[SJSAMPLE]

Great. Now the USAF will have the same underpowered, underarmed, no-legs version as the USMC. They should take a close look at the Harrier before signing on to this one.

[Strategerist]

They should take a close look at the Harrier

First thing you see and it doesn't take a close look is the extraordinary Harrier accident rate. Also, I believe they're long out of production.

[Frank_Discussion]

Nope. I'm on the losing team (Boeing), and I admire the platform itself.

[B4Ranch]

In a previous thread someone commented that the goal was to lighten this plane by 3500 lbs. Is 2700 lbs. going to be their new goal?

If a generals son was on the ground would he approve>> Reducing the size of the weapons bays by 14 in. ??

[Tallguy]

Great. Now the USAF will have the same underpowered, underarmed, no-legs version as the USMC. They should take a close look at the Harrier before signing on to this one.

I think this is a ploy to preserve the mission/rationale for the F-22. That wouldn't make you mad, would it? The problem with competing tactical aircraft systems is that politics (congress) always wants to dictate the mix of systems purchased in the out-years. Right now the USAF is looking at a greatly reduced buy of the F-22, so much so that they have suggested a strike role (FB-22) for what is otherwise an air superiority fighter. That tactic was laughable; this one (the F-35B gambit) is more clever.

[tjwmason]

They should take a close look at the Harrier before signing on to this one.

My understanding was that the whole J.S.F. project was designed to be the follower from the Harrier. The Harrier has many disadvantages (not least its sub-sonic limit), but was found to have a number of advantages deriving from the whole jump-jet idea.

Besides, if you ever want to see a real screw-up look at the whole Euro-fighter Project (I think that they renamed it the Typhoon or something similar to get away from the negative conotations). Put a bunch of European in charge and then you'll see what can go wrong.