Defense Issues

Military and general security

Why F-35 cannot replace Harrier

Posted by Picard578 on October 15, 2012

This is news from 16/9/2012:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/09/6_harrier_jets_destr.php

 

In short, 6 Harrier jets were destroyed and 2 damaged in Taliban attack. It drives home the point that air bases are bound to be attacked, and aircraft are bound to be attacked, regardless of type of war waged.

F-35 is supposed to replace Harrier. But when we compare them, F-35 costs 200 million USD per aircraft, whereas Harrier costs 30 million USD per aircraft. If these aircraft were F-35s, total damage would have exceeded 1 billion USD – not to mention health and environmental damage from toxic stealth coatings. Attack was done by 15 insurgents; what would have happened against well-trained spec ops team?

In any war, aircraft are bound to be destroyed – in air, and on the ground. Yet F-35s are simply to expensive and complicated to replace, not in small part thanks to their stealth coatings.

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Why F-35 cannot replace Harrier”

  1. Chris said

    Yes but this is what the MICC wants. If an expensive aircraft is destroyed, it’s all the more profitable to have it replaced. That and I imagine that the F-35 will have to spend a high proportion of it’s total time on the ground for maintenance, where it’s extremely vulnerable.

  2. […] "Defense Issues" העלה נקודה מטרידה נוספת. בשנת 2012 פשט כוח מחבלים מן הטאליבן על בסיס […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: