
The F-35 still has a long way to go - okket
https://warisboring.com/the-f-35-is-a-terrible-fighter-bomber-and-attacker-and-unfit-for-aircraft-carriers/
======
rwallace
One of the things about the F-35 is, the smart helmet with sensor fusion is
conceptually very powerful but they're having a lot of difficulty getting it
working properly.

Why? Well, to get user facing software working properly, you need a tight, low
friction OODA loop (ironically in context, a concept perhaps most notably
studied in air combat). Develop a prototype, put it in front of domain
experts, prospective users, get feedback, develop an improved prototype,
rinse, repeat.

But that's exactly what's very hard to do in a huge project with massively
rigid bureaucracy. Conclusion: those capabilities should first have been
developed in a skunkworks project, an X-plane, before committing to them for
the do-everything plane that half the world is supposed to end up using for
the next half century.

General cross-domain conclusion (at least for domains where the ostensible
product is the real goal of the project, which in this case it arguably isn't,
as previously discussed): if the big expensive thing you want to build, wants
a radical new capability, see if you can develop the radical new capability in
a skunkworks project before committing to it in the big expensive project.

~~~
angry_octet
I agree, but the bigger problems with the DAS arise from it being built by
several companies, who argue whose fault it is, rather than how to make it
work. So no one is responsible and also capable of fixing it.

~~~
engi_nerd
Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor for the DAS. Who are its subs?

------
georgeecollins
The fundamental problem for me is the cognitive dissonance of needing to put a
pilot into a machine where everything is mediated by a computer that doesn't
need a pilot. The digital helmet projects what the pilot often sees from
cameras, so the pilot isn't really looking through a window, but seeing
through a digital camera. Targets are discovered by network interface to other
planes. Geographic features are pre-loaded into the plan as a data file. The
control inputs from the pilot have no predictable linear feedback, Instead
they constantly adjust for various factors like wing slip or aerodynamic drag
from the cannon being open.

So the pilot isn't using his senses to decide what to do or his reflexes to
control the plane. Why is the pilot in the plane?

~~~
idlewords
Note that this is also an excellent argument against human space flight.

~~~
stordoff
It's certainly an argument for minimising human space flight (e.g. don't use
manned flights for routine events / keep a minimal crew by placing the craft
under computer control), but not eliminating it entirely:

* Manned space flight, e.g. putting a man on Mars, is going to catch the public's attention more than unmanned flight, and IMO anything which helps popularise the sciences is generally a good thing.

* Human space flight is a goal in itself. People have been exploring the Earth for centuries despite the risks, so exploring space (in person) is just an extension of that. There also may come a time where living off-planet may be necessary, or at least desirable, so having the knowledge to do so may be useful.

~~~
idlewords
To your first point, I think we've seen that robotic probes get people very
excited about science, particularly when they can return high-quality photos
and video.

The best-case scenario for manned space flight in our lifetime is that we go
to Mars. Robot probes, on the other hand, can go to some wild places in the
solar system, including places that would be lethal to a human crew. And they
do so at 1% of the cost of manned missions.

I'd wager the excitement per dollar spent is higher for robot probes.

~~~
kodfodrasz
It is higher for you, perhaps, and for techies. The average person does not
care at all about autonomous landing on an asteroid, despite the scientific
and engineering feat it is.

People cheered for the man landing on the moon, all over the world, even in
the communist block, despite loosing the space race with that very event. Why?
Because it was about people! Because the even the ordinary people could relate
to the event.

~~~
gaius
Exactly. Unless people are actually going into space, there is no point in it
at all, well beyond satellites anyway.

Think about here on Earth. You can get high definition photo and video from
anywhere on the planet. But people still love to travel. Because it's no
substitute for the real thing.

~~~
kodfodrasz
Its funny, because the very same idea popped into my mind a few minutes ago,
while I was eating bacon and fresh vegetables. Not eating algae and looking at
a photo of bacon ;). Simply that is how people work.

------
nerdy
There's already a lot of suggestion that Adir (the Israeli F-35) has seen
combat over Syria in January. At a minimum French intelligence [1] and Israeli
media [2] claim the attack was carried out using F-35s. They reportedly went
on to perform a flyby of Assad's palace.

Adir has special kit which may replace some of the problem components in the
stock American version, but the air frame itself isn't a "long way" from being
combat-ready.

[1] [http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/2017/03/07/have-israels-
new-...](http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/2017/03/07/have-israels-
new-f-35s-seen-combat/) [2] [https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/video-
footage-israeli-j...](https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/video-footage-
israeli-jets-attacking-damascus/)

~~~
valuearb
It's not believable that the Israelis would risk an expensive new plane only
days into testing on missions. The only "source" is a French journalists, and
numerous other experts have expressed substantial doubt about his story.

~~~
nerdy
> It's not believable that the Israelis would risk an expensive new plane only
> days into testing on missions.

Why? Is Israel paying now?

[http://mondoweiss.net/2016/12/israels-free-
ride/](http://mondoweiss.net/2016/12/israels-free-ride/)

Also worth noting that the 2nd link above says Israeli media reported it too.
Are there any credible denials which suggest which aircraft was actually used?
Everything I can find only says it's "unlikely" but won't go further. Who are
the numerous experts? Why would they use aircraft which aren't stealthy while
Russia has an ever-increasing presence in Syria?

------
WalterBright
My father was an aerospace historian, and predicted back in the 1970s that
eventually the entire defense budget would be used to purchase one fighter.

For a history of fighter costs:

[http://generalatomic.com/jetmakers/chapter11.html](http://generalatomic.com/jetmakers/chapter11.html)

~~~
Banthum
Heck, if that one fighter can win a world war alone, it's worth it!

E.g. One WW2 battleship could defeat every ship on Earth combined as of ~1830.
(and it probably cost more than all of them too).

But, this is an amusing observation.

~~~
yxhuvud
WW2 battleships were also utterly useless in actual combat results. Attack
submarines and to some extent aerial attacks are what dominated marine warfare
during that period. Put everything at the hands of one fighter model and what
you get is a single point of failure.

What you need in a big war against a worthy adversary is the ability to
quickly innovate and iterate on designs, and having a single design that try
to do everything is about the worst option available for that.

In a war against an adversary that isn't worthy, you can use whatever and you
will still win.

~~~
nradov
That's not true. Battleships were effective in several Pacific surface battles
against the Japanese Navy, in shore bombardment during amphibious assaults,
and as air-defense escorts for carriers.

~~~
lostlogin
The point wasn't that they couldn't attack ones enemy, it was that they had
become vulnerable to attack. The reason they could be used for bombardment was
that air superiority had been claimed by carrier based aircraft. I don't
recall ever reading of battleships being used for air defence. Have you a
source? Smaller ships certainly were but big, slow firing guns that can't
point upwards seems like a pointless and wasteful accessory on a huge target.

~~~
gjjrfcbugxbhf
Most ww2 era battleships had a plethora of smaller guns many of which were
antiaircraft. The exception was the Japanese battleships which were relatively
light on the smaller guns - which they even attempted to mitigate using
shotgun like shells.

~~~
throwanem
Sure, but unguided antiaircraft fire tops out pretty low in effectiveness, and
aircraft are dangerous to battleships out of all proportion to their size,
quantity, and cost - even if you shoot down ninety-eight out of every hundred,
the two you miss can still achieve a mission-kill, if they don't sink you
outright. And you'll never shoot down anything close to that proportion.

Battleships sided aircraft carriers for two reasons: one was to thicken their
inner defense ring a little, and the other was because battleships alone,
without a friendly air wing to keep the other side's strike aircraft away,
were doomed.

------
curt15
I wonder who doesn't regret cancelling the F-22. At least that airplane has
the advantage of raw performance even if you take away its more high-tech
features. An air force general once warned that "without the f-22 the f-35
will be irrelevant".

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
The F35 is keeping far more people employed. That is its main purpose and it
has been a resounding success. Its entire procurement process was designed to
make it resistant to cancellation by farming everything out to a broad base of
constituencies. It is now safely past that hurdle and can do its job as a
money machine.

~~~
zachrose
This explanation comes up in every thread about the F-35. While it has good
explanatory power, it doesn't explain why the US couldn't have a non-
dysfunctional procurement process that actually delivered effective planes.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
The people controlling the purse strings like the dysfunctional system as it
is. Nobody has the power to stop it. There was zero reason for Trump to end
the sequester except to funnel more money into the MIC.

~~~
Roritharr
The truly interesting question would be: How will countries without a broken
procurement process compete? Will China be able to spend 0.1% on their new
planes and get 1000% ROI?

------
ufmace
The F35 is such a political football now that it's hard to even get solid
information on whether it's good or bad. I never saw so much press on how
great the F35 is as when Trump tweeted about maybe cancelling the program.

If you don't like it, what exactly should be done with the program? Should it
be cancelled? Do you still think it should be cancelled if that means maybe
agreeing with Trump?

~~~
EricBurnett
I liked [https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n07/daniel-soar/the-most-
expensive...](https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n07/daniel-soar/the-most-expensive-
weapon-ever-built) for its explanation of the political situation the F-35 is
being built in, and the multinational ties that make it extremely difficult to
cancel.

TL;DR: The scope of this project (intentionally) means there are customers in
10s of countries, with most of them also contributing portions of the plans
and so invested in the sales of the others. Just in the US alone contractors
account for more people than the Coal industry we're hearing so much about
right now.

I have not got nearly enough information to say if it's a good or bad plane.
But I find it extremely interesting to think that to a large degree, it
doesn't matter.

~~~
valuearb
These jobs aren't a benefit of the program, they are its cost. Kill it and
spend the money on more cost effective and dangerous weapons such as drones.
Let the allies figure it out for themselves, if they didn't skimp so much on
military spending they wouldn't be so dependent on us.

~~~
yellowapple
Or better yet, move some of that money over to NASA so that I can have my
Enceladus colony already.

------
scottLobster
Meh, it's popular to crap on the F-35 Program (and with good reason, it's been
horribly mismanaged), but it's best to remember that at the end of the day
this is one case where public opinion on its capabilities does not matter and
is almost certainly inaccurate. Unless someone on the F-35 team pulls a
Snowden, the decisions will be made by people with security clearances who
have access to more data than we could ever hope to Google.

~~~
valuearb
Nope, it's shortcomings are publicly documented. It can't dogfight, maneuver,
has terrible visibility, bad systems, not enough ammo in a gun it won't be
able to use for years, and can't carry the most useful bombs yet. It's not
even going to be fully usable for 7 more years. It's a piece of junk being
kept alive by lobbyists and fighter mafia when drones are 10x more cost
effective.

~~~
ElectronCharge
"Nope, it's shortcomings are publicly documented. It can't dogfight, maneuver,
has terrible visibility, bad systems,"

None of that is actually true, especially the "terrible visibility" part. In
fact, it's the only aircraft flying with literally 2 pi steradian (the full
sphere around it) visibility.

The author of the linked article has a vendetta against the F-35. There are
legitimate criticisms, and he outlines some of them - they don't mean it won't
be an effective system within a few more years.

Could the procurement have been done more effectively? Of course, and I hope
future procurements learn a lot from the problems of the F-35 effort. In
particular, there has to be a realistic plan to incorporate technology
improvements during the development process! I'm also dismayed that computer
modeling didn't predict issues like the weak wingtips of the F-35C.

All that said, how about a little balance from people who've actually flown
the plane in simulated combat...?

This pilot flew the F-35B against F-16s and F-18s:

"Mo: I was leading a four ship of F-35s on a strike against 4th Gen
adversaries, F-16s and F/A-18s.

We fought our way in, we mapped the target, found the target, dropped JDAMs on
the target and turned around and fought our way out.

All the targets got hit, nobody got detected, and all the adversaries died. I
thought, yes, this works, very, very, very well.

Never detected, nobody had any idea we were out there."

You can read many more complimentary words at the link:

[http://www.sldinfo.com/the-moment-pilots-first-realized-
the-...](http://www.sldinfo.com/the-moment-pilots-first-realized-the-f-35-was-
something-extraordinary/)

"not enough ammo in a gun it won't be able to use for years, and can't carry
the most useful bombs yet."

The gun will almost never be a combat factor. As to the "most useful bombs",
there is always something new isn't there...? The baseline SDB-1s are plenty
useful in their own right, along with the various JDAMs and other munitions
available.

------
richardboegli
If you haven't I'd highly recommend watching Battle of the X-Planes.

A documentary by NOVA about the JSF competition between Lockheed Martin X-35
(which became F-35) and Boeing X-32. Official PBS link [0].

Here is the official site [1] with full transcript and behind the scenes about
the making of the documentary (quite insightful).

[0]:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kNszWU7hTw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kNszWU7hTw)

[1]:
[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/)

~~~
LeifCarrotson
I know they're just designators, but it makes me wonder which would have won
if Boeing had named their plane the X-37.

~~~
roryisok
Can someone explain this to me? I've been fascinated by fighter planes since I
was a kid and never understood the designations. Why do the F104 and F117 come
before the F35?

~~~
handedness
[http://m.wikihow.com/Understand-US-Military-Aircraft-
Designa...](http://m.wikihow.com/Understand-US-Military-Aircraft-Designations)

~~~
roryisok
Thanks! Most relevant quote, in case anyone else is interested:

> The rule, although often violated, is that normal aircraft are to be
> designated in a strict numerical series according to their basic mission.
> The easiest examples are found in the Fighter class of US airplanes: F-14,
> then the F-15, F-16 and so on. But, there are exceptions. For example, the
> X-35, which was a research plane, was later redesignated the F-35 when it
> became fighter capable, even though the next number in the Fighter sequence
> was F-24.

------
ocschwar
Given the neglect the military is inflicting on the A-10 warthog, I fully
expect the next war to involve the desperate recruitment of the only community
of machinists nimble enough to pick up the A-10's blueprints and start
rebuilding them.

Which happens to be the Suame Magazine workshop district in Ghana.

Ghana may wind up deciding the outcome of the next major war.

~~~
sandworm101
For all the a10s greatness, building new ones would be a waste. Improvements
can be made. New material and design mean the airframe is now less than ideal.
Improvements in ffars (the ones made in canada now fly straiter then bullets
and nearly as fast) make even the iconic gun, around which the airframe is
wrapped, less than ideal. Google the texco scorpion for what a modern a10
might look like.

~~~
jhalstead
s/texco/textron/, right?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion)

~~~
sandworm101
Ya, that's the one I meant. It looks very different but operationally is very
similar to the a-10. Two turbofans rather than jets, relatively strait winged,
significant loiter time, cheap to run, and plenty of extra capacities. Dump
the second seat, add some steel protection here and there, and you've got a
new warthog.

A low-wing / high-engine version would be closer to the a-10, but that is
almost style over function imho.

~~~
aidenn0
Aren't pretty much all modern military aircraft turbofans?

[edit]

From wikipedia:

F/A 18-D 2 × General Electric F404-GE-402 turbofans

F-15 2 × Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100 or −220 afterburning turbofans

F-22 2 × Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofans with thrust vectoring in pitch-
axis

F-35A 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan

~~~
sandworm101
Technically yes but the ratio between the air going through the jet (the hot
part) and the fan (the cold part) draws some lines. The A10, like modern
airline engines, is more fan than jet. This makes them efficient but limits
top performance. It boils down to the shape of the engine. Wider engines with
bigger fans/intakes become a liability above mach1. But a wider fan means
better low-speed power, more surface area to "grip" on the slower air,
allowing for better acceleration and shorter take-off. The f22 might
technically have a fan, but it is extremely small in comparison to the jet
that powers it.

The strange thing is that at extreme speeds the SR71 engines were high-bypass,
with most air bypassing the blades altogether to be burnt in the afterburner
as a ramjet.

~~~
samstave
I am constantly amazed with the engineering success of the SR-71, and the
SR-71 and A-10 are my favorite planes ever.

But jesus, the fact that lockheed made the SR in the 60 just freaking astounds
me.

I can only imagine what they have been making these days for the breakaway
civilization!

------
okket
Original source: "F-35 Continues to Stumble"

[http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2017/f35-continues...](http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2017/f35-continues-
to-stumble.html)

~~~
MegaButts
> When Lockheed Martin first won the contract 17 years ago, the F-35 was
> expected to begin operational testing in 2008. Once they failed to meet
> that, 2017 was supposed to be the big year for the start of the combat
> testing process. We now know that this process will almost certainly be
> delayed until 2019…and possibly 2020.

Wow. I did not realize it had been in development for so long.

> The scale of the challenge yet remaining with the F-35 is easily quantified
> in this year’s DOT&E analysis. According to the report, the F-35 still has
> 276 “Critical to Correct” deficiencies—these must be fixed before the
> development process ends because they could “lead to operational mission
> failures during IOT&E or combat.” Of the 276, 72 were listed as “priority
> 1,” which are service-critical flaws that would prevent the services from
> fielding the jets until they are fixed.

I'm not an expert on designing fighter jets, but that sounds bad.

> The problem is bad enough that Lt. Gen. Bogdan has admitted the F-35C will
> need an entirely redesigned outer wing.

Will someone more knowledgeable tell me just how bad this is? I do know a bit
about defense contractors and missiles (I worked at a defense contractor for a
hot minute as an engineer), but this just sounds like a clusterfuck of epic
proportions. The cynic in me believes the congressional-military-industrial
complex has run wild in order to maintain cash flow.

~~~
devNoise
I haven't kept up on the F-35 lately. But this is a jet made of compromises.
The Pentagon knew they couldn't get funding for multiple new jets. The F-35 is
trying to do to much by being a jet for the Air Force, Navy and Marines. So
they combined all the requirements for the specification. Combining the
requirements of the Air Force and Navy probably isn't so bad. The Marines
requirement of the F-35 being VTOL capable is holding the design back. I
accept that VTOL is a key requirement for the Marines, but the F-35 has made a
lot of trade offs for that feature. While I don't know how successful the F-35
would be without VTOL, it has to be better then what is being delivered.

~~~
ElectronCharge
Most of what you wrote is wrong. There are three versions, the F-35A, F-35B
and F-35C for the AF, Marines and Navy respectively. The three split a long
time ago, so no version is holding any other back.

Where things aren't so good is that the three versions were originally
supposed to have over 80% parts commonality. That is now down to something
like 20%. That is bad in terms of economies of scale.

All that said, in principle there is absolutely nothing preventing a single,
mostly common, design from filling those three roles. Whether the F-35 team
has done an exemplary job of doing that is certainly a question.

In terms of sheer engineering, it can be argued that the F-35B is the most
impressive of the three versions. It's the first supersonic VTOL fighter ever.

~~~
devNoise
From a Bloomberg article* yesterday: "The lift fan made the common fuselage
bulkier than it otherwise would have been. That, in turn, increased drag and
decreased fuel efficiency and range."

This quote from the article reinforces my view that the VTOL requirement does
effect the other version of the F-35.

* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-04-04/is-the-f-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-04-04/is-the-f-35-a-trillion-dollar-mistake)

------
zaphirplane
I have to say I am suspecting that the f35 problems are disinformation. It
just doesn't make sense otherwise, so many countries so much money so much
dependency and it's really a broken plane ! And the problems can't be fixed?
Right. I suspect it disinformation to deter china and Russia from putting
money into similar generation plane. Or even friendly countries from going
their own way aka Typhoon / rafale replacements

~~~
CalChris
Is it disinformation that Canada cancelled their F35 order and bought F18s
instead?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_Canadian_procurement#2016)

~~~
zaphirplane
Have they cancelled or talking about it? Even if 1 country canceling proves
nothing at all. If 80% or 70% cancel then it may mean something

------
CalChris
The F-35 is right wing welfare.

~~~
quakeguy
I'm in your boat, and i propose a more flat-rate thesis than your comment
does. It goes like this: Without the spending of federal money into the
M.I.C., USA would be bankrupt within a few months. Not only bankrupt, but
broke on a general level. Broken, so to say. Feeding the warmachine on and on
will blow back sometime, there is an end to all wastefullness.

~~~
samstave
We need a movement to compel the .gov to spend just ___ONE_ __years worth of
MIC spending on social endeavors. And see what would be possible....

We have the ability to defend ourself, we have the most powerful military and
navy in the world many times over. Lets just see what the heck we could
accomplish in one year alone with respect to social and economic services.

------
deepnotderp
You have to wonder to what degree the design of the Boeing X-32 impacted its
ultimate rejection. There's got to be some general that was thinking "I don't
care how good that plane is, we're going to be the literal laughingstock of
the entire world".

~~~
Too
Maybe the DOD should go watch the movie Moneyball.

------
metricodus
Norway dismissed buying Gripen from neighbouring Sweden to buy the non-working
F35, claiming Gripen failed the technical evaluation of what a capable fighter
needed to be able to.

In hindsight it seems obvious that they were less concentrated with actually
getting a capable fighter anytime soon and a lot more concerned with, well,
paying money to the US.

This has caused a rift between the two countries that is still lasting.

(Side-note: as a new HN user I really, really hate this throttling. I think I
actually managed to submit this on the 9th try, waiting about ten minutes
between each attempt. I kept seeing "You're submitting too fast. Please slow
down. Thanks."

I really, really don't think is good for conversion stats.)

~~~
kalleboo
The diplomatic cable leaks proved that the purchase was politically motivated
under heavy pressure from the US
[https://www.thelocal.se/20101203/30584](https://www.thelocal.se/20101203/30584)

------
brandnewlow
Someone should apply to YC with an air-to-ground fighter startup. They've
funded a Concord startup, and an electric 737 startup. Why not an "F35 that
works" startup?

~~~
pooper
Sorry to be a party pooper but the problem I think is there might be
restrictions on who we can sell such a thing to (given we can create something
that is as good as the 35, which isn't a given either). I mean outside of NATO
and Israel, I can't imagine who I'd be comfortable selling to...

Maybe Japan and South Korea?

I don't like the idea of being dependent on a few large customers. Not saying
you should listen to me. I have a horrible track record in speculation. I was
clearly overly skeptical of the Y Combinator darling, Dropbox. I bet Y
Combinator is glad they didn't listen to people like me.

It just makes me feel uneasy.

~~~
CalChris
No one is going to buy this piece of junk if they don't have a finger in the
manufacturing pie. And at $100M per, nor should they. We sell the F16 ($18.8M)
to a ton of countries who'd never buy an F35.

[http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users.html](http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users.html)

------
obstinate
It's almost unfathomable how much good such an amount could accomplish, if it
weren't being spend on building underperforming and unnecessary weapons
systems.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
Indeed.

I want the federal government to declare "war" on Detroit, Cleveland,
Cincinnati and other poverty stricken areas. Maybe then these impoverished
areas might get some infrastructure improvements which will generate jobs in
the short term and help attract businesses in the medium-long term.

Why did it take almost a whole year to get $170m (or just one F-35) to the
people of Flint? Why is a military toy built to fight a fictional war against
nobody more important than actual people who are suffering?

The US will happily declare war on Iraq and spend $1.7 trillion, but just the
thought of spending a dime within the country turns everyone's stomachs! We
need to declare war on poverty, we need to declare war on collapsing
infrastructure, we need to declare war on lack of public transport, and we
need to declare war on shitty internet stifling the country's competitiveness.

This is all GDP generating. Every dollar we spend on infrastructure provides
almost twice that in GDP. What is the F-35's rate of return?

~~~
Banthum
Not defending the details for the F-35 program, but military spending in
general:

Every dollar you spend on weapons also increases GDP. Because GDP is not a
measure of economic good, only of economic activity.

In fact, wars create huge jumps in GDP. That doesn't mean they're economically
good.

And anyway, you can't measure military deterrents by "rate of return". The
F-35's rate of return is "we don't have to fight another world war", because
potential adversaries will understand they don't have a chance of winning and
thus won't start a conflict.

~~~
udkl
> wars create huge jumps in GDP

Huge jumps for all the wrong reasons.

> The F-35's rate of return is "we don't have to fight another world war"

The F-35 budget overran due to mismanagement, not because it just costs
trillions to create the technology. I can see China working with Russia being
able to afford their own competitive machines. There doesn't seem to be a
clear "we don't have to fight another world war" end game.

~~~
kgwgk
Because there is no mismanagement in China and Russia?

~~~
udkl
Because this is gross mismanagement and because not all projects are
mismanaged.

Because as someone mentioned, a comparable Rafael craft cost < $100b to fund
and procure.

------
AlexCoventry
At this rate human- controlled fighters will be uncompetitive before the F35
is combat-ready.

~~~
JabavuAdams
If they can't get the software right for this crewed fighter, how will they
get it right for the uncrewed ones?

------
remarkEon
>The report says the problem is bad enough that F-35 pilots may need to fly in
so close to acquire the target that they would have to maneuver away to gain
the distance needed for a guided weapon shot. Thus, the system’s limitations
can force an attacking F-35 to compromise surprise, allowing the enemy to
maneuver to a first-shot opportunity.

This sounds catastrophic.

------
wiz21c
F-35 100 billions, ITER 20 billions... If I had to choose...

------
Pica_soO
There is no such thing as too long to fail?

------
solomatov
It seems that Israel recently used it in combat, so it's ready.

[http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/2017/03/07/have-israels-
new-...](http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/2017/03/07/have-israels-
new-f-35s-seen-combat/)

~~~
valuearb
Nope, that's a rumour from a French journalist that's very unlikely to be
true. And note it's not ready, cause the gun doesnt work, in 4 years when it's
supposed to work it won't carry enough ammo, it can't carry its planned bomb
types, the helmet doesn't work and might be dangerous, and it gets dusted in
any dogfight by 40 year old fighters.

------
engi_nerd
This is an article that has lots of little details wrong but the overall
message isn't wrong at all.

------
wyager
Based on the contents of this article, it sounds like many of the problems
facing the F35 are rooted in sheer technical incompetence. There is no valid
technical reason for many of the software limitations described in the
article.

------
tracker1
I remember learning my job (working on training system for Comanche) was cut
on the 6 o-clock news... And that was a lot less in the whole than this thing.

------
cm2187
This reminds me so much the excellent movie "The Pentagon Wars" which I highly
recommend.

