6 ms·

How did things come to where they are? My understanding is that the requirements of the SVTOL B variant were the cause of the lion's share of this plane's woes?

How did things come to where they are? My understanding is that the requirements of the SVTOL B variant were the cause of the lion's share of this plane's woes? However there's also conflicting review from pilots - many who seem to love the plane (unless they are mandated to give glowing reviews to the press?).

spicybbq 6y ago
It is notable that several countries have held competitions to choose new fighter jets and the F-35 has generally won those competitions when it was an option. Countries like Belgium, Japan, South Korea, and Poland would be examples.
- quickthrowman 6y ago
  Is it really notable? 4/4 of those countries have US military stationed in them, and all of them are either defended by the US directly or as part of a mutual defense treaty.
- 35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago
  Government procurement projects, especially international ones, aren't a great way to compare things on merit. Take Belgium: Boeing and Saab didn't even bid. Boeing hinted that the program wasn't truly a "level playing field" - and then there were leaks that suggested the Belgian military promised NATO they'd purchase the F-35 years earlier and set the procurement process up to ensure the F-35 would come out on top.
- ericbarrett 6y ago
  I'd suspect politics, monetary incentives (not coarse bribes, but rather discounts, money for other programs, soft political support, and so on). And behind all that, "Can't get fired for buying IBM" syndrome[0]. [0] http://www.ipglossary.com/glossary/no-one-ever-got-fired-for-buying-ibm-computers/ http://www.ipglossary.com/glossary/no-one-ever-got-fired-for...
  - decafninja 6y ago
    I wonder if prestige is also a factor, being able to brag that you have the "latest and the greatest". It's also the only true stealth fighter available for sale. Well, the SU-57 is also being marketed for export too, but it's probably not going to have many takers in the West for political reasons, and it has it's own set of problems. Otherwise, what is the F-35's competitors? Typhooon, Rafale, Gripen, Super Hornet, or some advanced Eagle variant? All good planes, and probably more appropriate for many air forces than the F-35, but they are all 4+ generation planes, not the latest new shiny toy that the F-35 is.
mumblemumble 6y ago
> However there's also conflicting review from pilots - many who seem to love the plane I imagine it's a bit like the Neo Geo home console in back in the 1990s. If I were spending my own money, I would happily buy both a Genesis and a SNES, and still have money left over. But that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the heck out of the Neo Geo that my rich uncle had bought for himself.
redis_mlc 6y ago
Air Force pilots are not allowed to criticize anything, however generals can, as happened about a week ago.
leetcrew 6y ago
it's a highly politicized plane unfortunately. as an interested layman, I've read persuasive arguments that the plane is DOA, an utter failure. I've also read just as persuasive arguments that the plane is a technological masterpiece with a few inconsequential setbacks of a type that should be expected with such a groundbreaking machine. it's hard for me to tell where the truth lies. I don't know if it's like a self-driving car that occasionally waits way too long at stop signs or the kind that occasionally plows into children for no reason.
- zozin 6y ago
  The recent criticism against the F35 was started by Adam Smith, Democratic Representative from Washington state, where Boeing has a huge presence and is a big donor. The chief of staff of the Air Force referred to the F35 as a Ferrari that you don't want to drive all the time. To me that reads that you can't use/waste the F35 in non-peer enemy conflicts since it's far too good of a plane for such situations, and that Congress should pony up more money to the armed forces so they can build a modern but less capable plane.
  - jjk166 6y ago
    That's not a compliment. The F22 was supposed to be the Ferrari you don't want to drive all the time, and the F35 was supposed to be the inexpensive, less capable plane you use against non-peer enemies. In asking for funds to develop a new plane to fill that role, there is an implicit admission that the F-35 has failed to fill that role for which it was designed.
    - decafninja 6y ago
      Now there is rumors of the "F-36 Kingsnake" circulating about a sort of cheap "F-16++" fighter being needed. The F-15EX's existence is also kind of an admission that the F-22/F-35 combo didn't quite meet desired expectations too.
      - nradov 6y ago
jjk166 6y ago
I think we need to remember that there are two major perspectives for evaluating something like this: comparing it to what it was supposed to be and comparing it to what came before. Undoubtedly the F-35, simply by virtue of being developed later, has a lot of lessons learned and new technology baked into it that certainly will scratch an itch for some people. However the major problems which were the impetus for the F-35's development largely remain unaddressed so there's certainly a large group that didn't get what they were looking for. Ironically, it might be perfectly accurate to describe it as simultaneously the smartest and stupidest modern fighter jet.
- mumblemumble 6y ago
  As a product designer, the F-35 strikes me as an object lesson in the oftentimes enormous difference between giving your client what they asked for, and giving your client what they want.
jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
Both are essentially true. The aircraft does its job quite well. That's why the pilots love it. While specific details are pretty tightly controlled, no, the military doesn't force pilots to lie. Enough of our allies have flown it or against it in Red Flag that we'd not be successful keeping it a secret if it were a lemon. Likewise our allies like us, but not enough to spend billions on junk. But the program was somewhat of a disaster, and the sustainment costs continue to be high enough the air force is seriously considering shifting their future buys to upgraded versions of previous generation fighters. The joint acquisition was indeed a big part of the problem, with the 3 variants not having nearly as much commonality as hoped. So all the costs of the joint acquisition, with none of the benefits. Basically everything the AF has published about procurement since, particularly Dr Roper's stuff, is very clearly "don't let something like the F-35 program happen ever again."
- irrational 6y ago
  > our allies like us Is this still true? Or is this, they like us like we like a dumb puppy making a fool of itself while not realizing everyone is laughing at it behind their polite hands?
  - benjohnson 6y ago
    It doesn’t even have to be ‘like’ that brings countries together - just a significantly better alternative to the USSR and PRC. Flawed as the US is, for a super-power we don’t seem to rack up dead bodies in the millions as others have done. And if we do slaughter innocents, at least we make contrite noises about it a few decades later.
    - irrational 6y ago
      That's like deciding to marry a man because he doesn't beat you as often as other men. He is still a bad man.
      - 29083011397778 6y ago

spicybbq 6y ago

It is notable that several countries have held competitions to choose new fighter jets and the F-35 has generally won those competitions when it was an option. Countries like Belgium, Japan, South Korea, and Poland would be examples.

quickthrowman 6y ago
Is it really notable? 4/4 of those countries have US military stationed in them, and all of them are either defended by the US directly or as part of a mutual defense treaty.
35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago
Government procurement projects, especially international ones, aren't a great way to compare things on merit. Take Belgium: Boeing and Saab didn't even bid. Boeing hinted that the program wasn't truly a "level playing field" - and then there were leaks that suggested the Belgian military promised NATO they'd purchase the F-35 years earlier and set the procurement process up to ensure the F-35 would come out on top.
ericbarrett 6y ago
I'd suspect politics, monetary incentives (not coarse bribes, but rather discounts, money for other programs, soft political support, and so on). And behind all that, "Can't get fired for buying IBM" syndrome[0]. [0] http://www.ipglossary.com/glossary/no-one-ever-got-fired-for-buying-ibm-computers/ http://www.ipglossary.com/glossary/no-one-ever-got-fired-for...
- decafninja 6y ago
  I wonder if prestige is also a factor, being able to brag that you have the "latest and the greatest". It's also the only true stealth fighter available for sale. Well, the SU-57 is also being marketed for export too, but it's probably not going to have many takers in the West for political reasons, and it has it's own set of problems. Otherwise, what is the F-35's competitors? Typhooon, Rafale, Gripen, Super Hornet, or some advanced Eagle variant? All good planes, and probably more appropriate for many air forces than the F-35, but they are all 4+ generation planes, not the latest new shiny toy that the F-35 is.

mumblemumble 6y ago

> However there's also conflicting review from pilots - many who seem to love the plane I imagine it's a bit like the Neo Geo home console in back in the 1990s. If I were spending my own money, I would happily buy both a Genesis and a SNES, and still have money left over. But that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the heck out of the Neo Geo that my rich uncle had bought for himself.

redis_mlc 6y ago

Air Force pilots are not allowed to criticize anything, however generals can, as happened about a week ago.

leetcrew 6y ago

it's a highly politicized plane unfortunately. as an interested layman, I've read persuasive arguments that the plane is DOA, an utter failure. I've also read just as persuasive arguments that the plane is a technological masterpiece with a few inconsequential setbacks of a type that should be expected with such a groundbreaking machine. it's hard for me to tell where the truth lies. I don't know if it's like a self-driving car that occasionally waits way too long at stop signs or the kind that occasionally plows into children for no reason.

zozin 6y ago
The recent criticism against the F35 was started by Adam Smith, Democratic Representative from Washington state, where Boeing has a huge presence and is a big donor. The chief of staff of the Air Force referred to the F35 as a Ferrari that you don't want to drive all the time. To me that reads that you can't use/waste the F35 in non-peer enemy conflicts since it's far too good of a plane for such situations, and that Congress should pony up more money to the armed forces so they can build a modern but less capable plane.
- jjk166 6y ago
  That's not a compliment. The F22 was supposed to be the Ferrari you don't want to drive all the time, and the F35 was supposed to be the inexpensive, less capable plane you use against non-peer enemies. In asking for funds to develop a new plane to fill that role, there is an implicit admission that the F-35 has failed to fill that role for which it was designed.
  - decafninja 6y ago
    Now there is rumors of the "F-36 Kingsnake" circulating about a sort of cheap "F-16++" fighter being needed. The F-15EX's existence is also kind of an admission that the F-22/F-35 combo didn't quite meet desired expectations too.
    - nradov 6y ago

jjk166 6y ago

I think we need to remember that there are two major perspectives for evaluating something like this: comparing it to what it was supposed to be and comparing it to what came before. Undoubtedly the F-35, simply by virtue of being developed later, has a lot of lessons learned and new technology baked into it that certainly will scratch an itch for some people. However the major problems which were the impetus for the F-35's development largely remain unaddressed so there's certainly a large group that didn't get what they were looking for. Ironically, it might be perfectly accurate to describe it as simultaneously the smartest and stupidest modern fighter jet.

mumblemumble 6y ago
As a product designer, the F-35 strikes me as an object lesson in the oftentimes enormous difference between giving your client what they asked for, and giving your client what they want.

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago

Both are essentially true. The aircraft does its job quite well. That's why the pilots love it. While specific details are pretty tightly controlled, no, the military doesn't force pilots to lie. Enough of our allies have flown it or against it in Red Flag that we'd not be successful keeping it a secret if it were a lemon. Likewise our allies like us, but not enough to spend billions on junk. But the program was somewhat of a disaster, and the sustainment costs continue to be high enough the air force is seriously considering shifting their future buys to upgraded versions of previous generation fighters. The joint acquisition was indeed a big part of the problem, with the 3 variants not having nearly as much commonality as hoped. So all the costs of the joint acquisition, with none of the benefits. Basically everything the AF has published about procurement since, particularly Dr Roper's stuff, is very clearly "don't let something like the F-35 program happen ever again."

irrational 6y ago
> our allies like us Is this still true? Or is this, they like us like we like a dumb puppy making a fool of itself while not realizing everyone is laughing at it behind their polite hands?
- benjohnson 6y ago
  It doesn’t even have to be ‘like’ that brings countries together - just a significantly better alternative to the USSR and PRC. Flawed as the US is, for a super-power we don’t seem to rack up dead bodies in the millions as others have done. And if we do slaughter innocents, at least we make contrite noises about it a few decades later.
  - irrational 6y ago
    That's like deciding to marry a man because he doesn't beat you as often as other men. He is still a bad man.
    - 29083011397778 6y ago