Comment on Ron Paul on F-35.......... by j.k.harwood2

Parent Post: Ron Paul on F-35.......... · In Reply To

j.k.harwood2 · 7/5/2026, 9:56:14 AM · permalink

😂  
  
Production has matured dramatically. Lockheed delivered a record 191 F-35s in 2025 (up from 110 in 2024 and previous high of 142). The production rate is now ~5x faster than any other allied fighter in production. The global fleet is over 1,300 and growing.

Combat-proven, especially by Israel. Israel has used the F-35I "Adir" extensively in real operations (including strikes deep into Iranian territory and other conflicts). They maintain ~90% readiness on their smaller fleet through different sustainment practices and high priority. Reports indicate strong performance in suppressing air defenses and other roles. The U.S. and partners have also used it successfully for drone intercepts and other missions.

Unique capabilities no other Western fighter matches at scale. All-aspect stealth, exceptional sensor fusion, networking, and multirole flexibility (air-to-air, strike, SEAD/DEAD, ISR, electronic warfare). It was designed as the "quarterback" of future air combat, sharing data across platforms. Over 20 countries operate or have ordered it — that's alliance interoperability on a historic scale.

It fills a critical gap. There is no cheap, simple alternative for penetrating sophisticated air defenses (China's A2/AD network, for example). Legacy 4th-gen jets and attritable drones are complements, not substitutes, for this mission set in high-end conflict.

Why the "Failure" Narrative Exists

Social media amplifies the worst metrics (25% full mission capable sounds catastrophic) and historical baggage (decades of delays and cost growth). Some critics ideologically oppose large defense programs or push "drones will replace everything" arguments without acknowledging physics and threats in contested airspace. Others focus on opportunity cost — money that could go to munitions stockpiles, shipbuilding, or next-gen systems.

The program did suffer from concurrency (building while still developing), optimistic early estimates, and sustainment that didn't scale with production success. That's fair criticism.

Bottom Line

The F-35 is a troubled but strategically essential platform that has succeeded in production, international adoption, and real-world combat use (particularly Israel's experience), while failing on key sustainment metrics and upgrade timelines. It's not the invincible wonder weapon some marketing suggested, nor is it the worthless grounded boondoggle critics claim.

The Pentagon knows the readiness problem is urgent — hence the new sustainment push and order reductions until things improve. Block 4 delays are also a legitimate concern for long-term relevance.

In short: It has serious flaws that need fixing (and are being worked on, however imperfectly). But writing it off as a "failure" ignores the fleet size, production ramp, combat record, and the lack of better alternatives for the high-end fight. It's more accurate to call it an expensive, delayed, high-maintenance success with ongoing growing pains.

The U.S. and allies are heavily committed to it for good reason — peer competitors aren't standing still. Fixing the support system and delivering promised upgrades matters more than declaring victory or defeat in the comment section.

3 bumps

hyokkim · 7/5/2026, 12:10:01 PM · permalink

You sound like a real MIC fanboy.  
  
https://aviationa2z.com/index.php/2026/05/23/pentagon-declares-most-advanced-fighter-jet-in-the-world-critical-upgrade-unusable/  
  
https://simpleflying.com/why-us-air-force-cut-2026-f-35a-order-nearly-half/  
  
F-35 platform was a failure in waiting to begin with; F-35 stealth capability can only be utilized with internal bay; the problem is in full stealth mode F-35 has a very limited ordnance, and inferior dog fighting ability compared to fighter jets without the internal bay.  
  
F-35 in full stealth mode is optimal only for SEAD, not for air superiority or interdiction or CAS.   Most AF missions do not involve SEAD.  
  
Not only that the stealth coating for F-35 is full of fluff as ROKAF has found out; it's not very durable.   After every takeoff/landing, F-35 stealth panel have to be inspected by technicians using expensive equipment, after every time F-35 hits Mach, the panel has to be replaced by the technicians.   Another word, FMC deficiency is built-in with F-35 to begin with; this is good news for LM since they charge expensive fees every time U.S. military flies F-35, not good for U.S. taxpayers.  
  
''The U.S. and allies are heavily committed to it for good reason — peer competitors aren't standing still. Fixing the support system and delivering promised upgrades matters more than declaring victory or defeat in the comment section.''  
  
Not ROKAF; they have gone full hog with KF-21 after disappointment with F-35 in ROKAF.  
  
The only saving grace for F-35 is that 25% FMC is still far better than 10% for PLAAF or NATO Eurofighter typhoon.  
  
ROKAF FA-50 FMC is 90%; KF-21 FMC is expected to be at least 80%.     
  
UAE has already bailed out on F-35; she has joined ROKAF.  
  
https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/south-korea-uae-kf21-15billion-fighter-alliance/  
  
Now, one of the main issues with F-35, the lack of durability for the structural frame is due to not just F-35 design, but also U.S. backwardness in steel production technology.  
  
U.S. is at least 20 to 30 years behind ROK in steel production technology; this gap cannot be overcome by U.S. without serious investment/effort at national level for the next several decades, the time U.S. no longer has.

2 bumps

j.k.harwood2 · 7/5/2026, 7:17:52 PM · permalink

1 bump

Signature