The F-35 is actually a pretty awesome jet.
Is it better than the F-22 in air to air combat? Nope.
Does it have to be?
Here's a similar jet: the Dassault Rafale. Its also multirole. Its not nearly as good as the F-35.
Is it better than the F-22 in air to air combat? Nope.
Did it shot down a F-22, ever? Yes (yes - they have official combat simulations with real planes, only the missiles are not real - and those are made to sell the airplanes so there is no incentive to go easy).
Does that means its better then? Nope, still not. Most of the time, it loses.
There's several points here:
- you dont have to be the best tool for the job to be the best all rounder.
- sometimes the best all rounder is better than the best tool for the job. its cheaper (imagine 3 or 4 F-22 scale programs vs 1 F-35 program), and it does the job well enough for many tasks. in fact, air to air superiority is one of the only tasks where you currently need to specialize. Turns out that the army has done this choice as well and has the F-22.
- views you can see or read of what is "better" or "worse" regarding fighter aircrafts is most of the time completely wrong and extremely misleading. Most people have extremely, extremely high financial interests in this. Billions and billions. War is a very juicy business.
One of the points of the "co designer of the F16" (mind you, id take a F15 over a F16 ANY DAY) are the "small wings" of the F35 giving it mediocre lift.
I like this one. The F-35 has better lift and better aerodynamics than the F-16 or the F-15, or the F/A-18. But its non-obvious. This engineer knows that. The general public doesn't. (note that the main reason for this, beside better design for aerodynamics is that the body of the plane provides most of the lift).
Some of the other commons points are generally either plain false, either have truth in them but pushed further than the reality.
Yes if the F-35 does everything it was designed to do and performs as well as initially intended, it'll be a decent plane. Unfortunately that doesn't look like it will be the case.
Some significant problems the project is experiencing:
-F-35 can't fly in poor weather because it doesn't have adequate protection against lightning strikes
-Stealth coating doesn't sufficiently withstand temperature around the exhausts
-Exhaust gas is too hot for amphibious ship decks for the Marine Corps variant
-Rear visibility is poor, and 3D helmet designed to address that shortcoming isn't ready yet
-Onboard software is severely flawed and behind schedule.
This program is already wildly over budget and is only going to continue exceeding its budget as they address the multitude of issues it has right now.
The whole point of this aircraft was that it was supposed to be cheaper and more versatile than the F-22. The unit cost is already going to be well over $100 million and that's with the assumption that our allies will buy a large number of them. Chances are several allies are going to drop out, and I suspect we are going to dramatically cut back the number we acquire as well, thereby driving up the unit cost.
On top of that, it is becoming increasing unlikely it will perform as billed. Not to mention that from day 1 the F-35 concept was ill-suited for the close air support role.
The US military would be far better off cutting its losses now and starting from scratch to develop a light strike fighter for the Air Force, a close air support attack aircraft to replace the A-10, maybe an interceptor for the Navy, and scrapping the Marine Corps variant altogether. That ridiculous STOVL requirement is a large part of why this project has gone so awry.
Do I think the F-35 is a great jet? Hard to say since it's still in LRIP. But it's reported by pilots who have flown it to be more maneuverable than F-15/16/18. Not as fast as the F-22, and not as stealthy. Longer legged than the F-18 (either version).
Where it falls down is in cost, largely due to it requiring so much commonality between the three versions. If the cost stays above $150M a copy (depends on how you calculate that, and it's a hard thing to do), it's too pricey. The F-22 would have been better for A2A, and if the line had been kept open, the Raptor's cost would have ended up below that. So if LM can get the cost down closer to the $100m mark, it'll be fine. New build F-16s are over $80M, the Silent Eagle was expected to cost North of $100m, and neither would be able to handle the role of the F-35.
People don't like controversial opinions. It's easier to go with the flow.
Im not sure the cost is such a huge deal compared to 3 concurrent programs that make cheaper planes, due to the program cost. itd probably be about the same granted that all 3 program would have been decently successful.
comparing to 1 program doesnt work if the plane fullfill 3 roles - IMO
The Rafale has been combat operational for years. The F-35 not so much. It also is cheaper, has more thrust, faster, flies higher, is more maneuverable, has a higher weapons payload.
Does it have to be? Here's a similar jet: the Dassault Rafale. Its also multirole. Its not nearly as good as the F-35. Is it better than the F-22 in air to air combat? Nope. Did it shot down a F-22, ever? Yes (yes - they have official combat simulations with real planes, only the missiles are not real - and those are made to sell the airplanes so there is no incentive to go easy). Does that means its better then? Nope, still not. Most of the time, it loses.
There's several points here:
- you dont have to be the best tool for the job to be the best all rounder.
- sometimes the best all rounder is better than the best tool for the job. its cheaper (imagine 3 or 4 F-22 scale programs vs 1 F-35 program), and it does the job well enough for many tasks. in fact, air to air superiority is one of the only tasks where you currently need to specialize. Turns out that the army has done this choice as well and has the F-22.
- views you can see or read of what is "better" or "worse" regarding fighter aircrafts is most of the time completely wrong and extremely misleading. Most people have extremely, extremely high financial interests in this. Billions and billions. War is a very juicy business.
One of the points of the "co designer of the F16" (mind you, id take a F15 over a F16 ANY DAY) are the "small wings" of the F35 giving it mediocre lift.
I like this one. The F-35 has better lift and better aerodynamics than the F-16 or the F-15, or the F/A-18. But its non-obvious. This engineer knows that. The general public doesn't. (note that the main reason for this, beside better design for aerodynamics is that the body of the plane provides most of the lift).
Some of the other commons points are generally either plain false, either have truth in them but pushed further than the reality.