3 ms·

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 j

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
      The F-22 pretty much met expectations, however the operating costs are high (as expected) and the production line was shut down so it's impossible to build more. Meanwhile the old F-15s used for missions like homeland defense are literally falling apart so some sort of replacement was mandatory. The F-15 production line is still active so that became the only practical option.
      - decafninja 6y ago
        From a capability perspective, the F-22 seems clearly superior to its predecessor the F-15, so definitely successful there. But wasn't the original goal to eventually wholesale replace the F-15 (the air superiority variants at least)? That clearly isn't going to happen. Much like how the F-35 was supposed to replace the F-16 and F/A-18, but seems like that's not going to happen the way things are going.
        nradov 6y ago
        The program which produced the F-22 started back in 1981 and the original intent was to wholesale replace the F-15. But it got caught in a procurement death spiral of escalating unit costs which caused repeated quantity reductions. Eventually the Obama administration cancelled all future purchases in 2011 in order to save money for the F-35 program and the wars in the Middle East. At this point it's effectively impossible to restart F-22 production as the supply chain for critical components has disappeared.
- spicybbq 6y ago
  That was certainly an interesting thing for him to say. My read is that the maintenance requirements of stealth aircraft are unavoidably high.
  - bopbeepboop 6y ago
    Both can be true. It’s a plane reserved for near-peer conflicts where the high performance and stealth are critical deciders due to unavoidably high costs of those technologies. So the military would also like to have lower cost, cheaper to operate planes for other missions — eg, support ground troops in low threat areas.
curryst 6y ago
The impression I get is that it's usefulness heavily depends on the parameters of engagement, and how useful you see the plane as being hinges on what type of engagement you see as the most likely. One of the criticisms is that the plane is too expensive to use against non-peers. What I'm reading between the lines is that all of this technology is designed to counter advanced enemies. There's no reason to use an F-35 in somewhere like Iraq because they don't even really have the means to combat F-22s. There's no point in expensive, fancy stealth fighters if your enemy lacks the ability to detect and counter much simpler planes. That leaves the technologically advanced foes. The pivotal question there becomes "how well does the stealth work?", and the answer probably heavily depends on where the combat takes place. If we're fighting a proxy war in a third world country, the F-35 probably makes a lot of sense. Even if our foes have detection capabilities, they would need to get them deployed and make sure we don't destroy them. It also presumes that our advanced foe is willing to show their hand and give their detection hardware to the proxy country, giving up a future advantage. This thing just doesn't seem capable of dogfighting, so a sheer technological advantage is a must in order for it to be successful. Otherwise it will have to be deployed with planes that can dogfight, ruining the stealth advantage. The open ended question is "Do we have a technological advantage, and can we maintain it?". Everyone's perception of the plane is flavored by their answer to that question.

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
    The F-22 pretty much met expectations, however the operating costs are high (as expected) and the production line was shut down so it's impossible to build more. Meanwhile the old F-15s used for missions like homeland defense are literally falling apart so some sort of replacement was mandatory. The F-15 production line is still active so that became the only practical option.
    - decafninja 6y ago
      From a capability perspective, the F-22 seems clearly superior to its predecessor the F-15, so definitely successful there. But wasn't the original goal to eventually wholesale replace the F-15 (the air superiority variants at least)? That clearly isn't going to happen. Much like how the F-35 was supposed to replace the F-16 and F/A-18, but seems like that's not going to happen the way things are going.
      - nradov 6y ago
        The program which produced the F-22 started back in 1981 and the original intent was to wholesale replace the F-15. But it got caught in a procurement death spiral of escalating unit costs which caused repeated quantity reductions. Eventually the Obama administration cancelled all future purchases in 2011 in order to save money for the F-35 program and the wars in the Middle East. At this point it's effectively impossible to restart F-22 production as the supply chain for critical components has disappeared.
spicybbq 6y ago
That was certainly an interesting thing for him to say. My read is that the maintenance requirements of stealth aircraft are unavoidably high.
- bopbeepboop 6y ago
  Both can be true. It’s a plane reserved for near-peer conflicts where the high performance and stealth are critical deciders due to unavoidably high costs of those technologies. So the military would also like to have lower cost, cheaper to operate planes for other missions — eg, support ground troops in low threat areas.

curryst 6y ago

The impression I get is that it's usefulness heavily depends on the parameters of engagement, and how useful you see the plane as being hinges on what type of engagement you see as the most likely. One of the criticisms is that the plane is too expensive to use against non-peers. What I'm reading between the lines is that all of this technology is designed to counter advanced enemies. There's no reason to use an F-35 in somewhere like Iraq because they don't even really have the means to combat F-22s. There's no point in expensive, fancy stealth fighters if your enemy lacks the ability to detect and counter much simpler planes. That leaves the technologically advanced foes. The pivotal question there becomes "how well does the stealth work?", and the answer probably heavily depends on where the combat takes place. If we're fighting a proxy war in a third world country, the F-35 probably makes a lot of sense. Even if our foes have detection capabilities, they would need to get them deployed and make sure we don't destroy them. It also presumes that our advanced foe is willing to show their hand and give their detection hardware to the proxy country, giving up a future advantage. This thing just doesn't seem capable of dogfighting, so a sheer technological advantage is a must in order for it to be successful. Otherwise it will have to be deployed with planes that can dogfight, ruining the stealth advantage. The open ended question is "Do we have a technological advantage, and can we maintain it?". Everyone's perception of the plane is flavored by their answer to that question.