Well, whether the final price of the F-35 will be high or low it won’t matter unless one looks at the cost-effective side of it.
Personally, I see the whole program as just another Lockheed attempt to secure a production/selling contract. Nothing wrong with that. What I do have a problem with is the kind of countries this contract tries to attract. I mean, after all to judge, the JSF will presumably be a multi-role fighter a little less complicated then the F-22 (I’ll never believe that it will be better then the Raptor). But all in all, the F-35 will prove itself to be a lot more complex (not necessarily better) then its competition – i.e. JAS 39 Gripen, EF-2000, Rafale or SU-35/37. What I can’t figure is what can countries like Switzerland, Denmark, Holland or Belgium do with the F-35. Relatively small countries for which the JSF is wayyyy to much! Or another piece of news announced Romania (?) as a wish-for F-35 country. Hilarious, really. These countries not only have small air-territories that could easily be covered and defended by an aircraft as the Gripen for example, but also that their possible enemies are all but inexistent. What good will F-35 do to them?
A country should consider military contracts first and foremost out of their own defensive needs, or at least this was the thumb rule in the past. Or this idea dropped sharply from the priorities list? 
I agree, but to Lockheed any customer will do, no matter how little need they have for it. You have a point, but you could say the same for any military capability that's beyond any country's needs. Yes on your last comment, that's no longer the priority.
From your list I only can't understand Switzerland (although I have to say, I didn't know they were). But for Denmark, Holland and Belgium, it is primarily because of the NATO and EPAF framework. EPAF only concerns the F-16 at the moment, but it's a good success story that can be continued if all would be flying the same type. NATO... because basically to keep up with the major ally, the US, the airforces want the F-35 or else they may not count, and at least for the Netherlands I can say it wants to be a good ally and if that's through airpower rather than manpower, all the better. Romania also falls in that "good US ally" category, they'd rather get second-hand high-houred F-16s than seriously look at the Gripen for example. It's because of the strong US connection, military but probably even more political. You are right about defending small airspace, even that these countries don't need much defending at all (only a NATO mandated air policing capability, which does not have to be as large), but this is no longer about air defense as it was 20 years ago. It's now delivering air power within the NATO framework and that means taking part in strike packages under what is basically US command. So you'd want capabilities that really fit the US. That's why these air forces want them so bad. So yes, like you said having a cost-effective air defense capability for their own countries is not the primary goal. "NATO compatible" does not mean sh** to the US forces, if you won't be as stealthy as them, you don't get to play the game...
I am not a big fan of the above, but I'm afraid that's what it gets down to. The Netherlands doesn't need trident missiles either, but what else is an easier way for the Navy to be a valuable player on the US team?
my comments firmly place me on the fence
RecceJet, that's a great place to be, and I'd happily join you. You are right that it will be more advanced, although the others will come close in everything besides stealth. It's hard to say that it can't be further developed, when we hardly now what the future will be. I can see it further developed, just not the airframe itself and nothing custom/local, only with the OEM.
I'm hoping off to one side or the other, taking different perspectives.
But these countries can't keep doing that forever and they've already been doing that for 10 years, otherwise they would have started taking deliveries by now. More importantly, unfortunately there's only so much fence-sitting one can do. It's time to decide and put in an order, because the F-16s are getting old. Waiting for something better is a matter of decades really, waiting for it to prove itself could be done, but when is there enough proof anyway? Who will be developing something better in the next 25 years? Not including those from who these countries would never buy anyway. And even then, look at Italy, they had to lease Tornados, then F-16s, before finally getting enough Typhoons.
It's funny I agree with almost all arguments for or against the JSF. IMHO whatever you get, do it right and make it as cost- and combat-effective as possible. Unfortunately the Netherlands passed this point, it never fully explored the offset opportunities of other programs, and for the JSF, probably due to political indecision and lack of bargaining power because of that, industry didn't get a large enough share, and as everyone is cutting numbers, the few orders once envisaged won't be as big. So the business case is already shattered. Now the "combat case" will suffer as well, let's see.
It will probably be a great aircraft. Even the -B.
Back to Index
Move to Top 
