6 ms·

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 fro

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
    The original order was for 750 airframes, so not likely. The main reason production ended completely is that the contract didn't allow for export (unlike the F-35) and the sole buyer stopped ordering planes.
    - KptMarchewa 4y ago
      750 is the narrow role in the US military, for strictly air superiority fighter. They want like 2500 F-35 eventually.
formerly_proven 4y ago
> nothing but praise from the same crowd It’s always the same. Go into the newspaper archives and you’ll see article after article how bad the F-16 and F-15 are, way too expensive, perform badly, too complicated, too much electronics. Same for the F-22.
V_Terranova_Jr 4y ago
There is a kernel of truth in what you say, but only that. The article is basically right, but I would argue severely undersells the atrocity of an acquisition the F-35 represents. It's certainly a poorer dogfighter than the equivalent level of technology applied to developing a top-level dogfighter (like an upgraded F-22), and is truly ungainly. None of that is at odds with it also being an unparalleled capability. The biggest challenge in any dialogue about the F-35, like NASA's SLS, is that it's hard to separate how one feels about the acquisition itself vs. the end product. If you're a mission planner, you want the F-35's capabilities and you don't care about the ugly history of how the capability became available. If you're a taxpayer, you should be angry at how poorly managed the F-35 program was and the profligate sunk costs. Any attempt to collapse judgment about the F-35 onto a single axis will lead to low-quality discussions. One can validly be wary that exalting the capabilities will lead to future acquisitions which learn no lessons from the F-35 because in the end, everyone will just praise the delivered capability after you weather the storm. From my vantage point in DoD aerospace, there is certainly a widespread recognition of the baggage associated with the F-35. One thing is for certain - wishing they would just stop all production and start over is pure fantasy. There is too much commitment and reliance on these aircraft being in the force mix across many nations. It's not going to happen.
- RF_Savage 4y ago
  Is dogfighting relevant in todays world of NLOS missiles?
  - V_Terranova_Jr 4y ago
    Current military thinking is "No" - the expectation, via lots of simulation, analysis, recent history, large-scale military exercises, and intel is that advanced weapons systems make dogfighting increasingly unlikely. Where it does happen, capability aspects other than pure kinematic superiority will make a big difference. And before anyone smugly reminds us all of Vietnam, they should refresh themselves on the lessons learned from the '91 Gulf War.
    - 4y ago
Espressosaurus 4y ago
Having watched numerous bits of military procurement from the sidelines via reporting over the decades...the problem comes down to the people running the program having no idea WTF they want, and only knowing what they DON'T want after they've received a prototype that fits the constraints they've laid out and realize that no, what they asked for was dumb and not usable or is literally impossible to make with the state of the art. Go through a few iterations of refinement for them to get their heads out of their asses with something expensive like a new fighter and it's easy to see how the cost has ballooned. However, if they keep funding the program they can work through the right tradeoffs to end up with something that works better than what was before, while maybe not quite hitting the marks that were planned on at the outset. It just costs $billions of development and years to work through. Fortunately, Americans are willing to spend hilarious amounts of money on our weapons systems so we can get something useful at the end of the program. Occasionally we pull the plug because the program was so ill-thought-out that there's no way to salvage it, like with the Zumwalt.
- conorcleary 4y ago
  Reminds me of the Bradley IFV procurement.
  - Espressosaurus 4y ago
    The F-35 program has been pretty similar We want an airplane that's stealthy! And modular! And can have vertical lift capabilities! That can be swapped out with a laser that doesn't exist! And can be used with a huge internal payload! And is also carrier-capable! And has super-cruise! And still fits an internal gun! And... That they managed to iterate it into something that could actually be fielded is kind of amazing when you stop and think about it.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  Fortunately it can just be explained in one small slide: https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/09/atl_wall_chart.jpg https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/09/atl_wa...
hu3 4y ago
Counterpoint. F-15 is one of the (if not THE) most successful fighter aircraft ever made and it doesn't look so sleek in my opinion, relatively speaking.
- V_Terranova_Jr 4y ago
  I'm an aerospace engineer and I find the F-15 (esp. the C model) to be a hell of a sexy beast (so to speak), very visually stunning, and the F-35 to be relatively ugly. There's a reason the U.S. fighter community refers to the F-35 as "Fat Amy".
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  F-15 isn't sleek, but it looks mean and hard. F-16 looks sleek.

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
  The original order was for 750 airframes, so not likely. The main reason production ended completely is that the contract didn't allow for export (unlike the F-35) and the sole buyer stopped ordering planes.
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    750 is the narrow role in the US military, for strictly air superiority fighter. They want like 2500 F-35 eventually.

formerly_proven 4y ago

> nothing but praise from the same crowd It’s always the same. Go into the newspaper archives and you’ll see article after article how bad the F-16 and F-15 are, way too expensive, perform badly, too complicated, too much electronics. Same for the F-22.

V_Terranova_Jr 4y ago

There is a kernel of truth in what you say, but only that. The article is basically right, but I would argue severely undersells the atrocity of an acquisition the F-35 represents. It's certainly a poorer dogfighter than the equivalent level of technology applied to developing a top-level dogfighter (like an upgraded F-22), and is truly ungainly. None of that is at odds with it also being an unparalleled capability. The biggest challenge in any dialogue about the F-35, like NASA's SLS, is that it's hard to separate how one feels about the acquisition itself vs. the end product. If you're a mission planner, you want the F-35's capabilities and you don't care about the ugly history of how the capability became available. If you're a taxpayer, you should be angry at how poorly managed the F-35 program was and the profligate sunk costs. Any attempt to collapse judgment about the F-35 onto a single axis will lead to low-quality discussions. One can validly be wary that exalting the capabilities will lead to future acquisitions which learn no lessons from the F-35 because in the end, everyone will just praise the delivered capability after you weather the storm. From my vantage point in DoD aerospace, there is certainly a widespread recognition of the baggage associated with the F-35. One thing is for certain - wishing they would just stop all production and start over is pure fantasy. There is too much commitment and reliance on these aircraft being in the force mix across many nations. It's not going to happen.

RF_Savage 4y ago
Is dogfighting relevant in todays world of NLOS missiles?
- V_Terranova_Jr 4y ago
  Current military thinking is "No" - the expectation, via lots of simulation, analysis, recent history, large-scale military exercises, and intel is that advanced weapons systems make dogfighting increasingly unlikely. Where it does happen, capability aspects other than pure kinematic superiority will make a big difference. And before anyone smugly reminds us all of Vietnam, they should refresh themselves on the lessons learned from the '91 Gulf War.
  - 4y ago

Espressosaurus 4y ago

Having watched numerous bits of military procurement from the sidelines via reporting over the decades...the problem comes down to the people running the program having no idea WTF they want, and only knowing what they DON'T want after they've received a prototype that fits the constraints they've laid out and realize that no, what they asked for was dumb and not usable or is literally impossible to make with the state of the art. Go through a few iterations of refinement for them to get their heads out of their asses with something expensive like a new fighter and it's easy to see how the cost has ballooned. However, if they keep funding the program they can work through the right tradeoffs to end up with something that works better than what was before, while maybe not quite hitting the marks that were planned on at the outset. It just costs $billions of development and years to work through. Fortunately, Americans are willing to spend hilarious amounts of money on our weapons systems so we can get something useful at the end of the program. Occasionally we pull the plug because the program was so ill-thought-out that there's no way to salvage it, like with the Zumwalt.

conorcleary 4y ago
Reminds me of the Bradley IFV procurement.
- Espressosaurus 4y ago
  The F-35 program has been pretty similar We want an airplane that's stealthy! And modular! And can have vertical lift capabilities! That can be swapped out with a laser that doesn't exist! And can be used with a huge internal payload! And is also carrier-capable! And has super-cruise! And still fits an internal gun! And... That they managed to iterate it into something that could actually be fielded is kind of amazing when you stop and think about it.
KptMarchewa 4y ago
Fortunately it can just be explained in one small slide: https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/09/atl_wall_chart.jpg https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/09/atl_wa...

hu3 4y ago

Counterpoint. F-15 is one of the (if not THE) most successful fighter aircraft ever made and it doesn't look so sleek in my opinion, relatively speaking.

V_Terranova_Jr 4y ago
I'm an aerospace engineer and I find the F-15 (esp. the C model) to be a hell of a sexy beast (so to speak), very visually stunning, and the F-35 to be relatively ugly. There's a reason the U.S. fighter community refers to the F-35 as "Fat Amy".
MichaelCollins 4y ago
F-15 isn't sleek, but it looks mean and hard. F-16 looks sleek.