3 ms·

I believe the F35 was supposed to be far less maintenance than B2 and F22. My understanding is that B2 and F22 have far superior stealth, but far higher mainte

I believe the F35 was supposed to be far less maintenance than B2 and F22. My understanding is that B2 and F22 have far superior stealth, but far higher maintenance costs and headaches. F35 is a better balance (or supposed to be).

wkat4242 2y ago
It's a new jet though. I could imagine maintenance teams still getting their heads around it while the F-22 is much more mature
- dragontamer 2y ago
  B2 and F22 also *require* a hangar. You literally cannot expose F22 stealth paint to the sun, as it degenerates over time. F35 is put into more harsh conditions (ex: allowed to be stored outside in the sun / rain). This could be the reason why they have stealth maintenance issues. So maybe they've "spent" the F35's easier maintenance on easier storage? Hangars / covered bases would reduce maintenance costs, but that might not be reasonable for every deployment.
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    Ah I see. But does every deployment really require stealth? I could imagine that treatment could be skipped for a while if it's the only thing.
    - dragontamer 2y ago
      The point of the F35 is stealth though. If you don't need stealth, you can send an F16 instead. EDIT: I guess your point is that if maintenance becomes a hassle, it could be skipped? I guess that's true, but... in which case you'd rather be flying cheaper and simpler airplanes.
      - talldayo 2y ago
        > If you don't need stealth, you can send an F16 instead. Not necessarily? An up-to-date F-16 block is still pretty expensive to field and needs external pods to do a lot of the stuff the F-35 can do internally (laser designation, IRST, advanced datalink, the works). It has a far smaller combat radius (295 nmi versus 669 nmi) and isn't outfitted with modern A/G weaponry outside SEAD missiles like the HARM. There are a whole number of reasons why you'd want to field an F-35 in the F-16's place, even without stealth on the table. Low radar response is the cherry on top of the strike package.
      - wkat4242 2y ago
        Well my country is replacing all the F-16s for F-35s so soon they won't have that choice. I assumed the US would be doing the same but I guess that yeah that might not be the case. Also, a lot of missions they do are interception which don't require stealth at all (they escort Russians out of our airspace by flying right beside them). The times they really do a live fire mission are pretty few and far between.

wkat4242 2y ago

It's a new jet though. I could imagine maintenance teams still getting their heads around it while the F-22 is much more mature

dragontamer 2y ago
B2 and F22 also *require* a hangar. You literally cannot expose F22 stealth paint to the sun, as it degenerates over time. F35 is put into more harsh conditions (ex: allowed to be stored outside in the sun / rain). This could be the reason why they have stealth maintenance issues. So maybe they've "spent" the F35's easier maintenance on easier storage? Hangars / covered bases would reduce maintenance costs, but that might not be reasonable for every deployment.
- wkat4242 2y ago
  Ah I see. But does every deployment really require stealth? I could imagine that treatment could be skipped for a while if it's the only thing.
  - dragontamer 2y ago
    The point of the F35 is stealth though. If you don't need stealth, you can send an F16 instead. EDIT: I guess your point is that if maintenance becomes a hassle, it could be skipped? I guess that's true, but... in which case you'd rather be flying cheaper and simpler airplanes.
    - talldayo 2y ago
      > If you don't need stealth, you can send an F16 instead. Not necessarily? An up-to-date F-16 block is still pretty expensive to field and needs external pods to do a lot of the stuff the F-35 can do internally (laser designation, IRST, advanced datalink, the works). It has a far smaller combat radius (295 nmi versus 669 nmi) and isn't outfitted with modern A/G weaponry outside SEAD missiles like the HARM. There are a whole number of reasons why you'd want to field an F-35 in the F-16's place, even without stealth on the table. Low radar response is the cherry on top of the strike package.
    - wkat4242 2y ago
      Well my country is replacing all the F-16s for F-35s so soon they won't have that choice. I assumed the US would be doing the same but I guess that yeah that might not be the case. Also, a lot of missions they do are interception which don't require stealth at all (they escort Russians out of our airspace by flying right beside them). The times they really do a live fire mission are pretty few and far between.