4 ms·

I wrote "extensive overhaul". I guess better wording would be "extensive inspection and coating overhaul". Far from "quick refuel/arm and launch" original post

I wrote "extensive overhaul". I guess better wording would be "extensive inspection and coating overhaul". Far from "quick refuel/arm and launch" original post wrote. F-35 has internal bomb bays, and those have to be opened and closed to add bombs. Those have to be resealed to maintain stealth. It has polymer based coating, how that stuff survives transsonic speeds with friction and heat? F-22 maintenance cost was quoted at $72000 per flight hour (10 years ago). Stealth used as main cause. Is F-35 somehow different or cheaper? Russians do not have cost overruns and technical feature creep, the way US does. Go ask on military forums. Problem are finances, not science. Anyway, I do not believe claim that F-35 needs extensive and expensive maitenance is somehow extraordinary. "Overhaul" of stealth coat cold be some spray on stuff and inspection. F-35 has a long track of cost overruns and proper maintenance cost is yet unknown.

luuurker 3y ago
While attempting to quote your post, I ended up quoting your quote of another comment, hence the "complete overhaul", not "extensive overhaul". My bad. You're doing a lot of guesswork to reach your conclusions. You have no idea which parts of the F-22 are more fragile and require frequent changes or if the F-35 uses the same materials as the F-22. You're assuming that flaws from the F-22 haven't been fixed for the F-35. We have no idea if there's a problem with the F-35's internal bays, but you assume they need fixing before flying again. And to use your example, I'm not sure if spraying some foam can be consider "extensive overhaul". You have conjecture, but no evidence, which is a problem as we can reach many conclusions that way. The maintenance costs for example... where you see evidence of a flawed plane, someone else sees evidence of corruption. Everyone's guessing and guessing isn't enough to change my mind. Regarding Russia's capabilities, historically every country has been better at certain things. The Soviet Union created good SAMs and radars, but they've never been known for having the best computer chips or best stealth. It has nothing to do with feature creep, it's just that some are better than others at some things. Military forums do a lot of guessing and assuming, which can make it a good echo chamber. Even people in the military have no idea what's being worked on at Skunk Works or the Chinese or Russian equivalent.

luuurker 3y ago

While attempting to quote your post, I ended up quoting your quote of another comment, hence the "complete overhaul", not "extensive overhaul". My bad. You're doing a lot of guesswork to reach your conclusions. You have no idea which parts of the F-22 are more fragile and require frequent changes or if the F-35 uses the same materials as the F-22. You're assuming that flaws from the F-22 haven't been fixed for the F-35. We have no idea if there's a problem with the F-35's internal bays, but you assume they need fixing before flying again. And to use your example, I'm not sure if spraying some foam can be consider "extensive overhaul". You have conjecture, but no evidence, which is a problem as we can reach many conclusions that way. The maintenance costs for example... where you see evidence of a flawed plane, someone else sees evidence of corruption. Everyone's guessing and guessing isn't enough to change my mind. Regarding Russia's capabilities, historically every country has been better at certain things. The Soviet Union created good SAMs and radars, but they've never been known for having the best computer chips or best stealth. It has nothing to do with feature creep, it's just that some are better than others at some things. Military forums do a lot of guessing and assuming, which can make it a good echo chamber. Even people in the military have no idea what's being worked on at Skunk Works or the Chinese or Russian equivalent.