Oh look, X is awash with a story about the F-35 again.
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (56)
sorted by:
That and our tax dollars pay for that failure. Should have just kept making F22s instead of funding two separate next gen fighter programs.
The F-22 can't even drop a bomb on a moving target. It's an extremely limited aircraft.
And I personally have no idea why people are so obsessed with it and why they think it's some kind of wunderwaffen.
The F-22 has a lot of major problems. It served as a good learning platform for what the F-35 became. Improvements in the design of the fuselage, the LO coatings, the avionics, and a lot of that can't simply be "upgraded" into the F-22. I mean, the LO coatings alone - the F-35 uses a different type of LO coating and allows the vast majority of panels to be accessed without any LO maintenance. The F-22 requires very costly LO removal/repainting with most maintenance, which means the aircraft have to be held down for typically about three days just for one panel. What this means is in the F-22 world, they're basically flying around with a ton of Code-2 writeups until they can hold the aircraft down for a week. If you look at a good picture of the F-22, it looks like it's covered with 'digicam', because of the constant patch jobs needed on the LO.
The PTMS/IPP package of the F-35 is an entire generational leap beyond what the F-22 uses, and you have to build the aircraft around that.
Dogfighting has already been an incredibly rare thing for decades, and it's seen as being nonexistent in the future. Silly lies about the Vietnam airwar theater don't change that. And if you consider that, then it becomes a question of things like 'do we really need thrust vectoring'? 'Do we really need to extremely expensive engines'?
Even for people who complain about the cost, the F-22 would never have been affordable. It has needed enormous numbers of upgrades over the years owing in part to its limited mission profile, and the extremely dated avionics package it flew with. The engines are one of the most expensive parts of an aircraft, and, well, you're paying for two for every F-22.
One of the big reasons the "muh F-35 can't turn" shit is because unlike any other aircraft, the F-35 was basically shipped while it was still in development. The physical structure and design were laid down, populated with 'rudimentary' avionics, and sent off to begin live flying and training while the avionics were further developed. Stories like 'can't turn' were because the F-35 had immense control law limitations put on it until block 3F.
Previous aircraft were fully completed when they shipped, which meant your systems were 10+ years obsolete by the time the pilots got their hands on them.
That's what we have bombers for, bro. Also drones. A fighter should be specialized in destroying other aircraft to gain air superiority over an area; trying to make it a jack of all trades is a mistake.
Seriously, the mission profile of the F18 Super Hornet is about perfect. An Air Superiority fighter which can launch from carriers and has a long operational range.
Fighters gain Air Superiority in a combat zone. Air-to-ground attack aircraft kill shit.
The A-10 is less expensive per hour of flight time than an attack helicopter. So use those. Send Reaper Drones (or whatever) as required.
The F-35 does everything but the maintenance costs are just stupendous when you cost them out per hour of air time.
I mean, you know it's called the F/A-18, right?
That's kind of my point with the "muh multirole" mockery. People unironically say gay shit like 'The F-35 sucks multirole means it's a master of nothing! Why can't it be more like the F/A-18/F-15/F-16???' which are all multirole aircraft.
Even the goddamn motherfucking F-14 ended up having bombs strapped to it.
So your argument is 'muh multirole'.
Please refer to the comic.
This is the point of the comic. "Should" be? Really? According to who? You don't think it's super fucking weird that every single defense company on the planet, no matter the country, hasn't built dedicated single-role fighters in 30 years?
That doesn't clue you in that maybe this 'muh multirole' is clownish antiquated nonsense that spun out of the goofy days of air combat in the 1960s and the Century Fighters, when we had a new aircraft rolling off the production line every four years, that did only exactly one thing, and they all ended up in landfills?
We haven't formally built an "interceptor" aircraft in eons. How come nobody is complaining that that role is 'missing'? It's because technology moved on, and the 'interceptor' role became worthless.
And once its has that superiority, its worthless. It's not like the enemy will just have a new swarm of fighters appear out of nowhere. What are they going to do then? Fly around and look scary? Strafe targets with their 20mm?
You were literally just complaining about tax money being spent, and you're now advocating for multiple expensive aircraft, that all do something different, even though they could be combined into one. And every aircraft means a whole new supply chain, maintenance teams, and pilots.
You can cry about multirole or you can cry about expense, but you don't get to do both.
Because ground to air missiles are the only interceptors we need?
And that's when you tuck them away in their hangers and save on all the maintenance costs needed after flying missions. Once air superiority is achieved, why use an expensive to maintain jet to run missions a comparatively cheap attack helicopter can handle?
https://fighterjetsworld.com/air/maintenance-operating-costs-per-flight-hour-of-militarys-fighter-jets/11995/
And don't forget that we already have tons of advanced bombers flying, so why does the new fighter need to be able to drop bombs?