3 ms·

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 condition

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.

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 condition

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.