MSNBC are claiming the F35 is  failure. Really? I'm dubious about this claim. Expensive yes, but a failure?

They also make an error in claiming it was just supposed to replace the F16, which of course isn't true. it 's designed to replace the F16, F18 and Marine Corps Harrier and UK Harrier. 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 26, 20215 yr by martin-w

I read this recently about the F35.  July 2020.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davedeptula/2020/07/20/f-35-problem-child-or-on-track-for-success/?sh=7cfdfbe15d14

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/us-admits-f-35-failed-to-replace-f-16-as-planned-needs-new-fighter-jet-44483

4 minutes ago, Mongrelf said:

I read this recently about the F35.  July 2020.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davedeptula/2020/07/20/f-35-problem-child-or-on-track-for-success/?sh=7cfdfbe15d14

 

That makes more sense. 

Failure? Laughable. There’s plenty of literature available as to its incredible effectiveness, and the current flyaway cost is comparable or less than far less effective 4th gen fighters. Not to mention the eagerness of overseas purchasers to acquire it, which would be unlikely if it was a dog. 4th gen aircraft don’t stand a chance against it, and there are anecdotes of inexperienced f35 pilots having their way with highly experienced pilots in 4th gen fighters during war games. I initially thought this thing was a turkey, but the more I’ve read about it, the more I realize I was quite wrong.. Per hour operating costs are higher than 4th gen, but 4th gen aircraft simply do not stand a chance against it, they’re dead. Pretty much every US ally who has seen what it can do wants to acquire it. Countries, like people, vote with their wallets.

I imagine there were similar articles about the F-22 - problems, too expensive, etc., and they foolishly stopped production at I believe it was 187 planes, instead of the approximately 1000 planned, an obvious mistake, and like we are now seeing with the F35, the per plane cost would have decreased with increased production. 

Well, you have to take what MSNBC says with a pinch of salt, just as you have take what Fox News says with an even bigger pinch of salt, because they both have political agendas. But on the other side of the coin and as ever, any segment where captain bone spur is talking, can be roundly ignored as well, because he wouldn't know what was a good or bad piece of military equipment if you shot him up the @ss with it. 🤣

The F-35 is like a finely ground scalpel, it's a precision tool which is ideal when used for what it was specifically designed for, but like any precision tool, you can't expect it to stand up to being used like a rugged trusty pocket knife. The Air Force wants a ton of planes which can be flown day in day out, like that trusty pocket knife, but the F-35 isn't that. This doesn't make it a failure, it makes it unsuited to a task it wasn't designed for. They'd be better off having something a load of cheaper F-20 Tigersharks and A-10 Thunderbolts for the day to day peacetime stuff to make the numbers up.

You can equate the F-35 and adversary aeroplanes such as the new Sukhois and Migs etc, to the M-16 and the AK-47. On a special op where you got issued a perfectly clean M-16, it'd be ideal because it's light and accurate, but on a four day slog through the jungle, traipsing through mud, you'd prefer an AK-47. It's not as accurate, but it's cheaper and it's available, and even when it's covered with mud, it will fire when you need it to.

So it comes down to what kind of wars you expect to fight. If you're gonna park a carrier out in the ocean and conduct precision strikes on a target using planes which were in a service hangar two hours before, where the technology can make the thing comparatively invulnerable, the F-35 is the one you want. But if you're wanting to operate from a forward airfield in the desert somewhere, with things being serviced under a tent, and mix it up at guns and short range missile distances, then you want that MiG-29 all day long. Thus it's going to come down to whether the US wants to continue to be the world police, or whether it wants to do something different, because as Carl von Clausewitz famously wrote: 'war is a continuation of politics by other means'.

Edited February 26, 20215 yr by Chock

I fear that getting into an actual shooting war with either Russia or China or both will really depend on who has the best fighter aircraft...

Valuable perspective from a defense expert in this Twitter thread:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ValerieInsinna/status/1364639491508613125

46 minutes ago, IUBrian said:

I imagine there were similar articles about the F-22 - problems, too expensive, etc., and they foolishly stopped production at I believe it was 187 planes, instead of the approximately 1000 planned, an obvious mistake, and like we are now seeing with the F35, the per plane cost would have decreased with increased production. 

They killed the F-22 production to pay for the F-35, which I think is one of the big problems people have with the program. Is the plane good? Yes it is. Was it it worth the many, many, many billions of dollars and 20 years to develop? I'm not sure yet. It has sucked up a lot of money that could have gone to other useful programs.

As the F-22 and F-35 are so good in the air, any smart opponent is going to do everything they can to change the rules and hit them where they're weakest. You can see this with China and their missile programs. There won't be a safe airbase to operate from within range of the Chinese mainland, or Taiwan, and it won't be safe to operate a carrier very close either. Similarly, they have been working on long air to air missiles to knock out AWACS and tankers. Not mention other potential threats like a few special forces destroying them on the ground. So sure, the F-35 can kill everything in the air, but it still has to be in the right place to do it.

48 minutes ago, Chock said:

The F-35 is like a finely ground scalpel, it's a precision tool which is ideal when used for what it was specifically designed for, but like any precision tool, you can't expect it to stand up to being used like a rugged trusty pocket knife. The Air Force wants a ton of planes which can be flown day in day out, like that trusty pocket knife, but the F-35 isn't that. This doesn't make it a failure, it makes it unsuited to a task it wasn't designed for.

This is why the US Navy is buying frigates again. Many missions don't need the power and cost of an Arleigh Burke class destroyer and the LCS ships are lemons, so after many years, they are buying new frigates.

1 hour ago, Chock said:

They'd be better off having something a load of cheaper F-20 Tigersharks and A-10 Thunderbolts for the day to day peacetime stuff to make the numbers up.

 

 

Actually, there are suggestions of a 5th Gen "minus". A new F16, cheaper, not so high tech. 

 

Quote

Instead, Air Force Chief Brown suggested they would develop a “fifth-generation-minus” fighter jet.

 

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/us-admits-f-35-failed-to-replace-f-16-as-planned-needs-new-fighter-jet-44483

US military spending is a colossal $726 billion. And okay, projects like the F35 are expensive, but where is that unnecessary spending going? Or is it unnecessary?

Is it personnel, equipment, what is it? How can that huge budget be reduced? Or should it be reduced? 

Edited February 26, 20215 yr by martin-w

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

Is it personnel, equipment, what is it? How can that huge budget be reduced? Or should it be reduced? 

This way be dragons. 🐉 Also known as politics... 🙃

2 hours ago, martin-w said:

US military spending is a colossal $726 billion. And okay, projects like the F35 are expensive, but where is that unnecessary spending going?

Alien tech research at Area 51. It's obvious

Edited February 26, 20215 yr by Christopher Low

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

Alien tech research at Area 51. It's obvious

 

Black budget is 31 billion so they say. So who knows what they are up to.