4 ms·

Although there are teething issues, for US allies the unit the F-35 is attractive due to a unit cost which is lower than any of its competitors (such as the Eur

Although there are teething issues, for US allies the unit the F-35 is attractive due to a unit cost which is lower than any of its competitors (such as the Eurofighter Typhoon). For domestic use, the F-35B STOVL jet used by the Marines is a dramatic improvement in range and capabilities over the Harrier. The F-35A/C are less of an improvement, but I would by no means call them a failure. It's easy to criticize a program due to cost overruns and mismanagement, but that doesn't mean the end result is bad. At the very least it's a sunk cost now, so we'll just have to deal with it.

colordrops 8y ago
I don't even know how to respond to your comment without sounding flippant. 10 billion dollars for a questionable program would upset me, let alone 1.4 trillion. It's blindingly obvious that this is a result of graft. No one has made a clear case that the US is in any sort of danger if we don't upgrade our planes. Imagine if that 1.4 trillion went towards fighting global warming, cancer, or lack of health care. It's sick.
- bitL 8y ago
  As much as it sucks, military dominance matters a lot - it's likely better for the US to have the greatest conventional weapons than Russia/China/EU having them.
  - Pamar 8y ago
    EU citizen here: I sincerely doubt you (or anyone else) should worry about EU military supremacy now and for the foreseeable future.
    - bitL 8y ago
      Given the ongoing split between US and EU it's no longer inconceivable that in 20-50 years trans-atlantic relationship deteriorates to the point of open warfare, sadly. Unfortunately, the brightest (or at least prudent) people aren't ruling either continent any longer.
      - Pamar 8y ago
        I still find improbable that in 50 years there will be a single hegemonic “coalition” in Europe. So even if we will not be friends anymore US will have to deal with maybe 2-3 regional powers, not a single global one.
      - Latteland 8y ago
        Your vision is unbelievable. The only way the us fights the eu is one or both sides are taken over by a complete dictatorship. The people on those countries would be diametrically opposed to this. Trump is not a dictator (regardless of his authoritarian preferences). Trump seems to be actively trying to knock the us out of cross country allegiances. I think whatever damage he causes, we'll be able to repair them over time.
- SllX 8y ago
  The United States has a role in the world. Leaving aside subjective thoughts on whether we should fill that role, or continue to fill that role, if we vacate that role then somebody will fill that role instead. The most obvious and likely right now would be the PLA if the United States were to vacate that role tomorrow. Or more likely, it would go unfilled for almost a decade before the PLA takes it. Personally speaking, I would rather the US continue to fill the role it currently has than see it vacated and filled by a group like the PLA, and in order to do that, the United States has to maintain technological and military superiority over its competition which means continuing to research, develop and procure new fighters, carriers, destroyers, submarines, and maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Or to put this another way, the world isn't standing still, so why would America?
  - 7952 8y ago
    Technological superiority does not guarantee military superiority. It is perfectly possible for a less advanced opponent to deliver more overall effect by using resources more carefully.
    - SllX 8y ago
      I don’t see any that as an argument against achieving and maintaining Technological superiority. If, hypothetically, you had to discard one in favor of the other, military superiority would win out in terms of priorities, but the US has and should maintain both.
      - 7952 8y ago
        This is really difficult to think about because the US is able and prepared to spend limitless amounts of money compared to other countries. You could argue that there is an opportunity cost to developing the F35. But has the US really limited expenditure in other areas as a result? It seems to me that the US strategy depends on adversaries playing by the same rule book and trying to compete using similar technology. In that environment the US is absolutely going to have superiority in military capability and technology because they can spend such vast quantities of money. The risk comes when an adversary throws out the rule book and looks for technology and tactics that nullify that advantage and are affordable. The US could be found lacking, but I don't suppose that is a fault with the F35 program exactly. And I guess that a lot of the individual technologies developed as part of the F35 program are useful in their own right.
alkonaut 8y ago
Unit cost is always a difficult measure because any purchase also involves agreements on counter investments, how much of the plane you can license build yourself etc (with F-35: probably not much!). There is also the much more important measure of total lifetime cost. Flight hours are expensive for the F-35 compared to many 4th gen fighters. I find it difficult to see why a plane designed to work stealthily in contested airspace would be very attractive for the role European air forces like Denmark or Norway have.
7952 8y ago
The Harrier was also incredibly flawed when compared to normal fighters. It had a very poor safety record, was slow, and could not carry much fuel or weapons when taking off vertically. This was a consequence of the vertical take-off design which has never proven itself to be effective for jet aircraft. The only benefit could be that you don't need the expense of a full aircraft carrier. That might make sense for a relatively cheap aircraft, but the F35 is not cheap. And you are pushing up the price of other variants as a result of the need to have a jump jet version. All so that you can have a fighter jet land operate from an amphibious assault ship. Should that really influence the procurement of over 3000 aircraft?

colordrops 8y ago

I don't even know how to respond to your comment without sounding flippant. 10 billion dollars for a questionable program would upset me, let alone 1.4 trillion. It's blindingly obvious that this is a result of graft. No one has made a clear case that the US is in any sort of danger if we don't upgrade our planes. Imagine if that 1.4 trillion went towards fighting global warming, cancer, or lack of health care. It's sick.

bitL 8y ago
As much as it sucks, military dominance matters a lot - it's likely better for the US to have the greatest conventional weapons than Russia/China/EU having them.
- Pamar 8y ago
  EU citizen here: I sincerely doubt you (or anyone else) should worry about EU military supremacy now and for the foreseeable future.
  - bitL 8y ago
    Given the ongoing split between US and EU it's no longer inconceivable that in 20-50 years trans-atlantic relationship deteriorates to the point of open warfare, sadly. Unfortunately, the brightest (or at least prudent) people aren't ruling either continent any longer.
    - Pamar 8y ago
      I still find improbable that in 50 years there will be a single hegemonic “coalition” in Europe. So even if we will not be friends anymore US will have to deal with maybe 2-3 regional powers, not a single global one.
    - Latteland 8y ago
      Your vision is unbelievable. The only way the us fights the eu is one or both sides are taken over by a complete dictatorship. The people on those countries would be diametrically opposed to this. Trump is not a dictator (regardless of his authoritarian preferences). Trump seems to be actively trying to knock the us out of cross country allegiances. I think whatever damage he causes, we'll be able to repair them over time.
SllX 8y ago
The United States has a role in the world. Leaving aside subjective thoughts on whether we should fill that role, or continue to fill that role, if we vacate that role then somebody will fill that role instead. The most obvious and likely right now would be the PLA if the United States were to vacate that role tomorrow. Or more likely, it would go unfilled for almost a decade before the PLA takes it. Personally speaking, I would rather the US continue to fill the role it currently has than see it vacated and filled by a group like the PLA, and in order to do that, the United States has to maintain technological and military superiority over its competition which means continuing to research, develop and procure new fighters, carriers, destroyers, submarines, and maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Or to put this another way, the world isn't standing still, so why would America?
- 7952 8y ago
  Technological superiority does not guarantee military superiority. It is perfectly possible for a less advanced opponent to deliver more overall effect by using resources more carefully.
  - SllX 8y ago
    I don’t see any that as an argument against achieving and maintaining Technological superiority. If, hypothetically, you had to discard one in favor of the other, military superiority would win out in terms of priorities, but the US has and should maintain both.
    - 7952 8y ago
      This is really difficult to think about because the US is able and prepared to spend limitless amounts of money compared to other countries. You could argue that there is an opportunity cost to developing the F35. But has the US really limited expenditure in other areas as a result? It seems to me that the US strategy depends on adversaries playing by the same rule book and trying to compete using similar technology. In that environment the US is absolutely going to have superiority in military capability and technology because they can spend such vast quantities of money. The risk comes when an adversary throws out the rule book and looks for technology and tactics that nullify that advantage and are affordable. The US could be found lacking, but I don't suppose that is a fault with the F35 program exactly. And I guess that a lot of the individual technologies developed as part of the F35 program are useful in their own right.

alkonaut 8y ago

Unit cost is always a difficult measure because any purchase also involves agreements on counter investments, how much of the plane you can license build yourself etc (with F-35: probably not much!). There is also the much more important measure of total lifetime cost. Flight hours are expensive for the F-35 compared to many 4th gen fighters. I find it difficult to see why a plane designed to work stealthily in contested airspace would be very attractive for the role European air forces like Denmark or Norway have.

7952 8y ago

The Harrier was also incredibly flawed when compared to normal fighters. It had a very poor safety record, was slow, and could not carry much fuel or weapons when taking off vertically. This was a consequence of the vertical take-off design which has never proven itself to be effective for jet aircraft. The only benefit could be that you don't need the expense of a full aircraft carrier. That might make sense for a relatively cheap aircraft, but the F35 is not cheap. And you are pushing up the price of other variants as a result of the need to have a jump jet version. All so that you can have a fighter jet land operate from an amphibious assault ship. Should that really influence the procurement of over 3000 aircraft?