Probably the issue is that during wartime (and I think the Cold War counts) the object of a weapons program is to defend one’s country, whereas in the absence of any major foe the object of a weapons program is to spend money. From that standpoint the program was a spectacular success.
The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed
21–30 of 1001 posts
Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed
#22The time of planes has ended and the time of drones has begun it has.
You still have to shoot down a fighter jet to disable it. An enemy can't hack the pilot remotely and safely land it on their own air strips, which has happened with drones.
Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed
#23“The F-35 has failed” is a strong statement that depends on what your definition of success is. Did it fail because it couldn’t replace the F-16? Did it fail because it’s expensive and bloated? Do those things even matter? I’m not defending the F-35 but anyone deeply and intimately familiar with the platform knows and understands that it is a Ferrari. You don’t bring your Acura TSX to a Formula 1 race track to win a…
“By learning from our mistakes we have successfully failed.”
The vibe I’m getting from this thread haha.
Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed
#24“The F-35 has failed” is a strong statement that depends on what your definition of success is. Did it fail because it couldn’t replace the F-16? Did it fail because it’s expensive and bloated? Do those things even matter? I’m not defending the F-35 but anyone deeply and intimately familiar with the platform knows and understands that it is a Ferrari. You don’t bring your Acura TSX to a Formula 1 race track to win a…
Even if it is a Ferrari, are squadrons of Ferraris is what needed to fight wars?
Sometimes you need a Ferrari. Sometimes you need a bunch of hooligans with bullets in a converted tractor.
But being caught without either, when you need one isn't a good place to be in.
Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed
#25“The F-35 has failed” is a strong statement that depends on what your definition of success is. Did it fail because it couldn’t replace the F-16? Did it fail because it’s expensive and bloated? Do those things even matter? I’m not defending the F-35 but anyone deeply and intimately familiar with the platform knows and understands that it is a Ferrari. You don’t bring your Acura TSX to a Formula 1 race track to win a…
> Not the success criteria some folks have perpetuated or thrust upon the project.
This isn't an art project where interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. This is a taxpayer-funded set of contracts; the success criteria are defined as part of said contracts, they're not "thrust upon" the project by "some folks".
Your trickle down benefits would come from any innovative project, whether it were a success or a failure. They'd just be more generally beneficial due to more extensive application in a successful project (and probably more cheaply usable by other areas of industry). Either way they would exist in either scenario: if their existence is what defines success, then failure is impossible.
Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed
#26Why order more F-16s and miss out on all the rich contracting and design deal flow? Plus because the length of development is longer than pharma's, nobody involved in kicking off the project will be around to deal with the deployment problems. Make hay while the sun shines.
The F-16 was introduced in 1978 and no new F-16s have been purchased since 2001. Are you suggesting that they don't want new F-16s in 2021 because ... they want to make money? Isn't the simpler explanation that maybe a 42-year old design is out of date?
Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed
#27“The F-35 has failed” is a strong statement that depends on what your definition of success is. Did it fail because it couldn’t replace the F-16? Did it fail because it’s expensive and bloated? Do those things even matter? I’m not defending the F-35 but anyone deeply and intimately familiar with the platform knows and understands that it is a Ferrari. You don’t bring your Acura TSX to a Formula 1 race track to win a…
>So did the F35 fail because we spent too much? Depends on how much it saves us later. It might not be a lot. The concept of flying Corvettes is strong, culturally and industrially, but it might be on the verge of becoming like cavalry with the advent of drone swarms.
Drone swarms that can counter fighter jets is a concept that makes no sense. At best you can make something like a guided missile that can loiter. But I can't really see much benefit to that. It would still require the same the avionics and performance as a guided missile. Not to mention stealth aircraft counter the concept even further.
Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Allow me to restate your comment more briefly: "The F-35 depends on your definition of success. It has not achieved the goals in its original funding application, but some of its traits might inspire future traits in future other things that might turn out to be good and worth the money we've spent so far, so therefore it's not right to call it a failure yet." That's not a friendly restatement, no. "Might" does not m…
That's mis-categorizing my statement. There is no "might". The innovation that's occurred in the F-35 program has already produced fruit in many other airframes and the US Air Force has already "re-written the playbook" on what it means to have a new airframe and what revitalizing an old airframe is. It's not about whether it may or may not - It has, that's a definitive statement.
The US air force didnt need a new airframe
Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Allow me to restate your comment more briefly: "The F-35 depends on your definition of success. It has not achieved the goals in its original funding application, but some of its traits might inspire future traits in future other things that might turn out to be good and worth the money we've spent so far, so therefore it's not right to call it a failure yet." That's not a friendly restatement, no. "Might" does not m…
That's mis-categorizing my statement. There is no "might". The innovation that's occurred in the F-35 program has already produced fruit in many other airframes and the US Air Force has already "re-written the playbook" on what it means to have a new airframe and what revitalizing an old airframe is. It's not about whether it may or may not - It has, that's a definitive statement.
It sounded more as if waffling about possible future results than a description concrete present results. The F-35 has cost $4e11 so far, says a random site on the web. What are the results of its innovation, the results that definitely and already have occurred and arguably are worth $4e11?
Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed
#30I would guess that the NGAD prototype[0] has given USAF leadership confidence to publicly alude to F-35 shortcomings. [0] https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a34030586...
The NGAD Prototype is built upon some of the technology that the F-35 pioneered. The F-35 now is and has been used as an airframe to test more advanced technologies. Like distributed computing and autonomous technologies.
So, it's reasonable to say that NGAD may not be possible if it weren't for the F-35. I'd argue this is less about the F-35's shortcomings and more about the fact that we're seeing a dramatic change in air war-machine design, development, and theory.
In defense news below, you can see them speak (in meta) about how the NGAD Prototype was built. Some of those things were pioneered on the F-35.
https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2020/09/15/the-us-...