• CanadaPlusEnglish
      3·
      2 days ago

      The airframe design really did reach a plateau there, didn’t it?

  • ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zipEnglish
    13·
    3 days ago

    I wonder what the reason is. It must be either so good it’s beyond words, or so bad it’s unusable.

    • CanadaPlusEnglish
      8·
      2 days ago

      To add on to other answers, one of the major design parameters that went into the F-35 was not being a delicate, impossible-to-maintain prima donna like the F-22. There’s stories about people accidentally just kind of scraping off the high tech anti-radar coating, and the stuff inside kept it on the ground a really long time between flights too. Meanwhile, the F-35 has almost every part independently accessible, and normal-ish coating durability.

    • marcos@lemmy.worldEnglish
      19·
      3 days ago

      They are expensive, and almost irreplaceable.

      Neither of what are good qualities for weapons.

    • Pommes_für_dein_Balg@feddit.orgEnglish
      13·
      3 days ago

      Air superiority fighters are outdated tech.

      In a BVR fight you don’t need maneuverability, just AWACS and long range missiles.

      And the US generally establishes air superiority before their planes even enter the airspace, by attacking first and missile bombing enemy airfields and AA.

      • CanadaPlusEnglish
        4·
        2 days ago

        The ability to pull high-G maneuvers can be pretty useful to avoid those missiles, though. Dogfighting was already kinda dead when Top Gun came out (and that was a major plot point), but maneuverable planes kept coming.

  • Shirasho@lemmings.worldEnglish
    13·
    3 days ago

    The F22 is such a pretty plane. On one hand i don’t want to see these planes used in war, but on the other hand it is such a waste to keep them grounded.