Now that they're in use for a while, does real life observation confirm or deny the reports during development, claiming it's a jack of all trades master of none, "a failure"?
There was a time when you could know everything there was to know. Those times are long gone. To give an example, Carl Friedrich Gauss was the last one to know all of mathematics and physics. The idea of a renaissance man who could be a master of all things is long dead.
The thing is that in military, it’s extremely difficult to predict ahead of times what exactly you’re going to need. So a jack of all trades may be exactly what they need.
They could have just stuck to 2 or 3 roles per aircraft like in previous generations instead of trying to stuff every role possible onto one aircraft. It would have avoided the criticisms that it faces now.
That does not refute the criticism about it being a "a jack of all trades master of none". The military gave it so many roles that it seems unlikely to escape that criticism.
One of its roles is Close Air Support. A quick search finds that it is inferior to its predecessor in that role:
It is not the F-35 either. The F-35 is more of a jack of all trades than its multirole predecessors.
Note that the F-22 is also considered a multirole aircraft, but it really is suited for just 1 role, which is why it was discontinued, since that role was not deemed necessary in modern conflicts. The F-22 also outperforms the F-35 in that single role.
It turns out making an integrated next gen platform with non COTS technology is extremely expensive. And in some cases a next gen jack of all trades > previous gen masters.
One thing I've seen brought up in the past when air superiority roles are being discussed. If it can take out its opponents before they even know it is there, then it doesn't matter if it's better in a dogfight. And that's quite possible at the moment.
The opponent will know it is there the moment it fires a missile. Anyway, that is the only role where I have heard of it being superior to its predecessors. Has it ever been used in that role? It seems like the military is trying to use it for everything but that, since the role is almost never used in modern war.
The F-22 is also far better at that than the F-35. Its production was discontinued precisely because there is no need for aircraft to fill that role. :/
One thing to consider. Being a 5th get figher, not being specialized for a specific role could still leave it equal to, or better than, more specialized planes in previous generations.
Close air support is not that significant a role against a peer adversary. The Ukraine war has shown that modern air defenses are good enough to make CAS far too dangerous. Fixed wing aircraft doing CAS averaged something like 6 sorties before being downed or irreparably damaged. And for CAS against a non-peer adversary, older generation craft are viable (F-16s are still in production, remember).
All other modern conflicts are asymmetric and have shown CAS to be important. The Ukrainian conflict is the only symmetric conflict in recent history, and the F-35 is no where near it.
Sure, and in asymmetric conflicts where the enemy has no modern air defenses you can keep using F-16s (which are still in production) and save on the maintenance requirements. The F-35 can mount external stores and haul about as many bombs as the F-16 if it needs to. It's true the Ukraine conflict is the only symmetric conflict in recent history, but the military's job is to remain prepared for symmetric conflicts.
The F-16 is also terrible in CAS. They tried to replace the A-10 with it, but failed. The F-35 is not faring much better for that.
As for symmetric conflicts, the F-22 is far better for handling those. Its production was discontinued because the military had no need for it. Having the F-35 for a role where there is no need seems silly. It isn't even as good in that role as the existing F-22 fleet.
The F-16 has conducted CAS just fine for decades. What made the F-16 terrible at CAS that the A-10 did so much better? I'm tempted to say loiter time, but with conformal fuel tanks and drop tanks I think the F-16 may even be beating the A-10 at that. Both can mount the same targeting pods, so their ability to engage targets on the ground are effectively identical.
The F-22 is a dedicated air superiority fighter. Of course it's going to be better in that specific role. But which is better at operating from aircraft carriers, the F-22 or F-35? The F-35 costs half as much as F-22, too.
The F-16 is not used for CAS because it would be shot down by ground arms fire when the A-10 would continue flying, and flying the F-16 high enough to avoid ground arms fire made it lousy at CAS:
The F-22 is labelled as a multirole fighter. Its ability to handle other roles is limited, and its main role is not needed. You claimed that the F-35 is good at air superiority as a way of demonstrating its value, but the F-22's discontinuation demonstrated that a fighter for that role is not needed. Consequently, the F-35 theoretical competence in air superiority is not in any way an indicator of its value.
That said, the F-35's ability to handle all roles seems limited. It tries to be able to do so many roles that all of its competencies are handicapped. That is why it has criticism as being a jack of all trades. If it were multirole in the sense that the F-22 is multirole, it would not have that criticism. :/
Your link isn't discussing the F-16 in a CAS role, it's discussing a specific variant of the F-16 where they attempted to mount a 30mm canon pod to it which yes, failed badly.
Modern CAS doesn't involve strafing tanks. Planes are staying well above the altitude small arms are capable of reaching, dropping LGBs, CBUs, and air to ground missiles on targets. The notion that resistance to small arms fire makes the f-16 terrible at CAS is a very odd point to make.
The f-22 was discontinued because it was very expensive, much moreso than the f-35. It was also due to the end of the cold war, and no real global competition with peer adversaries. Would the f-22 have been cancelled if we knew what geopolitics in 2023 would look like? Not so sure about that.
It discusses "F-16’S CAS VARIANTS". That is the F-16 in a CAS role as far as I am concerned.
That being said, for CAS, being able to shoot bullets at dozens of targets is more useful than dropping a handful of bombs. It is also more cost effective. :/
By the way, dropping bombs is being a bomber and there are actual purpose built bombers for that. :/
> It discusses "F-16’S CAS VARIANTS". That is the F-16 in a CAS role as far as I am concerned.
Then your understanding is deeply wrong. The F/A-16 discussed in that article was a specific variant of the F-16 that mounted a 30mm gun pod. Which failed horribly. During the gun produced vibrations that broke avionics, and the targeting software didn't even work with the gun.
The normal F-16 is a multirole fighter that can drop bombs, missiles, and rockets on ground targets just fine. It can shoot HARMs, too. It has performed in a CAS role just fine for decades. Not to drag contemporary events into this thread, but I guarantee you many of the Israeli planes dropping bombs in Gaza are f-16s. And yes, this is close air support: ground forces are pushing in, and when they take fire from a position they're calling in strikes. This is textbook close air support.
> That being said, for CAS, being able to shoot bullets at dozens of targets is more useful than dropping a handful of bombs. It is also more cost effective. :/
No, it is not. 30mm cannons aren't going to demolish trenches or penetrate that far into fortified buildings. You also have to get really close to the target to be effective. It was an effective way to conduct CAS against armored targets specifically in the 1970s and 80s before laser and gps guided bombs became ubiquitous. And today, the proliferation of IR guided SAMs that are fairly resistant to flares make strafing too dangerous, even for the a-10.
If you were under the impression that the abortive F/A-16 was the only version of the F-16 ever fielded for CAS then your statements in this chain make sense. But it's a totally false understanding.
Okay. Lets say you want to take out a few dozen targets. Your F-16 dropping bombs will be useless for that, as it needs to fly back and forth so many times to keep getting bombs, by which point all of the ground troops could be dead. The A-10 on the other hand is fantastic for it. The A-10 does not need to return to base after hitting a few targets. Also, the A-10 can drop bombs too.
Seriously, if the purpose of CAS was only to hit 1 target, then any plane that could drop a bomb would work, but nobody cares about being able to hit a single target when they have many targets that need to be hit.
An a-10 strafing targets is also going to take multiple passes to destroy a dozen targets. Unless they're all in a column, in which case the f-16 can destroy them too with a cluster bomb.
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that the f-16 has a very limited air to ground payload. And the 30mm canon in the a-10 is not nearly as impactful as you make it out to be. There's enough public information on f-16's operational history to make your claims demonstrably false.
My point about 1 target is to emphasize that quantity matters. I said that the F-16 was bad at CAS and the F-35 is even worse. This is true. First, the F-16 carries less ammunition than the A-10, while the F-35 carries even less than the F-16. Second, CAS means Close Air Support. If the airplane is not close to the ground, then it is not doing CAS.
As for making multiple passes, that is better than multiple trips to/from base.
I do not know what I am supposed to be reading at your link.
> Second, CAS means Close Air Support. If the airplane is not close to the ground, then it is not doing CAS.
Your understanding is incorrect. Close air support means engaging targets in close proximity to friendly forces. It does not refer to the altitude at which aircraft are deploying munitions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_air_support
From my link, you're supposed to read the fact that the f-16 can carry a dozen air to ground munitions. The f-16 does not have a payload that much smaller than the a-10.
I think this is a waste of money compared to what the A-10 gives people. Bullets are cheaper than explosives and can be manufactured in far greater quantities. Winning a war is pyrrhic if the victor is impoverished by the price of all of the ammunition. :/
Anyway, the original complaint here is about the F-35, not the F-16. No matter how much you think of the F-16, the F-35 is being pushed into this role and it is just not fit for it. I do not think the F-16 is fit for it either, although it is certainly more fit than the F-35.
Bullets are cheap. And so are MANPADS and other short range air defenses. But airplanes are expensive. So are pilots. That's why close air support has shifted towards dropping guided munitions to minimize exposure to short range air defenses. Losing more planes because you want to save money on munitions is a net greater expense than dropping precision munitions. A laser guided bomb costs about $20,000 less than the operation cost for one hour of an f-16's flight time [1]. This idea of precision munitions being prohibitively expensive for CAS is just a wild fantasy.
The f-35 can mount as much external stores as the f-16. The only way it's unsuitable in a CAS role is the fantasy world where modern close air support involves strafing targets.
MANPADs are still way cheaper than the aircraft they shoot down. You're also shooting a lot more shells to down an aircraft than missiles. On the order of thousands.
Most short range air defenses are infrared guided, radar cross section is not relevant there.
They do not often shoot down A-10s. Also, they are big and bulky, so troops cannot carry very many of them. If you want to reason about this, you would need to know how many MANPADs are fired per A-10 downing. I imagine it is quite a large number.
People don't understand the role of the F-35. It's the blingy first one in during the pivotal moment of gaining air superiority. Just because the F-35 exists doesn't mean we are ditching all other aircraft. Once the skies are clear you can use literally anything else for CAS. Helicopters, gunships, etc.
Copying this comment directly from a previous discussion:
The F-35 has a much faster response time than the A-10--and, more importantly, survivability. In a contested environment, "suboptimal" CAS from an F-35 dropping precision munitions is much better than none at all (A-10 would get shot out of the sky by any near-peer before it could approach the theater).
The A-10 also has high maintenance costs and a relatively low loiter time. For fighting terrorists in flipflops, something like a super-tucano does its job for a tenth of the operating cost.
Fundamentally, the A-10 was not built for CAS. It was built as a last-ditch, suicide strafer of Soviet convoys during a land war in Europe. Very few were projected to survive past the first week.
The A-10 is designed to be able to take hits and keep flying. The F-35 is designed to avoid hits via stealth. If it is going to be close enough to the ground in a CAS role that machine guns are a threat, the F-35's stealth features are useless. How survivable is the F-35 when taking hits? I doubt it is as good as the A-10. :/
That said, unless the military plans to have people fighting on the ground without air superiority, there is no need for CAS aircraft to face interceptors or other things that would shoot them down. They only have to worry about small arms fire.
> The A-10 is not surviving a SAM or air-to-air-missile. Even a hit by a MANPAAD is a mission kill.
This is why there are decoy flares.
Anyway, WWII-style antiair guns would easily down a F-35 in a CAS role unless it is so high that its ability to handle that is compromised. Things that shoot bullets are the real threat to CAS aircraft. Also, the F-35 has so few shots that it can only fire a fraction of the bullets that the A-10 could fire. Combine that with reduced accuracy from having to fly higher up and it is almost useless in a CAS role.
That being said, it is lousy in all of its roles. Multirole aircraft that are capable of fewer roles are far better than the F-35 in just about every role imaginable. The F-22 is an excellent example of this. :/
..are you serious. chaff/flare is a last-ditch countermeasure for when the missile is completely depleted of energy for final evasive maneuvers, not a first line of defense after a modern missile. against a manpaad there's a higher success rate but even then it's not 100%.
> Anyway, WWII-style antiair guns would easily down a F-35 in a CAS role unless it is so high that its ability to handle that is compromised.
are you under the impression the f-35 is going on strafing runs???
> Things that shoot bullets are the real threat to CAS aircraft. Also, the F-35 has so few shots that it can only fire a fraction of the bullets that the A-10 could fire.
...
> Combine that with reduced accuracy from having to fly higher up and it is almost useless in a CAS role.
No, close air support does not mean being close to the ground. It means engaging targets in close proximity to friendly forces
> In military tactics, close air support (CAS) is defined as aerial warfare actions—often air-to-ground actions such as strafes or airstrikes—by military aircraft against hostile targets in close proximity to friendly forces
With guided munitions and better targeting pods, close air support has shifted to dropping precision munitions from further away to minimize the risk from short range air defenses.
The problem with precision munitions is that you cannot manufacture, transport and drop enough of them to achieve as much as you can with bullets. The country footing the bill is likely to be impoverished by them if used at any large scale. :/
You need to be close to the ground if using bullets.
As I point out in another comment, the cost of a laser guided bomb is $20K [1]. Less than the operational cost of flying the f-16 for one hour [2]. The idea that precision munitions are prohibitively expensive to use for close air support is a fantasy.
Lets say we have 6 targets and a 2 hour mission. Let us assume that the F-16 and A-10 both cost $20,000 per hour to fly. That would be $160,000 for the F-16. Lets assume the ammunition for the warthog costs $1 each. That would be $40,780 for the A-10.
Oh, and the F-35 costs about $40,000 per hour to fly. For that, the same mission costs $200,000.
> The idea that precision munitions are prohibitively expensive to use for close air support is a fantasy.
Unfortunately, the math does not favor those munitions.
> Regular rounds fired by the GAU 8 also known as PGU-14/B Armour Piercing Incendiary Depleted Uranium Rounds comes at a hefty price of 136.70 dollars a pop.
While those are pricy, the military does not fire those from the A-10 anymore:
> Armor-piercing incendiary rounds “go through soft targets very cleanly and don’t do much damage unless they hit a critical component,” said the former A-10 pilot. “The type of targets in Iraq and Afghanistan did not warrant using API.”
They don't cost a dollar a round, I'll guarantee you. Standard ball .50 BMG ammo is $3 a round on a good day, incindiary is even more than that. I'm very curious how you got this figure of $1 for armor piercing incindiary 30mm shells.
The original article said that they used a mix of those rounds and dummy rounds, so the costs are actually lower, but lets assume $53 per round:
3900 rounds per minute / (60 minutes per hour) * 2 seconds per shot * 6 shots * $53 = $41340, compared to $20,000 * 6 = $120,000.
The total cost is half for the A-10 after you add the cost of fuel. However, keep in mind that this does not consider that they also fire the "dummy" ammunition that is just regular bullets.
> And again, the point is moot because there way more flight hours to train a pilot than spent flying combat missinons.
Assuming that a nation is able to keep funding these missions during peace time, then the only real concern would be the costs during war time, which will undoubtedly be prohibitive.
That being said, the A-10 has a history of doing far more in CAS roles than other aircraft. That is because the A-10 is simply better at it.
And that's abnormally low hours. With a $20k an hour operational cost, that's $3 million a year. You're going to have to do a lot of strafing to make even a dent in total costs by saving money on munitions.
And again, this is not even including the costs of additional losses from low level flying overy enemies to conduct strafing runs.
Of course the A-10 does more close air support: it can't do anything else! Whereas the f-16 can also do combat air patrols, SEAD, search for ships with its radar, shoot Harpoons, etc.
During a war, they will end up not only flying far more, but also using as much munitions as they possibly can. The A-10 is cheaper here.
We barely afford the military budget in peace time while our war time costs are insane. Being stuck with enormous bills after "winning" is not a real victory.
The F-35 that the military wants to use in place of the A-10 costs twice as much per hour to fly, carries a fraction of the munitions and if it is given a decent load out, it loses its stealth capabilities that were the reason for adopting it in the first place.
The idea that war is going to be so much more affordable if close air support is done with strafing runs than LGBs, is just a bafflingly wack understanding of the military budget's breakdown. Close air support is just one specific role, in one specific branch of the military. Even if 30mm shells were free, it would not appreciably affect the military's budget.
An A-10 could drop those in addition to firing bullets. Intentionally limiting capabilities by getting rid of the A-10 in favor of the F-35 would be endangering lives. :/
Whereas the "master of none" part goes back to 1732 in meaning, and 1785 in exact wording.
It's just some people recently trying to falsely invent a notion that "jack of all trades, master of none" is "really" supposed to be something positive. It's not.
It means the US are powerful and very good at flexing their geopolitical muscles.
It also shows, if needed be at this point, that the war in Ukraine has been the jackpot for US interests at the expense of Europe.
Now obviously, the F-35 is not going to be bad in global competition terms because few, if any, countries have the US' capabilities and tech, but that does not invalidate any of the criticisms against it.
So you agree it’s a great aircraft for the current threat environment, but also still make sure to slide in some veiled references to corruption just because?
Okay then, please expound on how much of the demand is driven by the US “flexing its geopolitical muscle,” and how much is because it’s actually a desirable aircraft?
You are replying to someone else, but it occurs to me that countries that feel threatened would be inclined to buy US equipment even if it is not the best as a way to try to encourage the US to deploy troops in their countries as a deterrent toward foreign aggression. They could easily say "hey, we have the same equipment, so your guys will be at home working with our guys if things go south".
Why does the Japanese Air Force is pretty much 100% US aircrafts (with some local ones) while the Indian Air Force is, AFAIK, 0% US aircrafts.
Those things are not governed by the "free market".
"Desirable aircraft" is a subjective term. They bought it so it was 'desirable' by the metrics and considerations at play which go way beyond tech specs and cost.
According to Wikipedia there are at least 7 types of American aircraft in the Indian Air Force and at least one British aircraft in the Japanese fleet, so I’m not sure what answer you’re angling for with “why does…?”
Agreed, all products, especially industrial and military products, are purchased based on their complete offering. The US is able to make very strong complete offers for a variety of reasons (e.g. the supply chain for replacement parts). I don’t think it’s fair to ascribe this to “flexing geopolitical muscle,” which IMO reads like “the US is strong-arming its customers into inferior products.”
Again, please do not misrepresent others' comments and try not to nitpick. I tried to engage but you do not reply on the substance or in a substantial way.
I quite literally do not know how to interpret your point about Japan and India because your claims are literally not true.
Even if Japan were 100% US aircraft it wouldn’t obviously be indicative of your broader point given Japan’s unique post-war restrictions on its military (enforced by the US).
I will ignore the potentially false statements and restrictions on arm sales, and answer the high-level question:
Force design is a question of what the force will be used for. A military for a counterinsurgency in Iraq, will look very different from one for a peer-level conflict between superpowers. A military designed for force projection will look very different than one used for domestic defence. Etc.
There is a fairly standard way of doing the analysis for what makes sense for a given country's specific defence needs and wants:
* Most of India's defence needs center around Pakistan, as well as skirmishes of various sorts. I can think of few things an F35 can do which India needs done which can't be accomplished by a much cheaper plane.
* Japan's primary goal issue is China's growing military base. I can think of few uses Japan would have for a much cheaper plane.
India's answer to all-out war with China are nukes. Aside from that, it has no chance for military parity in the next half-century or so.
The US restricts who can have the F-35, among other weaponry. They cancelled Turkey's F-35 purchase after they bought the Russian S-400 air defence system and they refuse to allow a lot technology transfers for it, depending on the country.
Educated opinion: Everything I've seen around the F35 seems to indicate it overshot expectations and is a very good plane.
Uneducated opinion: Personally, I think it's also overused to a silly extent, but that's a question that it's good enough for many roles over more specialized planes. It's slower and more expensive than a 1954 f104, and I think cheap drone versions of many airplanes would be good enough for many missions, at a tiny fraction of the cost.
> French is upset that EU countries are ordering this instead of an EU made plane.
Military contracts are a lot more complicated than a mere comparison between technical specs. For example:
- Interop with the rest of the equipments
- Training costs for the pilots/mechanics
- NATO interop
- Will buying F35 lead to a better deal for another XYZ equipment?
- Will buying F35 lead to a better political deal on XYZ non-defense-related topic?
- Will buying F35 lead to technology transfer? Jobs created because (partly) manufactured on their country?
- Will buying F35 makes their country army more/less independent of external supplies/intelligence?
The main reason western countries are buying F35, regardless of its pro/cons is that it is manufactured by the US, a superpower with currently the biggest army in the world (in terms of budget).
Put in another way, even if China suddenly made F35 clones for a cheaper price, the EU countries would no buy them.
The large Polish purchase from SK confirms what he said. For example, out of 1000 tanks bought from SK, only 180 will be manufactured in SK. The remaining 820 will be produced in Poland.
This also sways other countries in the region towards buying from SK, because Poland will become a very close and convenient support center. Poland will get extra business from nearby countries (lowering unit cost), and nearby countries will obtain superior support.
They haven't really been properly combat tested, for example in SEAD/DEAD. But then many platforms haven't been. And the Israeli Air Force did go as far as publicly post selfies from over Beirut :). You also have to wonder how come locations in Syria keep exploding every now and then.
The thing is that Syria is, de facto, not one country. Striking targets in different locations requires completely different capabilities, and the US usually targets eastern Syria, while Israel usually targets western Syria or (as of recently) Lebanon.
Just the other day US Air Force has allegedly done a bombing run on some Iran-supported forces - but with ADS-B enabled! I mean what we do know for sure is that there was a bombing run, and at the same time there were appropriate USAF aircraft in the air with ADS-B visible on flightradar24 and other such websites.
Since then, a large number of European countries have ordered more than 300 F-35 jets which usually won in competition over the latest block F-16s, Grippens and Dassault Rafales.
I think that speaks for itself - problems or no, F-35 is pretty much full generation ahead of competition, is (now) reasonably priced for customers. While it might not be superior in a single role, it does most roles well, has bigger range than most previous gen gets and has a sensor/avionics suite that is currently way ahead of competition (at least one we know about).
They seem to be a huge success and most of the failure claims during development were probably intentional smoke screens to throw off adversaries (tin foil hot take).
There's really no way to tell, as the US and other western countries haven't been involved in symmetric warfare in recent history. Will the F-35 be able to penetrate air defenses and strike an S-300 battery? Is its radar good enough to detect and engage a J-20 without exposing itself to return fire? Those capabilities have never been tested (and hopefully never will).
What genius in the Marine Corps wanted second rate "B" over "C(orps)"? Or did the Navy just win out and not want to be seen drawing short straws and Be left with "B" and make up "C" to stand for carrier?
The B variant has the shortest takeoff and landing capability (Vertical). So, if one were to assign letters sequentially from longest to shortest takeoff/landing profile starting with A...
The Marine Corps' requirement to replace the Harrier and older Hornet was more urgent than the Navy's requirement to replace their newer Super Hornet, so the Marine Corps' version of the F-35 got fielded long before the Navy's.
If the aircraft were to be named after their first flight date, then it would have made more sense to just name them after the year of that date: A=2006F35, B=2008F35, C=2010F35 or for -6-, -8-, & -10- whether prefixed or postfixed. But they are not and C has been deemed to having further meaning. It makes the military look dysfunctional to not have any consistency and to be careless with naming.
The charts make it clear that compared to older fighters like the F-15 and F-18, the F-35 is much less available (i.e. less reliable) and it gets flown less. It may be flown less because it's less available (obviously) or because it costs too much to fly -- the report doesn't distinguish between the two.
The report also makes it clear that the F-35 is becoming less available with age (as one might expect) but its availability is decreasing with age much faster than the availability of the F-15 and F-18 decreased with age.
IOW, if the US suddenly needs fighter planes in a war, it should be thankful it still has F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s because it's probably going to need them.
Sure, and a Formula 1 car is probably less reliable and has more maintenance hours than a Honda Civic. The F-35 also has capabilities that the F-15 and F-16s don't: namely a much stealthier signature and, in some variants, carrier and VTOL capability.
It is true that lessons from the Ukraine war show that attritability is important. But it's likely that drones or older generation aircraft would be employed for tasks that require attritability.
Nobody claims that a Formula 1 car is a warfighting machine. Fighter planes should be not just more reliable but dramatically more reliable than a Formula 1 car.
Correct, but it's the comparison between a latest-generation warplane with a last-generation warplane. The more technically advance and cutting edge piece of machinery that pushes the envelope is of course going to have more maintenance costs.
The F-35 only became operational in July of 2015. It's still a new plane going through teething problems. A lot of the issues are being addressed in later variants. The latest blocks are vast improvements.
That being said, I suspect the plane was designed to do too much. It doesn't surprise me that said teething problems are more than other aircraft designs, but this really should have been 3 different planes, or at least the F-35B should have been. But there really should be a separate stealthy plane dedicated to close air support that would not need to be as stealthy as the better stealth planes should have already achieved air superiority.
I may also add that the F-15 itself received a lot of controversy when it was first released. It was seen as a poorer dog fighter and that it's "overpowered" radar was unnecessary, but it's gone on to be very successful in all its engagements. Then the same critics lost their shit when they made the strike eagle version.
Fighter aircrafts are complex machines, and I don't know the numbers for other aircraft, but isn't 10 - 20 hours of flight per month borderline useless? In a war I'd expect a single mission to easily hit five hours, using between 25 and 50% of the total flight hours. Most small nations buy somewhere around 20 to 50, so only a few would be ready at any given point in time.
The pilots have ridiculously low hours in the air per year, around 200 hours per year. The Textron AirLand Scorpion is a bit of a joke as a flight aircraft, but at least you can buy enough of them to ensure that your pilots have actual flight time every week.
I'm really disappointed with the low level of hours in the air for the F-35.
I don’t think you should conflate wartime vs peacetime maintenance. At peacetime you aren’t ok with 1 or .1% of flights needing to come in for an emergency landing due to some part flaking out. During training you want as close to 100% reliability as possible.
I'm not in the military, never was, but I'd expect better performance in war time. You can tolerate a much much higher failure rate during peace time. It doesn't matter much if a training mission is aborted, the consequences are much lower.
Generally the things that pull the plane off the line aren't things that make them non-flightworthy. They'd be sending these planes on sorties if it wasn't peacetime.
This cuts both ways. A lot more things need to be online in combat: avionics, sensors, weapons, survivability equipment, etc. At home, it didn't matter if the IFF transponder or satellite radio wasn't working. We didn't even have survivability equipment installed. In combat, though, any of those things makes an aircraft non-mission capable.
In peacetime you can ground your entire fleet of a type of aircraft when an issue is discovered (as has been done for almost every model of military plane flying at some point). In wartime you don't have that luxury and you need to go, go, go. If there was a war, none of the following groundings would have happened even if a very serious issue was discovered:
Yes, there are big differences between wartime and peacetime operational tempo and maintenance capacity.
I flew and managed maintenance for Black Hawks, and while deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq we flew multiples of the hours that we'd fly at home. While deployed, we ran 24-7 maintenance. We had contract maintenance support to probably triple our organic capacity. We had first priority for getting parts, and we had freedom to stockpile parts or do "controlled exchange" (i.e. cannibalize other aircraft for parts) which we couldn't do at home.
One outcome is that we effectively wore out the fleet a decade or two faster than planned.
As a former pilot, I will agree that hours matter. Our ability to get pilots 200 training hours per year has actually been an advantage, to my understanding, compared to our competitors who can't afford even that much.
The simulators for the helicopters that I flew really sucked (you just can't capture the feel of hovering, landing in dust or on slopes, terrain flight, etc.) so simulator hours were a poor substitute for flight hours. But I suspect that simulator hours are more valuable for fixed-wing pilots. New single-seat fighter pilots can go straight from simulators to soloing a real aircraft. I also imagine that most of what they need to practice is just button-pressing procedures for sensors and weapons. Doing most of that in a simulator can really extend the lifetime of the fleet.
This continues to be a scaling perception problem - it takes time to work up planes to full capacity at the safety levels that the peacetime air force demands. Especially compared to designs that are many decades in service. The F-16 and F-15 where initially designed more then 60 years ago, The A/A-18 based on the YF-17 was started 50 years ago.
I suspect that this is just the latest version of people failing to understand how costs and flight hours scaled - the same short-sighted griping that happened when people failed to understand on the cost side.
People keep pointing that out as a counterargument but it's really suspicious when F-35A availability rates drops below that of an F-22 Raptor after only a few years and the annual flying hours for a five year old F-35A drops to that of a 15 year old F-22.
Those metrics might make sense for an F-35C with VTOL but the USAF workhorse variant performing worse than our air superiority fighter? That's shit and we shouldn't be trying to paper it over with "it takes time to work up planes to full capacity." F-35s were supposed to be better because the maintenance burden of the F-22 was too much.
The F-22 entered production in 2001 and Lockheed delivered the last one in 2012 while the F-35 entered production in 2006, so we're way past acceptable teething problems in both platforms.
Ignoring everything else about the plane, one of the major selling points is the software which is riddled with bugs. And likely to stay that way given the perverse incentives to maximize costs.
I chalk a lot of this up to teething costs. The situation, will, hopefully, improve greatly over time.
The second to last chart shows a comparison of the Navy F-35C with the F-18 and EA-18 Growler, noting theatterbfaces additional challenges over the F variant for having an advanced electronics suite. The F-35C compares reasonably well against the Growler, and is already similarly stocked with massive amounts of electronics systems.
Alas, things will get worse before they get better. The F-35 was built and designed with old electronics technology. TR3 (Tech Refresh 3) is underway to start upgrading the core computer systems amid other things, and was supposed to be delivered this year, but has been pushed back and back; the software & integration isn't ready.
Planes had been rolling off the line with TR3 and then being unable to be flow. The Air Force has gone back to requesting TR2 planes even. Just this month forces have started flying them with incomplete feature suites (I personally really like this flying beta idea, to gain experience faster). And TR3 is just the first major leap! https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/11/21/upgraded-f-35s-fl...
Next up comes block 4 with a massive suite of targeting, electric warfare & other upgrades. This is such a huge huge software and systems challenge, building an advanced multi role highly networked fighter. This is going to be a struggle. But I don't really see this as ever being a fast task, as going smooth for anyone. It feels like work that had to be done. And we should be trying to share & learn through hurdling through how to tie together so many wild advanced tech projects; we should be learning from this (alas, unlikely most software practitioners will ever get to reap the learnings here).
But costs are pretty low per unit now! And we're going to figure this stuff out. It will eventually get better. It takes time, with such heavily integrated systems. I mostly just wish we could all be collectively learning better about the technical challenges & strategies, that these lessons surfaced & understand how better to architect systems (just as plane designers copied lessons from each other for decades), but that seems fairly impossible with software.
128 comments
[ 129 ms ] story [ 2374 ms ] threadYour own words contradict themselves. A master of none is never better than a master of one. None means there is no case of being better.
There is an order backlog of hundreds from various countries, and due to economy of scale the price went down significantly ($200 mil -> $80 mil)
French is upset that EU countries are ordering this instead of an EU made plane.
> F-35 Production Challenged to Keep Up with Demand
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/f-35-production-challenged...
It's the right plane at the right time (Ukraine war, EU militaries pathetic state)
One of its roles is Close Air Support. A quick search finds that it is inferior to its predecessor in that role:
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/air-force/2023/11/air-force-f...
Note that the F-22 is also considered a multirole aircraft, but it really is suited for just 1 role, which is why it was discontinued, since that role was not deemed necessary in modern conflicts. The F-22 also outperforms the F-35 in that single role.
The F-22 is also far better at that than the F-35. Its production was discontinued precisely because there is no need for aircraft to fill that role. :/
As for symmetric conflicts, the F-22 is far better for handling those. Its production was discontinued because the military had no need for it. Having the F-35 for a role where there is no need seems silly. It isn't even as good in that role as the existing F-22 fleet.
The F-22 is a dedicated air superiority fighter. Of course it's going to be better in that specific role. But which is better at operating from aircraft carriers, the F-22 or F-35? The F-35 costs half as much as F-22, too.
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-f-16s-cas-variants-fai...
The F-22 is labelled as a multirole fighter. Its ability to handle other roles is limited, and its main role is not needed. You claimed that the F-35 is good at air superiority as a way of demonstrating its value, but the F-22's discontinuation demonstrated that a fighter for that role is not needed. Consequently, the F-35 theoretical competence in air superiority is not in any way an indicator of its value.
That said, the F-35's ability to handle all roles seems limited. It tries to be able to do so many roles that all of its competencies are handicapped. That is why it has criticism as being a jack of all trades. If it were multirole in the sense that the F-22 is multirole, it would not have that criticism. :/
Modern CAS doesn't involve strafing tanks. Planes are staying well above the altitude small arms are capable of reaching, dropping LGBs, CBUs, and air to ground missiles on targets. The notion that resistance to small arms fire makes the f-16 terrible at CAS is a very odd point to make.
The f-22 was discontinued because it was very expensive, much moreso than the f-35. It was also due to the end of the cold war, and no real global competition with peer adversaries. Would the f-22 have been cancelled if we knew what geopolitics in 2023 would look like? Not so sure about that.
That being said, for CAS, being able to shoot bullets at dozens of targets is more useful than dropping a handful of bombs. It is also more cost effective. :/
By the way, dropping bombs is being a bomber and there are actual purpose built bombers for that. :/
Then your understanding is deeply wrong. The F/A-16 discussed in that article was a specific variant of the F-16 that mounted a 30mm gun pod. Which failed horribly. During the gun produced vibrations that broke avionics, and the targeting software didn't even work with the gun.
The normal F-16 is a multirole fighter that can drop bombs, missiles, and rockets on ground targets just fine. It can shoot HARMs, too. It has performed in a CAS role just fine for decades. Not to drag contemporary events into this thread, but I guarantee you many of the Israeli planes dropping bombs in Gaza are f-16s. And yes, this is close air support: ground forces are pushing in, and when they take fire from a position they're calling in strikes. This is textbook close air support.
> That being said, for CAS, being able to shoot bullets at dozens of targets is more useful than dropping a handful of bombs. It is also more cost effective. :/
No, it is not. 30mm cannons aren't going to demolish trenches or penetrate that far into fortified buildings. You also have to get really close to the target to be effective. It was an effective way to conduct CAS against armored targets specifically in the 1970s and 80s before laser and gps guided bombs became ubiquitous. And today, the proliferation of IR guided SAMs that are fairly resistant to flares make strafing too dangerous, even for the a-10.
If you were under the impression that the abortive F/A-16 was the only version of the F-16 ever fielded for CAS then your statements in this chain make sense. But it's a totally false understanding.
Seriously, if the purpose of CAS was only to hit 1 target, then any plane that could drop a bomb would work, but nobody cares about being able to hit a single target when they have many targets that need to be hit.
An a-10 strafing targets is also going to take multiple passes to destroy a dozen targets. Unless they're all in a column, in which case the f-16 can destroy them too with a cluster bomb.
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that the f-16 has a very limited air to ground payload. And the 30mm canon in the a-10 is not nearly as impactful as you make it out to be. There's enough public information on f-16's operational history to make your claims demonstrably false.
As for making multiple passes, that is better than multiple trips to/from base.
I do not know what I am supposed to be reading at your link.
Your understanding is incorrect. Close air support means engaging targets in close proximity to friendly forces. It does not refer to the altitude at which aircraft are deploying munitions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_air_support
From my link, you're supposed to read the fact that the f-16 can carry a dozen air to ground munitions. The f-16 does not have a payload that much smaller than the a-10.
Anyway, the original complaint here is about the F-35, not the F-16. No matter how much you think of the F-16, the F-35 is being pushed into this role and it is just not fit for it. I do not think the F-16 is fit for it either, although it is certainly more fit than the F-35.
The f-35 can mount as much external stores as the f-16. The only way it's unsuitable in a CAS role is the fantasy world where modern close air support involves strafing targets.
1. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a41956551...
By the way, MANPAADs are pricy in comparison to bullets.
> Contrast this with the cost of an infrared guided MANPADS available on the black market for $5,000 to $250,000.18
https://media.defense.gov/2019/Apr/11/2002115503/-1/-1/0/37M...
They are comparable to the precision guided munitions in cost. That makes sense considering that they are precision guided munitions.
Most short range air defenses are infrared guided, radar cross section is not relevant there.
The problem in Ukraine is that the ground is not clear (mobile air defense and MANPADS). So neither side is using planes for CAS.
The F-35 can take off from an LHD (not a full-fat carrier) which means they can be anywhere. Scary for an adversary.
And it was truly exceptional when it was new. One has to wonder how the FB-22 (a bomber variant) would have fared.
The F-35 has a much faster response time than the A-10--and, more importantly, survivability. In a contested environment, "suboptimal" CAS from an F-35 dropping precision munitions is much better than none at all (A-10 would get shot out of the sky by any near-peer before it could approach the theater). The A-10 also has high maintenance costs and a relatively low loiter time. For fighting terrorists in flipflops, something like a super-tucano does its job for a tenth of the operating cost. Fundamentally, the A-10 was not built for CAS. It was built as a last-ditch, suicide strafer of Soviet convoys during a land war in Europe. Very few were projected to survive past the first week.
That said, unless the military plans to have people fighting on the ground without air superiority, there is no need for CAS aircraft to face interceptors or other things that would shoot them down. They only have to worry about small arms fire.
> How survivable is the F-35 when taking hits?
the point of the F-35 is that it is less likely to take these hits (hits which would destroy both planes) in the first place
> there is no need for CAS aircraft to face interceptors or other things that would shoot them down. They only have to worry about small arms fire.
exactly, so in a COIN scenario the super-tucano, which has a tenth of the A-10's operating cost and longer loiter time, is the better choice
This is why there are decoy flares.
Anyway, WWII-style antiair guns would easily down a F-35 in a CAS role unless it is so high that its ability to handle that is compromised. Things that shoot bullets are the real threat to CAS aircraft. Also, the F-35 has so few shots that it can only fire a fraction of the bullets that the A-10 could fire. Combine that with reduced accuracy from having to fly higher up and it is almost useless in a CAS role.
That being said, it is lousy in all of its roles. Multirole aircraft that are capable of fewer roles are far better than the F-35 in just about every role imaginable. The F-22 is an excellent example of this. :/
..are you serious. chaff/flare is a last-ditch countermeasure for when the missile is completely depleted of energy for final evasive maneuvers, not a first line of defense after a modern missile. against a manpaad there's a higher success rate but even then it's not 100%.
> Anyway, WWII-style antiair guns would easily down a F-35 in a CAS role unless it is so high that its ability to handle that is compromised.
are you under the impression the f-35 is going on strafing runs???
> Things that shoot bullets are the real threat to CAS aircraft. Also, the F-35 has so few shots that it can only fire a fraction of the bullets that the A-10 could fire.
...
> Combine that with reduced accuracy from having to fly higher up and it is almost useless in a CAS role.
i'm not sure how to even respond to this
They did try to replace the A-10 with the F-16, but failed:
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-f-16s-cas-variants-fai...
Apparently, when they get close to the ground, they can be shot down, while the A-10 keeps flying.
> In military tactics, close air support (CAS) is defined as aerial warfare actions—often air-to-ground actions such as strafes or airstrikes—by military aircraft against hostile targets in close proximity to friendly forces
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_air_support
With guided munitions and better targeting pods, close air support has shifted to dropping precision munitions from further away to minimize the risk from short range air defenses.
You need to be close to the ground if using bullets.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-12_Paveway_II
2. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a41956551...
https://www.military.com/equipment/military-aircraft/everyth...
Lets say we have 6 targets and a 2 hour mission. Let us assume that the F-16 and A-10 both cost $20,000 per hour to fly. That would be $160,000 for the F-16. Lets assume the ammunition for the warthog costs $1 each. That would be $40,780 for the A-10.
Oh, and the F-35 costs about $40,000 per hour to fly. For that, the same mission costs $200,000.
> The idea that precision munitions are prohibitively expensive to use for close air support is a fantasy.
Unfortunately, the math does not favor those munitions.
Except they don't don't $1 each. They cost $136 : https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-a-30mm-GAU-8-round-cost
That's not counting wear on the gun.
And if flying low to strafe results in even one additional loss, all those savings are even more than offset.
But more importantly, this whole comparison is moot because for every hour flying a combat mission, a pilot is flying many more hours in training.
While those are pricy, the military does not fire those from the A-10 anymore:
> Armor-piercing incendiary rounds “go through soft targets very cleanly and don’t do much damage unless they hit a critical component,” said the former A-10 pilot. “The type of targets in Iraq and Afghanistan did not warrant using API.”
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/a-10-warthog-armor-piercing-...
Non-incendiary rounds are much cheaper. I cannot find an exact price on it, but I imagine that they are negligible in comparison to fuel.
That being said, I do not think the cost to the USAF is public. I picked $1 since no figure that was reasonable would make any difference.
And again, the point is moot because there way more flight hours to train a pilot than spent flying combat missinons.
3900 rounds per minute / (60 minutes per hour) * 2 seconds per shot * 6 shots * $53 = $41340, compared to $20,000 * 6 = $120,000.
The total cost is half for the A-10 after you add the cost of fuel. However, keep in mind that this does not consider that they also fire the "dummy" ammunition that is just regular bullets.
> And again, the point is moot because there way more flight hours to train a pilot than spent flying combat missinons.
Assuming that a nation is able to keep funding these missions during peace time, then the only real concern would be the costs during war time, which will undoubtedly be prohibitive.
That being said, the A-10 has a history of doing far more in CAS roles than other aircraft. That is because the A-10 is simply better at it.
Military pilots in peace time average 150 hours of flying per year: https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/11/fighter-pilots-aren...
And that's abnormally low hours. With a $20k an hour operational cost, that's $3 million a year. You're going to have to do a lot of strafing to make even a dent in total costs by saving money on munitions.
And again, this is not even including the costs of additional losses from low level flying overy enemies to conduct strafing runs.
Of course the A-10 does more close air support: it can't do anything else! Whereas the f-16 can also do combat air patrols, SEAD, search for ships with its radar, shoot Harpoons, etc.
We barely afford the military budget in peace time while our war time costs are insane. Being stuck with enormous bills after "winning" is not a real victory.
The F-35 that the military wants to use in place of the A-10 costs twice as much per hour to fly, carries a fraction of the munitions and if it is given a decent load out, it loses its stealth capabilities that were the reason for adopting it in the first place.
If flying low saves the life of 1 additional solider, it would be worth it.
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/a-10-pilot-explains-how-the-...
And again, the flares are meant to handle them.
jack of all trades and master of none, much better than a master of one
https://english.stackexchange.com/a/508907
Whereas the "master of none" part goes back to 1732 in meaning, and 1785 in exact wording.
It's just some people recently trying to falsely invent a notion that "jack of all trades, master of none" is "really" supposed to be something positive. It's not.
It also shows, if needed be at this point, that the war in Ukraine has been the jackpot for US interests at the expense of Europe.
Now obviously, the F-35 is not going to be bad in global competition terms because few, if any, countries have the US' capabilities and tech, but that does not invalidate any of the criticisms against it.
Do you have any evidence of the former thesis?
Those things are not governed by the "free market".
"Desirable aircraft" is a subjective term. They bought it so it was 'desirable' by the metrics and considerations at play which go way beyond tech specs and cost.
Agreed, all products, especially industrial and military products, are purchased based on their complete offering. The US is able to make very strong complete offers for a variety of reasons (e.g. the supply chain for replacement parts). I don’t think it’s fair to ascribe this to “flexing geopolitical muscle,” which IMO reads like “the US is strong-arming its customers into inferior products.”
Even if Japan were 100% US aircraft it wouldn’t obviously be indicative of your broader point given Japan’s unique post-war restrictions on its military (enforced by the US).
Force design is a question of what the force will be used for. A military for a counterinsurgency in Iraq, will look very different from one for a peer-level conflict between superpowers. A military designed for force projection will look very different than one used for domestic defence. Etc.
There is a fairly standard way of doing the analysis for what makes sense for a given country's specific defence needs and wants:
* Most of India's defence needs center around Pakistan, as well as skirmishes of various sorts. I can think of few things an F35 can do which India needs done which can't be accomplished by a much cheaper plane.
* Japan's primary goal issue is China's growing military base. I can think of few uses Japan would have for a much cheaper plane.
India's answer to all-out war with China are nukes. Aside from that, it has no chance for military parity in the next half-century or so.
Uneducated opinion: Personally, I think it's also overused to a silly extent, but that's a question that it's good enough for many roles over more specialized planes. It's slower and more expensive than a 1954 f104, and I think cheap drone versions of many airplanes would be good enough for many missions, at a tiny fraction of the cost.
Military contracts are a lot more complicated than a mere comparison between technical specs. For example: - Interop with the rest of the equipments
- Training costs for the pilots/mechanics
- NATO interop
- Will buying F35 lead to a better deal for another XYZ equipment?
- Will buying F35 lead to a better political deal on XYZ non-defense-related topic?
- Will buying F35 lead to technology transfer? Jobs created because (partly) manufactured on their country?
- Will buying F35 makes their country army more/less independent of external supplies/intelligence?
The main reason western countries are buying F35, regardless of its pro/cons is that it is manufactured by the US, a superpower with currently the biggest army in the world (in terms of budget).
Put in another way, even if China suddenly made F35 clones for a cheaper price, the EU countries would no buy them.
This also sways other countries in the region towards buying from SK, because Poland will become a very close and convenient support center. Poland will get extra business from nearby countries (lowering unit cost), and nearby countries will obtain superior support.
Just the other day US Air Force has allegedly done a bombing run on some Iran-supported forces - but with ADS-B enabled! I mean what we do know for sure is that there was a bombing run, and at the same time there were appropriate USAF aircraft in the air with ADS-B visible on flightradar24 and other such websites.
I think that speaks for itself - problems or no, F-35 is pretty much full generation ahead of competition, is (now) reasonably priced for customers. While it might not be superior in a single role, it does most roles well, has bigger range than most previous gen gets and has a sensor/avionics suite that is currently way ahead of competition (at least one we know about).
Originally the STOVL was not planned but the Marines insisted on the capability and it lead to the A/B split.
Also, "C" for "carrier-based" works.
The charts make it clear that compared to older fighters like the F-15 and F-18, the F-35 is much less available (i.e. less reliable) and it gets flown less. It may be flown less because it's less available (obviously) or because it costs too much to fly -- the report doesn't distinguish between the two.
The report also makes it clear that the F-35 is becoming less available with age (as one might expect) but its availability is decreasing with age much faster than the availability of the F-15 and F-18 decreased with age.
IOW, if the US suddenly needs fighter planes in a war, it should be thankful it still has F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s because it's probably going to need them.
It is true that lessons from the Ukraine war show that attritability is important. But it's likely that drones or older generation aircraft would be employed for tasks that require attritability.
That being said, I suspect the plane was designed to do too much. It doesn't surprise me that said teething problems are more than other aircraft designs, but this really should have been 3 different planes, or at least the F-35B should have been. But there really should be a separate stealthy plane dedicated to close air support that would not need to be as stealthy as the better stealth planes should have already achieved air superiority.
I may also add that the F-15 itself received a lot of controversy when it was first released. It was seen as a poorer dog fighter and that it's "overpowered" radar was unnecessary, but it's gone on to be very successful in all its engagements. Then the same critics lost their shit when they made the strike eagle version.
The pilots have ridiculously low hours in the air per year, around 200 hours per year. The Textron AirLand Scorpion is a bit of a joke as a flight aircraft, but at least you can buy enough of them to ensure that your pilots have actual flight time every week.
I'm really disappointed with the low level of hours in the air for the F-35.
* https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-f156nov06-story.html
* https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2016/12/17/all-navy...
* https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsusaf-f-22-rapto...
* https://www.forbes.com/sites/edwardsegal/2023/04/29/armys-de...
I flew and managed maintenance for Black Hawks, and while deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq we flew multiples of the hours that we'd fly at home. While deployed, we ran 24-7 maintenance. We had contract maintenance support to probably triple our organic capacity. We had first priority for getting parts, and we had freedom to stockpile parts or do "controlled exchange" (i.e. cannibalize other aircraft for parts) which we couldn't do at home.
One outcome is that we effectively wore out the fleet a decade or two faster than planned.
The simulators for the helicopters that I flew really sucked (you just can't capture the feel of hovering, landing in dust or on slopes, terrain flight, etc.) so simulator hours were a poor substitute for flight hours. But I suspect that simulator hours are more valuable for fixed-wing pilots. New single-seat fighter pilots can go straight from simulators to soloing a real aircraft. I also imagine that most of what they need to practice is just button-pressing procedures for sensors and weapons. Doing most of that in a simulator can really extend the lifetime of the fleet.
I suspect that this is just the latest version of people failing to understand how costs and flight hours scaled - the same short-sighted griping that happened when people failed to understand on the cost side.
Those metrics might make sense for an F-35C with VTOL but the USAF workhorse variant performing worse than our air superiority fighter? That's shit and we shouldn't be trying to paper it over with "it takes time to work up planes to full capacity." F-35s were supposed to be better because the maintenance burden of the F-22 was too much.
The F-22 entered production in 2001 and Lockheed delivered the last one in 2012 while the F-35 entered production in 2006, so we're way past acceptable teething problems in both platforms.
The second to last chart shows a comparison of the Navy F-35C with the F-18 and EA-18 Growler, noting theatterbfaces additional challenges over the F variant for having an advanced electronics suite. The F-35C compares reasonably well against the Growler, and is already similarly stocked with massive amounts of electronics systems.
Alas, things will get worse before they get better. The F-35 was built and designed with old electronics technology. TR3 (Tech Refresh 3) is underway to start upgrading the core computer systems amid other things, and was supposed to be delivered this year, but has been pushed back and back; the software & integration isn't ready.
Planes had been rolling off the line with TR3 and then being unable to be flow. The Air Force has gone back to requesting TR2 planes even. Just this month forces have started flying them with incomplete feature suites (I personally really like this flying beta idea, to gain experience faster). And TR3 is just the first major leap! https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/11/21/upgraded-f-35s-fl...
Next up comes block 4 with a massive suite of targeting, electric warfare & other upgrades. This is such a huge huge software and systems challenge, building an advanced multi role highly networked fighter. This is going to be a struggle. But I don't really see this as ever being a fast task, as going smooth for anyone. It feels like work that had to be done. And we should be trying to share & learn through hurdling through how to tie together so many wild advanced tech projects; we should be learning from this (alas, unlikely most software practitioners will ever get to reap the learnings here).
But costs are pretty low per unit now! And we're going to figure this stuff out. It will eventually get better. It takes time, with such heavily integrated systems. I mostly just wish we could all be collectively learning better about the technical challenges & strategies, that these lessons surfaced & understand how better to architect systems (just as plane designers copied lessons from each other for decades), but that seems fairly impossible with software.