The U.S. Air Force Just Admitted The F-35 Stealth Fighter Has Failed

Pugs said:
The kill ratio of the F-4 in SEA had less to do with the jet and more to do with a F'ed up ROE that it had to operate under.
Click to expand...

That and early on, faulty missiles (mostly Sparrows) that failed to track a number of times. At least on the Navy side, carrier life wasn’t kind to hardware.
 
Kill rates are tricky anyway. For example, during the Second World War, Corvettes actually sank relatively few U-boats in the Battle of the Atlantic — they were just too slow and underequipped— but most of the time they at least managed to force the U-boats to submerge so that they couldn't position themselves for torpedo attacks on the convoys, which was the main point.
 
David Megginson said:
Kill rates are tricky anyway. For example, during the Second World War, Corvettes actually sank relatively few U-boats in the Battle of the Atlantic — they were just too slow and underequipped— but most of the time they at least managed to force the U-boats to submerge so that they couldn't position themselves for torpedo attacks on the convoys, which was the main point.
Click to expand...
That, and the 'Vettes didn't fly very far off the end of the carrier decks before plummeting into the water.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk
 
David Megginson said:
...but most of the time they at least managed to force the U-boats to submerge so that they couldn't position themselves for torpedo attacks on the convoys, which was the main point.
Click to expand...
"I don't care if it works or not, as long as they put their heads down when I call 'Magnum'"

Nauga,
at the risk of repeating himself
 
Grum.Man said:
... I also think an F15 with modern avionics and targeting would be just as effective as the F35.
Click to expand...

I think stealth matters. The closer you can get while staying "hidden" as you track and close with the bad guy, the bigger your advantage. Even a marginal advantage matters, IMO.
 
PPC1052 said:
58271835.jpg


Ok, in all seriousness, I appreciate your service. So, this is only intended to be light hearted joke, and not an insult. So, I hope it comes off that way.
Click to expand...
Ground troops love nothing more than ragging on each other. Except maybe hot chow. And a warm, dry place to sleep. We really like those things.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Yeah, no. I'm retired Army. Most of the 2 and 3 stars making decisions were classmates of mine at West Point. This is not the ground forces mindset at all.

We care about loiter time, payload, accuracy, all weather capability, and resilience to ground fire. We don't give a damn how the truck driver delivering the bomb thinks. In fact, we would prefer that he not think. We would prefer that he puts the bomb, or the gun rounds, exactly where we tell him. If we can take the pilot's brain out of the loop and take direct control of the process by uploading POI coordinates to a JDAM or painting the target, we'll take that.

Grunts do love the hawg, but the AC-130 is the greatest CAS platform ever, hands down. That thing is literally like having God on your side. Lightning bolts from the sky smiting thine enemies.
Click to expand...

The real problem is the US has been to good at air superiority. In fact we have been stellar at it. The A10 and AC130 are useless without absolute air superiority. US troops have not had to operate under the threat of air attack since WW2. The next conflict will probably be quite different. The ability to gather threat intel, penetrate unescorted and self escort will be critical. The F35 is the only airframe that can do that. Fighting third world countries the A10 and AC 130 are great and a ground troops best friend. Fighting the Russians or a Chinese they will be sitting on the ramp unused until we can maintain at least temporary local air superiority. Ground troops may well find themselves more concerned about being attacked from the air than getting air support. They are going to love the F35 at that point.
 
Jeff767 said:
The real problem is the US has been to good at air superiority. In fact we have been stellar at it. The A10 and AC130 are useless without absolute air superiority. US troops have not had to operate under the threat of air attack since WW2. The next conflict will probably be quite different. The ability to gather threat intel, penetrate unescorted and self escort will be critical. The F35 is the only airframe that can do that. Fighting third world countries the A10 and AC 130 are great and a ground troops best friend. Fighting the Russians or a Chinese they will be sitting on the ramp unused until we can maintain at least temporary local air superiority. Ground troops may well find themselves more concerned about being attacked from the air than getting air support. They are going to love the F35 at that point.
Click to expand...
Do you think there's much of a future for manned fighter/interceptors at all? Ever since we stopped worrying about Soviet Bear bombers lumbering across the Arctic circle and started worrying about ICBMs, I've wondered if interceptor aircraft really had a long-term future, and the rise of drones/remotely-piloted aircraft has only strengthened that feeling.
 
David Megginson said:
Do you think there's much of a future for manned fighter/interceptors at all? Ever since we stopped worrying about Soviet Bear bombers lumbering across the Arctic circle and started worrying about ICBMs, I've wondered if interceptor aircraft really had a long-term future, and the rise of drones/remotely-piloted aircraft has only strengthened that feeling.
Click to expand...

The discussion was at a battlefield level about the F35. I don’t think there is much value at a strategic level and most interceptor squadron were shut down decades ago.
 
kyleb said:
I think stealth matters. The closer you can get while staying "hidden" as you track and close with the bad guy, the bigger your advantage. Even a marginal advantage matters, IMO.
Click to expand...
Stealth isn't like wonder woman's jet. It's not as if it can't be seen on radar, it's that it can't easily be seen on radar. No currently fielded stealth aircraft can just fly into any airspace they want with complete impunity. It quickly gets into classified info beyond that, it's a great tool but it has limitations and has to be employed with the correct support assets.
 
EvilEagle said:
Stealth isn't like wonder woman's jet. It's not as if it can't be seen on radar, it's that it can't easily be seen on radar. No currently fielded stealth aircraft can just fly into any airspace they want with complete impunity. It quickly gets into classified info beyond that, it's a great tool but it has limitations and has to be employed with the correct support assets.
Click to expand...

And even more specifically, if it can be seen on radar but can't be tracked and engaged that's certainly stealthy. Think B band and the 117. Even still, doing stupid stuff will get you bagged.

I'm no fan of the F-35 but admit it has it's place but we're going to be flying F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s for a long time to come and some of that 35 technology will trickle down.
 
Domenick said:
Too late. We're doing that NOW on a grander scale--1.9 trillion to be exact, following on the heels of last year's trillions.
Click to expand...

And, from what I've heard, 1 trillion from last year still hasn't been spent. But, back to the real purpose of this thread...
 
Pretty egregious that our country has spent more on a single failed project than they have spent on NASA in the history of the space program.

There’s no profit in science though.
 
DavidWhite said:
Pretty egregious that our country has spent more on a single failed project than they have spent on NASA in the history of the space program.

There’s no profit in science though.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the F35 program alone cost more than NASA's entire historical budget? That doesn't sound correct.
 
jrcox19 said:
Are you saying that the F35 program alone cost more than NASA's entire historical budget? That doesn't sound correct.
Click to expand...

It might be true on a purely accounting basis where a 2020 dollar has the same value as a 1960 dollar and where the F-35 opponent is counting 2020 dollars and making assumptions about future costs of the program.

Beware of people using selective facts to skew the context and make their argument.
 
kyleb said:
It might be true on a purely accounting basis where a 2020 dollar has the same value as a 1960 dollar and where the F-35 opponent is counting 2020 dollars and making assumptions about future costs of the program.

Beware of people using selective facts to skew the context and make their argument.
Click to expand...

Inflation adjusted (2019 dollars) expenditure of NASA throughout it's history: ~1.2 Trillion [1]
Estimated lifetime cost of the F35 project (based on GAO estimates I presume): 1.7 Trillion [2,3,4]

Edit: Corrected NASA from 1.9 to 1.2 trillion

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
[2] https://www.defensenews.com/congres...-services-chairman-looking-to-cut-our-losses/
[3] https://www.stripes.com/news/us/pen...unning-10-billion-short-through-2025-1.644700
[4] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-10-billion-short-through-2025-pentagon-finds
 
Last edited:
I also fail to understand the claims of the F-35 being a failure. I've seen a decent amount behind the curtain and have many friends who fly it now. It is not a failure, regardless of what clickbait has one believe.

We can certainly argue about whether it is relevant or not, but it does do the job it was bought to do. Much better than anyone in the mid-late 1990's would have imagined (as it was being drawn up).
 
AKiss20 said:
Inflation adjusted (2019 dollars) expenditure of NASA throughout it's history: ~1.9 Trillion [1]
Estimated lifetime cost of the F35 project (based on GAO estimates I presume): 1.7 Trillion [2,3,4]


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
[2] https://www.defensenews.com/congres...-services-chairman-looking-to-cut-our-losses/
[3] https://www.stripes.com/news/us/pen...unning-10-billion-short-through-2025-1.644700
[4] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-10-billion-short-through-2025-pentagon-finds
Click to expand...

According to your wiki link the amount spent on NASA adjusted for inflation is about 1.2 trillion.
 
kyleb said:
Beware of people using selective facts to skew the context and make their argument.
Click to expand...

Sorry, the FACT is NASA has spent about $1.2 trillion adjusted for inflation since its inception.

Beware of people who have not a clue what they are talking about
 
Last edited:
jrcox19 said:
Are you saying that the F35 program alone cost more than NASA's entire historical budget? That doesn't sound correct.
Click to expand...

It is correct.

We spend a disgustingly huge amount on defense.

Could have had people on Mars, instead my grandkids will be paying down the interest of the 2010s fascination with drone striking mud huts
 
Last edited:
DavidWhite said:
According to your wiki link the amount spent on NASA adjusted for inflation is about 1.2 trillion.
Click to expand...
My apologies I misread In my haste, thanks for the correction And I have edited my original post. Just makes it substantially lower than the estimated F-35 lifetime cost rather than slightly above it.
 
"Beware of people who have not a clue what they are talking about"

indeed
 
How many times is congress going to fall for “We can build one plane to fit every services need”? They fell for it on the F111 and now again for the F35, which is ending up to be three very different planes. When the soviets and Chinese figure out how to counter the electronic wizardry of the F35 (which is inevitable), then we will be back to which plane is the better fighter and it is unlikely to be the F35.
When you start out to build the best fighter, design the best fighter and THEN stuff in the electronics.
 
DavidWhite said:
...Could have had people on Mars, instead my grandkids will be paying down the interest of the 2010s fascination with drone striking mud huts
Click to expand...
Not to mention the trillions spent on the politics of COVID in a single year.
 
DavidWhite said:
Pretty egregious that our country has spent more on a single failed project than they have spent on NASA in the history of the space program.
Click to expand...

This is a false claim. You are comparing what has been spent by NASA with what has been spent plus what MIGHT be spent over the next several decades on the F-35. Yet the comparison reads as if both numbers are what has already been spent.

There’s nothing wrong with questioning the spend on the F-35 or the nation’s priorities, but comparing two vastly different metrics isn’t a legitimate way of going about it.
 
kyleb said:
This is a false claim. You are comparing what has been spent by NASA with what has been spent plus what MIGHT be spent over the next several decades on the F-35. Yet the comparison reads as if both numbers are what has already been spent.

There’s nothing wrong with questioning the spend on the F-35 or the nation’s priorities, but comparing two vastly different metrics isn’t a legitimate way of going about it.
Click to expand...

It's not really that different of a metric to be honest. It's comparing the spending of the first 62 years of the NASA program to the estimated spending of the first 70 years of the F35 program. Yes we don't know what the actual lifetime cost of the F35 program will be, sure, but with the cost estimates of the F35 that is the anticipated and willing spending of the Pentagon subject to future congressional whims. The fact that we have had >1 trillion dollar estimates of lifetime costs for the past 5-10 years in the program (they have only grown with time) and the program has not been subject to massive cuts or cancellation indicates the pentagon/congress is willing to live with that number. From that we can say that Congress/the Pentagon values 62 years of NASA approximately equivalently to 70 years of a single aircraft program, which I believe was DavidWhite's original point.
 
flyboyrv6 said:
When the soviets and Chinese figure out how to counter the electronic wizardry of the F35 (which is inevitable), then we will be back to which plane is the better fighter and it is unlikely to be the F35.
When you start out to build the best fighter, design the best fighter and THEN stuff in the electronics.
Click to expand...

Which is mostly what they did with the F-35. It's built on the first gen open systems architecture that, in theory, allows for pretty "simple" upgrades through the life of the plane.
 
Pugs said:
Which is mostly what they did with the F-35. It's built on the first gen open systems architecture that, in theory, allows for pretty "simple" upgrades through the life of the plane.
Click to expand...
One of the biggest concerns in Canada during early tests — aside from the fact it kept failing in extreme cold weather — was having only a single engine and low payload for the long distances and widely-spaced airports that we'd need to operate over (including the three oceans we border). That's part of what convinced us to tap out on the whole collaboration and look elsewhere to replace our current CF-18s.
 
David Megginson said:
One of the biggest concerns in Canada during early tests — aside from the fact it kept failing in extreme cold weather — was having only a single engine and low payload for the long distances and widely-spaced airports that we'd need to operate over (including the three oceans we border). That's part of what convinced us to tap out on the whole collaboration and look elsewhere to replace our current CF-18s.
Click to expand...

That makes plenty of sense, although I do not question the single engine design. At some point, you don't get everything you want in your second tier (behind the F-22) fighter. You're gonna have to live with one engine. But the fuel fraction and range are definitely underwhelming. That (IMO) is the biggest limitation of all of our fighters. They don't have the legs to surprise anyone because to go much beyond a 500 mile radius, they need a caravan of tankers. That's a problem over (or near) indian country. If the bad guys pop your tankers, forget the mission kill, you can lose the whole strike force.
 
kyleb said:
That makes plenty of sense, although I do not question the single engine design. At some point, you don't get everything you want in your second tier (behind the F-22) fighter. You're gonna have to live with one engine. But the fuel fraction and range are definitely underwhelming. That (IMO) is the biggest limitation of all of our fighters. They don't have the legs to surprise anyone because to go much beyond a 500 mile radius, they need a caravan of tankers. That's a problem over (or near) indian country. If the bad guys pop your tankers, forget the mission kill, you can lose the whole strike force.
Click to expand...
That's the same lesson the Allies finally learned in the Battle of the Atlantic during the Second World War — sink the supply boats and milch cows, and then the raiders and U-boats can't stay out all that long.
 
David Megginson said:
That's the same lesson the Allies finally learned in the Battle of the Atlantic during the Second World War — sink the supply boats and milch cows, and then the raiders and U-boats can't stay out all that long.
Click to expand...

While the targeting of U-bootwaffe supply fleet through Ultra decryption produced some results, almost all of those assets served the fleet in the South Atlantic, which had a smaller number of U-boats and much less Allied shipping presence.

The more significant destruction of the U-boat fleet, beginning in March 1943, was in the North Atlantic, due to the increase in convoy escorts, more long range aircraft, and advances in detection and weaponry. In May, the fleet lost 43 submarines, about 25% of the operational U-boats. This caused Dönitz to withdraw the fleet from the North Atlantic.

While there were piecemeal U-boat actions beginning later that Fall, the U-bootwaffe never recovered. For the rest of the war, U-boat attacks were inconsequential to Allied shipping efforts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top