| |
| ▲ | simonh 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I've had to eat some humble pie and moderate my assessment of the F-35. It still does have a lot of issues, for sure, but it turns out if you divide an eye wateringly large number by another impressively large number, the result can be a lot better than I thought it would be. It's lot more about operational costs and project deliverables than plain sticker shock, and it is turning out to be a capable platform. | | |
| ▲ | rootusrootus 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > I've had to eat some humble pie and moderate my assessment of the F-35 Same for me. I was surprised to hear that it actually competes favorably on price. And aside from early griping that it couldn't beat an ancient F-16 in a dogfight, it seems pretty capable in that regard too. Saw a demo at the last airshow I went to and that plane was defying physics. I love the 16, always will, but I definitely don't think it would hang with an F-35. | | |
| ▲ | esseph 2 days ago | parent [-] | | In a real fight, the F-35 smokes the F-16 beyond visual range before the F-16 even knows there is a problem. The radar and electronic warfare capabilities are incredible. | | |
| ▲ | dylan604 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Isn't modern tactics to not use onboard radar but to be driven in by airborne radar from AWACs? Or is it used once in the furball as the jig is up at that point? | | |
| ▲ | mmooss 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | My very amatuer understanding is that modern combat for the US is based on a 'combat network', which creates a massive situational advantage by connecting all sensors - on satellites, planes, drones, ground radars, from intelligence, etc. - in a network and sharing the data across the network. The F-35 is designed as a node in that network, and afaik is one of the most advanced sensor nodes. It also receives data from the network, but it is a major contributor (partly due to operating in front, often in enemy territory, etc., afaik). Part of using the network data is having an onboard computer that can make sense of it. Even in older planes without the network input and with smaller sensor areas, pilots faced cognitive overload from trying to interpret relatively raw data from a half-dozen or more sensors each on their own output device (screen, etc). - what's a bird, what's an ally, what's a non-combatant, what's an enemy and what's a missile - all while piloting a plane, being shot at, etc. F-35's have a computer that integrates the inputs, refines the data, identifies objects, and displays that in a unified UI on ~1 screen. Another reason for the investment in its sensors is that situational awareness is considered by far the most decisive factor in air combat. Whoever sees and shoots first tends to win. Also, it needs to survive and be effective if cut off from outside communications. | |
| ▲ | wkrp 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Modern tactics are to use every radar around via datalink (AWACS, Ground Station, stealthy drones flying ahead). The onboard radar is last resort, but still very capable. | | |
| ▲ | rootusrootus 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Useless tidbit about myself: Back in the mid-90s I was in the USAF in the 552nd Air Control Group, and the team I was on specifically did the 'external test' of the data link. Spent a lot of time in a simulator pushing buttons pretending to be an AWACS guy on a plane while recording all of the data, then later painstakingly comparing that data to the manual log and radio recordings. I would be interested to see how far they've brought the technology in the intervening, uh ... 30 years. Damn. That old computer (old by technology, ours was pretty new in practical terms) was the only mainframe I've ever used. Booted it up by loading a tape reel and programming registers. I still remember that the 'happy' code was something like 0B00BE in between cycles, anything else and it had crashed. /end trip down memory lane | | |
| ▲ | dylan604 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm sure everyone's inner 13 year old laughed at the code to the point you have to wonder if the devs didn't deliberately pick it |
| |
| ▲ | dylan604 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Right, so I wonder what difficulties they are having with the F-16 to retrofit the new package to receive the same datalink. | | |
| ▲ | kevin_thibedeau 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The US is stuck with older F-16s than the current export models with advanced radar. They're gradually being upgraded with some Block 70 components. That requires the new cockpit so it isn't just a quick part substitution. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | budman1 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | all these cost assessments are numbers on a spreadsheet. let's see what the numbers look like after 20 years on the line, with SrA mechanics and most flight hours by new Lt's and Captains.
if they over-estimate the engine rebuild time, or if it really takes 2 hours instead of 30 minutes to remove and replace an avionics box (as was forecast), the calculation can veer in the other direction quickly.
i predict the F35 will be the most expensive by flying hour of any (line) aircraft that has come before it. | | |
| ▲ | simonh 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Right, that may well all be true, but the capabilities it brings to the table could still be worth it. I'm not saying I know the answer, but it's a lot more of an open question than I thought it would be a few years ago. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Zigurd 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The sticker price is competitive but the cost per flight hour and the availability factor is pretty horrifying. Factoring in the cost of flying and the availability makes the Grippen about half the cost. I wonder if the flight hour cost of F 35 includes the maintenance it's undergoing when it's not available. | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The Gripen is a fantastic jet, but you're basically describing the difference between a fourth and fifth generation platform. When Saab and Embraer roll out their own fifth-generation jets, they will also have to contend with expensive RAM coating and complex internal hardpoints. Putting aside the export market, it's a small miracle that the F-35 turned out as well as it did. Having a mostly-common fighter airframe shared between the Navy, Marines and Air Force was a pipe dream in the 90s. America is lucky the program didn't collapse entirely. | |
| ▲ | jandrewrogers 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 4th generation platforms like Grippen are not survivable in a modern air defense environment without complementary 5th generation platforms to establish air superiority. You can't avoid having a fleet of something like F-35 to gain control of the airspace. | | |
| ▲ | jandrese 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | There is an argument that all manned fighters are already obsolete thanks to the proliferation of cheap drones and that establishing air superiority is a very different task now. | | |
| ▲ | nradov 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | There is no such argument among people who actually know how this stuff works. Cheap drones might work pretty well for trench warfare in Ukraine but it's impossible to build a cheap drone that would be effective in a conflict with China over Taiwan. The distances alone mean that aircraft must be large just to get there, and thus not cheap regardless of whether there's a crew onboard. Autonomous flight control software is still only able to handle the simplest missions. Maybe that will change in a few years but for now anything complex requires a remote pilot, and those communication links are very vulnerable. | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That's really just X/Twitter conjecture. We don't see this argument substantiated in any modern air combat anywhere in the world. | |
| ▲ | edgyquant 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There really is not, this argument was a total discredit of Elon Musks opinions on anything military. Case in point, Iran has been a major user of these drones yet they’ve been out of the game against an enemy with a real air force | |
| ▲ | mrguyorama a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | No one worth listening to makes that argument. Torpedo boats didn't make Battleships obsolete. Aircraft carriers did. Because they could do the same role but better. AntiTank rifles didn't make tanks obsolete. Neither did anti-tank mines. Nor anti-tank rocket launchers, nor anti-tank artillery, nor really freaking good anti-tank missiles, nor anti-tank helicopters etc etc. Turns out, putting a box of steel around soldiers is pretty much always better. IFVs are even less survivable than a tank in all cases and they have only become more important and prominent because what capability they provide is what matters. Artillery and Air power did not make the army obsolete. Air power did not make Artillery obsolete though the USA wanted that reality. Submarines didn't make any boat obsolete. SAM systems did not make planes obsolete. Hell, America decided the solution to missiles aimed at your planes was fly planes at the missile launcher! And it works because war is stupid. "Cheap drones" only work against things that haven't yet adapted to cheap drones in the exact same way that Navy had to adapt to anti-ship missiles. With EW, those "cheap" drones get less cheap. With any sort of advancement in protection, those drones get less cheap. War is about achieving physical control, and you can't really do that with cheap drones. There's always back and forth in weapons systems. We still use bayonets in the right circumstances! Cheap drones cannot establish air superiority, and certainly not air supremacy. Actual air combat drones are far more expensive, involved, and in development than quadcopters. The primary power drones bring is ISR, making the entire battlefield utterly transparent, including at nighttime. That's insane, and really really bad for any of us who might be forced to fight in the future, as lethality to the average soldier is likely to go up. |
| |
| ▲ | sofixa 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > modern air defense environment Wildly dependent on your definition of "modern", which mostly depends on your potential adversary. The Russia/Ukraine, and the new war in the Gulf have shown numerous ways in which 4th generation jets, and more importantly cheaper missiles and even more cheap drones can perform supression of enemy air defences and/or air support. Unless you're fighting the US or China, 4th gen jets are plenty. And even against US and US defended locations, cheap drones and missiles have been able to influct some pretty serious damage to critical infrastructure (like extremely expensive and rare radar systems). An adversary not crippled by extreme sanctions and corruption for decades might have been able to achieve even more, even with the total lack of airpower. | | |
| ▲ | greedo 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 4th generation aircraft are not sustainable in modern combat without a wide array of assistance from EW etc. The losses of aircraft in Ukraine on both sides are horrifying. The only reasons the Ukrainians persist is because they have no choice. The Russians can sit outside of the Ukrainian engagement range and lob semi-smart bombs, or air to air missiles at any Ukrainian aircraft that show up on their radar. The real reason stealth is needed is as a counter to GBAD. Modern anti-aircraft missiles are incredible lethal. | | |
| ▲ | lukan 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | "4th generation aircraft are not sustainable in modern combat without a wide array of assistance from EW etc. " But isn't that true of the F35 as well? On it's own, I doubt it would survive much longer on the eastern front in Ukraine. In Iran the F-35 also did not fly around freely while the ground radars were active. They had to be taken out first. For that stealth was probably useful (and in general it is). But it is not making them invisible - and cheap sensors and AI is likely to counter it soon. Because sensors and analysis will get better over time and sensors also better and cheaper. But the stealth will remain largely the same. It cannot really be upgraded for existing jets. | | |
| ▲ | jandrewrogers 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The F-35 is one of the most advanced EW platforms currently flying. That’s the main reason everyone wants it. It has an exceptional ability to detect modern threats and self-protect against them. By all accounts the F-35 did fly freely over Iran but the weaponry for killing ground radars are all long-range stand-off weapons so that 4th gen aircraft can use them. Many times those weapons are cued by stealth aircraft within range of the ground radars but launched by 4th gen carrying them from farther away. This is pretty standard US doctrine. The F-35 specifically was designed for environments like Ukraine. The combat there is shaped by the lack of capability like that from either side. | |
| ▲ | dylan604 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > cheap sensors and AI is likely to counter it soon. The burning question is what decision would AI make in Pearl Harbor. Would it have said flock of birds? Would it be keying in on flocks of birds instead? |
| |
| ▲ | sofixa 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > "modern combat" > have no choice That's my point. Any battlefield today is "modern", but militaries operate with what they have. From Russia to the Houthis passing via the Houthis, we've seen insane amounts of damage done on "a modern battlefield" with anything from Cold War era equipment to cheap drones assembled by a terrorist group living in the mountains with no industrial base. Yes, if the US wants to fight China, and vice versa, it needs 5th gen jets. Everyone else doesn't need them. They're nice to have to make your job easier (like Israel vs Iran), but don't guarantee you anything (like Israel vs Iran). |
| |
| ▲ | slaw 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Russia/Ukraine war shows that 4th generation jets are not survivable in any current as of 2026 air defense environment. | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 2 days ago | parent [-] | | 4th generation jets are not designed to survive denied airspace. They're still useful; both sides in Ukraine are using 4th gen jets for air patrol, SEAD, escorts, intercepts and standoff munition launches. | | |
| ▲ | slaw 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Nothing that makes them jet fighters is used. Propeller planes with launchers could do the same. | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Putting flares, chaff and ECM onto a propeller plane doesn't leave much takeoff weight for AASMs and KEPD munitions. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | XorNot 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Presuming that state of affairs will persist though is fraught. It's quite likely that in about 5 years most military installations will have a mix of weapons to intercept those systems - and depending on a number of factors you could easily end up back at low performance drones being so reliably intercepted as to be a waste of munitions to deploy. WW1 after all was based on exactly this thinking: surely the volume of an army would overcome the machine gun. | | |
| ▲ | sofixa 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > It's quite likely that in about 5 years most military installations will have a mix of weapons to intercept those systems - and depending on a number of factors you could easily end up back at low performance drones being so reliably intercepted as to be a waste of munitions to deploy. That's unlikely. Anti-drone defences will only improve, yes, but autonomous drone swarms numbering in the thousands to tens of thousands are doable today, and few weapons systems can handle the rate of launch/fire required to combat that. Especially if there are follow-up waves mixing drones and heavy missiles against which your anti-drone defences wouldn't be enough. > WW1 after all was based on exactly this thinking: surely the volume of an army would overcome the machine gun. But building a cheap kamikaze drone costs much less than building a human. | | |
| ▲ | XorNot 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Define cheap and multiply by thousands. Ukrainian front line drones stopped being DJIs years ago. They're now much closer to $3000 USD+ at the low end for an ISR vehicle. $8000+ for the more capable FPV kamikazes is the estimate for Russian models. Which is comparable to a 155mm artillery shell. But with a lot less payload. There's already literally millions of drones being produced and used per year in that conflict - and they've made a big impact, but the stability of the frontline also reveals that the impact of "swarms" is hardly overpowering (the obsession with them is also weird - if you had thousands of assets in the air, the last thing you'd do is put them all close together). | | |
| ▲ | sofixa 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > overpowering As Iran shows, you don't need overpowering. You need to hit the enemy where it hurts them, like strategic infrastructure. > "swarms" ... (the obsession with them is also weird - if you had thousands of assets in the air, the last thing you'd do is put them all close together) On the contrary, a swarm allows you to overwhelm the enemy air defences, which allows you to hit targets, including those same air defences, without having to disable them first. Cf. Iran destroying a THAAD radar. | | |
| ▲ | XorNot 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Right - until anti-air measures designed to deal with voluminous relatively low performance threats get deployed. There's a reason Ukraine has been rolling out old school anti-aircraft and flak guns, and the modern variants are now starting to be produced - i.e. area effect microwave weapons and high energy lasers. Systems which aren't very useful if your adversary is highly capable, but which are effective if your adversary is relatively fragile. Again: volume turned out to be relatively useless in WW1 when the adversary had well placed machine guns. But it's also an apples to oranges comparison: THAAD is in no way designed to intercept drone threats. The story here is closer to the US started a fight without actually investing in the sort of defenses which would deal with it - i.e. with a rack of Ukranian interceptor drones as part of the air defenses, the THAAD radar likely makes it. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | UltraSane 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The Grippen is incredibly vulnerable to anti air missiles. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway2037 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Are there any non-stealth fighter jets that are not "incredibly vulnerable to anti air missiles"? | | |
|
|
|
