I mean, it's absolutely a marvel of engineering on a technical level and filled to the brim with the sorts of things that military sci-fi authors have been wanking themselves dry over for the past 40 years. The problem is that all those fancy fiddly systems break and that it would have been more reasonable to use all that fancy technology to create multiple different planes that each actually excels in any one of the niches the F-35 is supposed to cover, instead of creating a mediocre jack of all trades boondoggle that's stretched so thin that it needs cutting edge tech just to work at all.
Also that it's a death machine created to make a few oligarchs in the imperial core very rich at the expense of everyone from its intended victims, to the dumb bastards that have to fly it, to the populace of the countries that buy this boondoggle who are just subsidizing the whole farce.
My understanding is that its real weakness is that it's designed to fight a war it couldn't possibly win.
Like the AC-130, it's something that just assumes air superiority. What's it going to do if it's outnumbered by jets that are approximately as good but are a tenth or less of the cost? I've heard people dead ass say that it could beat any other jet ten to one, but even if that were literally true, how many can be realistically produced and fielded in an actual total war situation? Is that supply chain even stable?
I dunno, I'm not a war nerd, but all of this gear assumes a kind of warfare that cannot be fucking fought so long as ICBM's exist, or otherwise assume current production capacity could be sustained during a real war, or, worst of all, that we will never again sustain serious losses or something.
how many can be realistically produced and fielded in an actual total war situation?
all of this gear assumes a kind of warfare that cannot be fucking fought so long as ICBM’s exist
I think you're onto something here, but you have it backwards. You don't need to produce a jet that's economical to produce at scale in a total war scenario because such a scenario will never exist as long as nukes do.
It's true it's not, the problem is they want to use it for a wide range of roles it is not adept at when it's really only good at being a strike-fighter and is very cost inefficient for the CAS mission with short operation time and low payload. Additionally although the electronics on board are state of the art, it is not well suited to an air superiority mission either again from it's limited fuel, but also it is actually impressively outclassed by not just the F-22, but Russian SU-30S and SU-57.
Simply it's trying to be used for too many things when it was really only designed for one.
I have a friend that is really into military shit and he always told me the F35 wasn't AS bad as the internet was making it out to be.
I mean, it's absolutely a marvel of engineering on a technical level and filled to the brim with the sorts of things that military sci-fi authors have been wanking themselves dry over for the past 40 years. The problem is that all those fancy fiddly systems break and that it would have been more reasonable to use all that fancy technology to create multiple different planes that each actually excels in any one of the niches the F-35 is supposed to cover, instead of creating a mediocre jack of all trades boondoggle that's stretched so thin that it needs cutting edge tech just to work at all.
Also that it's a death machine created to make a few oligarchs in the imperial core very rich at the expense of everyone from its intended victims, to the dumb bastards that have to fly it, to the populace of the countries that buy this boondoggle who are just subsidizing the whole farce.
My understanding is that its real weakness is that it's designed to fight a war it couldn't possibly win.
Like the AC-130, it's something that just assumes air superiority. What's it going to do if it's outnumbered by jets that are approximately as good but are a tenth or less of the cost? I've heard people dead ass say that it could beat any other jet ten to one, but even if that were literally true, how many can be realistically produced and fielded in an actual total war situation? Is that supply chain even stable?
I dunno, I'm not a war nerd, but all of this gear assumes a kind of warfare that cannot be fucking fought so long as ICBM's exist, or otherwise assume current production capacity could be sustained during a real war, or, worst of all, that we will never again sustain serious losses or something.
I think you're onto something here, but you have it backwards. You don't need to produce a jet that's economical to produce at scale in a total war scenario because such a scenario will never exist as long as nukes do.
Is that the jet that beheaded a dude?
Damn Americans taking jobs from ISIS
It's true it's not, the problem is they want to use it for a wide range of roles it is not adept at when it's really only good at being a strike-fighter and is very cost inefficient for the CAS mission with short operation time and low payload. Additionally although the electronics on board are state of the art, it is not well suited to an air superiority mission either again from it's limited fuel, but also it is actually impressively outclassed by not just the F-22, but Russian SU-30S and SU-57.
Simply it's trying to be used for too many things when it was really only designed for one.
deleted by creator