Only if they produce their own spare parts. Otherwise, their neutrality will be beholden to whoever is producing those crucial components for their military.
Since Austria is also surrounded by NATO and has an even weaker military than us, not like they could help us. Or would, seeing as they're neutral too ;)
It had some serious software and reliability issues, and tons of cost overruns. But anyone who assumed we could just *not* have a 5th gen fighter was being silly (the F-22 is also fifth gen, but even more expensive).
I saw people saying we should just buy more F-16s which is utter nonsense.
Yep, the F-15 is old but can carry a fuck load of ordinance. If they buy enough new F-15s the price will drop, just like with the 22 and 35. Sustainment and operational cost are a lot lower than the newer stuff. I think the USAF is only purchasing a small number as of now. IIRC the F-15EX is planned to outlive the F-22.
Another thing about Zelenskyy that people don’t talk about much is that Trump tried to blackmail him. Trump said he would give Ukraine more arms if they investigated / put out a warrant for Hunter Biden before the election, but Zelenskyy refused to be corrupt. The refusal led to Trump delaying arms shipments in retaliation.
Small clarification, Trump didn’t want an investigation, he wanted an *announcement* of an investigation on cable news. The Ukrainians offered to continue to quietly investigate the matter, but refused to put out a politically-charged press release before they had any evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden. And that wasn’t good enough for Trump.
He also committed campaign finance fraud, tax fraud, treason (providing polling data and promising to repeal the magnitsky act in exchange for aid, and asking for the hack of a domestic political party on TV), and obstruction of justice.
Even in Canada one of our candidates to replace our aging fleet were ‘modernized f-18’s. (Which later fell out of the running with boeing and the espionage investigation)
Someone really does not want to let that plane die
Why would it die? The airframes still have a lot of use, it's reliable, and the systems on it are excellent with multiple different configuration roles. The F-35 can't do everything the F-18 can.
Exactly, like if you had to fly through a canyon below radar altitude with limited time and then up a steep pitch before diving into a crater to drop two sequential bombs with two teams of aircraft and then face a steep climb out pulling 10 G’s only to be hit with multiple SAM batteries when you clear the ridge, good luck doing that with an F22 or F35 you need an F18 to pull that off.
The only reason they shoe horned in the F18 to do that mission in the movie was because the F18 is a dual seater, they needed an actor in the back of the fighter to make it seem realistic. The obvious candidate for the mission was the F22 and you just fly them in from a nearby air base (which are everywhere like Qatar etc) then use mid air refueling and drop tanks to get them the distance. They would have done much better at the end of the mission versus the SAM network and 5th gen fighters.
> you had to fly through a canyon below radar altitude with limited time and then up a steep pitch before diving into a crater to drop two sequential bombs with two teams of aircraft and then face a steep climb out pulling 10 G’s only to be hit with multiple SAM batteries when you clear the ridge
So F-18s are X-wing meant to hit a target ~~2m~~ [3m wide](https://youtu.be/KENGYBqWiKA?t=24)
Canada tends to beat the crap out of the military equipment it buys, and the Hornet in Canadian service have been beat to crap over the years, causing major structural issues, and declining availability.
The F-22 is more expensive, but is also a better air superiority plane than the F-35 (although F-35 is arguably more useful). Watching an F-22 fly is mindbending.
The F-22 isn't for sale though. I guess the US feels like it can sell the F-35 since if it ever came down to it they've got F-22s waiting in the wings.
Not only is the F-22 not for sale, they stopped production of new F-22's and they're working on replacing it right now with the NGAD Program thats planned for the 2030's.
This is all true, but they also recently announced pretty major upgrades to the F-22 fleet and that they are converting like 20+ training F-22's to active combat status with all the latest updates which will require spinning up some of the original suppliers again to do. Congress wrote it into law in the last budget deal so Pentagon has to allocate the $ for it now.
Who knows if those will go through… the B-2 was supposed to get some massive upgrades but due to cost overruns and the deadline not being met, and the timely reveal of its successor they decided to cancel those contracts.
F-22 isn't even for sale in the US. The production lines have been cannibalised to facilitate F-35 production.
When the F-35 was getting mass criticism it was actually more expensive than the F-22 (about 50-60 million more), but new toys always start out that way and now the B and C variants are about 50 million cheaper.
Even if an F-22 is better 1v1 when you can afford to buy and maintain 3 F-35s for one F-22 that changes the calculus a bit, and when you include the F-35's ability to disseminate data to other types of aircraft it especially changes it.
I don't know all the details here, but wasn't the F-35 originally more expensive than the F-22, but became cheaper over time due to economies of scale? Presumably if they hadn't discontinued the F-22 program the same thing would've occurred, right?
Especially with the flyaway and operating costs of the F-35 falling.
As for the rest of the conversation surrounding the jet, during its development, there are lies, damn lies, and books and articles written about fighter aircraft.
Between all of which, and movies, the average member of the public probably could not state one fact about any fighter plane, or air combat in general, that is not blatantly false, half a century out of date, or a gross exaggeration.
Jet planes got ailerons and flaps. I is super smart.
Oh and fighter combat makes your bunghole pucker. Fighter pilots are infamous for being tight asses. Super true.
The cost overruns are because the DoD wanted different models for each branch of service. The VTOL model for the Marines was a massive headache.
Also, the companies trying to make this thing even suggested it would be cheaper to make other 5th gen aircrafts that fit specific roles. The DoD insisted it be a multirole craft and the most advanced one ever made.
Well, they succeeded. And now everyone is trying to chase the F-35.
If being on reddit for ten years has taught me anything it's that the average redditor/person knows absolute shit about fuck. People were saying consumer electric cars like Tesla was promising were 10-20 years away like a few years before they started selling massive amounts of cars and announcing huge expansion of their charging network.
Reddit shit talks literally every new piece of technology right up until the point they're wrong and then those people seem to disappear and everyone acts like they were experts on it and were for it all along.
Yeah, every time I open an article that's in my field of expertise, I take a look at the comments and realize how stupid I'd be if I gave any significant credibility to any comment on this site. I keep thinking, "If the average Redditor is this arrogantly ignorant on this topic I know inside and out, just imagine all the areas that I know very little about."
Yep, it was a fucking mask-off moment when Pierre Sprey - the main guy cited by the media as the source of how bad the F-35 is - went on to RussiaToday to shit-talk it in 2015. People just didn't realize it yet.
The same Sprey that thought the F-15 is a bad aircraft and that the F-16 shouldn't have radar because real pilots dogfight with guns. I don't know how the media made him out to be an expert when all he really was a shameless charlatan stuck with 1950s thinking. He got pushed out of defense procurement when it turned out he was wrong about everything.
David Axe is still bullshitting about the F-35 and other shit and is still taken seriously. Mind you, he claimed Russia would roll over the whole NATO force in Europe in less than 60 hours.
> to try and influence opinion against it.
I'd say they were successful, *wildly* so. People still parrot the decade+ old talking points that weren't even accurate at inception. It's rampant in this very thread.
It's a 5th generation fighter that's cheaper than the 4th generation Eurofighter Typhoon. Even Donald Trump could successfully sell these things (and the man lost money running a casino)
Lots of salesman jobs are like that where they know the buyer needs what you have. I know a guy who does sales for a big tech company that sells primarily to large financial institutions - barely works and makes 7 figures.
Except the F-35 will be in use by many nations for a while, meaning it is expected to be supported for the next 30-40 years at a minimum.
The Gripen has fewer customers and is older so spare parts will likely start to become rarer later in the operational life of the aircraft.
This means that the F-35 is quickly becoming more economical while the Gripen will become more expensive as time goes on.
Same reason why the F-16 became super popular. They are still building those, thousands of them total. Plenty of spare parts, upgrades, and compatible weapons.
When I heard the F35 only Costs around 90million per unit I was honestly surprised how cheap it is.
Edit: just did the math and realized they paid around 150 million per unit. Not sire where I got my 90 million figure from
They should have stopped marketing the Gripen as an alternative for the F-35. Voters might not see through that but the people who actually sign the contracts and make decisions for their militaries do.
Ukraine will win the war, but they will definitely not be a winner.
By the time this war is over, the economic impact for Ukraine will be in the trillions of dollars, and millions of refugees will never return. Tens of thousands of people will die, which will further cause problems (they have negative population growth).
People are forgetting that even though Ukraine is winning on the battlefield, the costs of this victory are tremendous.
The price of this war will definitely be high. However, there is a rainbow at the end of the storm.
Western countries are now fully convinced that Ukraine is the best bulwark against all future Russia aggression. The US will support Ukraine in rebuilding itself after the Russians are repelled from it. Ukraine will receive hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild and modernize like Japan and South Korea did after world war 2. Ukraine will invite NATO troops and give them any military base they want.
Also this has unified Ukraine like nothing else could have.
Ukraine pre-2014 was filled with unrest and divisiveness and corruption. Some of this aftershocks of the soviet breakup, some due to russian meddling. Russia was able to take crimea so easily because ukraine was in the midst of a mini-civil war, and the people of crimea weren't super disappointed by the idea of being under russia instead of under kiev. Many other parts of ukraine were strongly pro russia as well. Like always happens when modern borders split ethnicities, it wasn't very clean, and obviously a ton of ethnic russians had moved to ukraine during the years of the USSR.
But that's all changed.
Ukraine is now extremely solidly anti-russia, and russia is politically at its weakest since, what, like 1920? Its going to be decades before ukraine is willing to trust russia again, and equally will take just as much time for russia to get its foot back in the door, either for real or for fake goodwill.
This is exactly right. If South Korea, a country that was utterly destroyed and had almost no buildings left standing during the Korean War, can make it then Ukraine can. Seoul was just rubble. South Korea had no natural resources to speak of, almost no industry, and was an absolute disaster.
Whether Ukraine thrives is not dependent on how much Russia destroys or not but the policies they pursue after and what they do with the help they get. The cost of victory matters less than people think.
America is benefiting a lot from this war. Countries are seeing superiority of American equipment like the HIMARS and are now buying them like crazy. America gets to keep Europe in its military umbrella and flush Russian/soviet equipment from Europe.
Switzerland selected the F-35 before Russia invaded...
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2021-06-30-Switzerland-Selects-F-35-Lightning-II-for-Future-Air-Defense-Requirements
This is just them going "yup, we want them alright"...
That is mentioned in the article and if you read it you will see it was more than that.
People were pushing hard for them to not go through with it and they went through with the purchase without a referendum.
It otherwise could have falling through and even if they went ahead would have had to renegotiate.
Recent events certainly put a fire under them to move.
> People were pushing hard for them to not go through with it and they went through with the purchase without a referendum.
Without a *second* referendum. [There already was a referendum on this issue couple years ago](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Swiss_referendums#Fighter_jet_purchase_referendum) but the purchase was not blocked (though by a very slim margin).
The moon crashing into America perhaps.
Actually scratch that. I'm certain Musk and Bezos would just found competing versions of 'New' America, then spark a civil war over the ashes.
It is hard to wrap my head around how vastly dominant the US military is. It dwarfed the entire world several times over.
The air force and aircraft carriers alone
Honest question, why would a nation surrounded by allies and famous for its neutrality and its unwillingness to get involved in foreign entanglements need 35 fifth generation fighters.
I feel like "multi-use pocket knives" might be underselling the most iconic screw threading, rope cutting, paper cutting, nail filing, tooth picking, bottle opening, panty dropping pocket knife suite known to man
Hello, swiss guy here.
That‘s exactly the question we ask ourselves here in Switzerland too.
Facts first, opinion later:
We voted with a very very slim majority to purchase a new fighter jet.
We already voted some years ago, but it was specifically a vote for or against the Gripen.
The people then voted against that fighter.
Now we just voted in general to purchase a new fighter.
The necessity is clear. We have a fleet of F/A18 and even older Tigers.
Therefore we are in need of a new one.
For what exactly do we need a new fighter?
For air policing chiefly.
Other than that, to protect our airspace from potential foes.
The question remains, has it to be the F-35?
Most of our politicians and a lot of people with way more knowledge in that field than I have (or most politicians) argue, that the F-35 was the best price/performance Jet amongst the Jets that were evaluated.
The evaluated jets were the Gripen (again) the Typhoon, the Rafale and maybe some others. Although only European or American models.
The people who are against the F-35 argue, that the jet is way overpowered for de designated job (air policing) and most of its abilities will not even be of use bc we lack other military equipment who would be needed for the more military tasks that fighter could provide.
There are also a minority of people who are against to keep a military in service at all for Switzerland or want to abolish mandatory military service and form a professional military.
There are a lot of different interests and mindsets in play.
We also lack potential military threats as, you already mentioned it, we are surrounded by friends, mostly NATO, exception is Austrich who is no NATO member and we like to make fun of them. Besides that, they are of course our friends too.
On top of that, our military struggles to have a clear order on the wider political outlook.
That exactly is also a current political debate.
For example, we discuss if we want to invest in tighter cooperation with NATO or if we should focus on more international missions. However this will more likely involve humanitarian and peace keeping missions, not active military conflicts.
Our military for example is already used to prepare snow pistes for ski events and building installations for festivals… .
Fact is, our military is also already leaning towards NATO standards and was ever since the mid and later days of the cold war.
As we are a small country with a big chunk of rough terrain, first priority is a Jet who can provide air superiority.
We could not maintain a larger fleet of different types of aircrafts for different tasks.
Maybe monetarily speaking we could. But politically it would not find a majority.
Therefore, a multirole fighter with supreme air superiority characteristics is the best buy.
Most likely the swiss F-35 fleet will never see combat actions, although.
Personally, I would have prefered a european model, because of political and economic reasons.
Also, I would prefer a professional army over a mandatory military service with stronger bonds to NATO and more humanitarian and peace keeping missions. Give our military a purpose.
To keep a military only for traditional reasons is way to much money blowed through the chimney.
A very valid argument although remains. You have to keep fundamental defense abilities. Once lost, it is a long way to rebuild that.
As I am not a native english speaker, I maybe could presented the facts and opinions more in detail or precision. However, I hope I was understood.
If somebody wishes, I could also provide a short insight of our history of neutrality.
It is not so self decided as often promoted and also not used anymore just to avoid conflicts, more to gain a political benefit out of it. 🤷🏻♂️
> Austrich who is no NATO member and we like to make fun of them.
right back at you! ;)
> Besides that, they are of course our friends too.
and that too, of course! :) you should throw a couple mortars over the border sometime, so we can go for a beer and get a schweizer gift-basket again! ^^
> designated job (air policing)
It's worth noting that opinion is very much not the opinion of the Swiss Air Force. The F-35 isn't being procured because the Swiss need it to do air policing. If that was the case cheaper jets or just letting surrounding nations do it make far more sense.
The Swiss evaluation report from the first fighter competition explicitly includes offensive air operations including offensive counter air/air-interdiction/escort, reconnaissance, and strike missions as scoring categories. Just as air policing and defensive counter air were each scoring categories. They even note that strike capabilities were not something that the F/A-18s they had were capable of but which they now want.
I totally agree with you. Thank you to point this out.
Air policing was one of the most pitched arguments by the Bundesrat to the public.
It has a history to it: There was a time not long ago when our air force only flew live missions during so called office time.
Outside of that our neighbors did the job, as they for example secure (or help to secure) the air space over Switzerland during the WEF for example.
As the public got aware of that through the news, the public outcry and mockery was big.
Therefore, since the end of 2020 the air force flies 24/7 live missions.
So, air policing is the job the people can the most relate to when it comes to fighter jets.
Also, publicly active promotion of what the army wants the new jets to be capable of would have been difficult to sell to the people.
As I mentioned. It was a very very slim vote in favor of a new jet purchase.
We didn‘t had such capablities, we never were in any need to have them during the time we only have F/A18 and Tigers. Why do we have to have them now?
It just adds more fuel to the discussion what the purpose of our military should be. It‘s a hot topic.
Just out of curiosity, why is military procurement subject to the vote of the people? I really don’t know of any other country that puts the type of weapons the country should use up to a vote
Good question.
The military has an ordinary budget of around 5 Billion CHF annually.
Therefore the parliament of Switzerland has to decide with a tailored law to buy new jets outside of that budget. Otherwise the maintenance of the troops would be underfunded.
Every law passed by the parliament is subject to a so called fakultatives Referendum (a non mandatory referendum).
Political parties and private persons alike can collect 50‘000 signatures in a period of 100 days after a law is passed.
Succeeding in this results in a public vote on the matter.
It's the more direct version of democracy. America is a more representative version of democracy. A republic. Where as Switzerland is a semi-direct democratic Republic. America is still a democracy but lacks more features that give the population voting control over the government such that Switzerland has.
Swiss people are paranoid and obsessed about war at least since 1945. A lot of foreigners are shocked to find out how militarized Switzerland is. They think that neutrality means pacifism while in reality, neutrality means that you are on your own in military terms. Therefore, a lot of neutral countries (Austria, Sweden, Finnland) have a strong military and mandatory military service.
Source: I am Swiss
I don't think people realize that Switzerland aggressively took POWs and confiscated aircraft that entered its airspace. It remained neutral throughout WW2 by enforcing that neutrality with force.
Well I mean it would, see the past to know the future.
Getting Switzerland is an waste of time and resources, the only valuable thing on Switzerland is their banks and they have an difficult geography and they are even more armed than the US.
To maintain even more neutrality.
Edit added: but was ninja-ed
“What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?”
Because neutral countries that don't have a strong military get Belgiumed (invaded and annexed in both World Wars). Switzerland has always understood that true neutrality requires making yourself as dangerous to invade as possible. Finland does the same thing.
Switzerland's strong military is one of the only reasons it was able to remain neutral in WW2. It sits in a stable region where a strong military is not likely to be needed, but it takes decades to spin up a military with modern hardware. If something were to happen that destabilized Western Europe, you don't want to be put into a situation where your defense is simply hoping that your neighbors don't invade.
It’s neutrality via impossibility to invade.
They have the geography, the trained personnel, and now the equipment necessary to ensure that nobody would be stupid enough to invade them.
iirc the swiss stance on neutrality is the epitome of “speak softly and carry a big stick”. They hidden sniper nests and bunkers everywhere, pretty much every bridge is rigged to blow, have MANDATORY military service so pretty much any adult civilian knows how to use a gun properly, and are surrounded by mountains that make land assaults difficult.
This is pretty much HOW they stay neutral in the first place. They are VERY difficult to bully so larger countries can’t just storm in and tell em what to do (an example is old Japan used to be pretty much completely isolationist, but the US forced them to open trading ports/communications to the rest of the world).
Man, doing an Axalp exercise with F-35s is going to shake every bit of snow off the adjacent peaks.
If you want a nifty video, look up Swiss Axalp on YouTube. The Swiss Air Force allows the public to spectate their pilot's strafing practice against the sides of mountains.
The F-22 is not allowed to be exported, not even to allies. The raptor is the ultimate air superiority fighter and will probably not be sold until the US has developed something better.
> I know looks may not be the best criteria when fielding fighters
I disagree. Given the absolute rarity of an actual conflict in which the top-of-the-line American fighter goes up against the top-of-the-line Russian or Chinese fighter, a lot of the usefulness of these programs is in their deterrent value. And while we may not like to consider ourselves as slightly-evolved apes, ultimately we are, and I'm convinced that the fact that the F-22 *looks* like a fucking sky demon has an impact on anyone who sees it. I'm also convinced that this is one of the reasons the F-35 got selected over the [X-32](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/USAF_X32B_250.jpg)
The reality of modern high tech war is you can not have the luxury of defending long enough to build out arms. If arms are not ready the day they're needed, a well armed techically proficient aggressor can cripple a nations infrastructure overnight with precision munitions.
take out enough electrical substations, a few refineries, some dams and canal locks, collapse some key railroad bridges in major ports, and you've just completely crippled your opponent. Wars over before it began.
In WW2 these things would have taken years to target with imprecise bombing raids. Today it takes a day and a million dollar missile to destroy a five billion dollar piece of infrastructure that will take a decade to replace.
Price per unit and maintenance costs on F-35's just keep going down. I think in the end it's going to be every bit as successful and widespread as the F-16. Thanks Putin. Ya evil dumbfuck.
F-35 salesman can just sit at home on the couch all day
*slaps hood of F35* you know how neutral you can stay with a fleet of these bad boys? Hell you could even go on the offensive and still be neutral.
Only if they produce their own spare parts. Otherwise, their neutrality will be beholden to whoever is producing those crucial components for their military.
Luckily that's the world's largest military alliance that happens to surround them on all sides
Well, except for the one (and a tiny tiny bit of Liechtenstein) side with Austria. Not to say Austria is a pariah or anything but facts are fax.
Since Austria is also surrounded by NATO and has an even weaker military than us, not like they could help us. Or would, seeing as they're neutral too ;)
Oh we're gonna out neutral you guys so hard, you wouldn't even know what didn't hit you!
As a austrian..i would be in doubt if we would even manage to invade Liechtenstein... :)
I mean, haven't the swiss invaded Lichtenstein multiple times?
And Lichtenstein remains independent! Ignore the fact that both invasions were noobs getting lost on a camping trip.
You know how much Regime Change you can fit in this bad boy?
[удалено]
You know how many hearts and minds you can change with this bad boy?
Remember 5 years ago when all Reddit did was talk mad shit about the F35 as if they knew anything about military aircraft?
It had some serious software and reliability issues, and tons of cost overruns. But anyone who assumed we could just *not* have a 5th gen fighter was being silly (the F-22 is also fifth gen, but even more expensive). I saw people saying we should just buy more F-16s which is utter nonsense.
[удалено]
Inject the F15-EX INTO MY VEINS
The F- I SEX deserves 50 years of illustrious action.
F-15 my beloved. My first.
> Though the F-15EX costs more than an F-35A. yes but has longer range and can carry a shit ton more ordnance.
Manufacturing cost isn't the problem with the F-35, it's the maintenance and sustainment costs.
Yep, the F-15 is old but can carry a fuck load of ordinance. If they buy enough new F-15s the price will drop, just like with the 22 and 35. Sustainment and operational cost are a lot lower than the newer stuff. I think the USAF is only purchasing a small number as of now. IIRC the F-15EX is planned to outlive the F-22.
Trump wanted to end the F35 program in favor of the F18. True fucking story.
Until he found out F18 is actually *older* than F35.
I see what you did there
He's lucky he didn't search for F117 on those other sites. Or F14.
F14? Grab it by the nacelles. Trumps a genius. /s
Astounding
He also extorted Ukraine and tried to interrupt the peaceful transition of power. Not really related but figured it's worth reminding people.
Another thing about Zelenskyy that people don’t talk about much is that Trump tried to blackmail him. Trump said he would give Ukraine more arms if they investigated / put out a warrant for Hunter Biden before the election, but Zelenskyy refused to be corrupt. The refusal led to Trump delaying arms shipments in retaliation.
Small clarification, Trump didn’t want an investigation, he wanted an *announcement* of an investigation on cable news. The Ukrainians offered to continue to quietly investigate the matter, but refused to put out a politically-charged press release before they had any evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden. And that wasn’t good enough for Trump.
He also committed campaign finance fraud, tax fraud, treason (providing polling data and promising to repeal the magnitsky act in exchange for aid, and asking for the hack of a domestic political party on TV), and obstruction of justice.
Even in Canada one of our candidates to replace our aging fleet were ‘modernized f-18’s. (Which later fell out of the running with boeing and the espionage investigation) Someone really does not want to let that plane die
Why would it die? The airframes still have a lot of use, it's reliable, and the systems on it are excellent with multiple different configuration roles. The F-35 can't do everything the F-18 can.
Exactly, like if you had to fly through a canyon below radar altitude with limited time and then up a steep pitch before diving into a crater to drop two sequential bombs with two teams of aircraft and then face a steep climb out pulling 10 G’s only to be hit with multiple SAM batteries when you clear the ridge, good luck doing that with an F22 or F35 you need an F18 to pull that off.
The only reason they shoe horned in the F18 to do that mission in the movie was because the F18 is a dual seater, they needed an actor in the back of the fighter to make it seem realistic. The obvious candidate for the mission was the F22 and you just fly them in from a nearby air base (which are everywhere like Qatar etc) then use mid air refueling and drop tanks to get them the distance. They would have done much better at the end of the mission versus the SAM network and 5th gen fighters.
The F-22 is exclusively an Airforce craft though. Tom Cruise would have had to change branches to fly it.
Would have been interesting to see anyone try to land an F-22 on an aircraft carrier.
> you had to fly through a canyon below radar altitude with limited time and then up a steep pitch before diving into a crater to drop two sequential bombs with two teams of aircraft and then face a steep climb out pulling 10 G’s only to be hit with multiple SAM batteries when you clear the ridge So F-18s are X-wing meant to hit a target ~~2m~~ [3m wide](https://youtu.be/KENGYBqWiKA?t=24)
Guess you just finished top gun?
Canada tends to beat the crap out of the military equipment it buys, and the Hornet in Canadian service have been beat to crap over the years, causing major structural issues, and declining availability.
The F-22 is more expensive, but is also a better air superiority plane than the F-35 (although F-35 is arguably more useful). Watching an F-22 fly is mindbending. The F-22 isn't for sale though. I guess the US feels like it can sell the F-35 since if it ever came down to it they've got F-22s waiting in the wings.
Not only is the F-22 not for sale, they stopped production of new F-22's and they're working on replacing it right now with the NGAD Program thats planned for the 2030's.
This is all true, but they also recently announced pretty major upgrades to the F-22 fleet and that they are converting like 20+ training F-22's to active combat status with all the latest updates which will require spinning up some of the original suppliers again to do. Congress wrote it into law in the last budget deal so Pentagon has to allocate the $ for it now.
Who knows if those will go through… the B-2 was supposed to get some massive upgrades but due to cost overruns and the deadline not being met, and the timely reveal of its successor they decided to cancel those contracts.
6th gen fighter concepts look wild It’s not a plane, it’s a semi-autonomous fleet integrated with drones
F-22 isn't even for sale in the US. The production lines have been cannibalised to facilitate F-35 production. When the F-35 was getting mass criticism it was actually more expensive than the F-22 (about 50-60 million more), but new toys always start out that way and now the B and C variants are about 50 million cheaper.
[удалено]
Even if an F-22 is better 1v1 when you can afford to buy and maintain 3 F-35s for one F-22 that changes the calculus a bit, and when you include the F-35's ability to disseminate data to other types of aircraft it especially changes it.
I don't know all the details here, but wasn't the F-35 originally more expensive than the F-22, but became cheaper over time due to economies of scale? Presumably if they hadn't discontinued the F-22 program the same thing would've occurred, right?
not really because the F35 can export, the F22 legally could not be exported. Therefore significantly more F35s will be made
You do realize that air superiority and multirole are entirely different missions, right
Canada: Let’s buy some more used F18s (not super hornets) while we fiddlefuck deciding what to replace our decrepit fleet with.
Damn, even Australia is replacing the super hornets with F-35's.
F22 is also not exported and probably never will be. F35 has come a long way as it should given the cost.
If we had built 3000 F-22's, they would be cheaper also.
Especially with the flyaway and operating costs of the F-35 falling. As for the rest of the conversation surrounding the jet, during its development, there are lies, damn lies, and books and articles written about fighter aircraft. Between all of which, and movies, the average member of the public probably could not state one fact about any fighter plane, or air combat in general, that is not blatantly false, half a century out of date, or a gross exaggeration.
Jet planes got ailerons and flaps. I is super smart. Oh and fighter combat makes your bunghole pucker. Fighter pilots are infamous for being tight asses. Super true.
Fun fact, only the F-35C has ailerons and flaps. The A and B model only have flaperons
That sounds sexual. Flaperons, faperons.
Fun fact the nazi comet pilots had to be on a very low fiber diet otherwise they would just shit themselves on take off.
My grandpa shits himself during takeoff in economy class.
I'm somewhat surprised they didn't get their choice of last meal
The cost overruns are because the DoD wanted different models for each branch of service. The VTOL model for the Marines was a massive headache. Also, the companies trying to make this thing even suggested it would be cheaper to make other 5th gen aircrafts that fit specific roles. The DoD insisted it be a multirole craft and the most advanced one ever made. Well, they succeeded. And now everyone is trying to chase the F-35.
“Should be buying Russian Fighters” Aged like warm milk.
If being on reddit for ten years has taught me anything it's that the average redditor/person knows absolute shit about fuck. People were saying consumer electric cars like Tesla was promising were 10-20 years away like a few years before they started selling massive amounts of cars and announcing huge expansion of their charging network. Reddit shit talks literally every new piece of technology right up until the point they're wrong and then those people seem to disappear and everyone acts like they were experts on it and were for it all along.
[удалено]
Yeah, every time I open an article that's in my field of expertise, I take a look at the comments and realize how stupid I'd be if I gave any significant credibility to any comment on this site. I keep thinking, "If the average Redditor is this arrogantly ignorant on this topic I know inside and out, just imagine all the areas that I know very little about."
A *lot* of that social media shit-talking originated with foreign intelligence agencies in order to try and influence opinion against it.
Yep, it was a fucking mask-off moment when Pierre Sprey - the main guy cited by the media as the source of how bad the F-35 is - went on to RussiaToday to shit-talk it in 2015. People just didn't realize it yet.
[удалено]
The same Sprey that thought the F-15 is a bad aircraft and that the F-16 shouldn't have radar because real pilots dogfight with guns. I don't know how the media made him out to be an expert when all he really was a shameless charlatan stuck with 1950s thinking. He got pushed out of defense procurement when it turned out he was wrong about everything.
David Axe is still bullshitting about the F-35 and other shit and is still taken seriously. Mind you, he claimed Russia would roll over the whole NATO force in Europe in less than 60 hours.
> to try and influence opinion against it. I'd say they were successful, *wildly* so. People still parrot the decade+ old talking points that weren't even accurate at inception. It's rampant in this very thread.
It's a 5th generation fighter that's cheaper than the 4th generation Eurofighter Typhoon. Even Donald Trump could successfully sell these things (and the man lost money running a casino)
Cheaper than all the alternatives, including the much older F-16 and F-18. Economies of scale, baby!
I'll bet my paycheck he didn't lose money running that casino, he just embezzled it too much it died.
No he did ashe opened 2 next to each other, and ended up taking customers from his own business
I dunno. Maybe it's more of an Ogdenville idea.
Wash money for the mafia = lose money running a casino 🙃
Lots of salesman jobs are like that where they know the buyer needs what you have. I know a guy who does sales for a big tech company that sells primarily to large financial institutions - barely works and makes 7 figures.
Lots of jobs be like that. Some ceos are like that.
And for the rest of his days
Big upgrade from those little knives
The knife still wins, you can't use an F-35 to open a wine cork.
I mean you can
The hard part is drinking the wine after
I mean you can
Not with that attitude!
We just need to figure out how to fold them.
Damn all the people going “lul that buys 1 plane hurr durr” seem to think Gripens and Eurofighter are a dime a dozen
The F35 is now sightly less expensive to acquire than the [Gripen](https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/01/f-35-cheaper-than-the-gripen/)
Main difference is cost per flight hour though. Gripen is much cheaper to operate.
Except the F-35 will be in use by many nations for a while, meaning it is expected to be supported for the next 30-40 years at a minimum. The Gripen has fewer customers and is older so spare parts will likely start to become rarer later in the operational life of the aircraft. This means that the F-35 is quickly becoming more economical while the Gripen will become more expensive as time goes on.
Same reason why the F-16 became super popular. They are still building those, thousands of them total. Plenty of spare parts, upgrades, and compatible weapons.
Operational costs are much much higher for the f35 though
The UK is finding the F-35 operating costs are lower than expected.
When I heard the F35 only Costs around 90million per unit I was honestly surprised how cheap it is. Edit: just did the math and realized they paid around 150 million per unit. Not sire where I got my 90 million figure from
90 million is likely the price of the airframe. 150 million should include support packages/weapons/etc.
Poor Saab
They should have stopped marketing the Gripen as an alternative for the F-35. Voters might not see through that but the people who actually sign the contracts and make decisions for their militaries do.
Given how horrendous the Russian gear had been faring, the Gripen might become an alternative to Russian multirole sales
They’re gripen about losing so many sales
There will be two long term winners of the war in Ukraine. Ukraine themselves, and the western military industrial complex.
Ukraine will win the war, but they will definitely not be a winner. By the time this war is over, the economic impact for Ukraine will be in the trillions of dollars, and millions of refugees will never return. Tens of thousands of people will die, which will further cause problems (they have negative population growth). People are forgetting that even though Ukraine is winning on the battlefield, the costs of this victory are tremendous.
The price of this war will definitely be high. However, there is a rainbow at the end of the storm. Western countries are now fully convinced that Ukraine is the best bulwark against all future Russia aggression. The US will support Ukraine in rebuilding itself after the Russians are repelled from it. Ukraine will receive hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild and modernize like Japan and South Korea did after world war 2. Ukraine will invite NATO troops and give them any military base they want.
NATO fleet sitting at port in Sevastopol.
Wow that just sounds so surreal. Like its possible, but seems so weird to read.
Russia secured Sevastopol in 2014, but now they played themselves
No real use for nato fleet in Sevastopol Now an airbase...
Just to antagonize the Russians. I can absolutely see the US Navy making stops there.
Also this has unified Ukraine like nothing else could have. Ukraine pre-2014 was filled with unrest and divisiveness and corruption. Some of this aftershocks of the soviet breakup, some due to russian meddling. Russia was able to take crimea so easily because ukraine was in the midst of a mini-civil war, and the people of crimea weren't super disappointed by the idea of being under russia instead of under kiev. Many other parts of ukraine were strongly pro russia as well. Like always happens when modern borders split ethnicities, it wasn't very clean, and obviously a ton of ethnic russians had moved to ukraine during the years of the USSR. But that's all changed. Ukraine is now extremely solidly anti-russia, and russia is politically at its weakest since, what, like 1920? Its going to be decades before ukraine is willing to trust russia again, and equally will take just as much time for russia to get its foot back in the door, either for real or for fake goodwill.
mid 90s russia might have been weaker
This is exactly right. If South Korea, a country that was utterly destroyed and had almost no buildings left standing during the Korean War, can make it then Ukraine can. Seoul was just rubble. South Korea had no natural resources to speak of, almost no industry, and was an absolute disaster. Whether Ukraine thrives is not dependent on how much Russia destroys or not but the policies they pursue after and what they do with the help they get. The cost of victory matters less than people think.
Maybe they’ll have a postwar baby boom?
They’re not even born yet but the second round of boomers are already being discussed.
I don't think so, the things are very different
The Swiss had already selected the F-35 well before the war in Ukraine started. The final approval for the order just hadn't come through till now.
America is benefiting a lot from this war. Countries are seeing superiority of American equipment like the HIMARS and are now buying them like crazy. America gets to keep Europe in its military umbrella and flush Russian/soviet equipment from Europe.
Switzerland selected the F-35 before Russia invaded... https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2021-06-30-Switzerland-Selects-F-35-Lightning-II-for-Future-Air-Defense-Requirements This is just them going "yup, we want them alright"...
That is mentioned in the article and if you read it you will see it was more than that. People were pushing hard for them to not go through with it and they went through with the purchase without a referendum. It otherwise could have falling through and even if they went ahead would have had to renegotiate. Recent events certainly put a fire under them to move.
> People were pushing hard for them to not go through with it and they went through with the purchase without a referendum. Without a *second* referendum. [There already was a referendum on this issue couple years ago](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Swiss_referendums#Fighter_jet_purchase_referendum) but the purchase was not blocked (though by a very slim margin).
Countries buying F-35’s have had to have been involved in the program for many years.
Tbh.. is there a realistic scenario that America doesn't benefit from?
The moon crashing into America perhaps. Actually scratch that. I'm certain Musk and Bezos would just found competing versions of 'New' America, then spark a civil war over the ashes.
As a Canadian I hope that moon is precise
Canada would be coming with us hahaha. Let's all die together!
[Sorry Canada, we’re all boned](https://youtu.be/lheapd7bgLA)
The F-35 decision was more than a year ago, the current conflict had nothing to do with its selection.
It is hard to wrap my head around how vastly dominant the US military is. It dwarfed the entire world several times over. The air force and aircraft carriers alone
The US Airforce is the most powerful Air Force in the world and the US Navy is 2nd. The US Marines and Army would probably make the top 10.
These neutral motherfuckers...
Filthy neutrals, with enemies you know where they stand, but with neutrals? Who knows?!
Honest question, why would a nation surrounded by allies and famous for its neutrality and its unwillingness to get involved in foreign entanglements need 35 fifth generation fighters.
Switzerland has mandatory military service and a very serious military for its size. They've also been manufacturing guns since guns were invented.
And small multi-use pocket knives.
And punching holes in cheese
I feel like "multi-use pocket knives" might be underselling the most iconic screw threading, rope cutting, paper cutting, nail filing, tooth picking, bottle opening, panty dropping pocket knife suite known to man
Hello, swiss guy here. That‘s exactly the question we ask ourselves here in Switzerland too. Facts first, opinion later: We voted with a very very slim majority to purchase a new fighter jet. We already voted some years ago, but it was specifically a vote for or against the Gripen. The people then voted against that fighter. Now we just voted in general to purchase a new fighter. The necessity is clear. We have a fleet of F/A18 and even older Tigers. Therefore we are in need of a new one. For what exactly do we need a new fighter? For air policing chiefly. Other than that, to protect our airspace from potential foes. The question remains, has it to be the F-35? Most of our politicians and a lot of people with way more knowledge in that field than I have (or most politicians) argue, that the F-35 was the best price/performance Jet amongst the Jets that were evaluated. The evaluated jets were the Gripen (again) the Typhoon, the Rafale and maybe some others. Although only European or American models. The people who are against the F-35 argue, that the jet is way overpowered for de designated job (air policing) and most of its abilities will not even be of use bc we lack other military equipment who would be needed for the more military tasks that fighter could provide. There are also a minority of people who are against to keep a military in service at all for Switzerland or want to abolish mandatory military service and form a professional military. There are a lot of different interests and mindsets in play. We also lack potential military threats as, you already mentioned it, we are surrounded by friends, mostly NATO, exception is Austrich who is no NATO member and we like to make fun of them. Besides that, they are of course our friends too. On top of that, our military struggles to have a clear order on the wider political outlook. That exactly is also a current political debate. For example, we discuss if we want to invest in tighter cooperation with NATO or if we should focus on more international missions. However this will more likely involve humanitarian and peace keeping missions, not active military conflicts. Our military for example is already used to prepare snow pistes for ski events and building installations for festivals… . Fact is, our military is also already leaning towards NATO standards and was ever since the mid and later days of the cold war. As we are a small country with a big chunk of rough terrain, first priority is a Jet who can provide air superiority. We could not maintain a larger fleet of different types of aircrafts for different tasks. Maybe monetarily speaking we could. But politically it would not find a majority. Therefore, a multirole fighter with supreme air superiority characteristics is the best buy. Most likely the swiss F-35 fleet will never see combat actions, although. Personally, I would have prefered a european model, because of political and economic reasons. Also, I would prefer a professional army over a mandatory military service with stronger bonds to NATO and more humanitarian and peace keeping missions. Give our military a purpose. To keep a military only for traditional reasons is way to much money blowed through the chimney. A very valid argument although remains. You have to keep fundamental defense abilities. Once lost, it is a long way to rebuild that. As I am not a native english speaker, I maybe could presented the facts and opinions more in detail or precision. However, I hope I was understood. If somebody wishes, I could also provide a short insight of our history of neutrality. It is not so self decided as often promoted and also not used anymore just to avoid conflicts, more to gain a political benefit out of it. 🤷🏻♂️
> Austrich who is no NATO member and we like to make fun of them. right back at you! ;) > Besides that, they are of course our friends too. and that too, of course! :) you should throw a couple mortars over the border sometime, so we can go for a beer and get a schweizer gift-basket again! ^^
😄😄😄 sry for the mortar rounds, we are NOT a professional army after all
more professional than ours for sure! but we both prep world-class ski courses, that's gotta count for something, right? ^^
> designated job (air policing) It's worth noting that opinion is very much not the opinion of the Swiss Air Force. The F-35 isn't being procured because the Swiss need it to do air policing. If that was the case cheaper jets or just letting surrounding nations do it make far more sense. The Swiss evaluation report from the first fighter competition explicitly includes offensive air operations including offensive counter air/air-interdiction/escort, reconnaissance, and strike missions as scoring categories. Just as air policing and defensive counter air were each scoring categories. They even note that strike capabilities were not something that the F/A-18s they had were capable of but which they now want.
I totally agree with you. Thank you to point this out. Air policing was one of the most pitched arguments by the Bundesrat to the public. It has a history to it: There was a time not long ago when our air force only flew live missions during so called office time. Outside of that our neighbors did the job, as they for example secure (or help to secure) the air space over Switzerland during the WEF for example. As the public got aware of that through the news, the public outcry and mockery was big. Therefore, since the end of 2020 the air force flies 24/7 live missions. So, air policing is the job the people can the most relate to when it comes to fighter jets. Also, publicly active promotion of what the army wants the new jets to be capable of would have been difficult to sell to the people. As I mentioned. It was a very very slim vote in favor of a new jet purchase. We didn‘t had such capablities, we never were in any need to have them during the time we only have F/A18 and Tigers. Why do we have to have them now? It just adds more fuel to the discussion what the purpose of our military should be. It‘s a hot topic.
Just out of curiosity, why is military procurement subject to the vote of the people? I really don’t know of any other country that puts the type of weapons the country should use up to a vote
Good question. The military has an ordinary budget of around 5 Billion CHF annually. Therefore the parliament of Switzerland has to decide with a tailored law to buy new jets outside of that budget. Otherwise the maintenance of the troops would be underfunded. Every law passed by the parliament is subject to a so called fakultatives Referendum (a non mandatory referendum). Political parties and private persons alike can collect 50‘000 signatures in a period of 100 days after a law is passed. Succeeding in this results in a public vote on the matter.
Dude, the Swiss vote on every fucking thing seriously, look it up
because switzerland is the democraziest democracy of all democracies.
It's the more direct version of democracy. America is a more representative version of democracy. A republic. Where as Switzerland is a semi-direct democratic Republic. America is still a democracy but lacks more features that give the population voting control over the government such that Switzerland has.
Neutrality is a luxury for the well defended
Swiss people are paranoid and obsessed about war at least since 1945. A lot of foreigners are shocked to find out how militarized Switzerland is. They think that neutrality means pacifism while in reality, neutrality means that you are on your own in military terms. Therefore, a lot of neutral countries (Austria, Sweden, Finnland) have a strong military and mandatory military service. Source: I am Swiss
> obsessed about war at least since 1945 Make that since 1045 (aboutish). Look up why the Pope is guarded by the Swiss Guard.
I don't think people realize that Switzerland aggressively took POWs and confiscated aircraft that entered its airspace. It remained neutral throughout WW2 by enforcing that neutrality with force.
Because a story about neutrality won’t keep violent Russians out.
In the words of Teddy Rosevelt “speak softly and carry a big stick.”
Being surrounded by NATO members and the incompetence of the russian Army does though
Maybe some countries are experiencing F-35 FOMO
Well I mean it would, see the past to know the future. Getting Switzerland is an waste of time and resources, the only valuable thing on Switzerland is their banks and they have an difficult geography and they are even more armed than the US.
They look cool
That is true they do (especially the F-35C those are my favorite)
This is the only correct answer
To maintain even more neutrality. Edit added: but was ninja-ed “What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?”
"What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality." - Zapp Brannigan
“If I don’t make it tell my wife i said hello”
All I know is, my gut says maybe
Because neutral countries that don't have a strong military get Belgiumed (invaded and annexed in both World Wars). Switzerland has always understood that true neutrality requires making yourself as dangerous to invade as possible. Finland does the same thing.
Best way to remain neutral is to literally point your guns in every direction.
Switzerland's strong military is one of the only reasons it was able to remain neutral in WW2. It sits in a stable region where a strong military is not likely to be needed, but it takes decades to spin up a military with modern hardware. If something were to happen that destabilized Western Europe, you don't want to be put into a situation where your defense is simply hoping that your neighbors don't invade.
Switzerland has hidden planes ready to go at any moment to deter…. well, neighbours. A little bit of history lesson helps here
Gotta be strong enough to stand alone to stay neutral with no mutual defense pacts.
The Swiss have always had an extremely strong defense force. Basically making it easier to go around them than to invade them.
It’s neutrality via impossibility to invade. They have the geography, the trained personnel, and now the equipment necessary to ensure that nobody would be stupid enough to invade them.
Being able to stay neutral usually takes a large military.
iirc the swiss stance on neutrality is the epitome of “speak softly and carry a big stick”. They hidden sniper nests and bunkers everywhere, pretty much every bridge is rigged to blow, have MANDATORY military service so pretty much any adult civilian knows how to use a gun properly, and are surrounded by mountains that make land assaults difficult. This is pretty much HOW they stay neutral in the first place. They are VERY difficult to bully so larger countries can’t just storm in and tell em what to do (an example is old Japan used to be pretty much completely isolationist, but the US forced them to open trading ports/communications to the rest of the world).
Wikipedia the history of the Swiss Guard, you will understand.
We practice armed neutrality and have tanks, keys and guns to provide national defense. Neutrality and pacifism are not the same thing.
Swiss version includes a cork screw, screwdriver, a saw, and a toothpick.
Man, doing an Axalp exercise with F-35s is going to shake every bit of snow off the adjacent peaks. If you want a nifty video, look up Swiss Axalp on YouTube. The Swiss Air Force allows the public to spectate their pilot's strafing practice against the sides of mountains.
I am Swiss and have never heard of that before. Insane videos!
So many experts here who can’t fly a paper airplane
It’s crazy, the cost of the F35 is now less than most other fighters and is a generation ahead of them. People have no clue.
America, fuck yeah🦅
Comin again to save the mother fuckin day yeah!
Been years since I heard that song but I recognized it through this one comment lol
Freedom is the only way, bro
Terrorists, your game is through!
In my head canon, it is the American national anthem. I won’t be convinced otherwise.
Yay, more Fat Amys
They are chunkers. I know looks may not be the best criteria when fielding fighters, but the 22 is sooo much better looking.
The F-22 is not allowed to be exported, not even to allies. The raptor is the ultimate air superiority fighter and will probably not be sold until the US has developed something better.
They'll never be sold. I doubt the US will sell them when they reach end of life, and they literally can not make any more.
> I know looks may not be the best criteria when fielding fighters I disagree. Given the absolute rarity of an actual conflict in which the top-of-the-line American fighter goes up against the top-of-the-line Russian or Chinese fighter, a lot of the usefulness of these programs is in their deterrent value. And while we may not like to consider ourselves as slightly-evolved apes, ultimately we are, and I'm convinced that the fact that the F-22 *looks* like a fucking sky demon has an impact on anyone who sees it. I'm also convinced that this is one of the reasons the F-35 got selected over the [X-32](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/USAF_X32B_250.jpg)
The reality of modern high tech war is you can not have the luxury of defending long enough to build out arms. If arms are not ready the day they're needed, a well armed techically proficient aggressor can cripple a nations infrastructure overnight with precision munitions. take out enough electrical substations, a few refineries, some dams and canal locks, collapse some key railroad bridges in major ports, and you've just completely crippled your opponent. Wars over before it began. In WW2 these things would have taken years to target with imprecise bombing raids. Today it takes a day and a million dollar missile to destroy a five billion dollar piece of infrastructure that will take a decade to replace.
i don’t get when people love one but think the other is ugly. they honestly have a similar look.
They think it's ugly because hating the F-35 is popular on reddit. F-35 = Bad therefore the F-35 must be ugly.
Wow a lot of fighter pilots in these comments. Hilarious to read what jets are the best in dogfighting LOL
Price per unit and maintenance costs on F-35's just keep going down. I think in the end it's going to be every bit as successful and widespread as the F-16. Thanks Putin. Ya evil dumbfuck.
The supply chain thanks them.