8 ms·

U.S. Air Force Requires Airmen to Praise F-35

32 points by RachelF 11y ago

davetheradish 11y ago
I spoke to an RAAF test pilot a few weeks ago who confirmed the stories that this plane is an absolute lemon. It's trying to be too many things and failing at all of them.
- zobzu 11y ago
  I spoke to a USAF pilot and he said the F-35 is a decent plane, easy to fly, well equipped even thus no match for specialized fighters its decently good at everything. Here's the problem though. None of your comment or these article bring any proof and is more of a click-bait than anything else. It's trendy to hit on them, that's all really. Also, I did actually talk to that pilot and a few others from other aircrafts as its actually an easy thing to do in the US so easy to do/verify on your own for many of us: since many HN readers are in the bay area, just visit the boats for SF's Fleet week - it's free, and there's always marine pilots of all kinds onboard (mainly heli, but also a few F-35, harrier and osprey pilots.
  - neurotech1 11y ago
    I concur. The F-35 is a decent aircraft performance wise. It might not be quite as agile as an F-16 in airshow configuration, but when carrying a combat load, the F-35 has the edge. When it comes to the F-35 sensor package, its a huge leap beyond the F-16.
    - titzer 11y ago
      Not for the price. $1 trillion is a really step price tag for a "decent aircraft". As for the sensor package and stealth, I'm not entirely sure that suitable upgrades to the F-16 and F-18 series wouldn't have been a better option. Besides, for $1trillion, it should be possible to develop three or four different aircraft with specialist capabilities and use them together.
      - zobzu 11y ago
        i agree, albeit by that rationale you'd better get a Rafale - its the same kind of plane as the F35, minus a few nice features but much cheaper. Which is exactly why the only nations getting an F35 are US allies not making their own aircrafts. others either: -make their own (Eurofighters, SU35S, PAK, etc.) -get get older planes (F15s in particular) -French Rafales.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  But the F-35 is still a big leap over his previous aircraft. I wonder what he doesn't like? Saying it's an "absolute lemon" is descriptive but not specifically informative.
- ThrowawayZTN 11y ago
  I'm a RAAF engineer; there are some pilots that don't like it, but they're in the minority. They're typically the guys that aren't very open minded in general and are literally just making their opinions off low-quality journalism they see on Facebook, etc. I've spoken to many other pilots and even the star-ranks that are in charge of the program, even dined with the CDF, and they're all firm believers in the jet's capabilities and would love to fly it for a living. I've also done quite a bit of research myself, and the jet's stealth, radar, EO/IR sensors, payload, range and EW capabilities are all top-class, with many being the best in the world. If I were a knucklehead, I'd definitely trade a Hornet / Super Hornet / Growler for an F-35.
omalleyt 11y ago
For anyone interested in the dynamics of the Air Force that explain the abysmal performance of the F-35, and why the F-16 can beat it in a dogfight despite being commissioned 40 years ago, look up John Boyd or read "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot who Changed the Art of War." The Air Force is structured to enable and shelter operational failures such as the F-35
- nickff 11y ago
  Though I agree with you that all government agencies are political machines which have evolved to protect their bureaucrats; the F-35 was simply not designed to be a lightweight low-cost fighter. Comparing the F-35 to the F-16 is about as useful as comparing the F-105 to the F-86 (, which is to say not very informative). Boyd thought that even the F-16 was overweight and over-sized (and he may have been correct).
  - herdrick 11y ago
    > Boyd thought that even the F-16 was overweight and over-sized ... compared to what it could have been, and would have been, had he somehow completely gotten his way, sure. It was a disappointment to him, but it's still pretty good in energy–maneuverability theory terms. And it's worth comparing the F-105 to the F-86 in dogfighting because dogfighting just keeps happening in wars, decades after it was predicted to cease.
    - varjag 11y ago
      Curious, what was the last time anyone scored with a cannon on a modern jet fighter vs another jet fighter?
      - dmoy 11y ago
        Maybe one of the air-to-air kills in the Eritrea-Ethiopia war was cannon? idk...
TheMagicHorsey 11y ago
I'm not sure about the other capabilities of the F-35, but judging a modern war plane based on its ability to dogfight is like judging a modern ship based on its ability to ram other ships. Dogfighting just isn't going to happen anymore in a battlefield where smart munitions are relatively cheap, plentiful, smart, and getting smarter every year. We are talking about skies that will soon be filled with extremely agile drones and missiles. In that environment, a manned fighter, that cannot pull high-G maneuvers (because the human pilot will pass out) cannot beat a supersonic missile or drone. We should not build planes to perform well in dogfights in the style of the Korean and Vietnam war. Stealth or unmanned is the way to go. Having said that, the Chinese long-term strategy of developing high performance drones to saturate the battlespace is probably the smartest idea of all. I don't think any stealth technology remains very "stealthy" for very long, in this era of software processing.
- nickff 11y ago
  The arguments you are using are similar to those used to defend the century series; back then they argued that missiles had eliminated the need for agile fighters, but the Vietnam War's rules of engagement meant that agility was crucial. If one is to defend the F-35, it should be on the basis of its advanced strike capabilities, or other design considerations which were given priority. Perhaps stealth, unmanned, and/or saturation are the best strategies; I am not sure whether anyone can predict what the outcome of an encounter between such asymmetrical adversaries will be in 15-25 years.
  - nether 11y ago
    > back then they argued that missiles had eliminated the need for agile fighters, but the Vietnam War's rules of engagement meant that agility was crucial. Please stop this. Vietnam era missiles were little more than firecrackers with IR seekers that flew into the sun. That's why pilots needed their guns, because guided missiles were so shitty at the time. Modern missiles are basically immune to passive countermeasures and have directed warheads, thrust vectoring etc. and would be the first choice of any fighter pilot interesting in staying alive.
titzer 11y ago
Well, an obvious step after putting all your eggs in one basket is to silence criticism of that basket. This is just one more reason why the Air Force's decision to reduce diversity in weapons systems is a bad idea. Not only do they become too big to fail, they become too big to criticize.
zobzu 11y ago
The comment on the blog seems about right so ill copy: "Lets see David Axe the nonstop liar that wrote this used the words “commands”, “requires”. and “demands” when referring to the document in question. No where in the document cited are any of those things. This author constantly takes any accusation about F35 and exaggerates it to the ridicules level. He uses thinly sourced quotes and seems to have a vivid imagination. WiB should be embarrassed to have such a talent-less hack writing this drivel… do you guys even have an editor?"
- beedogs 11y ago
  A poorly-written nitpick about the choice of words used "seems about right" to you?
neurotech1 11y ago
The USAF requires Airmen not to criticize USAF or Pentagon policy. If a 4-Star General publicly criticizes policy of the Petagon, it could end their career. This post by David Axe is complete rubbish.
fiatmoney 11y ago
I can personally say that the F-35 is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful plane I've ever known in my life.

32 points by RachelF 11y ago

I spoke to an RAAF test pilot a few weeks ago who confirmed the stories that this plane is an absolute lemon. It's trying to be too many things and failing at all of them.

zobzu 11y ago
I spoke to a USAF pilot and he said the F-35 is a decent plane, easy to fly, well equipped even thus no match for specialized fighters its decently good at everything. Here's the problem though. None of your comment or these article bring any proof and is more of a click-bait than anything else. It's trendy to hit on them, that's all really. Also, I did actually talk to that pilot and a few others from other aircrafts as its actually an easy thing to do in the US so easy to do/verify on your own for many of us: since many HN readers are in the bay area, just visit the boats for SF's Fleet week - it's free, and there's always marine pilots of all kinds onboard (mainly heli, but also a few F-35, harrier and osprey pilots.
- neurotech1 11y ago
  I concur. The F-35 is a decent aircraft performance wise. It might not be quite as agile as an F-16 in airshow configuration, but when carrying a combat load, the F-35 has the edge. When it comes to the F-35 sensor package, its a huge leap beyond the F-16.
  - titzer 11y ago
    Not for the price. $1 trillion is a really step price tag for a "decent aircraft". As for the sensor package and stealth, I'm not entirely sure that suitable upgrades to the F-16 and F-18 series wouldn't have been a better option. Besides, for $1trillion, it should be possible to develop three or four different aircraft with specialist capabilities and use them together.
    - zobzu 11y ago
      i agree, albeit by that rationale you'd better get a Rafale - its the same kind of plane as the F35, minus a few nice features but much cheaper. Which is exactly why the only nations getting an F35 are US allies not making their own aircrafts. others either: -make their own (Eurofighters, SU35S, PAK, etc.) -get get older planes (F15s in particular) -French Rafales.
engi_nerd 11y ago
But the F-35 is still a big leap over his previous aircraft. I wonder what he doesn't like? Saying it's an "absolute lemon" is descriptive but not specifically informative.
ThrowawayZTN 11y ago
I'm a RAAF engineer; there are some pilots that don't like it, but they're in the minority. They're typically the guys that aren't very open minded in general and are literally just making their opinions off low-quality journalism they see on Facebook, etc. I've spoken to many other pilots and even the star-ranks that are in charge of the program, even dined with the CDF, and they're all firm believers in the jet's capabilities and would love to fly it for a living. I've also done quite a bit of research myself, and the jet's stealth, radar, EO/IR sensors, payload, range and EW capabilities are all top-class, with many being the best in the world. If I were a knucklehead, I'd definitely trade a Hornet / Super Hornet / Growler for an F-35.

omalleyt 11y ago

For anyone interested in the dynamics of the Air Force that explain the abysmal performance of the F-35, and why the F-16 can beat it in a dogfight despite being commissioned 40 years ago, look up John Boyd or read "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot who Changed the Art of War." The Air Force is structured to enable and shelter operational failures such as the F-35

nickff 11y ago
Though I agree with you that all government agencies are political machines which have evolved to protect their bureaucrats; the F-35 was simply not designed to be a lightweight low-cost fighter. Comparing the F-35 to the F-16 is about as useful as comparing the F-105 to the F-86 (, which is to say not very informative). Boyd thought that even the F-16 was overweight and over-sized (and he may have been correct).
- herdrick 11y ago
  > Boyd thought that even the F-16 was overweight and over-sized ... compared to what it could have been, and would have been, had he somehow completely gotten his way, sure. It was a disappointment to him, but it's still pretty good in energy–maneuverability theory terms. And it's worth comparing the F-105 to the F-86 in dogfighting because dogfighting just keeps happening in wars, decades after it was predicted to cease.
  - varjag 11y ago
    Curious, what was the last time anyone scored with a cannon on a modern jet fighter vs another jet fighter?
    - dmoy 11y ago
      Maybe one of the air-to-air kills in the Eritrea-Ethiopia war was cannon? idk...

TheMagicHorsey 11y ago

I'm not sure about the other capabilities of the F-35, but judging a modern war plane based on its ability to dogfight is like judging a modern ship based on its ability to ram other ships. Dogfighting just isn't going to happen anymore in a battlefield where smart munitions are relatively cheap, plentiful, smart, and getting smarter every year. We are talking about skies that will soon be filled with extremely agile drones and missiles. In that environment, a manned fighter, that cannot pull high-G maneuvers (because the human pilot will pass out) cannot beat a supersonic missile or drone. We should not build planes to perform well in dogfights in the style of the Korean and Vietnam war. Stealth or unmanned is the way to go. Having said that, the Chinese long-term strategy of developing high performance drones to saturate the battlespace is probably the smartest idea of all. I don't think any stealth technology remains very "stealthy" for very long, in this era of software processing.

nickff 11y ago
The arguments you are using are similar to those used to defend the century series; back then they argued that missiles had eliminated the need for agile fighters, but the Vietnam War's rules of engagement meant that agility was crucial. If one is to defend the F-35, it should be on the basis of its advanced strike capabilities, or other design considerations which were given priority. Perhaps stealth, unmanned, and/or saturation are the best strategies; I am not sure whether anyone can predict what the outcome of an encounter between such asymmetrical adversaries will be in 15-25 years.
- nether 11y ago
  > back then they argued that missiles had eliminated the need for agile fighters, but the Vietnam War's rules of engagement meant that agility was crucial. Please stop this. Vietnam era missiles were little more than firecrackers with IR seekers that flew into the sun. That's why pilots needed their guns, because guided missiles were so shitty at the time. Modern missiles are basically immune to passive countermeasures and have directed warheads, thrust vectoring etc. and would be the first choice of any fighter pilot interesting in staying alive.

titzer 11y ago

Well, an obvious step after putting all your eggs in one basket is to silence criticism of that basket. This is just one more reason why the Air Force's decision to reduce diversity in weapons systems is a bad idea. Not only do they become too big to fail, they become too big to criticize.

zobzu 11y ago

The comment on the blog seems about right so ill copy: "Lets see David Axe the nonstop liar that wrote this used the words “commands”, “requires”. and “demands” when referring to the document in question. No where in the document cited are any of those things. This author constantly takes any accusation about F35 and exaggerates it to the ridicules level. He uses thinly sourced quotes and seems to have a vivid imagination. WiB should be embarrassed to have such a talent-less hack writing this drivel… do you guys even have an editor?"

beedogs 11y ago
A poorly-written nitpick about the choice of words used "seems about right" to you?

neurotech1 11y ago

The USAF requires Airmen not to criticize USAF or Pentagon policy. If a 4-Star General publicly criticizes policy of the Petagon, it could end their career. This post by David Axe is complete rubbish.

fiatmoney 11y ago

I can personally say that the F-35 is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful plane I've ever known in my life.