Loosing half of twelve F-18F's or loosing half of four F-35's ? I'll take my chances with six F-18F's over two F-35's.
And lose 6 pilots to go along with those F-18s? Not the best plan in the world. As odd as it sounds its easier to ramp up an assembly line than it is to train pilots. Training pilots is a multi year process.
The maintenance costs of a F-18F are much lower than F-35 service.
Right now at this moment. You can't compare a 20 year old system to one that doesn't even have initial operational capability. The trend with all aircraft is that maintenance costs decrease up to the point the airframes start wearing out. At comparible points in the life cycle the maintenance costs of the F-35 are only slightly higher than the F-18.
While the F-35's are on the ground with highly trained techs nursing complex systems. A bunch of farm kids have the F-18F's flying.
Again you're talking a 20 year old system vs one that hasn't hit IOC yet. Every aircraft we've built in the last 40 years has been "unreliable" during the EMD/LRIP phase. The whole point of EMD/LRIP is to use actual production prototypes to clear issues not caught in the RDT&E phase. Typically no system, whether it's a truck or plane, has it's full reliability and availability until after full rate production and full operational capability.
F-35 and F-18F are built by two different manufactures. Now twice the training, tooling and spare parts are required $$$
Not twice because you don't have the same number of each aircraft. Remember you're talking about a mixture here. Secondarily, the goal is not to cost the least amount possible. If that were the goal, we could have kept turning out older aircraft at any point in the last 30 years. The goal is to increase operational capabilities at a reasonable cost, which a high/low system mix does. We've proven that time and time again.
The F-35 can't get anywhere without tanker support. There is extra upfront cost,, overhead $$$ logistics and vulnerability
The combat radius of the F-35 is less than that of the Advanced Hornet but it's a moot point because tankers will be used regardless. The CONOPS of basically all fighter aircraft is to tank up once airborne to replace fuel burned on takeoff and maximize range. In comparing cost, how the aircraft is used is as important as numbers in a specification.
The F-35 is not invisible to radar. It has a exhaust plume that is detectable. Depending on the range and radar frequency any and all aircraft show on radar. There is no radar invisible airplane. Then there are contrails under some conditions and plain old visibility by eye.
Once again, my degree says aerospace engineer on it, so I'm more aware of the details of this than most. Stealth does not nor has it ever meant "invisible." It means
low observable. The MORE low observable you are, the more options you have for route planning. The difference in the radar system being able to see you at 100 miles and 150 miles may mean the difference in you getting shot down. And yes, there's no such thing as stealth at low frequency, but at low frequency you have the problem of accuracy. You know someone is there, but the position error is very high. Missiles have to get pretty close to effect a shootdown. How much good is knowing someone is there if you can't shoot at them effectively? Low frequency radar is THE oldest and cheapest radar tech in existence so why hasn't every country in the world put out those systems? Because of the reasons I mentioned. The physics of radio propagation and return are fixed, with the ultimate result of a relatively limited number of frequencies being suitable for use in tracking and engaging aircraft with weaponry. I don't have to be low observable to every radio frequncy, just the ones that are militarily effective in tracking and engagement.
Exhaust plumes might be visible on radar, but missile systems are not designed to track exhaust plumes. Again, knowing someone is there does you no good if you can't shoot at them.
Every stealth aircraft in operation and development has a contrail detection and avoidance system. They don't show contrails unless they want to show contrails.
And as far as optical tracking and engagement of fighters, as someone who has actually worked on such a system, that's easier said than done. Resolution of available optical sensors is a problem trying to track relatively small targets like fighters over a wide area. The latest fighters have EO/IR tracking and engagement systems but they're secondary in nature requiring target handoff from something like an AWACS in order to narrow their field of view.
If really wanting to be on the sneak with F-35's. There will still have to be F-18G Growlers sent in with them.
So you're going to send even MORE aircraft to do the same job and claim it will lower costs. And not only will you not be low observable, you're going to scream "here I am" to everybody with an RWR within 200 miles? EW is a very necessary part of the combat capabilities spectrum but like anything else has it's limitations and sending an EW aircraft in with every mission is foolhardy and unneccesarily risky.
The F-35 was a great idea that suffered the military mindset in the DOD.
Like I said before, the F-35 was compromised by the high level directive to be a joint program combined V/STOL, CTOL and CATOBAR capabilities. V/STOL compromises the aerodynamics of the design too much. The B variant still has a 600nmi combat radius with the compromised aerodynamics. With suitable optimization minus the lift fan you could see 800-900nmi easily....
Something simple and that works beats a complex item that doesn't work. A bunch of half trained wide eyed yahoo's in Toyota pickups with AK47's, improvised munitions and RPG's win all to often against NATO type forces.
They win all too often due to political considerations resulting in restrictive rules of engagement. When you take the leash off and let them bring the full complement of their capabilities to bear, the yahoos get rolled. Secondarily we've been unwilling to committ the necessary manpower to combat the insurgencies we've faced, whether you're talking Vietnam or Afghanistan. The classic ratio of friendly troops to insurgencies in order to be successful is 10 to 1. That ratio allows for control of territory, denying them movement and refuge among the populace and promoting stability. Stability is the #1 enemy of an insurgency, because of the 5/5/90 rule. 5% of the people hate you, 5% love you and the other 90% just want to be left alone to live their lives. Stability encourages the 90% to stick with you and the group that holds the 95% wins.
ETA
There are plenty of legit complaints about the F-35 and it's place in the total military capability, but the vast majority of the criticisms you see in public, are due to a gross misunderstanding of how the procurement process works and where the aircraft is at in the lifecycle. As an advanced aircraft project, there was and is significant amount of technical risk involved that sometimes costs in time and money. The question to ask is whether the costs justify the increased capability you get. Unless you want to want to be like Russia and China continually cramming "upgrades" onto obsolete airframes from 30 years ago just to give them 5 more minutes of lifespan in a conflict, then the answer is it is worth it.
