Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrweasel | Hacker News Reader

>The combination of re-hosted immature software and new processors resulted in avionics stability problems that were significantly worse than Block 2B

So, the upgrade actually made thing worse. I'm sure I'm colored by many of the negative articles about the F-35, but other than "we already spend a lot of money on this thing" and "there's no plan b", why aren't the F-35 scrapped?

For the US, it would maybe make sense to get the F-35 operational, but why would any other country, including my own, not pick a different plane?

View on HN

Because, for all their software and development delays, they significantly outperform 4.5th gen offerings and (the A, at least, which is the majority of what people are buying) don't cost nearly as much (~85-95 million for an F-35A flyaway vs. 110-120+ million for a Eurofighter or Rafale).

According to Wikipedia the $90 million is without an engine, which is just weird.

For smaller air forces, which won't have enough plane fight of the Russians anyway, there's little reason for buying a plane like the F-35. Some of the competitors are actually planes like the F-18 Super Hornet or the SAAB Gripen, priced at around $60 million. Sure they are aren't as modern, but for the needs of many small countries they're actually fine.

> According to Wikipedia the $90 million is without an engine, which is just weird.

Yes, a plane without engines is just a pretty mockup that sits on the ground. But, from Lockheed Martin's perspective, the engine is government furnished equipment. LM does not build engines. The government has a totally separate contract with Pratt & Whitney for the development and production of F-135 engines, and another separate contract with Rolls Royce for the development and production of the LiftSystem in the F-35B.

This is why the costs are given as "without engine". Because the engine is a separate contract.

Wasn't the F35 spanked by an obsolete F16 recently? Which means modern MiGs are going to eat it for breakfast.

F35 vs. any MiG fielded currently by Russian airforce would be a rape in the sky. SU-34 however might be able to escape.

There's also currently no missile for S-300/400 SAM capable to intercept F35, although there's a hectic R&D effort in that direction.

It was a Basic Fighter Maneuvers test point. The F-35 was supposed to maneuver in response to an F-16 behind them, and they did. This was not an evaluation of dogfighting performance of the F-35.

At TOPGUN (& FWS) the F-5 "spanked" the Tomcats and Eagles on most dogfight missions. That same F-5 runs out of fuel pretty quick, limiting its frontline effectiveness.

Probably the same reason people get the newest model of iPhones whenever they come out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com