4 ms·

That does not refute the criticism about it being a "a jack of all trades master of none". The military gave it so many roles that it seems unlikely to escape t

by ryao 3y ago

That does not refute the criticism about it being a "a jack of all trades master of none". The military gave it so many roles that it seems unlikely to escape that criticism. One of its roles is Close Air Support. A quick search finds that it is inferior to its predecessor in that role: https://federalnewsnetwork.com/air-force/2023/11/air-force-finally-reveals-a-little-bit-about-how-the-f-35-stacks-up-in-providing-close-air-support/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/air-force/2023/11/air-force-f...

fgoesbrrr 3y ago
If you look in Ukraine it's not the "masters of one" planes proving most useful.
- ryao 3y ago
  It is not the F-35 either. The F-35 is more of a jack of all trades than its multirole predecessors. Note that the F-22 is also considered a multirole aircraft, but it really is suited for just 1 role, which is why it was discontinued, since that role was not deemed necessary in modern conflicts. The F-22 also outperforms the F-35 in that single role.
Angostura 3y ago
Also known as "a useful general purpose plane", perhaps?
TrainedMonkey 3y ago
It turns out making an integrated next gen platform with non COTS technology is extremely expensive. And in some cases a next gen jack of all trades > previous gen masters.
- ryao 3y ago
  Which cases are those?
  - jghn 3y ago
    One thing I've seen brought up in the past when air superiority roles are being discussed. If it can take out its opponents before they even know it is there, then it doesn't matter if it's better in a dogfight. And that's quite possible at the moment.
    - ryao 3y ago
      The opponent will know it is there the moment it fires a missile. Anyway, that is the only role where I have heard of it being superior to its predecessors. Has it ever been used in that role? It seems like the military is trying to use it for everything but that, since the role is almost never used in modern war. The F-22 is also far better at that than the F-35. Its production was discontinued precisely because there is no need for aircraft to fill that role. :/
  - aifooh7Keew6xoo 3y ago
    An expensive, new jet offers vastly superior performance relative to cheap, purchased jets in the case of perpetuating the military industrial complex
jghn 3y ago
One thing to consider. Being a 5th get figher, not being specialized for a specific role could still leave it equal to, or better than, more specialized planes in previous generations.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Manuel_D 3y ago
Close air support is not that significant a role against a peer adversary. The Ukraine war has shown that modern air defenses are good enough to make CAS far too dangerous. Fixed wing aircraft doing CAS averaged something like 6 sorties before being downed or irreparably damaged. And for CAS against a non-peer adversary, older generation craft are viable (F-16s are still in production, remember).
- ryao 3y ago
  All other modern conflicts are asymmetric and have shown CAS to be important. The Ukrainian conflict is the only symmetric conflict in recent history, and the F-35 is no where near it.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    Sure, and in asymmetric conflicts where the enemy has no modern air defenses you can keep using F-16s (which are still in production) and save on the maintenance requirements. The F-35 can mount external stores and haul about as many bombs as the F-16 if it needs to. It's true the Ukraine conflict is the only symmetric conflict in recent history, but the military's job is to remain prepared for symmetric conflicts.
    - ryao 3y ago
      The F-16 is also terrible in CAS. They tried to replace the A-10 with it, but failed. The F-35 is not faring much better for that. As for symmetric conflicts, the F-22 is far better for handling those. Its production was discontinued because the military had no need for it. Having the F-35 for a role where there is no need seems silly. It isn't even as good in that role as the existing F-22 fleet.
      - Manuel_D 3y ago
        The F-16 has conducted CAS just fine for decades. What made the F-16 terrible at CAS that the A-10 did so much better? I'm tempted to say loiter time, but with conformal fuel tanks and drop tanks I think the F-16 may even be beating the A-10 at that. Both can mount the same targeting pods, so their ability to engage targets on the ground are effectively identical. The F-22 is a dedicated air superiority fighter. Of course it's going to be better in that specific role. But which is better at operating from aircraft carriers, the F-22 or F-35? The F-35 costs half as much as F-22, too.
brucethemoose2 3y ago
The F-22 can't be exported. And it was truly exceptional when it was new. One has to wonder how the FB-22 (a bomber variant) would have fared.
dharmab 3y ago
There are other aircraft better suited to the dedicated CAS role, such as the AH-64 and various drones.
- ryao 3y ago
  Yet they keep pushing the F-35 as a platform for that role. Furthermore, CAS is just one example. Feel free to find your own.
valec 3y ago
Copying this comment directly from a previous discussion: 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 none 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.
- ryao 3y ago
  The A-10 is designed to be able to take hits and keep flying. The F-35 is designed to avoid hits via stealth. If it is going to be close enough to the ground in a CAS role that machine guns are a threat, the F-35's stealth features are useless. How survivable is the F-35 when taking hits? I doubt it is as good as the A-10. :/ That said, unless the military plans to have people fighting on the ground without air superiority, there is no need for CAS aircraft to face interceptors or other things that would shoot them down. They only have to worry about small arms fire.
  - valec 3y ago
    The A-10 is not surviving a SAM or air-to-air-missile. Even a hit by a MANPAAD is a mission kill. > How survivable is the F-35 when taking hits? the point of the F-35 is that it is less likely to take these hits (hits which would destroy both planes) in the first place > there is no need for CAS aircraft to face interceptors or other things that would shoot them down. They only have to worry about small arms fire. exactly, so in a COIN scenario the super-tucano, which has a tenth of the A-10's operating cost and longer loiter time, is the better choice
    - ryao 3y ago
      > The A-10 is not surviving a SAM or air-to-air-missile. Even a hit by a MANPAAD is a mission kill. This is why there are decoy flares. Anyway, WWII-style antiair guns would easily down a F-35 in a CAS role unless it is so high that its ability to handle that is compromised. Things that shoot bullets are the real threat to CAS aircraft. Also, the F-35 has so few shots that it can only fire a fraction of the bullets that the A-10 could fire. Combine that with reduced accuracy from having to fly higher up and it is almost useless in a CAS role. That being said, it is lousy in all of its roles. Multirole aircraft that are capable of fewer roles are far better than the F-35 in just about every role imaginable. The F-22 is an excellent example of this. :/
idontknowifican 3y ago
please complete the saying: jack of all trades and master of none, much better than a master of one
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- crazygringo 3y ago
  That's an awfully new "saying" though -- somebody only came up with it in 2007: https://english.stackexchange.com/a/508907 https://english.stackexchange.com/a/508907 Whereas the "master of none" part goes back to 1732 in meaning, and 1785 in exact wording. It's just some people recently trying to falsely invent a notion that "jack of all trades, master of none" is "really" supposed to be something positive. It's not.
  - ryao 3y ago
    Saying master of none precludes the possibility of it being good at anything. :/
- ryao 3y ago
  A master of one is better than a master of none. 1 > 0

by ryao 3y ago

fgoesbrrr 3y ago

If you look in Ukraine it's not the "masters of one" planes proving most useful.

ryao 3y ago
It is not the F-35 either. The F-35 is more of a jack of all trades than its multirole predecessors. Note that the F-22 is also considered a multirole aircraft, but it really is suited for just 1 role, which is why it was discontinued, since that role was not deemed necessary in modern conflicts. The F-22 also outperforms the F-35 in that single role.

Angostura 3y ago

Also known as "a useful general purpose plane", perhaps?

TrainedMonkey 3y ago

It turns out making an integrated next gen platform with non COTS technology is extremely expensive. And in some cases a next gen jack of all trades > previous gen masters.

ryao 3y ago
Which cases are those?
- jghn 3y ago
  One thing I've seen brought up in the past when air superiority roles are being discussed. If it can take out its opponents before they even know it is there, then it doesn't matter if it's better in a dogfight. And that's quite possible at the moment.
  - ryao 3y ago
    The opponent will know it is there the moment it fires a missile. Anyway, that is the only role where I have heard of it being superior to its predecessors. Has it ever been used in that role? It seems like the military is trying to use it for everything but that, since the role is almost never used in modern war. The F-22 is also far better at that than the F-35. Its production was discontinued precisely because there is no need for aircraft to fill that role. :/
- aifooh7Keew6xoo 3y ago
  An expensive, new jet offers vastly superior performance relative to cheap, purchased jets in the case of perpetuating the military industrial complex

jghn 3y ago

One thing to consider. Being a 5th get figher, not being specialized for a specific role could still leave it equal to, or better than, more specialized planes in previous generations.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Manuel_D 3y ago

Close air support is not that significant a role against a peer adversary. The Ukraine war has shown that modern air defenses are good enough to make CAS far too dangerous. Fixed wing aircraft doing CAS averaged something like 6 sorties before being downed or irreparably damaged. And for CAS against a non-peer adversary, older generation craft are viable (F-16s are still in production, remember).

ryao 3y ago
All other modern conflicts are asymmetric and have shown CAS to be important. The Ukrainian conflict is the only symmetric conflict in recent history, and the F-35 is no where near it.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  Sure, and in asymmetric conflicts where the enemy has no modern air defenses you can keep using F-16s (which are still in production) and save on the maintenance requirements. The F-35 can mount external stores and haul about as many bombs as the F-16 if it needs to. It's true the Ukraine conflict is the only symmetric conflict in recent history, but the military's job is to remain prepared for symmetric conflicts.
  - ryao 3y ago
    The F-16 is also terrible in CAS. They tried to replace the A-10 with it, but failed. The F-35 is not faring much better for that. As for symmetric conflicts, the F-22 is far better for handling those. Its production was discontinued because the military had no need for it. Having the F-35 for a role where there is no need seems silly. It isn't even as good in that role as the existing F-22 fleet.
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      The F-16 has conducted CAS just fine for decades. What made the F-16 terrible at CAS that the A-10 did so much better? I'm tempted to say loiter time, but with conformal fuel tanks and drop tanks I think the F-16 may even be beating the A-10 at that. Both can mount the same targeting pods, so their ability to engage targets on the ground are effectively identical. The F-22 is a dedicated air superiority fighter. Of course it's going to be better in that specific role. But which is better at operating from aircraft carriers, the F-22 or F-35? The F-35 costs half as much as F-22, too.

brucethemoose2 3y ago

The F-22 can't be exported. And it was truly exceptional when it was new. One has to wonder how the FB-22 (a bomber variant) would have fared.

dharmab 3y ago

There are other aircraft better suited to the dedicated CAS role, such as the AH-64 and various drones.

ryao 3y ago
Yet they keep pushing the F-35 as a platform for that role. Furthermore, CAS is just one example. Feel free to find your own.

valec 3y ago

Copying this comment directly from a previous discussion: 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 none 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.

ryao 3y ago
The A-10 is designed to be able to take hits and keep flying. The F-35 is designed to avoid hits via stealth. If it is going to be close enough to the ground in a CAS role that machine guns are a threat, the F-35's stealth features are useless. How survivable is the F-35 when taking hits? I doubt it is as good as the A-10. :/ That said, unless the military plans to have people fighting on the ground without air superiority, there is no need for CAS aircraft to face interceptors or other things that would shoot them down. They only have to worry about small arms fire.
- valec 3y ago
  The A-10 is not surviving a SAM or air-to-air-missile. Even a hit by a MANPAAD is a mission kill. > How survivable is the F-35 when taking hits? the point of the F-35 is that it is less likely to take these hits (hits which would destroy both planes) in the first place > there is no need for CAS aircraft to face interceptors or other things that would shoot them down. They only have to worry about small arms fire. exactly, so in a COIN scenario the super-tucano, which has a tenth of the A-10's operating cost and longer loiter time, is the better choice
  - ryao 3y ago
    > The A-10 is not surviving a SAM or air-to-air-missile. Even a hit by a MANPAAD is a mission kill. This is why there are decoy flares. Anyway, WWII-style antiair guns would easily down a F-35 in a CAS role unless it is so high that its ability to handle that is compromised. Things that shoot bullets are the real threat to CAS aircraft. Also, the F-35 has so few shots that it can only fire a fraction of the bullets that the A-10 could fire. Combine that with reduced accuracy from having to fly higher up and it is almost useless in a CAS role. That being said, it is lousy in all of its roles. Multirole aircraft that are capable of fewer roles are far better than the F-35 in just about every role imaginable. The F-22 is an excellent example of this. :/

idontknowifican 3y ago

please complete the saying: jack of all trades and master of none, much better than a master of one

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
crazygringo 3y ago
That's an awfully new "saying" though -- somebody only came up with it in 2007: https://english.stackexchange.com/a/508907 https://english.stackexchange.com/a/508907 Whereas the "master of none" part goes back to 1732 in meaning, and 1785 in exact wording. It's just some people recently trying to falsely invent a notion that "jack of all trades, master of none" is "really" supposed to be something positive. It's not.
- ryao 3y ago
  Saying master of none precludes the possibility of it being good at anything. :/
ryao 3y ago
A master of one is better than a master of none. 1 > 0