8 ms·

The Case for the F-35

54 points by cwillu 4y ago

cwillu 4y ago
“In a lot of ways, this post is a few years too late. Most prominent military procurement programs go through three phases, at least in the public discourse. Early on, they are miraculous, and will solve all problems. They’re cheaper than what we have now, and far more capable. Then, as they come closer to entering service, problems show up, and the media turns on the program. It’s now the worst thing ever, behind schedule, over budget, and useless compared to what it’s supposed to replace if not actively dangerous to our brave troops. Lastly, these problems get resolved, and it becomes a perfectly normal, if imperfect, weapons system, eventually celebrated as a fine example of American engineering, and the benchmark against which the next system will be measured.”
the__alchemist 4y ago
I buy it. Fourth gen is very old. We've been putting lipstick on this pig for a while (updated bombs, missiles, radars etc). Procurement is a mess and corrupt. Unfortunately, these sorts of things are at the top end of production chains, so it's tough to disrupt. It takes too long, and too much money to replace and upgrade fighters and weapons. It's not a technical problem, but a political one.
- redanddead 4y ago
  >these sorts of things are at the top end of production chains could you expand on this?
  - the__alchemist 4y ago
    As a civilization, we build things in tiers. Tools to build other tools to build other tools. (And it's a bit circular too) And materials. So, you might have at the bottom things like extracting ore, fossil fuels, plant matter etc. Then you might turn that into crude grades of iron, separate various hydrocarbon chains out. Then you might refine that into steel of a certain grade, or industrial lubricant. Machines you build with that are used to make other machines. Maybe one of those mills a part, that's used in another machine. Etc. Some things, like jet engine turbine blades, are at the end of very long chains. Also, it's a complex engineering problem because lots of different systems need to be made to work together, reliably, under high temperatures, pressures etc. Different specialists need to agree on how to make their components work together. So, I can't just get together with my buddies, get some funding, and disrupt the industry. (For that and other reasons). Or maybe you could, but it would be tougher than doing so in most other industries.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
The per-unit cost of the F-22 was substantially more than the F-35, yet the F-35 is everybody's favorite whipping boy while the F-22 gets nothing but praise from the same crowd. And I think there is a general awareness of F-22 production ending due to expense, so it's not as though the F-22 is wrongly perceived as being cheap. I think the discrepancy in public perception comes down to physical appearances. The F-22 looks lean and mean, while the F-35 looks lumpy and frumpy. Physical appearance is the way most laymen judge jets. Ugly jets which are nevertheless popular have some other dramatic attribute which which offsets their appearance, like the A-10's autocannon.
- Kye 4y ago
  There are 800+ F-35s and just under 200 F-22s. Of course the per-unit cost is higher. That doesn't mean anything other than the politics surrounding each was different, so fewer were ordered of one than the other. The programs cost about the same.
  - rhaway84773 4y ago
    The F-35 was designed to cover use cases for the navy, Air Force and Air Force. That almost certainly contributed to the greater production and justifies the argument that the additional design and development cost of developing such a flexible design would be offset by the greater need and use. Which is the crux of the questions surrounding the F-35.
  - cbsmith 4y ago
    Want the F-22 designed for narrower scenarios, and so part of the other is we'd never need as many?
    - cbsmith 4y ago
      Autocorrect shames me. "Wasn't the F-22 designed for narrower scenarios, and so part of the problem is we'd never need as many?"
    - tadfisher 4y ago
jseliger 4y ago
"There’s also criticism from the opposite direction, that we should be buying drones instead. I’ve largely said my piece on that earlier this year, but the short version is that in the areas where they are useful, unmanned systems have already taken over. We call them things like “cruise missiles” and “AAMs”." I'm not an expert here but I've read claims that China, if it invades Taiwan, will use some combinations of missiles, drones, and drone-missile hybrids to destroy or render ineffective landing strips and maintenance fields necessary for effective manned fighter aircraft deployment. Yes, there are missile defenses, but they'll be overwhelmed by the sheer number of missiles and drones, and thus the F-35 will be a powerful fighter that can't be effectively deployed. Edit to add: Carriers will suffer similar problems (sample: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/pentagon-war-games-reveal-that-us-would-lose-any-war-fought-in-the-pacific-with-china/ https://theaviationgeekclub.com/pentagon-war-games-reveal-th...) and be destroyed with hypersonic missile barrages. Is this true? No one will really know until the moment, but it seems and sounds plausible. "In any case, while the F-35 isn’t perfect, it’s clearly the best solution available for the threats the US and its allies face today." Unless the real threats are from drones and missiles that cost anywhere from 1/10th to 1/100th to even less than an F-35, and thus can be produced in far greater quantities for a given outlay.
- closetnerd 4y ago
  I'm the most ignorant man alive when it comes to war - but this is what I want to know. Isn't sensor + tracking abilities far more advanced at shooting down planes than planes are at creating damage? And if that's the case, aren't hyper/sonic/long/range stuff better at evading defenses? Seems like the next "war" will be LoL style to me.
  - tlb 4y ago
    Wars are won by convincing the opposing government and its citizens that they have been defeated and must surrender. When there are a dozen F-35s flying patterns over your capital city, everyone has to admit defeat. Drones or missiles wouldn't have the same effect. For the desired effect, fighter jets must be big, loud, and expensive.
tomohawk 4y ago
The F15 has more than double the combat range of the F35. They are pulling the F15 out of Okinawa, and there is no way the F35 can replace it. It lack the range, among other things. The F15 can carry way more ordinance than the F35. The F35 was claimed to be able to do what the F15 does and it is not even close in many areas. Sure, the F35 can do more in some cases, but it cannot replace what the F15 does. The A10 is similar. They claimed the F35 could perform that role, and there's no way anyone in their right mind would put an F35 in as close air support for troops on the ground. The A10 can also carry a wider array of ordnance, and a lot more ordance than the F35. Both the F15 and A10 cost a lot less per hour to operate, and have much higher availability than the F35. Do we need the F35? Probably. But it is not a replacement for other aircraft that are much more suitable in more situations. What we really need are a large number of light fighter/attack aircrat like the S Korean FA50, with a smaller number of F15/F16/F18 type aircraft, and then a very few F22/F35s.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  The F35 can be anywhere a carrier or LHD can be though.
- ranger207 4y ago
  While the F-15C does have more range than the F-35, the F-35 has more payload. The F-15E does have more payload, but that's a twin seat fighter-bomber that leans more towards the "bomber" part and isn't directly comparable The A-10 is, frankly, a terrible close air support platform. Its only advantages are lower cost per hour and the fact that by being low and slow it's more visible to grunts on the ground. However, it's slower to respond to CAS requests; more vulnerable to MANPADs which the F-35 can simply fly over and radar-guided SAMs that the F-35 can avoid with stealth; and lacks modern electronics like the F-35's electro-optical sensor suite (aka cameras) making it more likely to cause friendly fire incidents. The gun has been too small to destroy tanks since the T-72, and too big be efficient killing BMPs and trucks, and also requires the plane to come in low and slow in the optimum flight path for getting shot down by MANPADs For the close air support mission, you're either doing it in contested airspace in which the A-10 is too vulnerable compared to the F-35, or in uncontested airspace where a drone can do the dame job just as well if not better for cheaper
unnouinceput 4y ago
For me the F-35 story is similar to the Bradley fighting vehicle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle). The same initial corruption during design and developments, the same problems at beginning of deployment, which even culminated with Hollywood to mock Pentagon in the movie "The Pentagon Wars" (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144550/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144550/). Only to end-up with a work horse that was very much appreciated during Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. F-35 it seems that is at that point in its story where the bad is behind and the value it brings to the table just started to unfold. As a member of a NATO country, that is in close proximity of Russia, I'd rather have some of them F-35 stationed in my US military bases that we house on our territory.
dirtyid 4y ago
The case is every US partner who purchase F35s is now dependant on US and more aligned with US interests. That remains true even if magic anti-air missile tech makes F35s vunerable in the coming years because broad adoption of F35s also killed gen5+ competitors who couldn't sell at scale. We see Korea, Japan + EU countries trying to restart their own fighter programs now because dependency on US especially with FX can become onerous and they all want their own share of future export pie now that RU arms exports is dimished.
- wil421 4y ago
  How many “new” partners did the F-35 win over? There are lots of countries using the F-16/18 etc. I think there were even times the US had a conflict where the adversary had US fighters.
  - dirtyid 4y ago
    Fair point, but IMO increased dependancy is more about joint developement and getting level 1/2/3 partners emeshed into the program's supply chain. Side effect is tying up development resources in partner programs while undermining other competing programs. Hollowing out foreign competitors also benefits F16/18 exports due to lack of viable gen4/4.5 alternatives. Maybe that was inevitable due to US tech leadership, but I think the geoeconomics is a big reason why F35 is "successful" regardless of technical merits. At minimum DRM means US won't ever fight adversary F35s.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  Anti stealth air to air isn't really magic and the DoD itself foresaw stealth no longer being a decisive advantage against peers by 2025. It's just a matter of a larger, lower wavelength phased array radar in an integrated air defence system and a dual-mode preferably imaging seeker on the missile itself. Then there is also the issue that it's now viable to track airplane from geostationary orbit (really) and to deploy satellite swarms in low earth orbit which will probably be applied to air defence within a decade if it's not already done.
  - 4y ago
tra3 4y ago
> Yes, it may cost $1.5 trillion over the next 50 years, but that’s the entire program cost, including R&D, procurement, operations, maintenance and sustainment. This is a number that is only really relevant before the program has begun, when you’re using it to compare the cost of multiple ways of accomplishing the same goal. Isn’t that double of the original projected cost? Also this statement reads like a textbook example of sunk cost fallacy. The aircraft is just ramping up production, not all bugs have been worked out so it is not know that the rest of its operational life will incur maintenance costs only.
- cbsmith 4y ago
  To the extent it is sunk cost fallacy, you've got a similar problem when comparing it against prior aircraft. Is argue this is an apples to apples comparison.
- newaccount2021 4y ago
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  With 800+ produced, most of the modern fighters don't reach half of that number, like Rafale, Su-34/35 or J-16.
newaccount2021 4y ago
There's no need to "make the case" for the F-35 in 2022...the US DoD has already introduced hundreds into service, hundreds more to come, and it is quickly becoming the de-facto choice for NATO and other allies who are in the market for a new fighter (quick rundown: UK, Germany, Israel, and now even Canada is going to buy them, among many others) The F-35 is set to take the title for "most produced" fighter over the F-16. Not sure what the point of weighing the merits? Its a done deal
rich_sasha 4y ago
To me, one thing that we should consider is that the F-35 was developed at a time when it wasn't really clear what the purpose and enemy is going to be - but the US couldn't afford to wait until that becomes clear. Prior to F-35, it was fairly simple: Warsaw Pact and proxy wars. But for the JSF, its beginnings are around/just after the end of the Cold War. It was maybe not quite aimed at Russia (but who knows). Then the Afghanistan and Iraq wars come around, plus air interventions in Libya and Syria, which were quite unique in how uncontested the US air power was. Re-rise of Russian aggression in NATO sphere of interest and the rise of China are really last 10 years or so. I'm sure my view is naive, and people who do this for a living had a clearer vision of what the F-35 had to contend with, but it's not easy to design a weapon that's effective against everything that's also kind of unknown. For example, it now appears like Russian military hardware is much worse than advertised and the real adversary in terms of technological sophistication is China. But how clear was it throughout this programme? Maybe some other design would have been more cost-effective against China in particular. Similarly, it may yet turn out that the design assumption are right. Recent war in Ukraine changed a lot of assumptions, for example about anti air defences. These had become kind of obsolete in NATOs views and largely dismantled without replacement, under the assumption that fighter jets will be better suited to that. Now, it seems, all NATO members are buying whatever is available in that space.
- binarray2000 4y ago
  > Re-rise of Russian aggression in NATO sphere of interest and the rise of China are really last 10 years or so. (1) USA has illegaly bombed and subsequent occupied Afghanistan, Iraq, part of Serbia ("Kosovo"), part of Syria - countries which are so far from the US, most US citizens wouldn't be able to find them on a map. (2) Ukraine, on the other hand, is at Russian doorstep. Both are Slavs, most of them are Christian-Orthodox and many have family ties with each other. And NATO is expanding towards Russia even thou Western politicians have promised to not expand it "an inch towards East". (3) US has risen after WWII. Now China, Russia, Iran, India... are rising. Why is that a problem? Or, maybe, you think that the US must remain the Hegemon while the Rest serves as a resource to be plundered and enslaved.
  - 4y ago
thexumaker 4y ago
Have people not been watching all the combat footage coming out of Ukraine? The future of combat isn’t in drones or unmanned aircraft even though Ukraine has been effective in the war with them. But end of the day war is about coordination and communication. Watching Ukrainian coordination between ground troops and artillery, or watching commanders use 1000 dollar commercial planes to watch a battlefield play out and redirect artillery has been such a stark difference in comparison to the Russians. air superiority is still somewhat in Russia’s favor and if they had a plane near even half of the f-35’s capabilities they would have a lot more success in taking out key Ukrainian weapons and command. Meanwhile they’re flying their su-57’s with unguided ordinances with no communication with ground or naval troops leading to disastrous results.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  Complete lack of any modern SEAD capabilities from russia has been a surprise. They aren't flying Su-57 though, just like they are not using Armata. Very little additional capability and high risk of losing morale when inevitably they lose one.
  - thexumaker 4y ago
    Ah yea my bad su-37 not 57
    - KptMarchewa 4y ago
      Su-30/34/35 are modified versions descending from the Su-27 fuselage. Just like Hornet and Super Hornet, or F-15 and F-15E.
Mikeb85 4y ago
The biggest case for the F-35 is that it uses state of the art US electronics. As the war in Ukraine has shown, while Russian planes might have decent airframes (even the Ukrainians are using them to good measure), it's the gap in technology that's the real trump card for the US and west in general (Ukrainian MiGs are also punching above their weight as they were upgraded rather recently). NASAMs for example been very effective and have taken out state of the art Russian fighters. Plus the effectiveness of weapons like HIMARS and Javelins. Anyhow the F-35 is a bit of a dog in the air, not particularly fast nor manoeuvrable nor anything really but it incorporates state of the art technology and fires state of the art missiles. That alone makes it deadlier than anything China or Russia can field.
- cwillu 4y ago
  There's some discussion in the comments on this, essentially that the F in F-35 is political rather that practical, and that a B or an A would be more approprate in many senses.
scombridae 4y ago
Human pilots were already rapidly being phased out during the era of The Right Stuff (50s and 60s). It's impossible for me to believe manned fighter jets can compete with drones on a financial or tactical level.

54 points by cwillu 4y ago

“In a lot of ways, this post is a few years too late. Most prominent military procurement programs go through three phases, at least in the public discourse. Early on, they are miraculous, and will solve all problems. They’re cheaper than what we have now, and far more capable. Then, as they come closer to entering service, problems show up, and the media turns on the program. It’s now the worst thing ever, behind schedule, over budget, and useless compared to what it’s supposed to replace if not actively dangerous to our brave troops. Lastly, these problems get resolved, and it becomes a perfectly normal, if imperfect, weapons system, eventually celebrated as a fine example of American engineering, and the benchmark against which the next system will be measured.”

the__alchemist 4y ago

I buy it. Fourth gen is very old. We've been putting lipstick on this pig for a while (updated bombs, missiles, radars etc). Procurement is a mess and corrupt. Unfortunately, these sorts of things are at the top end of production chains, so it's tough to disrupt. It takes too long, and too much money to replace and upgrade fighters and weapons. It's not a technical problem, but a political one.

redanddead 4y ago
>these sorts of things are at the top end of production chains could you expand on this?
- the__alchemist 4y ago
  As a civilization, we build things in tiers. Tools to build other tools to build other tools. (And it's a bit circular too) And materials. So, you might have at the bottom things like extracting ore, fossil fuels, plant matter etc. Then you might turn that into crude grades of iron, separate various hydrocarbon chains out. Then you might refine that into steel of a certain grade, or industrial lubricant. Machines you build with that are used to make other machines. Maybe one of those mills a part, that's used in another machine. Etc. Some things, like jet engine turbine blades, are at the end of very long chains. Also, it's a complex engineering problem because lots of different systems need to be made to work together, reliably, under high temperatures, pressures etc. Different specialists need to agree on how to make their components work together. So, I can't just get together with my buddies, get some funding, and disrupt the industry. (For that and other reasons). Or maybe you could, but it would be tougher than doing so in most other industries.

MichaelCollins 4y ago

The per-unit cost of the F-22 was substantially more than the F-35, yet the F-35 is everybody's favorite whipping boy while the F-22 gets nothing but praise from the same crowd. And I think there is a general awareness of F-22 production ending due to expense, so it's not as though the F-22 is wrongly perceived as being cheap. I think the discrepancy in public perception comes down to physical appearances. The F-22 looks lean and mean, while the F-35 looks lumpy and frumpy. Physical appearance is the way most laymen judge jets. Ugly jets which are nevertheless popular have some other dramatic attribute which which offsets their appearance, like the A-10's autocannon.

Kye 4y ago
There are 800+ F-35s and just under 200 F-22s. Of course the per-unit cost is higher. That doesn't mean anything other than the politics surrounding each was different, so fewer were ordered of one than the other. The programs cost about the same.
- rhaway84773 4y ago
  The F-35 was designed to cover use cases for the navy, Air Force and Air Force. That almost certainly contributed to the greater production and justifies the argument that the additional design and development cost of developing such a flexible design would be offset by the greater need and use. Which is the crux of the questions surrounding the F-35.
- cbsmith 4y ago
  Want the F-22 designed for narrower scenarios, and so part of the other is we'd never need as many?
  - cbsmith 4y ago
    Autocorrect shames me. "Wasn't the F-22 designed for narrower scenarios, and so part of the problem is we'd never need as many?"
  - tadfisher 4y ago

jseliger 4y ago

"There’s also criticism from the opposite direction, that we should be buying drones instead. I’ve largely said my piece on that earlier this year, but the short version is that in the areas where they are useful, unmanned systems have already taken over. We call them things like “cruise missiles” and “AAMs”." I'm not an expert here but I've read claims that China, if it invades Taiwan, will use some combinations of missiles, drones, and drone-missile hybrids to destroy or render ineffective landing strips and maintenance fields necessary for effective manned fighter aircraft deployment. Yes, there are missile defenses, but they'll be overwhelmed by the sheer number of missiles and drones, and thus the F-35 will be a powerful fighter that can't be effectively deployed. Edit to add: Carriers will suffer similar problems (sample: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/pentagon-war-games-reveal-that-us-would-lose-any-war-fought-in-the-pacific-with-china/ https://theaviationgeekclub.com/pentagon-war-games-reveal-th...) and be destroyed with hypersonic missile barrages. Is this true? No one will really know until the moment, but it seems and sounds plausible. "In any case, while the F-35 isn’t perfect, it’s clearly the best solution available for the threats the US and its allies face today." Unless the real threats are from drones and missiles that cost anywhere from 1/10th to 1/100th to even less than an F-35, and thus can be produced in far greater quantities for a given outlay.

closetnerd 4y ago
I'm the most ignorant man alive when it comes to war - but this is what I want to know. Isn't sensor + tracking abilities far more advanced at shooting down planes than planes are at creating damage? And if that's the case, aren't hyper/sonic/long/range stuff better at evading defenses? Seems like the next "war" will be LoL style to me.
- tlb 4y ago
  Wars are won by convincing the opposing government and its citizens that they have been defeated and must surrender. When there are a dozen F-35s flying patterns over your capital city, everyone has to admit defeat. Drones or missiles wouldn't have the same effect. For the desired effect, fighter jets must be big, loud, and expensive.

tomohawk 4y ago

The F15 has more than double the combat range of the F35. They are pulling the F15 out of Okinawa, and there is no way the F35 can replace it. It lack the range, among other things. The F15 can carry way more ordinance than the F35. The F35 was claimed to be able to do what the F15 does and it is not even close in many areas. Sure, the F35 can do more in some cases, but it cannot replace what the F15 does. The A10 is similar. They claimed the F35 could perform that role, and there's no way anyone in their right mind would put an F35 in as close air support for troops on the ground. The A10 can also carry a wider array of ordnance, and a lot more ordance than the F35. Both the F15 and A10 cost a lot less per hour to operate, and have much higher availability than the F35. Do we need the F35? Probably. But it is not a replacement for other aircraft that are much more suitable in more situations. What we really need are a large number of light fighter/attack aircrat like the S Korean FA50, with a smaller number of F15/F16/F18 type aircraft, and then a very few F22/F35s.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
The F35 can be anywhere a carrier or LHD can be though.
ranger207 4y ago
While the F-15C does have more range than the F-35, the F-35 has more payload. The F-15E does have more payload, but that's a twin seat fighter-bomber that leans more towards the "bomber" part and isn't directly comparable The A-10 is, frankly, a terrible close air support platform. Its only advantages are lower cost per hour and the fact that by being low and slow it's more visible to grunts on the ground. However, it's slower to respond to CAS requests; more vulnerable to MANPADs which the F-35 can simply fly over and radar-guided SAMs that the F-35 can avoid with stealth; and lacks modern electronics like the F-35's electro-optical sensor suite (aka cameras) making it more likely to cause friendly fire incidents. The gun has been too small to destroy tanks since the T-72, and too big be efficient killing BMPs and trucks, and also requires the plane to come in low and slow in the optimum flight path for getting shot down by MANPADs For the close air support mission, you're either doing it in contested airspace in which the A-10 is too vulnerable compared to the F-35, or in uncontested airspace where a drone can do the dame job just as well if not better for cheaper

unnouinceput 4y ago

For me the F-35 story is similar to the Bradley fighting vehicle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle). The same initial corruption during design and developments, the same problems at beginning of deployment, which even culminated with Hollywood to mock Pentagon in the movie "The Pentagon Wars" (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144550/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144550/). Only to end-up with a work horse that was very much appreciated during Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. F-35 it seems that is at that point in its story where the bad is behind and the value it brings to the table just started to unfold. As a member of a NATO country, that is in close proximity of Russia, I'd rather have some of them F-35 stationed in my US military bases that we house on our territory.

dirtyid 4y ago

The case is every US partner who purchase F35s is now dependant on US and more aligned with US interests. That remains true even if magic anti-air missile tech makes F35s vunerable in the coming years because broad adoption of F35s also killed gen5+ competitors who couldn't sell at scale. We see Korea, Japan + EU countries trying to restart their own fighter programs now because dependency on US especially with FX can become onerous and they all want their own share of future export pie now that RU arms exports is dimished.

wil421 4y ago
How many “new” partners did the F-35 win over? There are lots of countries using the F-16/18 etc. I think there were even times the US had a conflict where the adversary had US fighters.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  Fair point, but IMO increased dependancy is more about joint developement and getting level 1/2/3 partners emeshed into the program's supply chain. Side effect is tying up development resources in partner programs while undermining other competing programs. Hollowing out foreign competitors also benefits F16/18 exports due to lack of viable gen4/4.5 alternatives. Maybe that was inevitable due to US tech leadership, but I think the geoeconomics is a big reason why F35 is "successful" regardless of technical merits. At minimum DRM means US won't ever fight adversary F35s.
sudosysgen 4y ago
Anti stealth air to air isn't really magic and the DoD itself foresaw stealth no longer being a decisive advantage against peers by 2025. It's just a matter of a larger, lower wavelength phased array radar in an integrated air defence system and a dual-mode preferably imaging seeker on the missile itself. Then there is also the issue that it's now viable to track airplane from geostationary orbit (really) and to deploy satellite swarms in low earth orbit which will probably be applied to air defence within a decade if it's not already done.
- 4y ago

tra3 4y ago

> Yes, it may cost $1.5 trillion over the next 50 years, but that’s the entire program cost, including R&D, procurement, operations, maintenance and sustainment. This is a number that is only really relevant before the program has begun, when you’re using it to compare the cost of multiple ways of accomplishing the same goal. Isn’t that double of the original projected cost? Also this statement reads like a textbook example of sunk cost fallacy. The aircraft is just ramping up production, not all bugs have been worked out so it is not know that the rest of its operational life will incur maintenance costs only.

cbsmith 4y ago
To the extent it is sunk cost fallacy, you've got a similar problem when comparing it against prior aircraft. Is argue this is an apples to apples comparison.
newaccount2021 4y ago
KptMarchewa 4y ago
With 800+ produced, most of the modern fighters don't reach half of that number, like Rafale, Su-34/35 or J-16.

newaccount2021 4y ago

There's no need to "make the case" for the F-35 in 2022...the US DoD has already introduced hundreds into service, hundreds more to come, and it is quickly becoming the de-facto choice for NATO and other allies who are in the market for a new fighter (quick rundown: UK, Germany, Israel, and now even Canada is going to buy them, among many others) The F-35 is set to take the title for "most produced" fighter over the F-16. Not sure what the point of weighing the merits? Its a done deal

rich_sasha 4y ago

To me, one thing that we should consider is that the F-35 was developed at a time when it wasn't really clear what the purpose and enemy is going to be - but the US couldn't afford to wait until that becomes clear. Prior to F-35, it was fairly simple: Warsaw Pact and proxy wars. But for the JSF, its beginnings are around/just after the end of the Cold War. It was maybe not quite aimed at Russia (but who knows). Then the Afghanistan and Iraq wars come around, plus air interventions in Libya and Syria, which were quite unique in how uncontested the US air power was. Re-rise of Russian aggression in NATO sphere of interest and the rise of China are really last 10 years or so. I'm sure my view is naive, and people who do this for a living had a clearer vision of what the F-35 had to contend with, but it's not easy to design a weapon that's effective against everything that's also kind of unknown. For example, it now appears like Russian military hardware is much worse than advertised and the real adversary in terms of technological sophistication is China. But how clear was it throughout this programme? Maybe some other design would have been more cost-effective against China in particular. Similarly, it may yet turn out that the design assumption are right. Recent war in Ukraine changed a lot of assumptions, for example about anti air defences. These had become kind of obsolete in NATOs views and largely dismantled without replacement, under the assumption that fighter jets will be better suited to that. Now, it seems, all NATO members are buying whatever is available in that space.

binarray2000 4y ago
> Re-rise of Russian aggression in NATO sphere of interest and the rise of China are really last 10 years or so. (1) USA has illegaly bombed and subsequent occupied Afghanistan, Iraq, part of Serbia ("Kosovo"), part of Syria - countries which are so far from the US, most US citizens wouldn't be able to find them on a map. (2) Ukraine, on the other hand, is at Russian doorstep. Both are Slavs, most of them are Christian-Orthodox and many have family ties with each other. And NATO is expanding towards Russia even thou Western politicians have promised to not expand it "an inch towards East". (3) US has risen after WWII. Now China, Russia, Iran, India... are rising. Why is that a problem? Or, maybe, you think that the US must remain the Hegemon while the Rest serves as a resource to be plundered and enslaved.
- 4y ago

thexumaker 4y ago

Have people not been watching all the combat footage coming out of Ukraine? The future of combat isn’t in drones or unmanned aircraft even though Ukraine has been effective in the war with them. But end of the day war is about coordination and communication. Watching Ukrainian coordination between ground troops and artillery, or watching commanders use 1000 dollar commercial planes to watch a battlefield play out and redirect artillery has been such a stark difference in comparison to the Russians. air superiority is still somewhat in Russia’s favor and if they had a plane near even half of the f-35’s capabilities they would have a lot more success in taking out key Ukrainian weapons and command. Meanwhile they’re flying their su-57’s with unguided ordinances with no communication with ground or naval troops leading to disastrous results.

KptMarchewa 4y ago
Complete lack of any modern SEAD capabilities from russia has been a surprise. They aren't flying Su-57 though, just like they are not using Armata. Very little additional capability and high risk of losing morale when inevitably they lose one.
- thexumaker 4y ago
  Ah yea my bad su-37 not 57
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    Su-30/34/35 are modified versions descending from the Su-27 fuselage. Just like Hornet and Super Hornet, or F-15 and F-15E.

Mikeb85 4y ago

The biggest case for the F-35 is that it uses state of the art US electronics. As the war in Ukraine has shown, while Russian planes might have decent airframes (even the Ukrainians are using them to good measure), it's the gap in technology that's the real trump card for the US and west in general (Ukrainian MiGs are also punching above their weight as they were upgraded rather recently). NASAMs for example been very effective and have taken out state of the art Russian fighters. Plus the effectiveness of weapons like HIMARS and Javelins. Anyhow the F-35 is a bit of a dog in the air, not particularly fast nor manoeuvrable nor anything really but it incorporates state of the art technology and fires state of the art missiles. That alone makes it deadlier than anything China or Russia can field.

cwillu 4y ago
There's some discussion in the comments on this, essentially that the F in F-35 is political rather that practical, and that a B or an A would be more approprate in many senses.

scombridae 4y ago

Human pilots were already rapidly being phased out during the era of The Right Stuff (50s and 60s). It's impossible for me to believe manned fighter jets can compete with drones on a financial or tactical level.