9 ms·

F-35 lacks the F-16's agility in the air-to-air mode and the F-15E's range and payload in the bombing mode, and it can't even begin to compare to the A-10 a

F-35 lacks the F-16's agility in the air-to-air mode and the F-15E's range and payload in the bombing mode, and it can't even begin to compare to the A-10 at low-altitude close air support for troops engaged in combat. "jack of all trades, master of none". :(

D_Alex 14y ago
You sound like my wife... she says I lack the good looks of Hugh Jackman and athletic abilities of Michael Phelps, and I can't even compare to Bill Gates in the amount of money I bring in. Not defending the F-35 though. My main issue with it is that I can't see that it is needed at all.
- evoxed 14y ago
  The US doesn't need them– but they'd love to sell them to other countries to recoup some of their costs. Too bad their pricing difficulties have pretty much ruined any chance of that working though, as Japan's already announced that they don't want them for more than the original projection.
  - arethuza 14y ago
    The F-35 is causing the UK all manner of problems as well: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17437272 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17437272 Unfortunately, we're already commited over $10 billion to building new carriers for them.
    - 46Bit 14y ago
      One new carrier and one floating Scottish island, you mean.
      - arethuza 14y ago
        Just looked at the Wikipedia page for the new carriers, it seems we are going to operate one and keep the other in "extended readiness": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_... I presume "extended readiness" is civil service jargon for "scrapped as soon as it is built".
        46Bit 14y ago
        More or less, yes. The thing is only being built because Labour managed to make it barely any cheaper to cancel the contracts than to actually build a second, unused & unusable one.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  > "My main issue with it is that I can't see that it is needed at all." I don't usually find myself defending defense spending... but war-related technology is something you don't know you need, until you do, by which time it's too late to procure it. If the US is going to continue its M.O. of attacking countries whose military air presence can be counted on two hands, and consists mostly of old Soviet cast-offs, then sure, the current level of tech is more than sufficient. Overkill, even. I don't think there has been a single loss of U.S. military aircraft to enemy action since... Kosovo? I think a main impetus of this particular project is because both Russia and China are rapidly developing their own 5th-generation fighters, and while a head-to-head with China doesn't seem entirely likely, it's certainly less farfetched than the idea was 20 years ago. Don't take it the wrong way, I'm not defending this particular boondoggle of a project, but the need for a 5th-generation fighter is entirely understandable. On the plus side, it doesn't look like other countries' 5th-gen fighter projects are doing much better... The Chinese project has faced delay after delay after delay, and the Russians too.
  - 7952 14y ago
    If there was a war with China (thankfully far-fetched) why would they want to use 5th generation fighters at all? How many drones could Foxconn make in a day?
    - jbooth 14y ago
      Well, the thing is, drones aren't sporting. Not honorable. No respectable air force general wants to build a career on drone acquisition.
      - FelixP 14y ago
        Isn't what they said about tanks and horses?
        jbooth 14y ago
        That's the point. A few years ago, in a wargame predicated around the persian gulf, this retired marine who was playing the bad guys launched a low-tech attack on carrier groups which consisted of a ton of drones and fishing boats filled with high explosives. He won. Result? They did a "redo" with a new rule that he can't do that stuff. Because carriers are awesome and admirals want to command them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
- philwelch 14y ago
  The F-16, F-18, A-10, and Harrier are aging airframes that won't last forever. They need to be replaced. And frankly, stealth is such an improvement in terms of survivability in combat that the marginal expense of stealth technology is easily worth it just to protect the monetary investment the government makes in a trained pilot. The F-35 might not be the best design (they'd be better off with a cheaper F-22 derivative and a separate replacement for the Harrier I think) but it fulfills a real requirement.
  - pilom 14y ago
    I think a lot of people underestimate the differences between the F-22 and the F-35 on a price standpoint. The F-22 costs $2 billion per plane. The F-35 at $18X million per plan is a pittance in comparison for 80% of the capabilities.
    - greedo 14y ago
      The F-22 doesn't cost anywhere near $2billion dollars per plane.
      - pilom 14y ago
        I stand corrected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor. If you divide the number of aircraft built by the amount spent on the program, the GAO puts that at $412 million per plane. You can still buy more than 3 F-35's for each F-22.
        philwelch 14y ago
        That's not the marginal cost per plane, because that amortizes the cost of R&D over the current production run. If you ordered more F-22's, they would cost far less since the R&D is already done.
  - jakeonthemove 14y ago
    They're stealthy because they're new - if a real war breaks out, I have no doubt anti-measures would be developed pretty quickly, just like the radar during WW2. Why would they need to make such an overly complicated plane is beyond me, it's like the F-14 situation all over again. Plus, the F-22 works (and looks) pretty well already...
- rdtsc 14y ago
  It is needed because it is designed to replace all those. Imagine your wife had Hugh Jackman, Michael Phelps and Bill Gates as her husbands in some strange polyamory type setup (hey you brought your wife into the conversation first ;-) ). And then one day, all those husbands disappeared and she was left with you.
  - D_Alex 14y ago
    Well, she'd have a lot less ironing to do... Look, I think this analogy has gone too far already!!!
darnton 14y ago
Hard to believe the article can make this observation without mention of John Boyd. http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-The-Fighter-Pilot-Changed/dp/B002B55XHM/ http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-The-Fighter-Pilot-Changed/dp/B002...
yread 14y ago
Sounds a bit like the Space shuttle
newbie12 14y ago
The politicians' "make it do everything" mantra is the same reason the space shuttle was a disastrous, budget-consuming failure.
starpilot 14y ago
The F-35 is stealthier and has far better avionics than all of those aircraft. It could detect and shoot down an F-16 before it knew it was there, and do the same to ground targets. It doesn't have the low-speed loitering ability of the A-10, but that feature makes sense only for a pre-MANPADS era or battle.
- philwelch 14y ago
  Actually, the STOVL variant of the F-35 has exactly the low-speed loitering ability, not of the A-10, but of the Harrier. That's what it was designed for.

D_Alex 14y ago

You sound like my wife... she says I lack the good looks of Hugh Jackman and athletic abilities of Michael Phelps, and I can't even compare to Bill Gates in the amount of money I bring in. Not defending the F-35 though. My main issue with it is that I can't see that it is needed at all.

evoxed 14y ago
The US doesn't need them– but they'd love to sell them to other countries to recoup some of their costs. Too bad their pricing difficulties have pretty much ruined any chance of that working though, as Japan's already announced that they don't want them for more than the original projection.
- arethuza 14y ago
  The F-35 is causing the UK all manner of problems as well: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17437272 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17437272 Unfortunately, we're already commited over $10 billion to building new carriers for them.
  - 46Bit 14y ago
    One new carrier and one floating Scottish island, you mean.
    - arethuza 14y ago
      Just looked at the Wikipedia page for the new carriers, it seems we are going to operate one and keep the other in "extended readiness": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_... I presume "extended readiness" is civil service jargon for "scrapped as soon as it is built".
      - 46Bit 14y ago
        More or less, yes. The thing is only being built because Labour managed to make it barely any cheaper to cancel the contracts than to actually build a second, unused & unusable one.
potatolicious 14y ago
> "My main issue with it is that I can't see that it is needed at all." I don't usually find myself defending defense spending... but war-related technology is something you don't know you need, until you do, by which time it's too late to procure it. If the US is going to continue its M.O. of attacking countries whose military air presence can be counted on two hands, and consists mostly of old Soviet cast-offs, then sure, the current level of tech is more than sufficient. Overkill, even. I don't think there has been a single loss of U.S. military aircraft to enemy action since... Kosovo? I think a main impetus of this particular project is because both Russia and China are rapidly developing their own 5th-generation fighters, and while a head-to-head with China doesn't seem entirely likely, it's certainly less farfetched than the idea was 20 years ago. Don't take it the wrong way, I'm not defending this particular boondoggle of a project, but the need for a 5th-generation fighter is entirely understandable. On the plus side, it doesn't look like other countries' 5th-gen fighter projects are doing much better... The Chinese project has faced delay after delay after delay, and the Russians too.
- 7952 14y ago
  If there was a war with China (thankfully far-fetched) why would they want to use 5th generation fighters at all? How many drones could Foxconn make in a day?
  - jbooth 14y ago
    Well, the thing is, drones aren't sporting. Not honorable. No respectable air force general wants to build a career on drone acquisition.
    - FelixP 14y ago
      Isn't what they said about tanks and horses?
      - jbooth 14y ago
        That's the point. A few years ago, in a wargame predicated around the persian gulf, this retired marine who was playing the bad guys launched a low-tech attack on carrier groups which consisted of a ton of drones and fishing boats filled with high explosives. He won. Result? They did a "redo" with a new rule that he can't do that stuff. Because carriers are awesome and admirals want to command them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
philwelch 14y ago
The F-16, F-18, A-10, and Harrier are aging airframes that won't last forever. They need to be replaced. And frankly, stealth is such an improvement in terms of survivability in combat that the marginal expense of stealth technology is easily worth it just to protect the monetary investment the government makes in a trained pilot. The F-35 might not be the best design (they'd be better off with a cheaper F-22 derivative and a separate replacement for the Harrier I think) but it fulfills a real requirement.
- pilom 14y ago
  I think a lot of people underestimate the differences between the F-22 and the F-35 on a price standpoint. The F-22 costs $2 billion per plane. The F-35 at $18X million per plan is a pittance in comparison for 80% of the capabilities.
  - greedo 14y ago
    The F-22 doesn't cost anywhere near $2billion dollars per plane.
    - pilom 14y ago
      I stand corrected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor. If you divide the number of aircraft built by the amount spent on the program, the GAO puts that at $412 million per plane. You can still buy more than 3 F-35's for each F-22.
      - philwelch 14y ago
        That's not the marginal cost per plane, because that amortizes the cost of R&D over the current production run. If you ordered more F-22's, they would cost far less since the R&D is already done.
- jakeonthemove 14y ago
  They're stealthy because they're new - if a real war breaks out, I have no doubt anti-measures would be developed pretty quickly, just like the radar during WW2. Why would they need to make such an overly complicated plane is beyond me, it's like the F-14 situation all over again. Plus, the F-22 works (and looks) pretty well already...
rdtsc 14y ago
It is needed because it is designed to replace all those. Imagine your wife had Hugh Jackman, Michael Phelps and Bill Gates as her husbands in some strange polyamory type setup (hey you brought your wife into the conversation first ;-) ). And then one day, all those husbands disappeared and she was left with you.
- D_Alex 14y ago
  Well, she'd have a lot less ironing to do... Look, I think this analogy has gone too far already!!!

darnton 14y ago

Hard to believe the article can make this observation without mention of John Boyd. http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-The-Fighter-Pilot-Changed/dp/B002B55XHM/ http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-The-Fighter-Pilot-Changed/dp/B002...

yread 14y ago

Sounds a bit like the Space shuttle

newbie12 14y ago

The politicians' "make it do everything" mantra is the same reason the space shuttle was a disastrous, budget-consuming failure.

starpilot 14y ago

The F-35 is stealthier and has far better avionics than all of those aircraft. It could detect and shoot down an F-16 before it knew it was there, and do the same to ground targets. It doesn't have the low-speed loitering ability of the A-10, but that feature makes sense only for a pre-MANPADS era or battle.

philwelch 14y ago
Actually, the STOVL variant of the F-35 has exactly the low-speed loitering ability, not of the A-10, but of the Harrier. That's what it was designed for.