[throwaway18792]

F35 are useful against insurgents. They are perfect for Israel.

Contrast that with Ukraine, where there is a de facto no-fly zone for both sides because anti-aircraft missiles are too good. That is why there is the strange mixture of WW1 trench warfare, howitzers, drones combined with glide bombs and missiles launched from far away.

China has other enemies than big ones. The Sukhoi 57 is also useless in a big power conflict, as we see now.

Germany only has big power conflicts to worry about, so why does it need F35s? Saudi Arabia on the other hand might need them.

[ckozlowski]

Israel has the F35 because it can strike Iran, not because of insurgents. And it was successful in this.

Anti-aircraft missiles are not that good. If anything, this conflict is showing that. But the platforms both sides are using aren't up to par either, which is why aircraft like the F35 were made. Vaunted systems like the S-400 didn't prevent Israel from reaching deep into Iran, which is giving some of it's buyers second thoughts.

Su-57 had serious problems because the Russian aerospace industry lacks the technical ability to build a reliable 5th-gen fighter. (Engine problems galore). They made some excuse around "its so good, we don't need it".

The rest of your argument is built around the premise that the F-35 is not for use in big power conflicts, which frankly is incorrect and the opposite: That's exactly what it's for. Much of the hate it gathered early on was centered around why it existed when insurgencies were the majority of what we were fighting. (You don't need a stealth strike aircraft to drop a 1,000 LGB on a Toyota with a DShK attached) but you certainly need one if you want to penetrate defended airspace.

If you can't penetrate said airspace, you throw glideb bombs from long range instead. =P

China's stealth fighter projects are not for "other enemies", but precisely in line with missions like the F-35: To penetrate defended airspace to attack high-value targets. Like Taiwanese and U.S. defense sites and naval assets.

But it is amusing how many accounts there are out there saying F-35 is useless and the U.S. should stop building them, while China, South Korea, Japan, India, and others are all working on building or are building its equivalent.

Good try.

[th123419]

> But it is amusing how many accounts there are out there saying F-35 is useless and the U.S. should stop building them, while China, South Korea, Japan, India, and others are all working on building or are building its equivalent.

The comment you reply to literally says that the Sukhoi 57 is useless and that the F53 is useful in certain situations.

It must feel very powerful to argue in bad faith and maintain upvotes just because the opinions align with the U.S. state department views. And you can do it from you own account because you know there is no penalty.

[ckozlowski]

I left Russia out not because they don't want an F-35 equivalent or wouldn't benefit from them. But because the Su-57 in particular is a bad airplane.

Sorry if I wasn't more specific on that.

But the point I argued with the comment above is that the situations for which the F-35 is deemed useful is incorrect. It misunderstands the aircraft's role and the missions for which it's buyers intend. It makes broad assertions about the nature of warfare that have been repeated ad nauseum lately. I hope to correct the record there.