[Loughla]

What blows my mind is that this aircraft was originally shown, formally, in 1964.

1.9.6.4.

They had this level of engineering in 1964.

Just imagine what shit goes on behind closed doors today. It really does sort of stagger you.

[game_the0ry]

Given how bloated and wasteful our government is today, and how much the dept of defense blew on the F-35, I would be staggered if anything useful happens behind closed doors, besides corruption.

I think we were able to accomplish a lot more in the past.

[bragr]

>Given how bloated and wasteful our government is today, and how much the dept of defense blew on the F-35

You are listening to the fighter plane mafia too much. F-35 is a capable platform with a reasonable but large price tag for those capabilities. If you want to have a discussion of those capabilities, and whether those are needed, that's fine, but "big price tag == corruption" isn't a self supporting argument.

[m348e912]

>>F-35 is a capable platform with a reasonable but large price tag for those capabilities.

We might have a different understanding of what reasonable actually means. I am curious if you are willing to share your understanding of how much has been spent to-date on the the F-35 program and your thoughts on how that price tag may be considered reasonable for what was delivered. I'm not being combative, I am genuinely curious.

[__MatrixMan__]

The majority of the engineers where I live work for, or have worked for, defense contractors. I've shut down a defense contractor recruiter once a week or more for the last several months. It's insanity.

I've been a fly on the wall for so many conversations about the stuff they're accustomed to spending money on... Fighter plane mafia aside, I have no trouble believing that that money is going nowhere useful.

[game_the0ry]

> "big price tag == corruption"

The DoD has failed 5 audits in a row. Take that however you want.

[nradov]

The DoD has had screwed up accounting systems for decades because Congress never appropriated funding to fix them. When the audits started a few years ago there was no expectation that they would pass. The goal is to identify the problems so that they can gradually be fixed without disrupting ongoing operations.

[Loughla]

Is your argument that DoD fails audits because they don't have enough money?

[game_the0ry]

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_for_Sale:_The_War_Profite...

Stop coping.

[oatmeal1]

F-35 is an awful, awful, awful deal. It's an iteration on the F-22 that is expected to cost 1.7 trillion dollars in total. An absolutely unimaginable sum of money.

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-105943

[ranger207]

It's $1.7 trillion in 2023 dollars (I think) total costs across the entirety of the program until 2070 (not sure if the number is "starting today" or "from the start of the program in ~1993") for ~2000 planes for the US and ~1000 for allies (although I don't think the $1.7 trillion includes allies). But the question isn't "how much does the F-35 cost", it's "how much more/less does the F-35 cost compared to whatever else would fulfill its place". Would that be modernized F-15s and F-16s? Would those be able to fulfill the requirements set by the Air Force and indirectly by Congress? Or would there be another program instead that might cost even more than $1.7 trillion across ~50 years (or 80 if counting from the start of the program)?

Also, the F-35 isn't an iteration on the F-22. It's an entirely new airplane. It's a bit worse in aerodynamics but has far better sensors and electronics, reducing the importance of aerodynamics in the first place. In a dogfight the F-22 is better; in a realistic engagement involving multiple platforms and missions being performed at once with air, sea, and land targets and allies, the F-35 is better.

The F-35 program was absolutely mismanaged in its early years and it's a crime that nothing was done about that. There's parts of the program that are mismanaged today (see [0] for examples of what the Air Force is trying to do to avoid those problems with their next fighter). But the program now isn't substantially worse than what other fighters went through, and despite all the program's failings the product itself is fantastic

[0] https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/avoiding-f-35-acquisit...

[oatmeal1]

It's an iteration because it is basically just a more versatile F-22. But versatility isn't all that useful since we have bases all over the world*, and other similarly stealthy aircraft can perform surveillance and ground attacks. The F-22 is already fully capable of next-gen A2A combat.

[ianburrell]

The F-22 cost $138 million. F-35 is down to $70 million. The US only bought 200 F-22, they aren’t being made anymore, and they are needing replacement in decade. That doesn’t help with the thousands of other fighters that need replacement.

Name “other similarly stealthy” aircraft. All our allies are buying F-35 because it is the only affordable, good stealthy fighter available.

[dragonwriter]

> F-35 is an awful, awful, awful deal. It's an iteration on the F-22

No, its not. While the program was initiated after the program that built the F-22 its a complement with a different set of niches, not an iteration on the -22. Loosely, the F-22 was the successor to the Air Force’s F-15s, and the F-35A, F-35B, and F-35C, was the successor to...every other contemporary fighter and fixed wing attack aircraft in the US Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps inventory.

[jes]

Apparently the Air Force is planning a new fighter program[1], which I guess is subsequent to the F-35 program.

I wonder where the money to pay for this program will come from. My understanding, which may be wrong, is that interest payments and social spending is going to significantly reduce what can be spent on defense. Corrections are welcome.

[1] https://www.defenseone.com/business/2023/05/usaf-opens-biddi...

Edit: Delete redundant phrase.

[Mistletoe]

Powerpoint was created in 1987 and it was all downhill from there according to the military.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/04/why-the...

[Psyladine]

Not just for military:

https://mcdreeamiemusings.com/blog/2019/4/13/gsux1h6bnt8lqjd...

Turns out trying to contain a complex system within a simple system of abstractions is a trendline towards disaster for any enterprise.

[katbyte]

Indeed https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ-7U95LYTo

[marcus_holmes]

Thanks for the link, that's fascinating, and resonates so much. Do you know what they used instead?

[hindsightbias]

I never understand this belief. The A-12 was only secret 20 months before the announcement so it wasn’t any mystery for long. The idea that there is some supermagic is weird. Materials science of titanium is known. It was new then. Turboramjet theory was novel then, but I read about the internals in the late 70’s in Airpower magazine.

Such a belief means there must be some unknown material or physics that has been embargoed, successfully, for decades.

There’s no there there to be staggered by. Look at a half century of fusion physics or billions on multiple failed hypersonic research. Shit is hard. There are no shortcuts.

[sizzzzlerz]

They had Kelly Johnson in 1964. He is, quite literally, the godfather of high-speed aircraft including the U-2 and the A-12/SR-71. He was not only a highly skilled engineer, he was a manager of the first order. A former colleague of mine had the privilege of working for Johnson early in his career and said that he'd never worked for a better boss. I believe it.