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.