It boils down to degrees of scale.
The Israelis bought something like 40 planes, and plan to "use them on their neighbors." In other words, not their whole airforce, and not expected to operate at extended distances, nor in all climates and terrains. Has a specific expected job niche.
The USAF envisioned the plane as an F-16 replacement, and originally planned to buy over 1,000 of them (along with over 700 air superiority F-22s replacing the F-15s.)
The F-22 program was terminated at 187 examples. Now requiring more emphasis on the F-35 in air-to-air functions it was never optimized for. And the cost of the F-35 got the program terminated at somewhere under 800 examples last I read, short of the over 1,000 originally planned. And the USAF figured to rely on the plane for "most everything," doing away with numerous other platforms. There was originally talk of having it replace the A-10 in close air support, for example. It is expected to operate in any part of the globe, and at long ranges. While designed as a "penetration" aircraft due to its stealth--a rather specific niche--in actual practice, the USAF is trying to make it do everything, everywhere.
And it is failing. A 48% readiness rate might actually be okay if all you want the plane for is certain clandestined stealth penetration operations. But, when you want it to do anything and everything at all times, it is the wrong machine.
I agree overall with what I read in the article you linked.
https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/4559750-show-us-the-receipts-for-the-f-35-production-decision/?mc_cid=4b4787b43a&mc_eid=c1a4d89c9a
Do these people expect the Pentagon to broadcast every scrap of information about this program? Ask the Israeli Air Force if the F-35 is worth it as they've been using it in combat.
Responses