4 ms·

Bingo. The F-35 as a bomb delivery platform might be already obsolete, as drones are far cheaper. You still need air defense/air superiority fighter though.

sandworm101 6y ago
And the f-35 is neither. It is the complement to the f-22, not its replacement. There are more effective air superiority fighters out there for far less money.
- 0xCMP 6y ago
  Except we stopped F-22 production to focus on replacing it with the F-35
  - Diesel555 6y ago
    Not true. This topic is more complex then simply replacing the F-22 with F-35 as most government decisions on multi-million dollar projects with state interests in mind are. The F-22 was cancelled because the military thought that they didn't needed to spend the money on air superiority fighters and wanted to use the money elsewhere (drones and bombers). I don't think the F-35 was in the discussion that much... they fired the top leaders of the Air Force at this time. Robert Gates killed the F-22 and fired the chief of staff of the Air Force Moseley and secretary Wynne. Since then we knew it was a mistake and tried to restart the F-22 line. It didn't make sense for cost. Gates has his own book Duty which references this quite a bit and is a great political read https://www.amazon.com/Duty-Memoirs-Secretary-at-War/dp/030794963X https://www.amazon.com/Duty-Memoirs-Secretary-at-War/dp/0307... And there is another book that argues it was a bad idea. https://www.amazon.com/Air-Power-Abandoned-Betrayal-Americas/dp/0986320013 https://www.amazon.com/Air-Power-Abandoned-Betrayal-Americas... Also: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20472/retired-general-says-f-22-production-was-killed-so-that-a-new-bomber-could-live https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20472/retired-general-... https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/05/10/former-air-force-chief-of-staff-talks-rpas-budget-cuts-and-his-regrets-about-shrinking-the-force/ https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/05/10... This one is funny because they talk about the increased costs of the B-2 due to cutting it early..... as they cut the F-22. https://www.airforcemag.com/schwartz-in-memoir-says-f-22-was-traded-for-b-21-bomber/ https://www.airforcemag.com/schwartz-in-memoir-says-f-22-was...
dodobirdlord 6y ago
The F-35/s future role is as a sensor platform and networking hub for a group of lighter-weight, cheaper, and more expendable drones. Eventually the F-35 will also be unmanned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kratos_XQ-58_Valkyrie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kratos_XQ-58_Valkyrie
- sandworm101 6y ago
  That thing should be called Valkryie II. The Valkyrie was a much more impressive aircraft, an almost legend that is too often forgotten. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie
  - bigphishy 6y ago
    The Valkyrie was a legend. Looks like it inspired the concord.
- waiseristy 6y ago
  That's what Lockheed-Martin has been saying, but I'm pretty sure the F-35 is still deployed along-side an AWACS. And with more and better satellite imagery & communication. I just don't see why we need this extremely capable and expensive flying network router.
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    AWACS can be shot down by near-peer adversaries. And satellites travel in known orbits and have no capacity to evade. It's well known at this point that nations that can make current-generation fighter jets can also shoot down satellites.
    - chmod775 6y ago
      Making a fighter jet is way harder than hitting a satellite with a few grams worth of kinetic projectile (or, more accurately, letting the satellite run into a field them). I wouldn't bet on any nation not being able to pull that off. In fact I can think of some teams of university students who could probably hit a Starlink satellite if you gave them some funding.
baybal2 6y ago
F-35 combat range is "only" 1000km, and will get smaller with heavier munitions. Say, you get 500km range if you want to drop 20t of bombs, have 8 planes, and want to have safety margins. 500km is easily within the range of even the most primitive tactical missile like Oka, and retaliatory airstrikes. On other hand, you will have a very busy forward airfield, with tiny airstrip, with a lot of very expensive planes, and long times to sortie, and very close to the enemy.

sandworm101 6y ago

And the f-35 is neither. It is the complement to the f-22, not its replacement. There are more effective air superiority fighters out there for far less money.

0xCMP 6y ago
Except we stopped F-22 production to focus on replacing it with the F-35
- Diesel555 6y ago
  Not true. This topic is more complex then simply replacing the F-22 with F-35 as most government decisions on multi-million dollar projects with state interests in mind are. The F-22 was cancelled because the military thought that they didn't needed to spend the money on air superiority fighters and wanted to use the money elsewhere (drones and bombers). I don't think the F-35 was in the discussion that much... they fired the top leaders of the Air Force at this time. Robert Gates killed the F-22 and fired the chief of staff of the Air Force Moseley and secretary Wynne. Since then we knew it was a mistake and tried to restart the F-22 line. It didn't make sense for cost. Gates has his own book Duty which references this quite a bit and is a great political read https://www.amazon.com/Duty-Memoirs-Secretary-at-War/dp/030794963X https://www.amazon.com/Duty-Memoirs-Secretary-at-War/dp/0307... And there is another book that argues it was a bad idea. https://www.amazon.com/Air-Power-Abandoned-Betrayal-Americas/dp/0986320013 https://www.amazon.com/Air-Power-Abandoned-Betrayal-Americas... Also: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20472/retired-general-says-f-22-production-was-killed-so-that-a-new-bomber-could-live https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20472/retired-general-... https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/05/10/former-air-force-chief-of-staff-talks-rpas-budget-cuts-and-his-regrets-about-shrinking-the-force/ https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/05/10... This one is funny because they talk about the increased costs of the B-2 due to cutting it early..... as they cut the F-22. https://www.airforcemag.com/schwartz-in-memoir-says-f-22-was-traded-for-b-21-bomber/ https://www.airforcemag.com/schwartz-in-memoir-says-f-22-was...

dodobirdlord 6y ago

The F-35/s future role is as a sensor platform and networking hub for a group of lighter-weight, cheaper, and more expendable drones. Eventually the F-35 will also be unmanned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kratos_XQ-58_Valkyrie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kratos_XQ-58_Valkyrie

sandworm101 6y ago
That thing should be called Valkryie II. The Valkyrie was a much more impressive aircraft, an almost legend that is too often forgotten. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie
- bigphishy 6y ago
  The Valkyrie was a legend. Looks like it inspired the concord.
waiseristy 6y ago
That's what Lockheed-Martin has been saying, but I'm pretty sure the F-35 is still deployed along-side an AWACS. And with more and better satellite imagery & communication. I just don't see why we need this extremely capable and expensive flying network router.
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  AWACS can be shot down by near-peer adversaries. And satellites travel in known orbits and have no capacity to evade. It's well known at this point that nations that can make current-generation fighter jets can also shoot down satellites.
  - chmod775 6y ago
    Making a fighter jet is way harder than hitting a satellite with a few grams worth of kinetic projectile (or, more accurately, letting the satellite run into a field them). I wouldn't bet on any nation not being able to pull that off. In fact I can think of some teams of university students who could probably hit a Starlink satellite if you gave them some funding.

baybal2 6y ago

F-35 combat range is "only" 1000km, and will get smaller with heavier munitions. Say, you get 500km range if you want to drop 20t of bombs, have 8 planes, and want to have safety margins. 500km is easily within the range of even the most primitive tactical missile like Oka, and retaliatory airstrikes. On other hand, you will have a very busy forward airfield, with tiny airstrip, with a lot of very expensive planes, and long times to sortie, and very close to the enemy.