Summary
Lockheed Martin UK’s chief, Paul Livingston, defended the F-35 stealth jet program after Elon Musk called it obsolete due to advances in unmanned drones.
Livingston emphasized the F-35’s unmatched capabilities, including stealth, battlefield data-sharing, and cost-efficiency by replacing multiple aircraft types.
While Musk labeled the program overly expensive and poorly designed, Livingston argued drones alone can’t match the F-35’s capabilities or defend against threats like China’s J20 jets.
Despite criticism over cost and reliability, the F-35 remains integral to NATO defenses, with widespread adoption across 19 nations, including the UK.
I mean, Musk isn’t totally wrong, the F-35 isn’t all we’d hoped for. It had a well documented history of cost over-runs, problems in development, and failing the way all multi-tools do, they generally don’t do as good of a job as specific tool. Further, the drone war in Ukraine/Russia is showing how effective drones really can be. However, drones are also a specific tool for a specific type of job.
I think it’s reasonable to think that both types of flight-based warfare will continue to be relevant, and neither will necessarily dominate the other, because… once again… the right tool, for the right job.
it’s a superior replacement to about any other plane (with single exception of F-22 for air dominance, but it’s not made now anyway) absolute state of the art apex predator in air, and scale of procurement brings costs down
there is a reason why no one makes single-purpose planes anymore and it’s degree of flexibility multirole allows, simplified logistics, less number of airframes needed for mission and a couple others. drones are very narrow purpose tools with short range relying on unjammed radio spectrum, or else extremely specialized long range heavier systems available only in small numbers. these things are replacement of ATGMs and cruise missiles, not aircraft. these things don’t even come close to each other
Let me repeat myself because this keeps coming up,
Sure, if you pretend money doesn’t exist? Baseline for getting your money’s worth from spending 1.5 TRILLION more than anybody else on development of a type of airplane is that your airplane should be the best airplane of that type.
That doesn’t prove that money was well spent, it just proves you have way more money than anybody else to throw at things though I guess the confusion makes sense, we 'muricans have such a very hard time telling the difference between those two concepts.
These massive cost overruns aren’t just a single one time strategic failure, like a good modern western tech product the f35 is built to burn money over its entire lifetime by having WAY higher operating costs. Thus the failure is compounded and compounded and as Sun Tzu would point out, the battle has been lost before it even began.
and it is
if you read the article:
this is in a war against a peer opponent, like everyone in europe is preparing for. F35 is not a COIN plane, you’re looking for something like skywarden there (A10 sucks balls and was outdated the day it appeared on drawing board - you cannot change my mind). advanced aircraft like F35 allows you to both decrease package size and allows you to do things that you straight up can’t do without them, and comparing to loads of other older aircraft needed it is cheaper to use the new shiny thing. because of sheer scale of manufacture - 1000 was made and deliveries are 5 years away because demand is so high - development costs will be spread across all of these. both russians and chinese develop their own stealth multirole planes, su-57 and j-20 respectively, chinese additionally are working on stealth bomber, h-20, so it’s obvious they see their utility too, unless your conspiracy involves them all.
another random example
you need separate AWACS less because F35 has powerful radar, and it can also double as EW suite so there’s less need for dedicated EW aircraft too. without stealth aircraft you can’t sneak on your target and if done right this can give you massive advantage
or this one https://mail.ausairpower.net/API-VLO-Strike.html
maybe you’re just a fan of human wave tactics in comically obsolete planes like F104 soaking up most probable adversary’s SAMs like there’s no tomorrow. but don’t pretend you know shit about fuck
if you prefer video format https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGwU9HKH_Eo extra details there https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH-aJEloMbs
Your views hew ridiculously close to talking point that heavily associated with Russian state media. Please don’t be offended, this isn’t an insult It’s an FYI.
Ask yourself: how does the F-35 (in cost overruns, accidents, re-designs, ect…) compare to other fighter jets developed by the US and her allies? If you don’t know, wonder how you only bumped into info that paints the project in a bad light. Who benefits from the F35 being perceived as a boondoggle?
Youtuber Lazerpig addresses all of this directly and with sources if your interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxVsS9ZNUOU
The F-35 is good bc… Russia says it’s bad so we have to knee-jerk in the opposite direction? Am I interpreting that right?
It’s the worst fighter jet we have xD the cost is inexcusable and the reliability is dog shit, we don’t need to be defending overpriced balsa gliders just bc russia bad or something
If you’re saying it’s bad for the exact same reasons Russia said it’s bad you may want to consider your position a bit more thoughtfully.
You have no friggin idea of whether it’s a good aircraft or not. Of that I’m sure.
Thanks for the heads up, but yeah, my opinions of this were developed during the Bush era and it was from US media sources discussing the issues with the F-35’s development. I honestly hadn’t thought about the F-35 in years and had to go to Wikipedia to make sure I was thinking of the right plane. I’m generally anti-war so I thought it was pretty wasteful in general at the time.
Your being defensive. Yes, the misinfo campaign is that old, and yes plenty of Western journalists have repeated the talking points.
You’re*