[fgoesbrrr]

It's a complete success.

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)

[KolmogorovComp]

> 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.

[fgoesbrrr]

Poland is buying South Korea tanks and artillery. It's also buying US tanks indeed, but your theory seems to imply that it shouldn't buy SK at all.

[mopsi]

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.

[genman]

Poland buys tanks from South Korea because the answer to these questions above is mostly no.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

Where money is an object, sometimes the swedish Gripen is checked.

[ryao]

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:

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/air-force/2023/11/air-force-f...

[Manuel_D]

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).

[ryao]

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.

[Manuel_D]

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.

[ryao]

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.

[Manuel_D]

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.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

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.

[fgoesbrrr]

> Once the skies are clear

The problem in Ukraine is that the ground is not clear (mobile air defense and MANPADS). So neither side is using planes for CAS.

[ryao]

The F-22 exists for gaining air superiority.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Yep. Also requires an airfield.

The F-35 can take off from an LHD (not a full-fat carrier) which means they can be anywhere. Scary for an adversary.

[valec]

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.

[ryao]

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.

[valec]

The A-10 is not surviving a SAM or air-to-air-missile. Even a hit by a MANPAAD is a mission kill.

> 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

[ryao]

> 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. :/

[valec]

> This is why there are decoy flares.

..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

[ryao]

Apparently, the A-10 is designed to minimize the angles at which a MANPAAD can get a good lock:

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/a-10-pilot-explains-how-the-...

And again, the flares are meant to handle them.

[jghn]

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.

[Angostura]

Also known as "a useful general purpose plane", perhaps?

[TrainedMonkey]

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.

[ryao]

Which cases are those?

[jghn]

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.

[ryao]

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. :/

[aifooh7Keew6xoo]

An expensive, new jet offers vastly superior performance relative to cheap, purchased jets in the case of perpetuating the military industrial complex

[fgoesbrrr]

If you look in Ukraine it's not the "masters of one" planes proving most useful.

[ryao]

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.

[brucethemoose2]

The F-22 can't be exported.

And it was truly exceptional when it was new. One has to wonder how the FB-22 (a bomber variant) would have fared.

[dharmab]

There are other aircraft better suited to the dedicated CAS role, such as the AH-64 and various drones.

[ryao]

Yet they keep pushing the F-35 as a platform for that role. Furthermore, CAS is just one example. Feel free to find your own.

[idontknowifican]

please complete the saying:

jack of all trades and master of none, much better than a master of one

[crazygringo]

That's an awfully new "saying" though -- somebody only came up with it in 2007:

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.

[ryao]

Saying master of none precludes the possibility of it being good at anything. :/

[ryao]

A master of one is better than a master of none. 1 > 0

[mytailorisrich]

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.

[blagie]

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.

[ethanbond]

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?

[mytailorisrich]

Can we not start misrepresenting comments and snipping low quality responses? This is tiring...

[ethanbond]

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?

Do you have any evidence of the former thesis?

[ryao]

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".

[mytailorisrich]

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.

[blagie]

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.

[ethanbond]

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.”

[hylaride]

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.