7 ms·
It's a great plane. The best multirole fighter any airforce can procure, by far.
by varjag 9y ago
It's a great plane. The best multirole fighter any airforce can procure, by far.
- sschueller 9y agoA tool that can do everything will never be as good as a tool that is design to do just one task. Jack of all trades, master of none.
- varjag 9y agoNorwegian pilots are quite positive about the first deliveries. In all air combat training scenarios, F-35s blow F-16s out of the skies. Russia still has no meaningful way to interdict F-35. Their 5gen fighter is still early prototype, and the S-400 munition upgrade capable to tackle F-35 is still in development with multiple setbacks. You may loathe American military industrial complex and point out the cost of the programme, sure, but it's the best aircraft in the skies for now. With some headroom.
- lloeki 9y ago> In all air combat training scenarios, F-35s blow F-16s out of the skies. F-16s, sure, and we keep hearing about this, but I wonder how they fare against more modern fighters though, such as Rafale, Eurofighter, or whatever. Rafale had the reputation to be an overpriced, goal-missing† multirole beast, but apparently the U.S.A would not let France take that crown for too long, and boy does it seem they beat the crap out of us on that front now. † especially when it wasn't able to land on the Charles de Gaulle carrier in early years of development.
- coldcode 9y agoNo one in their right mind would risk such an expensive plane in a fight vs an inferior plane that costs 1/10 the amount. Tigers in the WW2 could blow Shermans up by the truckload but there were many trucks full waiting behind and the Tiger cost a fortune and made no difference in the war in the end. In any case there will never again be a war vs a country with a similar plane that doesn't turn nuclear first.
- varjag 9y agoNo, if you are invaded, you do with what you have. And it sure nicer to have F-35 than MiG-21 when the push comes to shove.
- sschueller 9y agoDepends who is invading. There is no chance the F35 will fly if the US invades you.
- varjag 9y agoIranian air force operates F-14 Tomcats still..
- Someone 9y agoIt better beat F-16s by a wide margin. The F-16 is 40 years old. It would blow a Spitfire (40 years older still) out of the skies, even if one had kept upgrading that Spitfire with new engines and weapons systems for 40 years.
- varjag 9y agoF-16 is state of the art 4th generation fighter. It is just as good or better than various Su-27/3x variants in Russian AF fleet at the time.
- Someone 9y agoState of the art, and (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16819684 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16819684) ”In all air combat training scenarios, F-35s blow F-16s out of the skies” ?
- varjag 9y agoYes, state of the art 4th generation interceptor that is blown out of the skies by 5th generation F-35. Is there something conceptually unclear?
- linkmotif 9y agoIs this really true? If this were true, why are there no reports of Israel using its F-35s in operations over Syria? They lost an F-16 last month. Yet they flew it again into Lebanon/Syria just a few days ago.
- alkonaut 9y ago> In all air combat training scenarios, F-35s blow F-16s out of the skies. How many F-16's? And what block? In order to be great it has to shoot down a LOT of F-16's to motivate the cost. A problem with that being that it can only carry 4 radar guided missiles internally (so while remaining stealthy). If it carries more, then it's just a very expensive non-stealth fighter. If it carries just 4, it's rather vulnerable to > but it's the best aircraft in the skies for now. What's the "best aircraft" isn't really an interesting measure. What's most interesting to any buyer is for X billion dollars, and N years of flying, what capability can I get? In such a comparison you have to weigh in the per-hour flying costs, the cost to aquire and train, what investments you get locally (can you manufacture some part locally or would you have to buy from lockheed?) and so on and so forth.
- varjag 9y agoFirst, let's clear the misconception of cost effectiveness. An F-35 shooting down a dingy Su-24 amortized way back in 1992 would be entirely worth it, if Su-24 was on a mission to strike your C&C centre or naval port. No different really than using a $50,000 guided bomb to destroy Taliban encampment with $800 worth of rusty AKs and a pick up truck. If it solves the military objective and you can afford it, it is a good solution. Long term, strategically, cost is important, sure. Prolonged world war, major players scale. Short term, no. And in a conflict, minor players have short term only operational horizon at their disposal. > What's most interesting to any buyer is for X billion dollars, and N years of flying, what capability can I get? Norway found the cost manageable, in competition with other bidders. And for comparison, a municipal garage of the parliament in Oslo now stands at the cost of three F-35 acquisitions.
- alkonaut 9y ago> First, let's clear the misconception of cost effectiveness. An F-35 shooting down a dingy Su-24 amortized way back in 1992 would be entirely worth it, if Su-24 was on a mission to strike your C&C Not sure why that's an argument against the cost effectiveness of something? If you could do X for N dollars or 2xN dollars then it's more cost effective to do it for N dollars assuming the mission can be performed with either. > Norway found the cost manageable, in competition with other bidders. I think it's safe to say there was a "political cost" considered here too. That is, what would be the long term cost of not "helping" NATO allies and the other F-35 buyers by pushing the price down through larger sales.
- jk2323 9y agoThis is up for debate: "But while F-22 pilots are confident about the Raptor’s ability to defeat the S-300V4 and the S-400, the Air Force official acknowledged that the stealthy fifth-generation aircraft has never faced off against these next-generation Russian air defenses in actual combat before." I would not bet my life on it that a current S-400 can't blow an F-35 out of the sky. And considering the Russian habit ob hiding or understating technology, in combination with old Soviet thinking stratagems like the "axe theory", I would say: good luck!
- varjag 9y agoThe new missile is called 40N6E, and is still in development. The existing ones are unable to lock on F-22 or F-35. The ground stations under favourable circumstance can possibly see stealth aircraft, but S-300/400 family has active, missile-based guidance, and this is not compensated yet.
- ableal 9y ago> old Soviet thinking stratagems like the "axe theory" Made me look. Found http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/05.html http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/05.html """ The theory is known unofficially in the General Staff as the `axe theory'. It is stupid, say the Soviet generals, to start a fist-fight if your opponent may use a knife. It is just as stupid to attack him with a knife if he may use an axe. The more terrible the weapon which your opponent may use, the more decisively you must attack him, and the more quickly you must finish him off. Any delay or hesitation in doing this will just give him a fresh opportunity to use his axe on you. To put it briefly, you can only prevent your enemy from using his axe if you use your own first. The `axe theory' was put forward in all Soviet manuals and handbooks to be read at regimental level and higher. In each of these one of the main sections was headed `Evading the blow'. These handbooks advocated, most insistently, the delivery of a massive pre-emptive attack on the enemy, as the best method of self-protection. This recommendation was not confined to secret manuals-non-confidential military publications carried it as well. """
- ghaff 9y agoAnd then people complain that there are too many different projects for the various services, each with their own big budgets. It seems clear that the F-35 has had a lot of issues. But it's not a priori obvious that one shouldn't try to make systems that can serve multiple roles when it's possible to do so. In fact, I'd argue that you should always try to do so. The devil is in the specific choices and details.
- fsloth 9y ago"It's a great plane. The best multirole fighter any airforce can procure, by far." I think for national armies which are funded by tax payer money the total cost of ownership should be a significant factor when considering what to buy. And should factor in the definition of "best". I don't know much about aerial warfare. Aren't fighter jets just glorified missile launching platforms nowadays, especially for defensive purposes? What does the extra cost buy for the end user in terms of actual features they are going to use? I suppose the keyfactor of a multirole aircraft is radar that allows tracking and fire control for both aerial and ground targets and a selection of air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles that go with it. What am I missing?
- josefresco 9y ago> Aren't fighter jets just glorified missile launching platforms nowadays This is one of the huge strengths of this platform. The ability manage a battlefield, including other fighters/bombers/ground troops as well as remote forces.
- varjag 9y agoIf cost is the core objective, consider having no military expenditures at all. All military gear is expensive, depreciating assets not contributing to productivity and tying up resources that can be used elsewhere. Ukraine did just that prior to 2014. Otherwise, your weapons should be a practical deterrent to an aggressor.
- fsloth 9y agoI wholly agree on requiring a deterrent, but the total operative capability of the defensive force is much more important than individual hardware components. I wasn't claiming a modern fighter is not a critical part of this equation. I was merely asking what does actually "best" mean in this case. If I get you on my fire control radar and you get me on yours and we both fire missiles, it seems to me the missile and the radar is far more important part of this equation than the avionics platform where they are. So, practical tactical features...
- 9y ago
- nabla9 9y agoIt does not matter how good the fighter is if it can't fly enough sorties for reasonable price. The problem is maintenance costs availability rate. F-35 is a hangar queen.
- varjag 9y agoIt absolutely does matter. This is not municipal bus fleet, capabilities have to match the threats. The costs are however much more manageable than what early critical pieces stipulated.
- mistermann 9y agoWhat threats are you referring to?
- varjag 9y agoOther warplanes and air defence systems commonly deployed. In case of Norway here, it's the assets of Russian 45th Air Force and Air Defence Army.
- mistermann 9y agoThe US was lagging behind Norway in air warfare capabilities? I've always been under the impression that they were a world leader.
- varjag 9y agoPardon?
- mistermann 9y ago>> It does not matter how good the fighter is if it can't fly enough sorties for reasonable price. > It absolutely does matter. This is not municipal bus fleet, capabilities have to match the threats. Who was the US not matching in capability, such that they needed to develop a new fighter (with incredibly high maintenance costs) to compete?
- LoSboccacc 9y agomeanwhile, across thousand years of history, best tools mattered marginally. get the job done cheap is what traditionally won wars. so there's that.
- varjag 9y agoThe history is full of examples where superior weapons won wars.
- LoSboccacc 9y agobattles, at most. wars are inevitably won by production and logistic.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- hn0 9y agoIndeed. You can probably operate 4 or 5 SAAB Gripens for the cost of one F35, even though they are individually inferior.
- varjag 9y agoGripens were in fact in final round talks vs F35 for Norway's tender. Costs were not too dissimilar.
- hn0 9y agoThat’s interesting, I’ve read articles stating the operational costs were supposed to be much lower than the F35. In my country there’s now pushback against the F35 but there seems to be a push to obtain them irregardless of criticisms. This makes me wonder if there’s political maneuvering by the US to keep the militaries linked.
- dingaling 9y agoIt's also as big as and heavier than an F-4 Phantom II, which for many countries was too big and expensive back in the 1970s. Traditionally US allies could choose from the hi or lo options according to their budget; F-4 vs F-5, F-15 vs F-16. But if a nation now wants to buy something US-compatible for the next 50 years they now have to stump up for the big F-35 since the lo tier has effectively been discontinued ( and the hi-hi tier is the unexportable F-22 ). So we have the likes of Denmark buying 27, basing 7 in the USA for training and having about 10 operational out of maintenance. Why bother?
- linkmotif 9y ago> F-15 vs F-16 I was under the impression that the main difference between these was not price, but the kind of mission they are designed for. Like you don’t get one or the other because of budget, but because of your aerial combat needs.