5 ms·

But would the alternative of designing and manufacturing many different aircraft be cheaper? And would it be as effective? For it's faults, the F-35 is a weapo

But would the alternative of designing and manufacturing many different aircraft be cheaper? And would it be as effective? For it's faults, the F-35 is a weapon that can be configured and deployed at the drop of a hat for just about anything. That's a very powerful capability to have as a defensive and offensive weapon.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
cryptonector 7y ago
It might not be cheaper, though I suspect it would be just because white elephants will white elephant. And besides, what's the likelihood that three separate projects will fail? But the likelihood that a jack of all trades will be a master of none, and thus perhaps ineffective, is pretty high. > at the drop of a hat Ha! There are still multiple variants, and you cannot reconfigure instances of one variant to be instances of another, and certainly not at the drop of a hat.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
colechristensen 7y ago
>But would the alternative of designing and manufacturing many different aircraft be cheaper? Ultimately yes. You can be much more agile when you aren't trying to satisfy a large collection of armed services, nations, and mission roles many of whom are mostly interested in putting their mark on something instead of making it better. >And would it be as effective? Not if your definition of effective is ability of one aircraft to do everything. If your definition of effective is forces ability to achieve goals, then yes a set of aircraft specialists can be better than one generalist.
randcraw 7y ago
But if single purpose aircraft are more capable at that purpose, the F-35 still loses when it goes into battle. The fact that it doesn't suck at anything in particular only counts on a spreadsheet. No F-35 is going to be used for different purposes by the same pilot or military service. The best tool for the job — that's something the F-35 is not now and never can be. When on a bombing run radar stealth and bomb load matters, but acrobatic agility and VTOL / STOL doesn't. On a carrier, durability matters every time you slap the deck and VTOL /STOL might be very handy, but stealth or high altitude capability, not as much. Designing a fighter/bomber to please every service is like training every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine to have the same fighting skills. It's going to get them all killed.
GVIrish 7y ago
> But would the alternative of designing and manufacturing many different aircraft be cheaper? And would it be as effective? Yes. The military has tried the multi service aircraft idea in the past, wasted a lot of money, and failed completely to develop one of the desired variants. That was the F-111, which was supposed to have a Navy and Air Force version. The F-35 was supposed to feature 80% parts commonality between the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps versions. Instead, it ended up being 20%. With that little parts commonality, the different services should've just developed their own planes. All three services would've ended up with a more capable aircraft for their requirements that wasn't so heavily compromised. And it in all likelihood would have been cheaper. > For it's faults, the F-35 is a weapon that can be configured and deployed at the drop of a hat for just about anything. That's a very powerful capability to have as a defensive and offensive weapon It can fly a multitude of roles but it is not as good at many of them as a more focused aircraft would be. Considering the massive costs it was a bad trade off.
- jdietrich 7y ago
  See also the disastrous development process of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle#Histo...
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  The F-111 is the right comparison class. It was supposed to do everything; got relegated to the role every failed airframe does: attack aircraft. Basically a shitty expensive bomber. Just as the F35 is. Dipshit Generals who are bribed with Lockheed jobs afterwords will try to convince you that's really what they wanted; it ain't. It is an egregiously failed weapons system, though an excellent piece of modern political corruption. Yay we have a plane that costs $300 a troy ounce which can be used to blow up cavemen in Afghanistan. Something a cloth winged Sopwith Camel biplane from WW-1 would probably actually be better at; certainly more cost effective. Nerds who are touting this turkey because "woo woo cool half million dollar vidya game helmet" ... y'awl make me want to renounce my citizenship. This turd can be defeated by a Russian tractor mechanic detuning his radar slightly.
p_l 7y ago
Just basic post-flight download of data takes more than the flight. The reconfiguration happens only in two or three places in the world and can take weeks if not months and then you need to have high-speed Internet access to get it. Quick turnaround is something yiu get from Soviets/Russians or Swedes, where the doctrines involved make it priority feature.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

cryptonector 7y ago

It might not be cheaper, though I suspect it would be just because white elephants will white elephant. And besides, what's the likelihood that three separate projects will fail? But the likelihood that a jack of all trades will be a master of none, and thus perhaps ineffective, is pretty high. > at the drop of a hat Ha! There are still multiple variants, and you cannot reconfigure instances of one variant to be instances of another, and certainly not at the drop of a hat.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

colechristensen 7y ago

>But would the alternative of designing and manufacturing many different aircraft be cheaper? Ultimately yes. You can be much more agile when you aren't trying to satisfy a large collection of armed services, nations, and mission roles many of whom are mostly interested in putting their mark on something instead of making it better. >And would it be as effective? Not if your definition of effective is ability of one aircraft to do everything. If your definition of effective is forces ability to achieve goals, then yes a set of aircraft specialists can be better than one generalist.

randcraw 7y ago

But if single purpose aircraft are more capable at that purpose, the F-35 still loses when it goes into battle. The fact that it doesn't suck at anything in particular only counts on a spreadsheet. No F-35 is going to be used for different purposes by the same pilot or military service. The best tool for the job — that's something the F-35 is not now and never can be. When on a bombing run radar stealth and bomb load matters, but acrobatic agility and VTOL / STOL doesn't. On a carrier, durability matters every time you slap the deck and VTOL /STOL might be very handy, but stealth or high altitude capability, not as much. Designing a fighter/bomber to please every service is like training every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine to have the same fighting skills. It's going to get them all killed.

GVIrish 7y ago

> But would the alternative of designing and manufacturing many different aircraft be cheaper? And would it be as effective? Yes. The military has tried the multi service aircraft idea in the past, wasted a lot of money, and failed completely to develop one of the desired variants. That was the F-111, which was supposed to have a Navy and Air Force version. The F-35 was supposed to feature 80% parts commonality between the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps versions. Instead, it ended up being 20%. With that little parts commonality, the different services should've just developed their own planes. All three services would've ended up with a more capable aircraft for their requirements that wasn't so heavily compromised. And it in all likelihood would have been cheaper. > For it's faults, the F-35 is a weapon that can be configured and deployed at the drop of a hat for just about anything. That's a very powerful capability to have as a defensive and offensive weapon It can fly a multitude of roles but it is not as good at many of them as a more focused aircraft would be. Considering the massive costs it was a bad trade off.

jdietrich 7y ago
See also the disastrous development process of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle#Histo...
scottlocklin 7y ago
The F-111 is the right comparison class. It was supposed to do everything; got relegated to the role every failed airframe does: attack aircraft. Basically a shitty expensive bomber. Just as the F35 is. Dipshit Generals who are bribed with Lockheed jobs afterwords will try to convince you that's really what they wanted; it ain't. It is an egregiously failed weapons system, though an excellent piece of modern political corruption. Yay we have a plane that costs $300 a troy ounce which can be used to blow up cavemen in Afghanistan. Something a cloth winged Sopwith Camel biplane from WW-1 would probably actually be better at; certainly more cost effective. Nerds who are touting this turkey because "woo woo cool half million dollar vidya game helmet" ... y'awl make me want to renounce my citizenship. This turd can be defeated by a Russian tractor mechanic detuning his radar slightly.

p_l 7y ago

Just basic post-flight download of data takes more than the flight. The reconfiguration happens only in two or three places in the world and can take weeks if not months and then you need to have high-speed Internet access to get it. Quick turnaround is something yiu get from Soviets/Russians or Swedes, where the doctrines involved make it priority feature.