4 ms·

It's the only 5th gen fighter jet that is available. The fact that the price point happens to be highly competitive with 4th gen fighters is almost irrelevant.

pixodaros 4y ago
Again, people trying to sell the F-35 in the oughties were saying that, but the experts I went to at the time were skeptical (and especially skeptical whether those extra capabilities matter for those countries which don't have a war against Russia, China, India, or Turkey in their threat model). We now know that the Russian air force is much less capable than some believed it was.
- jandrewrogers 4y ago
  The calculus is pretty simple. The F-35 costs about as much as a modern 4th generation aircraft these days but consistently slaughters those 4th generation aircraft in exercises due to its unique capabilities. This gives it a high force multiplier for the cost that works well no matter the quality of the adversary. I think everyone expected the F-35 to be much more expensive than advanced 4th generation aircraft, which would change the argument, but that turned out not to be the case. That dozens of countries are buying fleets of F-35s also makes the practical logistics, operations, interoperability, and maintenance of the aircraft attractive. It is quickly becoming the new F-16 in terms of ubiquity in a modern Air Force.
- yucky 4y ago
  > We now know that the Russian air force is much less capable than some believed it was. I'm fairly certain Russia has not bothered to unleash their T-50 PAK's against Ukraine, so that remains to be seen doesn't it? And from all available literature those are at least on par with the F-22 if not slightly better. Now the B-21 Raider (bomber, not a fighter) is probably without peer currently. That thing looks like a UFO.
  - pixodaros 4y ago
    After a year of losing the war and firing all kind of random munitions, if Russia had aircraft which it thought could survive against Ukrainian air defenses, I think it would use them. They certainly are not scared of losing people or equipment. It seems like the Russian air force can't carry out large operations with sophisticated aircraft, whereas NATO air forces have lots of practice at that.
    - cpursley 4y ago
      The Russian Air Force is carrying out large operations with sophisticated and intentional payloads on a weekly basis as widely reported by even western media. But they haven’t been flying far into Ukrainian airspace - likely due to all the old and very capable S-300s that are still operational (and that’s the old stuff, Russia is already fielding S-500s not to mention Buk 3 and Pantsir). Fear of losing people and equipment is precisely why they’re using stand-off ballistics from a safe distance instead of doing bombing raids. There’s a reason Ukraine is asking for Patriots and other air defense systems (their air defense is degraded).
      - risyachka 4y ago
        >> Fear of losing people and equipment Everyone knows russia doesn't fear to lose people. They haven't been flying to Ukraine because their pilots and "advanced" planes can be easily shot down with a regular Stinger system that costs like $40k.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        cpursley 4y ago
        You’ve buying too much into the twitter/Reddit version of how things are going. Russian mothers love their sons just as much as American ones. Consider balancing your sources with actual military experts (and not ones on the boards of US defense contractors or journalist with liberal arts degrees).
throwawaysleep 4y ago
I think Canada would have gone with Boeing F-18s had Boeing not killed Bombardier with that trade lawsuit that got tossed. Canada doesn't prioritize capability when it comes to procurement.
- pixodaros 4y ago
  Canada is not a bad example, because previous governments almost got railroaded into the F-35, drew it back and held an open competition, and then decided on the F-35 after all. It seems like some of the skeptics now trust the F-35 and I would like a proper article on the details (not an 'op-ed' type article that tries to sell a narrative or a vehicle). This article and the talk by Perun don't explain why opinions changed (or why to trust the claims about low costs and great capabilities this time, when early in the program they were just puffery)

pixodaros 4y ago

Again, people trying to sell the F-35 in the oughties were saying that, but the experts I went to at the time were skeptical (and especially skeptical whether those extra capabilities matter for those countries which don't have a war against Russia, China, India, or Turkey in their threat model). We now know that the Russian air force is much less capable than some believed it was.

jandrewrogers 4y ago
The calculus is pretty simple. The F-35 costs about as much as a modern 4th generation aircraft these days but consistently slaughters those 4th generation aircraft in exercises due to its unique capabilities. This gives it a high force multiplier for the cost that works well no matter the quality of the adversary. I think everyone expected the F-35 to be much more expensive than advanced 4th generation aircraft, which would change the argument, but that turned out not to be the case. That dozens of countries are buying fleets of F-35s also makes the practical logistics, operations, interoperability, and maintenance of the aircraft attractive. It is quickly becoming the new F-16 in terms of ubiquity in a modern Air Force.
yucky 4y ago
> We now know that the Russian air force is much less capable than some believed it was. I'm fairly certain Russia has not bothered to unleash their T-50 PAK's against Ukraine, so that remains to be seen doesn't it? And from all available literature those are at least on par with the F-22 if not slightly better. Now the B-21 Raider (bomber, not a fighter) is probably without peer currently. That thing looks like a UFO.
- pixodaros 4y ago
  After a year of losing the war and firing all kind of random munitions, if Russia had aircraft which it thought could survive against Ukrainian air defenses, I think it would use them. They certainly are not scared of losing people or equipment. It seems like the Russian air force can't carry out large operations with sophisticated aircraft, whereas NATO air forces have lots of practice at that.
  - cpursley 4y ago
    The Russian Air Force is carrying out large operations with sophisticated and intentional payloads on a weekly basis as widely reported by even western media. But they haven’t been flying far into Ukrainian airspace - likely due to all the old and very capable S-300s that are still operational (and that’s the old stuff, Russia is already fielding S-500s not to mention Buk 3 and Pantsir). Fear of losing people and equipment is precisely why they’re using stand-off ballistics from a safe distance instead of doing bombing raids. There’s a reason Ukraine is asking for Patriots and other air defense systems (their air defense is degraded).
    - risyachka 4y ago
      >> Fear of losing people and equipment Everyone knows russia doesn't fear to lose people. They haven't been flying to Ukraine because their pilots and "advanced" planes can be easily shot down with a regular Stinger system that costs like $40k.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - cpursley 4y ago
        You’ve buying too much into the twitter/Reddit version of how things are going. Russian mothers love their sons just as much as American ones. Consider balancing your sources with actual military experts (and not ones on the boards of US defense contractors or journalist with liberal arts degrees).

throwawaysleep 4y ago

I think Canada would have gone with Boeing F-18s had Boeing not killed Bombardier with that trade lawsuit that got tossed. Canada doesn't prioritize capability when it comes to procurement.

pixodaros 4y ago
Canada is not a bad example, because previous governments almost got railroaded into the F-35, drew it back and held an open competition, and then decided on the F-35 after all. It seems like some of the skeptics now trust the F-35 and I would like a proper article on the details (not an 'op-ed' type article that tries to sell a narrative or a vehicle). This article and the talk by Perun don't explain why opinions changed (or why to trust the claims about low costs and great capabilities this time, when early in the program they were just puffery)