Ask HN: If the F35 is so bad, then why are foreign countries buying it? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: If the F35 is so bad, then why are foreign countries buying it?

11 pointsmardiyah20 comments

Former USAF. Agree with the other comments about treaty obligations, personally I think the F35 is a prime example of insane, out of control project management that has become quite common in US aerospace development.

All that being said, the F35 does serve a role that others can't fill. When people think about fighters, generally two planes locked in a dogfight come to mind. This is a 20th century way of thinking about air superiority. Take the F22 as an example, it's well loved by both USAF pilots and the public, and is considered by many to be the most capable fighter in the world, yet in low speed maneuvers it can be taken down by a 4th gen jet that was designed in the 70s and costs a fraction of what the F22 does[0].

In a real combat situation, the older jet would never even see the F22 - that's it's real power, it's weapons and sensor platform are what make it the arguably best in the world.

The F35 can do a little bit of everything, but it's primary selling point is that it's essentially a flying digital weapons platform that can be adapted to any role - piloted or remote, wireless drone hub, recon, communications, sensor and targeting relay and so on. The general idea is that an F35 goes forward into the battle and projects the force of an air wing or carrier group with it's advanced communications and sensor package, all while being a capable fighter on its own.

[0]https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/yes-france-shot-dow...

To nitpick: The Raptor is a BFM beast - it's a very capable fighter in dogfights. Ie it's maneuverable, has insane thrust, thrust vectoring, and high-OBS missiles.

Those countries are extensions of the US Department of Defense. Their military and economic systems have to integrate with ours.

It's good to be the largest military in your alliance, and to control the world's reserve currency.

In what sense are Switzerland and Singapore extensions of the US DoD?

Typically, to fly with another air force you have to be able to communicate with them in the air. While Switzerland and Singapore may not be as tightly bound by treaty organizations to the US DoD as other militaries, if they have any interest in performing operations with anyone else using F-35 or its communication systems, it'll be helpful to have them themselves.

Because they got sucked in at the development stage, rather than waiting until it existed to see if it worked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...

Nobody ever got fired for buying IB... I mean Lockhead.

For countries that are functionally vasals to the US, it's a risk-free decision, at least politically.

This is one of the ideas Jordan Peterson lectures. People don't try to make the best decision, they make the decisions this is least likely to get them in trouble with their boss.

Buying and selling arms is one of the cornerstones of strong alliances.

Obligation under multi-lateral treaties of cooperation? ;)

Because they get offers they can't refuse from USA.

The F-35 is expensive and flawed, but it's the only 5th generation multirole fighter that foreign countries can actually buy today. 4th generation aircraft are no longer survivable against modern air defense systems. Competing products from other countries are still "paper airplanes" in various stages of development, not available for actual purchase in production form.

Right after Biden's visit to Switzerland to meet Putin the government decided on the F35 which suddenly became the cheapest option when originally it was the most expensive. 6 Billion Swiss Francs (6.65 B USD) is a steal to keep the US out of our affairs even if the planes are garbage. The planes are acquired directly from the US government and not directly from Lockheed as you would assume.

We also give the EU 1 Billion every 10 years and we aren't even a member. [1]

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koh%C3%A4sionsmilliarde

What else are you going to use to get close enough to a modern SAM?

It's flawed in many ways, but there aren't many (any?) similarly-capable alternatives.

I am yet to be convinced that the F35 won't turn out to be the 21st century Brewster Buffalo.

1) Sucking up to the US (possibly as per [possibly non-explicit] treaty obligations).

2) If the Pentagon can be bamboozled, what makes you think the furriners' militaries couldn't?

What do you mean by "bamboozled"?

I'm assuming they mean that the Pentagon buys trash regularly.

The most expensive trash on the planet.

I'd agree with 1) -- 'Sucking up to the US'.

Just an extension of the Pentagon system - a way to subsidize the US war industry, with all the lovely benefits (for at least a few Americans, like me/us) that brings.

> What do you mean by "bamboozled"?

Pretty much what it always means, AFAIK: fooled, hoodwinked, taken in. In this case, persuaded by slick salesmen to buy stuff that isn't as great as the salesmen claim.

in my hope of hopes i still want the yf23 to take flight again

Reply on news.ycombinator.com