It looks like a maintenance nightmare with those clutches to decouple the blades and the mechanisms to have them folded during cruising. Does it even improve substantially in anh metric over the V280 to put money into it?
Steal helicopters have entered the chat.
Just look at WW2: Germany had some fantastic equipment, but they couldn't field it because they didn't have the fuel, spare parts and the maintenance capabilities available. A tiger could kill 10 Shermans, but the Americans could always bring up an 11th Sherman.
For decades we have been able to afford complacency - we strike when we're ready against people who mostly can't strike back. We can afford to be wasteful because we have so much more than anyone we would go up against. No one is seriously threatening our ability to keep our military going. But militaries need to be prepared for peer conflicts where someone could give us a run for our money.
In today's world, the US outspends the next 10 countries combined. In normal times, it values the lives of its servicemen, and is willing to spend quite a bit to ensure dominance. So it will often have boutique gear that other countries could never afford.
The US outspends the next 10 countries combined in peace times. By comparison, Germany outspent the US on its military by a factor of 20 on the eve of WW2. Obviously once the war got going, the US' immense industrial capacity (along with the other Allies; the British Empire and the Soviet Union had the number 2 and 3 GDPs) was unstoppable.
We no longer live in the age where the US represents half of the world GDP and the bulk of that is manufacturing. China's has a larger economy in terms of Purchasing Power Parity, it has extensive manufacturing capacity, and a vast population. If push came to shove, we wouldn't be able to simply outspend them. In that hypothetical conflict we are the germany with a bunch of questionably useful wunderwaffe.
You're right: we would simply starve them (in addition to strategic bombing of all of these manufacturing centers.)
They do not possess the food calorie production to sustain their population, nor do they have the arable land to magically begin to do so.
> we are the germany with a bunch of questionably useful wunderwaffe.
We have outstanding fast attack submarines which can't be stopped by ASBMs: exactly zero freighters carrying food from South America or crude oil would be permitted.
Today the US has 55 fast attack submarines, each of which can carry about 50 torpedos at a time. So with 100% of your subs deployed you can sink maybe 250 ships. The US has an inventory of about 1000 torpedos so you can do that about 4 times. Shanghai alone receives 230 ships per day. So The US submarine force is roughly capable of shutting down the equivalent of 1 chinese port for a few days. Realistically, your not even going to get anywhere near that. 30% of your subs are going to be out of service at any given time, more will be transiting between service bases and the war theater, only a portion of those can be spare for commerce raiding, it takes time to locate targets, and you will suffer attrition to ASW. After those first few days it becomes a race between US torpedo production and Chinese ship building. The US can produce 10 torpedos per month; China produces 15 ships per day.
Of course China isn't an island - it can import food from its neighbors by land connections. Nor is it even deficient in domestic food production capability. It grows 700 million tons of grain per year which is enough to sustain 3.8 billion adults. It imports a lot of food in peacetime because people want more than bare subsistence, and certainly interdicting trade will piss them off quite a bit, but it's not going to bring them to their knees.
The idea that in a peer war it will only be them suffering - their trade will be interdicted, their industrial centers will be bombed - and they won't have any means to strike back is exactly the complacency I was referring to. Maybe if war broke out tomorrow it would go that way, but that's merely an argument that China is not yet truly our peer. We must plan under the assumption that somebody, and it might not be China, will in the coming decades reach the point where they can tank a hit from us and hit back.
And this strategy was enormously effective. Absent U.S. intervention, Europe was fucked.
> The Allies just made ships faster than they could be sunk.
Not "the Allies" - just one Ally, separated by an entire ocean. No such separation exists today.
> Today the US has 55 fast attack submarines, each of which can carry about 50 torpedos at a time. So with 100% of your subs deployed you can sink maybe 250 ships
We had torpedo bombers in 1940, as well, submarines aren't the only ASW mechanism that exists. How many sunken ships in each port will bring them to a grinding halt? Are they magically going to tug millions of tons of steel out of these harbors?
> China produces 15 ships per day
When their shipbuilding operations aren't strategically bombed into oblivion, sure.
> it can import food from its neighbors by land connections
Now it's a World War - why would this be allowed?
> grows 700 million tons of grain per year
With several hundred million of those tons of grain (along with vast amounts of other relevant food calories - livestock, etc.) being grown in the Yangtze basin, courtesy of the fact that the Three Gorges Dam is allowed to exist. Why would the U.S. allow that dam to remain intact? This one structure is a cheat code: knock out 50% of enemy food production, displace or kill hundreds of millions of people creating a mass humanitarian crisis and subsequent Cultural Revolution, and hobble huge amounts of industrial production. Short of theoretical attacks like EMP, no such non-WMD single-point-of-failure exists anywhere in the United States.
Nuclear response is truly the only thing keeping the peace.
Supply is one part, being able to repair is another. The tiger was a massive pain in the dick to fix. It had a weak gearbox that took _hours_ to get to.
Plus most of the parts were bespoke, which means lots more tooling needed to service everything. The other thing is that germany wasn't actually that mechanised compared to the french, or english
Which is exactly the topic under discussion.
Reading between the lines, I suspect "fast, but also expensive" was a design option that popped up and was not chosen earlier in the V280 program and now Darpa wants to pay to see where it goes.
I wonder if the flight hour cost of F 35 includes the maintenance it's undergoing when it's not available.
Putting aside the export market, it's a small miracle that the F-35 turned out as well as it did. Having a mostly-common fighter airframe shared between the Navy, Marines and Air Force was a pipe dream in the 90s. America is lucky the program didn't collapse entirely.
Wildly dependent on your definition of "modern", which mostly depends on your potential adversary. The Russia/Ukraine, and the new war in the Gulf have shown numerous ways in which 4th generation jets, and more importantly cheaper missiles and even more cheap drones can perform supression of enemy air defences and/or air support. Unless you're fighting the US or China, 4th gen jets are plenty. And even against US and US defended locations, cheap drones and missiles have been able to influct some pretty serious damage to critical infrastructure (like extremely expensive and rare radar systems). An adversary not crippled by extreme sanctions and corruption for decades might have been able to achieve even more, even with the total lack of airpower.
It's quite likely that in about 5 years most military installations will have a mix of weapons to intercept those systems - and depending on a number of factors you could easily end up back at low performance drones being so reliably intercepted as to be a waste of munitions to deploy.
WW1 after all was based on exactly this thinking: surely the volume of an army would overcome the machine gun.
That's unlikely. Anti-drone defences will only improve, yes, but autonomous drone swarms numbering in the thousands to tens of thousands are doable today, and few weapons systems can handle the rate of launch/fire required to combat that. Especially if there are follow-up waves mixing drones and heavy missiles against which your anti-drone defences wouldn't be enough.
> WW1 after all was based on exactly this thinking: surely the volume of an army would overcome the machine gun.
But building a cheap kamikaze drone costs much less than building a human.
They're now much closer to $3000 USD+ at the low end for an ISR vehicle. $8000+ for the more capable FPV kamikazes is the estimate for Russian models.
Which is comparable to a 155mm artillery shell. But with a lot less payload.
There's already literally millions of drones being produced and used per year in that conflict - and they've made a big impact, but the stability of the frontline also reveals that the impact of "swarms" is hardly overpowering (the obsession with them is also weird - if you had thousands of assets in the air, the last thing you'd do is put them all close together).
As Iran shows, you don't need overpowering. You need to hit the enemy where it hurts them, like strategic infrastructure.
> "swarms" ... (the obsession with them is also weird - if you had thousands of assets in the air, the last thing you'd do is put them all close together)
On the contrary, a swarm allows you to overwhelm the enemy air defences, which allows you to hit targets, including those same air defences, without having to disable them first. Cf. Iran destroying a THAAD radar.
But it's also an apples to oranges comparison: THAAD is in no way designed to intercept drone threats. The story here is closer to the US started a fight without actually investing in the sort of defenses which would deal with it - i.e. with a rack of Ukranian interceptor drones as part of the air defenses, the THAAD radar likely makes it.
The real reason stealth is needed is as a counter to GBAD. Modern anti-aircraft missiles are incredible lethal.
> have no choice
That's my point. Any battlefield today is "modern", but militaries operate with what they have. From Russia to the Houthis passing via the Houthis, we've seen insane amounts of damage done on "a modern battlefield" with anything from Cold War era equipment to cheap drones assembled by a terrorist group living in the mountains with no industrial base.
Yes, if the US wants to fight China, and vice versa, it needs 5th gen jets. Everyone else doesn't need them. They're nice to have to make your job easier (like Israel vs Iran), but don't guarantee you anything (like Israel vs Iran).
But isn't that true of the F35 as well?
On it's own, I doubt it would survive much longer on the eastern front in Ukraine.
In Iran the F-35 also did not fly around freely while the ground radars were active. They had to be taken out first. For that stealth was probably useful (and in general it is).
But it is not making them invisible - and cheap sensors and AI is likely to counter it soon. Because sensors and analysis will get better over time and sensors also better and cheaper. But the stealth will remain largely the same. It cannot really be upgraded for existing jets.
The burning question is what decision would AI make in Pearl Harbor. Would it have said flock of birds? Would it be keying in on flocks of birds instead?
By all accounts the F-35 did fly freely over Iran but the weaponry for killing ground radars are all long-range stand-off weapons so that 4th gen aircraft can use them. Many times those weapons are cued by stealth aircraft within range of the ground radars but launched by 4th gen carrying them from farther away. This is pretty standard US doctrine.
The F-35 specifically was designed for environments like Ukraine. The combat there is shaped by the lack of capability like that from either side.
Autonomous flight control software is still only able to handle the simplest missions. Maybe that will change in a few years but for now anything complex requires a remote pilot, and those communication links are very vulnerable.
Torpedo boats didn't make Battleships obsolete. Aircraft carriers did. Because they could do the same role but better.
AntiTank rifles didn't make tanks obsolete. Neither did anti-tank mines. Nor anti-tank rocket launchers, nor anti-tank artillery, nor really freaking good anti-tank missiles, nor anti-tank helicopters etc etc. Turns out, putting a box of steel around soldiers is pretty much always better. IFVs are even less survivable than a tank in all cases and they have only become more important and prominent because what capability they provide is what matters.
Artillery and Air power did not make the army obsolete. Air power did not make Artillery obsolete though the USA wanted that reality.
Submarines didn't make any boat obsolete.
SAM systems did not make planes obsolete. Hell, America decided the solution to missiles aimed at your planes was fly planes at the missile launcher! And it works because war is stupid.
"Cheap drones" only work against things that haven't yet adapted to cheap drones in the exact same way that Navy had to adapt to anti-ship missiles. With EW, those "cheap" drones get less cheap. With any sort of advancement in protection, those drones get less cheap. War is about achieving physical control, and you can't really do that with cheap drones. There's always back and forth in weapons systems. We still use bayonets in the right circumstances!
Cheap drones cannot establish air superiority, and certainly not air supremacy. Actual air combat drones are far more expensive, involved, and in development than quadcopters.
The primary power drones bring is ISR, making the entire battlefield utterly transparent, including at nighttime. That's insane, and really really bad for any of us who might be forced to fight in the future, as lethality to the average soldier is likely to go up.
It's lot more about operational costs and project deliverables than plain sticker shock, and it is turning out to be a capable platform.
Same for me. I was surprised to hear that it actually competes favorably on price. And aside from early griping that it couldn't beat an ancient F-16 in a dogfight, it seems pretty capable in that regard too. Saw a demo at the last airshow I went to and that plane was defying physics. I love the 16, always will, but I definitely don't think it would hang with an F-35.
I would be interested to see how far they've brought the technology in the intervening, uh ... 30 years. Damn. That old computer (old by technology, ours was pretty new in practical terms) was the only mainframe I've ever used. Booted it up by loading a tape reel and programming registers. I still remember that the 'happy' code was something like 0B00BE in between cycles, anything else and it had crashed.
/end trip down memory lane
The F-35 is designed as a node in that network, and afaik is one of the most advanced sensor nodes. It also receives data from the network, but it is a major contributor (partly due to operating in front, often in enemy territory, etc., afaik).
Part of using the network data is having an onboard computer that can make sense of it. Even in older planes without the network input and with smaller sensor areas, pilots faced cognitive overload from trying to interpret relatively raw data from a half-dozen or more sensors each on their own output device (screen, etc). - what's a bird, what's an ally, what's a non-combatant, what's an enemy and what's a missile - all while piloting a plane, being shot at, etc. F-35's have a computer that integrates the inputs, refines the data, identifies objects, and displays that in a unified UI on ~1 screen.
Another reason for the investment in its sensors is that situational awareness is considered by far the most decisive factor in air combat. Whoever sees and shoots first tends to win. Also, it needs to survive and be effective if cut off from outside communications.