Why F-35 cannot replace Harrier

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 thoughts on “Why F-35 cannot replace Harrier

  1. 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.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s