None at all, except as a STVOL. If it had been developed solely as a Harrier replacement, it might actually excel at its role. It was also supposed to be a cheaper stealth aircraft than the F-22, which would have been nice. But the contractors are going to figure out how to get more money out of it one way or another and these kinds of programs always double, triple and quadruple in budget.
There’s a reason they haven’t entered production yet.
I don’t think your cite demonstrates this. Certainly they COULD make a drone that’s highly maneuverable, no question there…but you need a bit more than that for a functional drone fighter plane. Are they going to be autonomous or remote controlled? If the later then that’s going to mean you’ve got some serious AI issues to iron out, not to mention giving an AI the ability to shoot…or putting a human in the decision loop. Which brings up the issue of remote control in a fast evolving dog fight, in a combat situation where there will be jamming and gods know what else.
It’s not something we are going to be able to roll out next year…or, perhaps, next decade. Combat drone fighters MIGHT be possible in the future…but I doubt we will be there on a large scale in the next 50 years. Which is about as long as the F-35 will probably be in service for. 
The purpose was not to create a remotely-piloted fighter. HIMAT was a technology test program.
I don’t see any way for a combat fighter drone to be autonomous. That’s why I said ‘and a spherical field of view for the remote pilot’. The idea is that the remotely-piloted aircraft would have cameras giving a spherical field of vision. The pilot would sit in a room surrounded by monitors such that he can look up, down, left, right, behind him… just like sitting in a real cockpit and looking out the canopy – better, since there’s no airframe in the way. The RPA would sortie just like a manned fighter would; only the pilot would be near Las Vegas or someplace.
So we CAN make a remotely piloted aircraft that is more maneuverable than a human can withstand. We already did it 30 years ago. It can be faster than HIMAT was, and carry a bunch of weapons, and have all the niftiest sensors. The opposition’s human-piloted aircraft wouldn’t stand a chance.
Not at all-Sweden has an effective and modern air force, while spending a fraction of what we do-why not emulate their design philosophy a bit? We simply cannot afford to keep building newer and more expensive aircraft-to meet a non-existent threat.
I meant running out of experienced pilots in WWII.
Sweden’s air force is effective in the sense that it can defend Sweden from Norway, and might fractionally slow a Russian invasion.
Here’s another article arguing that the F-35B is wasteful, ineffective, and should be terminated. While I think the points he makes are good ones, and appreciate the author’s insight, I wonder …
The Marines seem to want the F-35B chiefly to provide organic CAS. Couldn’t they use a cheap, light turboprob that could fly off their amphibs and truly operate out of an “austere” airfield much better / cheaper / both? I’m thinking something like the Texan II or the Super Tucano (if it’s good enough for SpecOps, it ought to be good enough for Marines).
I’d imagine that it’d be the job of the Navy / Air Force to suppress any heavy-duty air-defenses (for which the stealthy F-35 might be well-suited) long before the Marines are brought in to secure a beach-head anyways, so why the need for super-sonic stealth jet?
Can we really afford to maintain the MC as a separate service? They have their own airforce, their own transport, etc.
Seems pretty wasteful to me.
Their ships aren’t big enough to operate non-STOVL aircraft. Not more than one or two anyway.
No.
Japanese guys entrenched on coral islands who would rather die than surrender.
We need Marines.
No doubt it does, but then you are a guy that thinks the US should model it’s Air Force after Sweden, so…
I disagree. I think the logical function of a stealth drone is as a hive unit. One manned plane and a series of drones that follow it and execute the pilot’s commands but with more hard points to launch weapons from. think in terms of putting a stealth bomber on an aircraft carrier.
What IS needed is a 5th generation fighter with the stealth to roam freely and engage threats to carrier groups as far out as possible. Stealth is the desired edge but there is still a need for air to air combat when that fails. From the perspective that carriers aren’t easily hidden I’m not sure the Navy needs a stealth front line plane as much as they need a stealth plane to protect the fleet. Maybe I’m not seeing this right but if the AF has a stealth fighter then that is what is used during a first strike to take out anti-aircraft and communications.
I understand the need for better electronics and stealth but it seems to me the Russians are knocking out some damn nice aircraft.
You also need airborne troops to drop behind German lines - but they managed that without a separate Airborne Corps.
They bill themselves as sort of the Armed Forces’ QRF. The idea is that they’re quick and agile and pre-positioned, and have all sorts of organic assets, so they can come ashore and take care of business before the Army and the Air Force have even gotten their boots on … or something like that. Cite
The Russians will have a frontline stealth fighter in service as soon as 2020. Nobody really knows how far along China’s stealth program is because they aren’t angling for the same sort of export sales Russia and India are, but given their propensity for spying and reverse engineering they won’t be that far behind.
Then why have an Army and Air force? Just give the Marines all their money and equipment, as they’ll obviously do the job better.
There are some developments coming with “frequency-hopping” radars, that will soon negate the stealth fighter’s advantages. So why spend trillions on these planes, only to find out that they aren’t offering any advantage? Face it-we need a simple fighter “platform”-that we can modify over the years (like the B-52). We are bankrupting ourselves, to protect against threats that do not exist.
You need to compare apples with apples.
For hi-lo-lo-hi strike mission: SH 390 miles, Tomcat 380 miles
Ferry flight with max external fuel: SH 1800 miles, Tomcat 1600 miles
What about the data connection between the drone and the pilot? Satellite communication tends to be intermittent, with poor bandwidth and high latency. I’d suggest you try playing something like WarThunder with 200ms latency connection. It will drive you to tears.