>33256455
>The F-35B is too limited and a separate design may have been better i.e. better capability
How?
> less restricting on the A & C variants
Literally nonsense memery. The A came before the B.
>Alternative B & C could be similar and a different CTOL airframe
No. B/C conflict very much in purpose and usage, and therefore design.

>>33256455
If they went with 3 separate programs there wouldn't have been 3 separate programs.

Instead the USMC would get a marginally upgraded Harrier that's vastly inferior to the F-35B, the USAF would have just got something almost identical to the F-35A anyway and the USN might have just bought more Super Hornets.

Not all parts are the same.

Different shaped composite wing panels for example cost a fraction of the; engine, radar, avionics, EW suite, and software.

Comparing common percentages of the aircraft ignores the difference in development and manufacturing costs of various components.

File: 1487383609226m.jpg (44KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1024x683px

>>33255715
Are you retarded?
Do you have any idea how manufacturing works?
Making 1 part that fits all 3 variants reduces costs by a huge margin.
(Although the f35A will be WAY more common)

In the long run, the F35 will be cheaper to maintain than our current jets
Excluding the f22

- aerospace welder
F35 & f22 afterburners

>>33256455
>Wouldn't two projects have been better?
For 2 of the services, possibly. the third would have nothing
or
2 would have programs having compromised funding to limp dick a 3rd design

>The F-35B is too limited and a separate design may have been better
What limitations does the F-35 have compared to what It's replacing, Ie the Harrier

>less restricting on the A & C variants
What restrictions do you think these planes have from the B? The space that was for the lift fan is instead drastically increased internal fuel tankage

>Alternative B & C could be similar and a different CTOL airframe
That would work, other than the fact that the design requirement for both the Marines and the Bonglanders who where working with us on the project was STOVL
And the navy would NOT EVER take a CTOL, They would mandate barrier assisted recovery and with good reason.

>>33255715

Did they ever think about using a twin engine design for the A and C model and leave the single large engine for the B?

>>33260300

It seems unlikely, the F-135 was developed relatively early, and the F-35A is replacing the single engine F-16. With the success of the F-16 as a single engine aircraft, I wouldn't imagine they would see the need.