7 ms·

Our current adversaries are mostly insurgents - however, if you look forward at dwindling resources and nations doing the unthinkable and waging wars over them,

Our current adversaries are mostly insurgents - however, if you look forward at dwindling resources and nations doing the unthinkable and waging wars over them, then the F-35 makes more sense. With a complex and lengthy development process you're planning for the war after the next, not the current. That being said, with all the problems the F-35 has, much like the Eurofighter before it, it might be no match for what another advanced economy could produce.

patcheudor 9y ago
I'm not sure even in a world where dogfights are still a thing that the F-35 makes any sense. If we are talking the ability to deliver air munitions, again, I just can't see it. What makes an F-35 more special than a drone?
- philjohn 9y ago
  It's getting to the point of being trivial to jam a drone - and you do that, it's no longer under your control. Harder to jam a human sitting in a plane.
  - patcheudor 9y ago
    Depends on your perspective. If you are running a consumer grade drone over 2.4Ghz, okay. However, it's actually getting impossible to jam military drones because of technologies like direct sequence ultra-wideband (DS-UWB). Further, if directed by satellite, further measures can be taken to block ground based jamming using directional antennas. Finally: AI. We are already at the point where we have weapons that when they lose communications, have their own camera for target identification.
    - greedo 9y ago
      Uh, no. Ask the Iranians who were able to capture an RQ-180 UAV. These sure aren't controlled on the 2.4 spectrum. And today's drones are meat for a manned fighter once they're detected. Clubbing baby seals is one of the terms used... And before someone chimes in about drone fighters, that's a good 20+ years out.
- Clubber 9y ago
  I'm not sure I would even call them dogfights anymore. It's about picking up a target at long range and throwing a guided missile at it. I think one of the main benefits of the F35 is range of finding and throwing. It's not unlike the WWI scenario where the German artillery shell allied positions and the allied artillery which couldn't even throw a shell that far. Range makes things pretty one sided.
- riku_iki 9y ago
  Drones are slow, not stealthy, can't vtol and fly from aircarrier, can carry much less ordinance, can be jammed, don't have air-to-air radar and modern missiles integration. If you try to build drone with all of features of F-35, you may get even more expensive project.
  - patcheudor 9y ago
    Yet Russia made a very fast drone (if you believe Putin): https://russia-insider.com/en/putin-stunner-3-dagger-invincible-plane-launched-nuke-missile-10x-speed-sound-video/ri22673 https://russia-insider.com/en/putin-stunner-3-dagger-invinci...
    - riku_iki 9y ago
      It is not drone, it is one time use missile. Likely also expensive.
jlmorton 9y ago
The chances of developed nations going to war with each other over dwindling resources is extremely close to zero.
- robotresearcher 9y ago
  Surely given a long enough time window it approaches one?
  - lostapathy 9y ago
    The relevant time window here is the service life of the F-35, which is probably under 50 years and I'd say the relevant probability is still approaching zero on that timescale.
  - nostrademons 9y ago
    Only if you assume the concept of "nation" will outlast the concept of "war". There are a number of reasons to believe that the future of warfare will look much more like Syria, i.e. states implode from within and then break apart into a number of warring factions, each fighting over territory & resources within the carcass of the state. Actually, most of the bloodiest 20th century conflicts were of this type (eg. Russian & Chinese civil wars, Rwandan genocide & Congo Wars, civil wars in Nigeria/Sudan/Ethiopia), and historically the highest death tolls have usually occurred in civil wars where an empire breaks up or in conquests when a much more developed power invades a less-developed power (eg. Mongol conquests or European conquest of America). WW2 was a historical anomaly in that it was fought between developed nations. It's an anomaly we pay a lot of attention to, though, because it led to the current international system of American hegemony and history tends to get written by the victors.
    - ManFromUranus 9y ago
      Syria's "implosion" didn't just fall out of the sky, it was induced by the US and it's allies as a means to oust Assad. Nobody disputes that, the only thing in dispute is whether or not the ends justify the means, meaning is ousting Assad a desirable end that justifies the current proxy war or not.
lajhsdfkl 9y ago
>That being said, with all the problems the F-35 has, much like the Eurofighter before it, it might be no match for what another advanced economy could produce. Given that the F-35 was built with the latest tech that no other advanced economy even has I have no idea how anything could be built in the next 10-15 years that will significantly outclass it.
- ptero 9y ago
  > F-35 was built with the latest tech that no other advanced economy even has This might be true about F-22 (or not), but F-35 does not have much of latest tech as countries are suspicious of sharing cutting edge military tech on a multinational project.
- GVIrish 9y ago
  The problem for the F-35 is that all that advanced tech is not working properly and may never work as well as originally imagined. Meanwhile, adversaries already have aircraft that are faster, have longer range, and are more maneuverable, not to mention air defense networks. As long as the F-35's principal advantage of being somewhat stealthy holds up it will be fine against opposing air forces and AAD's. But if that advantage is sufficiently whittled away it could find itself outgunned and outclassed.
- ndelage 9y ago
  Doesn't the article discuss how it's already been outclasses in real world tests by existing jets like the F-16? Capabilities on paper are useless if they don't deliver in real world usage.
  - lajhsdfkl 9y ago
    It lost to the F-16 in a dogfight. Dogfights are not relevant in modern warfare and were not the consideration in the F-35s design (as is readily obvious). When you have missiles traveling at speeds exceeding Mach 2 whether you can win in a dogfight is irrelevant, what is relevant is who sees who first.
- Theodores 9y ago
pjmorris 9y ago
Seems to me that the strategic question is 'What is the cheapest means of attacking an F-35?' If the answer isn't another expensive fighter plane, e.g. a drone or flock of drones, then those future opponents may have an economic advantage, especially if resources are dwindling. I'm just recycling an old notion; at one time, fighters and bombers were much cheaper than the things they were attacking [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell
- gaius 9y ago
  Seems to me that the strategic question is 'What is the cheapest means of attacking an F-35?' Attacking ALIS. Or denying the maintenance regime - you could ground the RAF easily simply by knowing that they have to do engine maintenance on the opposite side of NATO in Turkey. That’s a long way to go for repairs if you’ve got no air superiority. Block that and just wait...
  - pjmorris 9y ago
    Absolutely. I'd originally thought about writing 'attacking a (flying) F-35', as I'm predisposed to thinking that it can barely carry its own weight in terms of the expense of keeping it flying.
    - gaius 9y ago
      The Israelis proved that the best way to destroy another airforce is on the ground
- richmarr 9y ago
  Well, if nothing else, the Chinese J-31 would probably do the job. It's an F35 with a bunch of the crippling design compromises removed. https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/09/more-questions-f-35-after-new-specs-chinas-copycat/121859/ https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/09/more-questions-f-...
  - jotm 9y ago
ptero 9y ago
An armchair general viewpoint, but the relatively short range of modern fighters makes them of limited use beyond traditional dogfight. And it needs a LOT of support that is relatively cheap to compromise outside of your home fortress (and maybe even within it). The main role it can play is flying from a nearby base to suppress air force of a low capability adversary, but 1.5T is a steep tag for this. We should limit our losses.
davismain 9y ago
The F-35 is more likely to trigger nuclear war than prevent it. The country that is at a disadvantage because they cannot compete with the F-35 will simply nuke the other country. We're talking desperate actions from desperate nations at this point. The F-35 is not useful in proxy wars because proxy wars are not allowed to get that hot. If they were to get that hot that F-35 is necessary, then nukes are very much on the table.

patcheudor 9y ago

I'm not sure even in a world where dogfights are still a thing that the F-35 makes any sense. If we are talking the ability to deliver air munitions, again, I just can't see it. What makes an F-35 more special than a drone?

philjohn 9y ago
It's getting to the point of being trivial to jam a drone - and you do that, it's no longer under your control. Harder to jam a human sitting in a plane.
- patcheudor 9y ago
  Depends on your perspective. If you are running a consumer grade drone over 2.4Ghz, okay. However, it's actually getting impossible to jam military drones because of technologies like direct sequence ultra-wideband (DS-UWB). Further, if directed by satellite, further measures can be taken to block ground based jamming using directional antennas. Finally: AI. We are already at the point where we have weapons that when they lose communications, have their own camera for target identification.
  - greedo 9y ago
    Uh, no. Ask the Iranians who were able to capture an RQ-180 UAV. These sure aren't controlled on the 2.4 spectrum. And today's drones are meat for a manned fighter once they're detected. Clubbing baby seals is one of the terms used... And before someone chimes in about drone fighters, that's a good 20+ years out.
Clubber 9y ago
I'm not sure I would even call them dogfights anymore. It's about picking up a target at long range and throwing a guided missile at it. I think one of the main benefits of the F35 is range of finding and throwing. It's not unlike the WWI scenario where the German artillery shell allied positions and the allied artillery which couldn't even throw a shell that far. Range makes things pretty one sided.
riku_iki 9y ago
Drones are slow, not stealthy, can't vtol and fly from aircarrier, can carry much less ordinance, can be jammed, don't have air-to-air radar and modern missiles integration. If you try to build drone with all of features of F-35, you may get even more expensive project.
- patcheudor 9y ago
  Yet Russia made a very fast drone (if you believe Putin): https://russia-insider.com/en/putin-stunner-3-dagger-invincible-plane-launched-nuke-missile-10x-speed-sound-video/ri22673 https://russia-insider.com/en/putin-stunner-3-dagger-invinci...
  - riku_iki 9y ago
    It is not drone, it is one time use missile. Likely also expensive.

jlmorton 9y ago

The chances of developed nations going to war with each other over dwindling resources is extremely close to zero.

robotresearcher 9y ago
Surely given a long enough time window it approaches one?
- lostapathy 9y ago
  The relevant time window here is the service life of the F-35, which is probably under 50 years and I'd say the relevant probability is still approaching zero on that timescale.
- nostrademons 9y ago
  Only if you assume the concept of "nation" will outlast the concept of "war". There are a number of reasons to believe that the future of warfare will look much more like Syria, i.e. states implode from within and then break apart into a number of warring factions, each fighting over territory & resources within the carcass of the state. Actually, most of the bloodiest 20th century conflicts were of this type (eg. Russian & Chinese civil wars, Rwandan genocide & Congo Wars, civil wars in Nigeria/Sudan/Ethiopia), and historically the highest death tolls have usually occurred in civil wars where an empire breaks up or in conquests when a much more developed power invades a less-developed power (eg. Mongol conquests or European conquest of America). WW2 was a historical anomaly in that it was fought between developed nations. It's an anomaly we pay a lot of attention to, though, because it led to the current international system of American hegemony and history tends to get written by the victors.
  - ManFromUranus 9y ago
    Syria's "implosion" didn't just fall out of the sky, it was induced by the US and it's allies as a means to oust Assad. Nobody disputes that, the only thing in dispute is whether or not the ends justify the means, meaning is ousting Assad a desirable end that justifies the current proxy war or not.

lajhsdfkl 9y ago

>That being said, with all the problems the F-35 has, much like the Eurofighter before it, it might be no match for what another advanced economy could produce. Given that the F-35 was built with the latest tech that no other advanced economy even has I have no idea how anything could be built in the next 10-15 years that will significantly outclass it.

ptero 9y ago
> F-35 was built with the latest tech that no other advanced economy even has This might be true about F-22 (or not), but F-35 does not have much of latest tech as countries are suspicious of sharing cutting edge military tech on a multinational project.
GVIrish 9y ago
The problem for the F-35 is that all that advanced tech is not working properly and may never work as well as originally imagined. Meanwhile, adversaries already have aircraft that are faster, have longer range, and are more maneuverable, not to mention air defense networks. As long as the F-35's principal advantage of being somewhat stealthy holds up it will be fine against opposing air forces and AAD's. But if that advantage is sufficiently whittled away it could find itself outgunned and outclassed.
ndelage 9y ago
Doesn't the article discuss how it's already been outclasses in real world tests by existing jets like the F-16? Capabilities on paper are useless if they don't deliver in real world usage.
- lajhsdfkl 9y ago
  It lost to the F-16 in a dogfight. Dogfights are not relevant in modern warfare and were not the consideration in the F-35s design (as is readily obvious). When you have missiles traveling at speeds exceeding Mach 2 whether you can win in a dogfight is irrelevant, what is relevant is who sees who first.
Theodores 9y ago

pjmorris 9y ago

Seems to me that the strategic question is 'What is the cheapest means of attacking an F-35?' If the answer isn't another expensive fighter plane, e.g. a drone or flock of drones, then those future opponents may have an economic advantage, especially if resources are dwindling. I'm just recycling an old notion; at one time, fighters and bombers were much cheaper than the things they were attacking [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell

gaius 9y ago
Seems to me that the strategic question is 'What is the cheapest means of attacking an F-35?' Attacking ALIS. Or denying the maintenance regime - you could ground the RAF easily simply by knowing that they have to do engine maintenance on the opposite side of NATO in Turkey. That’s a long way to go for repairs if you’ve got no air superiority. Block that and just wait...
- pjmorris 9y ago
  Absolutely. I'd originally thought about writing 'attacking a (flying) F-35', as I'm predisposed to thinking that it can barely carry its own weight in terms of the expense of keeping it flying.
  - gaius 9y ago
    The Israelis proved that the best way to destroy another airforce is on the ground
richmarr 9y ago
Well, if nothing else, the Chinese J-31 would probably do the job. It's an F35 with a bunch of the crippling design compromises removed. https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/09/more-questions-f-35-after-new-specs-chinas-copycat/121859/ https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/09/more-questions-f-...
- jotm 9y ago

ptero 9y ago

An armchair general viewpoint, but the relatively short range of modern fighters makes them of limited use beyond traditional dogfight. And it needs a LOT of support that is relatively cheap to compromise outside of your home fortress (and maybe even within it). The main role it can play is flying from a nearby base to suppress air force of a low capability adversary, but 1.5T is a steep tag for this. We should limit our losses.

davismain 9y ago

The F-35 is more likely to trigger nuclear war than prevent it. The country that is at a disadvantage because they cannot compete with the F-35 will simply nuke the other country. We're talking desperate actions from desperate nations at this point. The F-35 is not useful in proxy wars because proxy wars are not allowed to get that hot. If they were to get that hot that F-35 is necessary, then nukes are very much on the table.