16 ms·

I'm no expert on aircraft procurement or government contracts (I'm an engineer who used to work on fighter jets) - that being said, it's my understanding that t

I'm no expert on aircraft procurement or government contracts (I'm an engineer who used to work on fighter jets) - that being said, it's my understanding that the F-35 is actually a very successful project, and a very affordable one at that. I haven't got any citations or evidence to present, I could be wrong about all of this, it's a topic I've got only casual knowledge about. A broad overview of my understanding of the situation: Most critics are making unfair comparisons (e.g. criticizing the F-35 for its inability to dogfight, or comparing its cost to 4th generation fighters, rather than its 5th generation peers) This argument is further complicated by (as I understand it) a general lack of knowledge in the west concerning the true cost of Russian and Chinese 5th generation fighters (PAK FA and Su-57) All of that being said, I think this is a heavily politicized topic, and I can never discount the possibility that I've been hoodwinked when it comes to such matters.

SonicScrub 3y ago
https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/01/f-35-cheaper-than-the-gripen/ https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/01/f-35-cheaper-than-the-g... Specific figures will differ depending on how exactly one calculates acquisition costs. These numbers differ depending on the acquiring country, the block numbers, etc. But as rule of thumb the F-35 cost is roughly 10 million USD cheaper than the much less capable Gripen. This is notable as the Gripen is being marketed as the cheaper alternative. The F-35 has much higher operational costs (mostly due to the costs of maintaining stealth coating), but here's the opinion of the Finish and Swiss governments on full life-cycle costs from the article: > However, both the Swiss and Finnish authorities argued that the F-35 was the best cost/benefit investment, if its full life-cycle economics were taken into account.
- flakeoil 3y ago
  From the article the cost per flight hour is around $8,000 for Gripen and $33,300 for the F35A. The Finish and Swiss most likely have no clue what the final full life-cycle costs will be. No-one knows this cost. The US who sold it knows a bit more than the Finns and the Swiss, but not even they know. Time will tell. The F35 program has overrun it's costs over and over. The purchase price of the F35A (the conventional version) is being artificially low as a lot of the costs have been pushed onto the F35B and F35C models so they can offer an attractive price for their exports. It's all politics at the end anyway. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
  - matkoniecz 3y ago
    > The F35 program has overrun it's costs over and over. Note that you need to compare with competing programs. Notably, F35 can be actually seriously produced (unlike say its supposed competition Su-57)
- Hammershaft 3y ago
  What makes stealth coating particularily expensive?
  - genmud 3y ago
    Probably made out of special radar absorbing shit and requires specialized to make sure it is uniform (or not) in its application. I used a really thin ceramic based paint coating and it was really difficult to apply in a uniform manner. I can’t imagine how hard getting stealth coating onto a fighter jet is.
mrtksn 3y ago
All that might turn out to be irrelevant as the drones prove detrimental in a warfare. With the advancements in AI in recent years, it will probably get harder and harder to justify carrying a biological being and all the support systems onboard. At some point, a warplane capabilities might become irrelevant and the only important aspect would the the implications of carrying a solder onboard and making the downing of the device much more politically significant than downing a drone.
- njarboe 3y ago
  I believe the F-35 software is designed to allow it to be sort of a forward base for controlling a large number of drones.
- brobdingnagians 3y ago
  How do drones get around the issue of communications jamming? I suppose they have some way (autonomous would be one way), but it seems to me that if communications are cut off, having a pilot with human judgement to respond to changing conditions will almost always have some advantage. Although, you could get a pretty advanced autonomous system that responded to changes from a pre-programmed attack plan.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    > How do drones get around the issue of communications jamming The same way the F-35 does I guess. Besides, it's pretty common for AI systems to overtake human capabilities these days, so when jammed they can just carry on. Sure, they do mistakes but humans do these too and the advantage of not carrying 80kg of fragile human and all the life support systems onboard is quite significant. It makes the thing much cheaper, it removes the need to come back thus doubles the range, it makes the thing smaller thus harder to detect and destroy, it doesn't have to limit its manoeuvres to human levels this makes the thing much more agile.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      > The same way the F-35 does I guess. No, because that's in part "let the human pilot make decisions". > Besides, it's pretty common for AI systems to overtake human capabilities these days... Not in the realm of "should I shoot that thing?" sort of decisions.
m0llusk 3y ago
There has been a great deal of honing to the jet and its production processes over time. The prototypes were overpriced and underperforming but with scale all that was overcome.
belter 3y ago
Well at least in close combat we know who turns first: "F 16 vs. F 35 - Turn Comparison" - https://youtu.be/SPqUvCnWcrk https://youtu.be/SPqUvCnWcrk
- slavboj 3y ago
  The entire point of the airplane is to never get into close combat. It's like asking which navy has better bayonets.
  - belter 3y ago
    A theory pushed constantly by the F-35 program, but quickly dismissed by the Ukrainian War. "Dogfight Over Ukraine Shows The Air War Is Still Very Much Being Fought" - https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/dogfight-over-ukraine-shows-the-air-war-is-still-very-much-being-fought https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/dogfight-over-ukraine-...
    - dncornholio 3y ago
      This is a video of a fighter plane launching 2 missiles. It doesn't dismiss anything.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      Just because the F-35 was designed to be a strike aircraft more than a dogfighter doesn't mean that it won't be put in those situations. We've been using butter knives as screwdrivers for as long as we've had a butter knife but no screwdriver.
    - some_random 3y ago
      That dogfight is newsworthy because it's exceptional, and even still it's not a turning duel by any stretch of the imagination. The real takeaway from the Ukrainian war is that stealth and engagement range are paramount.
      - dgroshev 3y ago
brobdingnagians 3y ago
I've read some analyses of the F35 vs A10 which don't favour the F35 for CAS operations much. The main thing I saw was that F35 requires more maintenance and longer runways than the A10 and is more fragile. It depends on what kind of a war that is being fought, but in a major great power war, you couldn't always guarantee having nice high quality air bases, runways, and support teams near the front. Sometimes it is preferable to have a low tech; that fancy new wifi connected oven can be great, until your wifi goes out for a few days and you find out that it won't turn on, and you have to get a special maintenance guy.
- lumost 3y ago
  It is unnecessary to have a manned CAS fighter doing strafing runs. A cheap Drone in the 1-5MM range could do the job better. Or rely on high altitude/stealth precision bombing. The A-10 was built for a war in Europe that never came. You can see how well the equivalent SU-25 Frogfoot fairs against Manpads in Ukraine today.
- valec 3y ago
  The F-35 has a much faster response time than the A-10--and, more importantly, survivability. In a contested environment, "suboptimal" CAS from an F-35 dropping precision munitions is much better than non at all (A-10 would get shot out of the sky by any near-peer before it could approach the theater). The A-10 also has high maintenance costs and a relatively low loiter time. For fighting terrorists in flipflops, something like a super-tucano does its job for a tenth of the operating cost. Fundamentally, the A-10 was not built for CAS. It was built as a last-ditch, suicide strafer of Soviet convoys during a land war in Europe. Very few were projected to survive past the first week.
  - dogman144 3y ago
    This is an… unorthodox take from the ground commander/fires perspective or conversely the orthodox take from the USAF perspective. Hard lessons from the GWOT have firmly put the A10 as the most capable CAS platform, and it’s taught as such in all joint fires classes to forward observers and also via unit history/anecdotes fires units (“A10 saved my butt in ‘12”). A10 pilots and units also have a much better rep for CAS than F16 etc units (w/e the USAF name is?). As in, from the ground units perspective, the unit actually needing and coordinating the CAS, everything you’ve argued is against the grain. However, the USAF has been running the exact argument you’re using for years. What matters more - IRL combat experience and successes with the A10 platform, or the 10 year PR campaign to get rid of it for no good reason from the combat perspective.
hollerith 3y ago
If F-35 is such a failure, how come many countries have chosen to buy it? Consulting this next page, I count 8 countries besides the US that have taken delivery of F-35s, plus many that have ordered it, but not yet taken delivery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Operators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning... The UK for example currently has a fleet of 32, and Australia has 50.
- karaterobot 3y ago
  I'm not taking a side on this particular issue, but there are many reasons a person or a country might buy something that wasn't very good, even if they knew it wasn't. Maintaining a relationship with the vendor (aka a foreign nation with whom you maintain diplomatic/economic relations) is a big one.
- morkalork 3y ago
  It's both until its not. If only 1 or 2 countries signed up, it'd be an expensive failure. If everyone signs up, cost go down and economies of scale make it a wild success.
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    Yeah, F35 turned into something I would never have anticipated: it's actually not that expensive anymore.
- Kuinox 3y ago
  Because they are buying USA weapons, not the weapons that fits what their country needs. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/fighter-jet-purchase--worrying--but-legal--says-swiss-audit-body/47889476 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/fighter-jet-purchase--...
- throw0101c 3y ago
  > If F-35 is such a failure, how come many countries have chosen to buy it? What's the alternative? How many other models can be purchased at all? Canada went through a bunch of drama to find a replacement for the legacy F/A-18s, and the main options were: Eurofighter Typhoon, Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, F-35, and the Saab Gripen. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_Canadian_procurement#2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning... Gripen wasn't in the same league, so we basically have the Typhoon and SuperHornet as other options, and both were at least a decade older with regards to their 'base' design (though there have been further upgrades). So if you're going to be stuck with a plane for 20+ years, you might as well pick the newest model year. Personally I'd be happy with the Super Hornets (and thrown in some Growlers) for Canada given "6G" fighters are starting to be designed—basically skipping the "5G" F-35—but Boeing were a bunch of dumbasses when the decision was being made: * https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/18/justin-trudeau-says-canada-will-not-buy-from-boeing-while-it-is-busy-trying-to-sue-us.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/18/justin-trudeau-says-canada-w...
ozim 3y ago
It is quite clear dogfights happen only in the movies. But all my knowledge about fighter jets comes from YouTube fighter jet pilot channels.
mercutio2 3y ago
I found this article illuminating on the F-35. Certainly convinced me that the costs have been misrepresented. https://www.navalgazing.net/The-Case-for-the-F-35 https://www.navalgazing.net/The-Case-for-the-F-35
8bitsrule 3y ago
>a very successful project, and a very affordable one... I've read several articles today that called it the 'most expensive weapon', that the program is '10 years behind', that each costs $80M, and '$9M/year to maintain', that over 1000 have been built etc. For decades it has been a troubled project, many experienced insiders have called it a failure, from the day the first one rolled out ... long ago. 'Very successful' in what way?
protomolecule 3y ago
>Russian and Chinese 5th generation fighters (PAK FA and Su-57) PAK FA/T-50/Su-57 is the same Russian fighter.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-57 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-57
SkeuomorphicBee 3y ago
I gather that everyone who actually knows their stuff consider the F35 very capable for its price, but still the number of reports of it crashing seems quite odd to my civilian ear, is this much crashing just normal for military equipment? As a comparison I searched for data on a civilian plane of roughly the same age: - The F35, with ~965+ units made since 2006, had 12 incidents with 9 or 10 hull-losses - The Boeing 787, with ~1,077 units made since 2007, had 7 incidents with 0 hull-losses I know that military does more dangerous stuff that civilians (e.g. one of the F35 crashes was during aerial refueling, other one while landing in a carrier), but still a ~1% hull loss (without enemy fire) is surprising for me.

SonicScrub 3y ago

https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/01/f-35-cheaper-than-the-gripen/ https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/01/f-35-cheaper-than-the-g... Specific figures will differ depending on how exactly one calculates acquisition costs. These numbers differ depending on the acquiring country, the block numbers, etc. But as rule of thumb the F-35 cost is roughly 10 million USD cheaper than the much less capable Gripen. This is notable as the Gripen is being marketed as the cheaper alternative. The F-35 has much higher operational costs (mostly due to the costs of maintaining stealth coating), but here's the opinion of the Finish and Swiss governments on full life-cycle costs from the article: > However, both the Swiss and Finnish authorities argued that the F-35 was the best cost/benefit investment, if its full life-cycle economics were taken into account.

flakeoil 3y ago
From the article the cost per flight hour is around $8,000 for Gripen and $33,300 for the F35A. The Finish and Swiss most likely have no clue what the final full life-cycle costs will be. No-one knows this cost. The US who sold it knows a bit more than the Finns and the Swiss, but not even they know. Time will tell. The F35 program has overrun it's costs over and over. The purchase price of the F35A (the conventional version) is being artificially low as a lot of the costs have been pushed onto the F35B and F35C models so they can offer an attractive price for their exports. It's all politics at the end anyway. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
- matkoniecz 3y ago
  > The F35 program has overrun it's costs over and over. Note that you need to compare with competing programs. Notably, F35 can be actually seriously produced (unlike say its supposed competition Su-57)
Hammershaft 3y ago
What makes stealth coating particularily expensive?
- genmud 3y ago
  Probably made out of special radar absorbing shit and requires specialized to make sure it is uniform (or not) in its application. I used a really thin ceramic based paint coating and it was really difficult to apply in a uniform manner. I can’t imagine how hard getting stealth coating onto a fighter jet is.

mrtksn 3y ago

All that might turn out to be irrelevant as the drones prove detrimental in a warfare. With the advancements in AI in recent years, it will probably get harder and harder to justify carrying a biological being and all the support systems onboard. At some point, a warplane capabilities might become irrelevant and the only important aspect would the the implications of carrying a solder onboard and making the downing of the device much more politically significant than downing a drone.

njarboe 3y ago
I believe the F-35 software is designed to allow it to be sort of a forward base for controlling a large number of drones.
brobdingnagians 3y ago
How do drones get around the issue of communications jamming? I suppose they have some way (autonomous would be one way), but it seems to me that if communications are cut off, having a pilot with human judgement to respond to changing conditions will almost always have some advantage. Although, you could get a pretty advanced autonomous system that responded to changes from a pre-programmed attack plan.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  > How do drones get around the issue of communications jamming The same way the F-35 does I guess. Besides, it's pretty common for AI systems to overtake human capabilities these days, so when jammed they can just carry on. Sure, they do mistakes but humans do these too and the advantage of not carrying 80kg of fragile human and all the life support systems onboard is quite significant. It makes the thing much cheaper, it removes the need to come back thus doubles the range, it makes the thing smaller thus harder to detect and destroy, it doesn't have to limit its manoeuvres to human levels this makes the thing much more agile.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    > The same way the F-35 does I guess. No, because that's in part "let the human pilot make decisions". > Besides, it's pretty common for AI systems to overtake human capabilities these days... Not in the realm of "should I shoot that thing?" sort of decisions.

m0llusk 3y ago

There has been a great deal of honing to the jet and its production processes over time. The prototypes were overpriced and underperforming but with scale all that was overcome.

belter 3y ago

Well at least in close combat we know who turns first: "F 16 vs. F 35 - Turn Comparison" - https://youtu.be/SPqUvCnWcrk https://youtu.be/SPqUvCnWcrk

slavboj 3y ago
The entire point of the airplane is to never get into close combat. It's like asking which navy has better bayonets.
- belter 3y ago
  A theory pushed constantly by the F-35 program, but quickly dismissed by the Ukrainian War. "Dogfight Over Ukraine Shows The Air War Is Still Very Much Being Fought" - https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/dogfight-over-ukraine-shows-the-air-war-is-still-very-much-being-fought https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/dogfight-over-ukraine-...
  - dncornholio 3y ago
    This is a video of a fighter plane launching 2 missiles. It doesn't dismiss anything.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    Just because the F-35 was designed to be a strike aircraft more than a dogfighter doesn't mean that it won't be put in those situations. We've been using butter knives as screwdrivers for as long as we've had a butter knife but no screwdriver.
  - some_random 3y ago
    That dogfight is newsworthy because it's exceptional, and even still it's not a turning duel by any stretch of the imagination. The real takeaway from the Ukrainian war is that stealth and engagement range are paramount.
    - dgroshev 3y ago

brobdingnagians 3y ago

I've read some analyses of the F35 vs A10 which don't favour the F35 for CAS operations much. The main thing I saw was that F35 requires more maintenance and longer runways than the A10 and is more fragile. It depends on what kind of a war that is being fought, but in a major great power war, you couldn't always guarantee having nice high quality air bases, runways, and support teams near the front. Sometimes it is preferable to have a low tech; that fancy new wifi connected oven can be great, until your wifi goes out for a few days and you find out that it won't turn on, and you have to get a special maintenance guy.

lumost 3y ago
It is unnecessary to have a manned CAS fighter doing strafing runs. A cheap Drone in the 1-5MM range could do the job better. Or rely on high altitude/stealth precision bombing. The A-10 was built for a war in Europe that never came. You can see how well the equivalent SU-25 Frogfoot fairs against Manpads in Ukraine today.
valec 3y ago
The F-35 has a much faster response time than the A-10--and, more importantly, survivability. In a contested environment, "suboptimal" CAS from an F-35 dropping precision munitions is much better than non at all (A-10 would get shot out of the sky by any near-peer before it could approach the theater). The A-10 also has high maintenance costs and a relatively low loiter time. For fighting terrorists in flipflops, something like a super-tucano does its job for a tenth of the operating cost. Fundamentally, the A-10 was not built for CAS. It was built as a last-ditch, suicide strafer of Soviet convoys during a land war in Europe. Very few were projected to survive past the first week.
- dogman144 3y ago
  This is an… unorthodox take from the ground commander/fires perspective or conversely the orthodox take from the USAF perspective. Hard lessons from the GWOT have firmly put the A10 as the most capable CAS platform, and it’s taught as such in all joint fires classes to forward observers and also via unit history/anecdotes fires units (“A10 saved my butt in ‘12”). A10 pilots and units also have a much better rep for CAS than F16 etc units (w/e the USAF name is?). As in, from the ground units perspective, the unit actually needing and coordinating the CAS, everything you’ve argued is against the grain. However, the USAF has been running the exact argument you’re using for years. What matters more - IRL combat experience and successes with the A10 platform, or the 10 year PR campaign to get rid of it for no good reason from the combat perspective.

hollerith 3y ago

If F-35 is such a failure, how come many countries have chosen to buy it? Consulting this next page, I count 8 countries besides the US that have taken delivery of F-35s, plus many that have ordered it, but not yet taken delivery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Operators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning... The UK for example currently has a fleet of 32, and Australia has 50.

karaterobot 3y ago
I'm not taking a side on this particular issue, but there are many reasons a person or a country might buy something that wasn't very good, even if they knew it wasn't. Maintaining a relationship with the vendor (aka a foreign nation with whom you maintain diplomatic/economic relations) is a big one.
morkalork 3y ago
It's both until its not. If only 1 or 2 countries signed up, it'd be an expensive failure. If everyone signs up, cost go down and economies of scale make it a wild success.
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  Yeah, F35 turned into something I would never have anticipated: it's actually not that expensive anymore.
Kuinox 3y ago
Because they are buying USA weapons, not the weapons that fits what their country needs. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/fighter-jet-purchase--worrying--but-legal--says-swiss-audit-body/47889476 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/fighter-jet-purchase--...
throw0101c 3y ago
> If F-35 is such a failure, how come many countries have chosen to buy it? What's the alternative? How many other models can be purchased at all? Canada went through a bunch of drama to find a replacement for the legacy F/A-18s, and the main options were: Eurofighter Typhoon, Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, F-35, and the Saab Gripen. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_Canadian_procurement#2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning... Gripen wasn't in the same league, so we basically have the Typhoon and SuperHornet as other options, and both were at least a decade older with regards to their 'base' design (though there have been further upgrades). So if you're going to be stuck with a plane for 20+ years, you might as well pick the newest model year. Personally I'd be happy with the Super Hornets (and thrown in some Growlers) for Canada given "6G" fighters are starting to be designed—basically skipping the "5G" F-35—but Boeing were a bunch of dumbasses when the decision was being made: * https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/18/justin-trudeau-says-canada-will-not-buy-from-boeing-while-it-is-busy-trying-to-sue-us.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/18/justin-trudeau-says-canada-w...

ozim 3y ago

It is quite clear dogfights happen only in the movies. But all my knowledge about fighter jets comes from YouTube fighter jet pilot channels.

mercutio2 3y ago

I found this article illuminating on the F-35. Certainly convinced me that the costs have been misrepresented. https://www.navalgazing.net/The-Case-for-the-F-35 https://www.navalgazing.net/The-Case-for-the-F-35

8bitsrule 3y ago

>a very successful project, and a very affordable one... I've read several articles today that called it the 'most expensive weapon', that the program is '10 years behind', that each costs $80M, and '$9M/year to maintain', that over 1000 have been built etc. For decades it has been a troubled project, many experienced insiders have called it a failure, from the day the first one rolled out ... long ago. 'Very successful' in what way?

protomolecule 3y ago

>Russian and Chinese 5th generation fighters (PAK FA and Su-57) PAK FA/T-50/Su-57 is the same Russian fighter.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-57 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-57

SkeuomorphicBee 3y ago

I gather that everyone who actually knows their stuff consider the F35 very capable for its price, but still the number of reports of it crashing seems quite odd to my civilian ear, is this much crashing just normal for military equipment? As a comparison I searched for data on a civilian plane of roughly the same age: - The F35, with ~965+ units made since 2006, had 12 incidents with 9 or 10 hull-losses - The Boeing 787, with ~1,077 units made since 2007, had 7 incidents with 0 hull-losses I know that military does more dangerous stuff that civilians (e.g. one of the F35 crashes was during aerial refueling, other one while landing in a carrier), but still a ~1% hull loss (without enemy fire) is surprising for me.