F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?

[bayonetbrant]

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/did-russian-made-missile-really-strike-new-israeli-f-35-stealth-fighter-27537

[OJsDad]

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/who-cares-about-f-35-why-russia-doesnt-fear-american-weapons-29342

[jomni]

Much publicised crash in Japan.
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/04/09/asia/japan-f-35-stealth-fighter-missing-intl/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.sg%2F

[Pete Dero]

America Is Stuck With a $400 Billion Stealth Fighter That Can’t Fight

The planes have had several previously unreported ‘category 1’ flaws—military parlance for issues that can prevent a pilot from accomplishing their mission.

If one of the U.S. military’s new F-35 stealth fighters has to climb at a steep angle in order to dodge an enemy attack, design flaws mean the plane might suddenly tumble out of control and crash.
Also, some versions of the F-35 can’t accelerate to supersonic speed without melting their own tails or shedding the expensive coating that helps to give the planes their radar-evading qualities.

“The services will have to wait five years or more to get a fully functional aircraft, if they ever do,” Dan Grazier, an analyst with the Project on Government Oversight in Washington, D.C., told The Daily Beast.


https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/the-pentagon-is-battling-the-clock-to-fix-serious-unreported-f-35-problems/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/america-is-stuck-with-a-dollar400-billion-stealth-fighter-that-cant-fight?ref=home?ref=home

[jamus34]

Being a “civvy” can someone explain how or why the mindset of “jack of all trades” with regard to military hardware can ever be considered a good idea.

Because from what I’ve seen between the F35 and the LCS the military has created two very expensive pieces of junk that cannot perform even the most basic of their missions without compromise.

If I’m incorrect feel free to let me know it, but that’s the 30,000 ft view I’ve seen with these two programs.

[Dammit Carl!]

Being a “civvy” can someone explain how or why the mindset of “jack of all trades” with regard to military hardware can ever be considered a good idea.

Same way they (the Army) thought the UCP would be the end-all camo (despite it being horrible at most places) and the XM-8 a complete modular system providing a platform for a PDW through squad automatic style weapon; trying to get the best bang for the buck.

While not a bad approach in theory, some things just should be the specialized pieces of equipment they are and be done with it.

-on a personal rant and through nothing but my gut feeling, this "forever war," we are in has lined more pockets of more persons/companies than can be imagined.  Pitch the right people the right project and you could make an insane amount of cash with little to nothing to show at the end.

[besilarius]

Latest evaluation takes a different approach to tout the F-35

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htecm/articles/20190817.aspx

As of mid-2019 pilots from four air forces (Israel, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Air Force and British RAF) have flown the F-35 in combat. Most of these missions were flown over Syria and Iraq although marine F-35Bs have served in Afghanistan and Israel has Iranians thinking these stealth aircraft have ventured into Iran. Dozens of pilots have spent hundreds of hours with their F-35s in combat zones. There are some things they all agree on.

All these F-35 combat pilots now believed the main advantage of the F-35 is its ease of operation and much enhanced situational awareness. Stealth is useful but not as much as those first two items.

[besilarius]

Queen Elizabeth flight testing

https://www.facebook.com/thef35/videos/540408506800946/?t=24

[ArizonaTank]

Being a “civvy” can someone explain how or why the mindset of “jack of all trades” with regard to military hardware can ever be considered a good idea.

I can't speak too well on the F-35. But historically "jack of all trades" aircraft have held an important role since at least WWII. Off the top of my head, the F-4 Phantom II is a great example. The Israelis loved them. They could take a pretty good load of ordinance and put it on a ground target, then stick around in an air-to-air role, keeping the airspace over the target free for the next wave. There were more nimble dogfighters and better bombers than the Phantom. But specialist aircraft could only do well at one role or the other. The Phantom did everything pretty well. So "jack of all trades" aircraft give mission planners the most flexibility. If you have limited hanger space, say on a carrier. You probably want something that can handle the broadest array of mission types.

[Jarhead0331]

Being a “civvy” can someone explain how or why the mindset of “jack of all trades” with regard to military hardware can ever be considered a good idea.

I can't speak too well on the F-35. But historically "jack of all trades" aircraft have held an important role since at least WWII. Off the top of my head, the F-4 Phantom II is a great example. The Israelis loved them. They could take a pretty good load of ordinance and put it on a ground target, then stick around in an air-to-air role, keeping the airspace over the target free for the next wave. There were more nimble dogfighters and better bombers than the Phantom. But specialist aircraft could only do well at one role or the other. The Phantom did everything pretty well. So "jack of all trades" aircraft give mission planners the most flexibility. If you have limited hanger space, say on a carrier. You probably want something that can handle the broadest array of mission types.

I think a lot of people will argue that having a multi-role aircraft provides the best incentive in terms of cost. Having dedicated interceptors, dedicated fighters, dedicated close air support, dedicated strike, dedicated EW, etc. was extremely costly throughout the cold war and we learned that having aircraft like the F-16/F-18 that can handle many tasks and missions was, overall, a more cost effective means of making war from the air.