F-35 is built for the wrong war

Post by bluGill » Tue, Apr 21, 2026, 1:01 AM UTC

greedo wrote: post #349

bluGill wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the us is a manufacturing superpower. China is visible for cheap, but the us is a major power.

The days of China manufacturing cheap junk is long past. These same arguments were made against Japan. Look at a BYD EV and it will have a fit and finish comparable to any US manufacturer. In aviation, they're catching up quickly to the US, and are arguably ahead of Europe and Russia.

Post by deletedie » Tue, Apr 21, 2026, 1:06 AM UTC

cm2012 wrote: post #352

jjk166 wrote: post #158

> Meanwhile, modern conflict, from Ukraine’s drone war to naval engagements in the Red Sea to Iran’s own mass missile and drone salvos, increasingly favors systems that can be produced at scale and replaced when lost. The F-35 is a masterpiece. But a force designed around a masterpiece is not designed for long, protracted wars, and U.S. adversaries know this. The problem is that the F-35 was intended to be the low co…

A lot of big words, but also inaccurate. If you compare the F-35 to basically any plane worldwide with similar capabilities, it's very reasonably priced. You can see that in that it's very popular for export, with pre-sales already sold out until 2035. There are plenty of articles out there on this for those who want to Google it.

Post by greedo » Tue, Apr 21, 2026, 1:09 AM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #115

XorNot wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean not really? People focus on quantity but the German late war tank designs just sucked .

When people say things like the GP, they are talking about German early war tanks, not the late ones. The problem is that the early WWII arms race was so fast that I don't know how anybody can say with confidence that Germany lost to worse tanks than theirs. By the time the allies got any volume into battle, they also got better designs than their earlier ones.

Post by greedo » Tue, Apr 21, 2026, 1:12 AM UTC

titzer wrote: post #34

tpurves wrote: post #8

The insight here is, that in current warfare, quantity is the quality that matters. And with quantity, cost of replacement needs to be low, platforms expendable, cheap to maintain and resupply. It, and it's support infrastructure, need to not easily be detected and targeted by drones while on the ground. F35 is not these things. It's powerful but brittle, and like many US platforms, too much value packed into too few…

The total cost of the entire program over its projected lifetime is $1.7 trillion. The F-35 is made by one company, Lockheed Martin (with some pieces made by a couple others). This entire program is a massive transfer of taxpayer money into one company. Another data point is that it's estimated that all student debt in the US combined is $1.7 - 1.8 trillion. No wonder America keeps falling behind.

Post by greedo » Tue, Apr 21, 2026, 1:14 AM UTC

fpoling wrote: post #60

01100011 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree to a point. But also look at Ukraine. They are punching well above their weight with asymmetrical tactics, but Russia is not defeated . Drones and other autonomous, cheap weaponry changes a lot. Smaller states and non-state actors can inflict much more serious and expensive damage now more than ever. Large weapons still matter though. If we ever were to enter an existential battle you would quickly see how bi…

Yep, apparently Ukraine still cannot affect fuel production in Russia to any significant point. Drones with less than 100 kg of explosives do not do particularly significant damage. One really need to deliver like a ton or more of explosives and for that one needs bombers that can penetrate air defenses or very expensive stealth cruise missiles or big ballistic missiles.