4 ms·

That's a little disingenuous. For other platforms, the constraint is fuel. Afterburner guzzles fuel. Only F-35 requires expensive and protracted maintenance aft

That's a little disingenuous. For other platforms, the constraint is fuel. Afterburner guzzles fuel. Only F-35 requires expensive and protracted maintenance after supersonic flight. Which is another area where F-35 is lacking: range. Without external fuel tanks it can't fight in the Pacific.

sudosysgen 5y ago
There are actually four other operational aircraft that can reach supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners.
strictnein 5y ago
> "Without external fuel tanks it can't fight in the Pacific" If only we had large floating aircraft bases and the plane also had versions that supported VTOL for even more expansive capabilities at sea.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  You do, but the closer they get to the target the greater the likelihood they have of getting sunk. The likelihood approaches 100% as the distance to the target is reduced.
skhr0680 5y ago
By “in the Pacific” do you mean flying from US west? If things come to that, then the US is in deep trouble.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Not necessarily, the US has land bases in the pacific. If you're going to base your availability of air power, which is the main determinant of success given the American military doctrine, on having a secure and available carrier at all times, you may be putting yourself in a bind when anti-ship weapons start proliferating and you become forced to increase distance between those defenses and your carriers. It also puts a hell of a single point of failure.
  - skhr0680 5y ago
    My point is that if there's a war with China then the US will seek to contain it to the East China Sea. Kadena is 700km to the Chinese mainland, which is well within the F-35's combat range of 1000km.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      The issue with Kadena is that it now become too close to the Chinese mainland, enough that it could be disabled by missile strikes. The best thing that could be done would be to have enough range to be able to fly out from a carrier that's relatively safe from antiship missiles. But that may well become impossible anyways as antiship missile evolve.

sudosysgen 5y ago

There are actually four other operational aircraft that can reach supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners.

strictnein 5y ago

> "Without external fuel tanks it can't fight in the Pacific" If only we had large floating aircraft bases and the plane also had versions that supported VTOL for even more expansive capabilities at sea.

sudosysgen 5y ago
You do, but the closer they get to the target the greater the likelihood they have of getting sunk. The likelihood approaches 100% as the distance to the target is reduced.

skhr0680 5y ago

By “in the Pacific” do you mean flying from US west? If things come to that, then the US is in deep trouble.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Not necessarily, the US has land bases in the pacific. If you're going to base your availability of air power, which is the main determinant of success given the American military doctrine, on having a secure and available carrier at all times, you may be putting yourself in a bind when anti-ship weapons start proliferating and you become forced to increase distance between those defenses and your carriers. It also puts a hell of a single point of failure.
- skhr0680 5y ago
  My point is that if there's a war with China then the US will seek to contain it to the East China Sea. Kadena is 700km to the Chinese mainland, which is well within the F-35's combat range of 1000km.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    The issue with Kadena is that it now become too close to the Chinese mainland, enough that it could be disabled by missile strikes. The best thing that could be done would be to have enough range to be able to fly out from a carrier that's relatively safe from antiship missiles. But that may well become impossible anyways as antiship missile evolve.