The idea of stealth is tested every day. When missions are planned the capability of the aircraft determines what missions is can fly. A stealth aircraft can factually fly closer to an enemy's AA system without being detected.
It is, and quite well. And it is effective. But to make the really deep investment cost effective, it needs to be in the ninety percentile effective, and where we're sitting, right now, in the EW and sensor environment we're currently in, it's likely to be less than that, as low as a 40%. You can see this in the mobilizations we've seen to date. We try to keep them away from China close EW coverage, for good reason. You'll note Israel hasn't mobed the F-35I variant against anyone besides Gaza[0]. Again, for good reason.
Now, please let me be clear. If I am in the pilot seat, and I have a forty percent lower chance of being blown into flash-fried gibbets, I will be overjoyed. I will be blissful. The technologies are super cool, and, in spite of what could be called a rocky development path, they came out the other side with what looks like a usable platform, maybe even an excellent one. But, big picture, if I have a platform that costs a hundred times more[1], and it improves my rates from 5:1 to 9.2:1, taken on the whole . . that was not an optimal use of treasure and materiel. If it was flown out in 2009? Yeah, probably 20:1 exchange rates. It's not 2009 . . there's been a LOT of tech movement (hence the importance of Block 4).
The bitch of it is, I'm not even complaining against stealth all that much. I'm mostly bitching about the program management, not measuring spares, not checking if a widget worked yet before signing it off. Cheap stealth can be had, especially nowadays. And when it goes below a much lower cost threshold, it's even worth it - look at the NSM, after all, cheap stealth is incredibly deadly on a cruise missile or anything that needs to get in the enemy's face, that needs to close the range. But I'll be surprised if the cost of the 35 turns out to be worth it, as cool as it might be.
Eh, but who knows? Prominent defense talky talky type people have said that you're a fool for having opinions about the 35. So I'll just sit here being a fool, when it undoubtedly spanks the entire mainland PLAN/AF and we fly back home with geostrategic supremacy balanced on a whole squadron of fifty-foot erections. That would be grand - I would be a fool for any length of time to make that happen.
[0] Maybe Beirut, maybe maybe Iraq, although in the second instance there's a question as to who they were actually shooting at. But Gaza for sure - third parties saw that one. None of those are even in the same continent as a peer competitor air defense.
[1] Yes yes yes I know full rate production assuming 1000 units the flyaway cost per unit F35 is super duper ultra Costco cheap, 35m or whatever they're claiming now, but I'm talking "whole program" costs. Even using the Costco metaphor, buying the forty pound sack of tomatoes might be real cheap per tomato, but I'm only using two of those tomatoes - in the end I spend forty bucks for two tomatoes. I got some opinions about the whole concept of "flyaway cost", but that's another conversation.
MilStdJunkie|1 year ago
Now, please let me be clear. If I am in the pilot seat, and I have a forty percent lower chance of being blown into flash-fried gibbets, I will be overjoyed. I will be blissful. The technologies are super cool, and, in spite of what could be called a rocky development path, they came out the other side with what looks like a usable platform, maybe even an excellent one. But, big picture, if I have a platform that costs a hundred times more[1], and it improves my rates from 5:1 to 9.2:1, taken on the whole . . that was not an optimal use of treasure and materiel. If it was flown out in 2009? Yeah, probably 20:1 exchange rates. It's not 2009 . . there's been a LOT of tech movement (hence the importance of Block 4).
The bitch of it is, I'm not even complaining against stealth all that much. I'm mostly bitching about the program management, not measuring spares, not checking if a widget worked yet before signing it off. Cheap stealth can be had, especially nowadays. And when it goes below a much lower cost threshold, it's even worth it - look at the NSM, after all, cheap stealth is incredibly deadly on a cruise missile or anything that needs to get in the enemy's face, that needs to close the range. But I'll be surprised if the cost of the 35 turns out to be worth it, as cool as it might be.
Eh, but who knows? Prominent defense talky talky type people have said that you're a fool for having opinions about the 35. So I'll just sit here being a fool, when it undoubtedly spanks the entire mainland PLAN/AF and we fly back home with geostrategic supremacy balanced on a whole squadron of fifty-foot erections. That would be grand - I would be a fool for any length of time to make that happen.
[0] Maybe Beirut, maybe maybe Iraq, although in the second instance there's a question as to who they were actually shooting at. But Gaza for sure - third parties saw that one. None of those are even in the same continent as a peer competitor air defense.
[1] Yes yes yes I know full rate production assuming 1000 units the flyaway cost per unit F35 is super duper ultra Costco cheap, 35m or whatever they're claiming now, but I'm talking "whole program" costs. Even using the Costco metaphor, buying the forty pound sack of tomatoes might be real cheap per tomato, but I'm only using two of those tomatoes - in the end I spend forty bucks for two tomatoes. I got some opinions about the whole concept of "flyaway cost", but that's another conversation.