6 ms·

Judging solely by Betteridge's law of Headlines, the answer should be "no", but maybe that's just referencing the "official" part. But yes. It's a failure. Thr

Judging solely by Betteridge's law of Headlines, the answer should be "no", but maybe that's just referencing the "official" part. But yes. It's a failure. Throw some more money at A-10s and F-22s (or upgraded versions).

idiocrat 5y ago
The government of my country have bought a pile of F35s using my tax money. Can I get a piece of it? Perhaps a commemorial dial from the onboard watch? Or they should put them out in a city center, next to the central well, next to the church, so the children can play inside on sunny Sundays.
- craftinator 5y ago
  Just wait till one crashes, then go pick your piece. Bound to happen within a few years.
t0mas88 5y ago
The F-22 is even more expensive than the F-35 and production of it has been shut down. So they can't throw more money at F-22s.
- dublin 5y ago
  Interestingly, in a first-ever move (AFAIK), the Pentagon ordered the tooling for the F-22 destroyed when they shut the program down. In every other case I'm aware of (and I participated in both shutting down and bringing back things when I worked in the aerospace industry), tooling and documentation/artifacts are carefully stored and preserved for possible future use. If there's one thing the DoD does know how to do, it's configuration management and archival/storage.
  - nradov 5y ago
    That's not completely correct. The Air Force didn't destroy the tooling and documentation. They made an effort to preserve it. But even so it appears some was lost or is no longer usable. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-big-problem-americas-stealth-f-22-raptor-america-cant-19420 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-big-problem-a...
GhostVII 5y ago
Isn't the A-10 an entirely different kind of fighter? I don't see how a close air support plane would replace the F-35.
- craftinator 5y ago
  > Isn't the A-10 an entirely different kind of fighter? Doesn't matter. The A-10 is a fully functional aircraft, which puts it far, far ahead of the F-35. > I don't see how a close air support plane would replace the F-35. For some reason, they tried to design the F-35 to do everything. What the original comment is saying, I believe, is that the A-10 and F-22 were very successful and capable aircraft, and between them could handle most all of the situations the F-35 was supposed to be able to handle (but can't). If we spent even a fraction of the cost of the F-35 on updating their design, they could be even more capable.
  - atonse 5y ago
    Not sure why this is getting downvoted. It’s pretty much a view held by some factions of the military. Except a lot of the talk is about upgrading F-15s and A10s. We really don’t have a replacement for the A10 which is an incredible workhorse and almost universally loved for its close air support capability. Unless it’s getting downvoted because the two things aren’t at odds. It would cost orders if magnitude less to just upgrade the A10s and others.
    - craftinator 5y ago
      HN doesn't like a realist, apparently. Also, another funny point to this discussion, my opinion on this subject comes directly from a number of Marine Corps pilots and senior decision makers, who I spent a decade working with. I was pretty excited about the F-35 program at first, but after hearing from those who actually had to fly them, and those that were involved in assessing their combat capabilities... Well, let's say that people whose lives depend on the F-35 do not trust them.
  - captainredbeard 5y ago
    They wanted to replace the A-10s because they are very vulnerable to modern anti-air systems. A near peer would whack em out of the sky pretty quickly. The solution is not the F-35, we just need a low RCS A-10.
x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
A-10s don't do well in near peer competitions. They are only good for harassing people in the third world who don't have any kind of anti-air capabilities.
- captainredbeard 5y ago
  Is that due to radar cross-section, speed, or heat signature?
  - cartoonfoxes 5y ago
    All of the above.
    - chipsa 5y ago
      I'd say the first two, but not heat signature. However, it's also lacking in sensors. As in, it has to operate low and slow in the daylight, because the pilot can't see well enough to operate any other time. The officially supported way to get low light/IR vision on it is to startup a Maverick missile on the wing and use the sensor on that to see.

idiocrat 5y ago

The government of my country have bought a pile of F35s using my tax money. Can I get a piece of it? Perhaps a commemorial dial from the onboard watch? Or they should put them out in a city center, next to the central well, next to the church, so the children can play inside on sunny Sundays.

craftinator 5y ago
Just wait till one crashes, then go pick your piece. Bound to happen within a few years.

t0mas88 5y ago

The F-22 is even more expensive than the F-35 and production of it has been shut down. So they can't throw more money at F-22s.

dublin 5y ago
Interestingly, in a first-ever move (AFAIK), the Pentagon ordered the tooling for the F-22 destroyed when they shut the program down. In every other case I'm aware of (and I participated in both shutting down and bringing back things when I worked in the aerospace industry), tooling and documentation/artifacts are carefully stored and preserved for possible future use. If there's one thing the DoD does know how to do, it's configuration management and archival/storage.
- nradov 5y ago
  That's not completely correct. The Air Force didn't destroy the tooling and documentation. They made an effort to preserve it. But even so it appears some was lost or is no longer usable. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-big-problem-americas-stealth-f-22-raptor-america-cant-19420 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-big-problem-a...

GhostVII 5y ago

Isn't the A-10 an entirely different kind of fighter? I don't see how a close air support plane would replace the F-35.

craftinator 5y ago
> Isn't the A-10 an entirely different kind of fighter? Doesn't matter. The A-10 is a fully functional aircraft, which puts it far, far ahead of the F-35. > I don't see how a close air support plane would replace the F-35. For some reason, they tried to design the F-35 to do everything. What the original comment is saying, I believe, is that the A-10 and F-22 were very successful and capable aircraft, and between them could handle most all of the situations the F-35 was supposed to be able to handle (but can't). If we spent even a fraction of the cost of the F-35 on updating their design, they could be even more capable.
- atonse 5y ago
  Not sure why this is getting downvoted. It’s pretty much a view held by some factions of the military. Except a lot of the talk is about upgrading F-15s and A10s. We really don’t have a replacement for the A10 which is an incredible workhorse and almost universally loved for its close air support capability. Unless it’s getting downvoted because the two things aren’t at odds. It would cost orders if magnitude less to just upgrade the A10s and others.
  - craftinator 5y ago
    HN doesn't like a realist, apparently. Also, another funny point to this discussion, my opinion on this subject comes directly from a number of Marine Corps pilots and senior decision makers, who I spent a decade working with. I was pretty excited about the F-35 program at first, but after hearing from those who actually had to fly them, and those that were involved in assessing their combat capabilities... Well, let's say that people whose lives depend on the F-35 do not trust them.
- captainredbeard 5y ago
  They wanted to replace the A-10s because they are very vulnerable to modern anti-air systems. A near peer would whack em out of the sky pretty quickly. The solution is not the F-35, we just need a low RCS A-10.

x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago

A-10s don't do well in near peer competitions. They are only good for harassing people in the third world who don't have any kind of anti-air capabilities.

captainredbeard 5y ago
Is that due to radar cross-section, speed, or heat signature?
- cartoonfoxes 5y ago
  All of the above.
  - chipsa 5y ago
    I'd say the first two, but not heat signature. However, it's also lacking in sensors. As in, it has to operate low and slow in the daylight, because the pilot can't see well enough to operate any other time. The officially supported way to get low light/IR vision on it is to startup a Maverick missile on the wing and use the sensor on that to see.