• BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    9 months ago

    That’s the general feeling from people in allied countries that have been put on the F-35 program.

    Other fighters could have been a better match, instead they got the expensive Letherman.

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Which fighter is a better match than an F-35 if you want stealth? (If you don’t want stealth, you aren’t looking at a F-35) The A model is damn nice for most, and the B model wipes the floor with the VTOL competition. There is damn good reason over 1,000 of these have been produced already and orders keep coming in.

      • BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        I don’t doubt that F-35 has some good stats, I am looking at this from a more general perspective, what I have seen is that because F-35 costs substantially more than other fighters this limits countries that does not have a US level defense budget on how many planes they can afford, for example instead of 50 F-16 they end up with 10-20 F-35.

        And by looking at those numbers it seems like they get less defense for the same amount even if F-35 is better than the alternatives.

        • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Yeah, if a country doesn’t need stealth, they really shouldn’t be purchasing stealth. Most countries will probably want a mix of both. Stealth for air dominance and heavily-contested, high-value strikes, and fourth generation air frames to provide bulk ordnance delivery.

          With the exception of VTOL, in which the F-35B is the only reasonable option, even if you don’t need stealth.