You know what else is built for the wrong war? The united states military.
F-35 is built for the wrong war
481–490 of 719 posts
Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war
#482Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, you're not producing 5000 a year. But it's a bit irrelevant because we couldn't produce enough pilots either -- the training pyramid means you can only graduate so many new pilots each year, capped by the number of instructors at each level. There is a similar problem with drone pilots -- it took Ukraine and Russia years to scale up and get to the current level of skill. However, training drone controllers is c…
> There is a similar problem with drone pilots -- it took Ukraine and Russia years to scale up and get to the current level of skill. However, training drone controllers is cheaper because the aircraft cost nothing. Unlikely that pilots would work for drones in a fight with China over the pacific, the jamming and electronic warfare environment would make remote piloting nearly impossible, which is why CCA efforts are…
I'm using pilots in the loosest sense, it wouldn't be FPV. Regardless, there is a significant skill requirement.
The lesson from Ukraine and Iran is that 180km/h is fine if you have enough of them. If you have a Jetson Nano and comms link on each one they could be a real PITA to intercept.
Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war
#483So none of them lost on ground in Iran. No US ship was to my knowledge even hit by a drone/missle. Iran has been prepping forever for this with Russian/Chinese equipment. This sounds identical to previous arguments I saw of how hard it would be for US to beat Iran in open conflict. China is different but comparing theoretical ability with reality is different also. The only reality we have as of now is that f35 compl…
The blockade is like a nuclear bomb detonated on all countries. 30% of World's oil supply is at risk. Not to mention critical elements needed for semiconductor production. Even the US is suffering passively because of this. Only saving grace for US is to restore navigation in the straits. Quicker it does it the quicker we can stop hell that'll be unleashed on the World. You really don't want to be responsible for 30%…
The fertilizer and helium shortages are unfortunate, but expensive gas has ~ doubled global demand for EVs. That’s an ecological miracle, given the idiocy of the US government. That’s probably where the good news ends though.
If spent on humanitarian aid shortfalls, the funds wasted by just the US on this war could have saved 87M lives:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/20/us-spending-on...
To put that in relative terms: WWII killed ~85M globally; 2/3 of them were civilians. So that’s killed 150% as many as the war crimes committed by Stalin, Hitler and the Japanese occupation of China combined.
I don’t mean to minimize the famine that’s definitely coming later this year.
Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war
#484Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> If you compare the F-35 to basically any plane worldwide with similar capabilities, it's very reasonably priced. If you compare corvettes to other sports cars, you'll find they are very reasonably priced. That doesn't make a corvette a good economical option for day to day commuting. There are only 2 5th generation fighters available for export - the F-35 and the J-35. The F-35 is 40% more expensive than the J-35.…
The F-35 is cheaper than most of the 4th generation fighters on the market. Cheaper than Eurofighter, cheaper than Rafale, cheaper than Gripen.
Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war
#485I see what the author is saying and I agree to some extent, but I think the F35 is mostly irrelevant in terms of the argument being made. I think it is needed and does it's job as a deterrent. The F35 means that that no one can really control the skies against the US. Iran was considered to have fairly robust air defenses and that was all but destroyed within days. So the F35, as the author states, is performing well along with the rest of the United States Airforce.
The issue the US has is that they really do not want to lose US soldiers in this war and because of that they are unwilling to fully occupy or destroy Iran. And the reason they don't want to do that beyond all the normal reasons is that this is a phenomenally unpopular war and every lost life is considered unacceptable by the American people. Similarly, causalities of innocent Iranians is not going to play well domestically or internationally, since one of the ever shifting reasons for war that was given was that the Iranian government was killing it's people. Helping the current Iranian regime kill innocent civilians seems counter productive to that point.
The US nor any country will ever be good at fighting a war where there is no clear objective and they are not fully committed. Winning for Iran is not losing and the US isn't playing to win, so Iran wins by default. This entire campaign is a textbook example of how not to go to war. No military equipment or capability is going to change that.
Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war
#486Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't down/up voted anything, but the title/article/thread is about piece of equipment not being a good fit for a war that happens in 2026, not if war is good/bad or right/wrong. It's like saying that war is bad in a discussion about developing biplanes before WW2. Yes, war is bad, but that's what people are talking about.
You are talking as if war in Iran is a natural process that people have no involvement. Having such articles in 2026 is a shame to begin with. “A piece of equipment” is used to attack living bodies, if you don’t get the point, well.. there is no point to argue with you.
I'm not a native English speaker, so it's possible I'm misunderstanding something (my apologies in that case). Here's my reasoning:
- The title is "F-35 is built for the wrong war".
- The article suggests that the plane was designed to deal with other threats, not with many cheap drones and missile salvos. That it's a bad tool for the tasks it is now is used for. It's not about war being right/wrong or good/bad.
- You ask "Is there a “right” war?".
These are two different discussions.
A terrible example, but it's like having a title called "Hammer was built for the wrong DIY project" and an article that points out that "they designed/bought hammers when they actually needed a screwdriver!" and you ask if "any DIY project is right". Sure, it's related, but that's a different point/discussion, isn't it? Not exactly something I'd expect to be upvoted, hence my initial comment.
I didn't reply to defend any war or to justify the use of any weapon. I also don't have a problem with anti-war comments. But these guys are talking about the F-35 not being good at dealing with cheap drones and missile salvos, while you're talking about war being good or bad.
As long one doesn't twist what I wrote or assume bad faith, it should be easy to understand the point I was trying to make and where I was coming from.
With this out of the way, and since I'm neither qualified to talk about the F-35 nor see the need to discuss if war is good (it's not), I will now leave the thread.
Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war
#487Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is actually pretty clear. Getting there in the end doesn't mean it was a good choice. The range of the F-35 is too low for the Navy, because it sits in the F-16 concept. But there is no fighter/interceptor split in the AF either, and the range is too low for AF as well. So now we have the F-47, a very belated ack that the F-35 has short legs. But it also won't fix the problem because it is too focused on the F-22…
The F-35C has greater range than the F/A-18 Super Hornet, the F-16, and the F-22. It's only exceeded by the F-35A and the F-15EX. And "no fighter/interceptor split"? What does that even mean? The USAF hasn't had a true interceptor since the F-106 was retired. The F-35 achieved exactly what was written on the tin. To be a stealthy replacement for the F-16, A-7, and AV-8B. The fact that the USN doesn't have a long-legg…
So if you compare it to the previous generation turbine it's better? That isn't very interesting.
The F-35 achieved a goal that isn't needed, at the cost of extreme delay. An F-16 replacement with stealth would have been delivered faster and cheaper. The USMC could concentrate on drones, STOVL and vertical lift. A larger variant for F-15/F/A-18 replacement would have many advantages. The USN always wanted more range out of JSF, but wasn't allowed to buy it.
Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war
#488I see what the author is saying and I agree to some extent, but I think the F35 is mostly irrelevant in terms of the argument being made. I think it is needed and does it's job as a deterrent. The F35 means that that no one can really control the skies against the US. Iran was considered to have fairly robust air defenses and that was all but destroyed within days. So the F35, as the author states, is performing well…
F-35 isn't a deterrent. Nukes are the deterrent. Iran and Venezuela lacked nukes. North Korea doesn't lack nukes.
The F-35 is just peacocking but ultimately useless. If these war games were realistic the game ends on the first move which is asking the question "Do they have nukes." If the answer is yes, then the game doesn't even start.
Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war
#489Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's crazy is there's lots of videos of Ukranians shooting drones from open-cockpit propeller planes that barely cost more than the drones! I think in a serious drone war we would just have fleets of Cesnas flying around with a person hanging out the door with a shotgun lol.
In a serious war drone factories are getting bombed (by F-35s) and there is no need to handle a never-ending stream of drones. The war in Ukraine is special because neither side is capable of air supremacy. Note that the original article doesn't say anywhere that F-35-like capability is not needed.
The US doesn’t have air supremacy in Iran. We have air dominance, but shoulder mounted infrared guided (bypasses stealth paint to go after engine exhaust) AA is still taking out the occasional F35 and A10.
RU/UA is special because RU completely screwed up the first 3 weeks of the war (likely because of the culture of sycophancy Putin has, similar to Trump) and was driven out of central UA. Russia is too proud to admit they lost and UA wasn’t allowed to attack into RU territory until their suppliers (US, EU) were confident RU wouldn’t nuke us in retaliation. Now UA is busy dismantling RU’s economy and war making industry. Ultimately it’s not comparable to any other war of our lifetimes for several reasons.
UA drone factories aren’t in large industrial buildings. They have hundreds of office / home locations where the parts are printed / assembled. RU largely has a very few mega military vendors who make drones / missiles and they have consolidated their efforts in a few (now vulnerable) locations.
F35 capability is excellent for preparing the battlefield, such as the first few hours when softening up air defenses.
But don’t underestimate how much all countries are learning from watching RU/UA or US/Iran. Drones will continue to evolve to meet the gaps in affordable interception, affordable anti-5thGen aircraft, etc. UA now has armed land, sea, and air drones and each has variants like scout, bomber, interceptor, etc. we will continue to see specialization and comparative advantage evolve in the space.
Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war
#490> 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…
The program was intended to make money and it did. My university has ties to the military and I was talking to people working on the Joint Strike Fighter about ways to reduce software bugs, I was told candidly that software bugs are job security and they’ll be riding that gravy train all the way to retirement, which they did.
The F-35 is built for exactly the right defence contractors and pork-barrelling. As for war, can we get back to you on that?