F-35 aren’t the crucial component to winning the kind of wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. They also aren’t the kind of weapon that are important to defend Taiwan. They are just what the airforce culture wants instead of being a choice made by a hypercompetent military.
I mostly agree with your perception of state (or something) competence, but this seems to me like a sloppy argument? True, the US does have to prepare for the most likely wars, but they also have to be prepared for all other wars that don’t happen because they were prepared, aka. deterrence. The F-35 may not be the most efficient asset when it comes to e.g. Taiwan, but it’s useful in a wide range of scenarios, and its difficult to predict what exactly one will need as these platforms have to be planned decades in advance.
Not sure how to put this in a way that isn’t overly combative, but since the only point you made where I have domain specific understanding seems to be sloppy, it makes me wonder how much I should trust the rest? At a glance it doesn’t look like artight reasoning.
EDIT: As a sidenote, what the airforce culture wants is in itself a military consideration. It’s often better to have the gear that works well with established doctrine than some other technology that outperforms it on paper.
The F-35 may not be the most efficient asset when it comes to e.g. Taiwan, but it’s useful in a wide range of scenarios
I didn’t just talk about Taiwan, I also talked about Afghanistan and Iraq. Those were wars that the US military essentially lost.
The US military failed to create the kind of innovation that they would have needed to pursue those conflicts successfully.
F-35 also doesn’t help with the Ukraine war.
and its difficult to predict what exactly one will need as these platforms have to be planned decades in advance.
A key alternative for the F-35 plan would have been unmanned aircraft for the same job.
True, the US does have to prepare for the most likely wars, but they also have to be prepared for all other wars that don’t happen because they were prepared, aka. deterrence.
What wars do you think the F-35 deters?
At a glance it doesn’t look like artight reasoning.
When it comes to military matters, the beliefs I have come from reading some articles and interviews.I wouldn’t be surprised if there are other people here with a lot more domain knowledge.
Evaluating whether or not the military spends its money well is generally hard as a lot of relevant information is secret.
Palmer Luckey from Anduril who would know seems to say that there was a severe underinvestment into autonomous vehicles.
Alex Karp from Palantir also speaks about underinvestment of the military into AI.
I’m not an expert either, and I won’t try to end the F-35 debate in a few sentences. I maintain my position that the original argument was sloppy. “F-35 isn’t the best for specific wars X, Y and Z, therefore it wasn’t a competent military decision” is non sequitur. “Experts X, Y and Z believe that the F-35 wasn’t a competent decision” would be better in this case, because that seems to be the real reason why you believe what you believe.
“F-35 isn’t the best for specific wars X, Y and Z, therefore it wasn’t a competent military decision” is non sequitur. “Experts X, Y and Z believe that the F-35 wasn’t a competent decision” would be better in this case, because that seems to be the real reason why you believe what you believe.
Generally, in security threat modelling is important. There’s the saying “Generals always fight the last war” which is about a common mistake in militaries that they are not sufficiently doing threat modeling and investing in technology that would actually help with the important threats.
There are forces where established military units aren’t looking for new ways of acting. Pilots wants planes that are flown by pilots. Defense contractors want to produce weapons that match their competencies.
I do see the question of whether a military is able to think well about future threats and then invest money into building technology to counter those threats as an important aspect of competency.
This is not that I just copied the position from someone else but I have a model feed by what I read and which I apply.
Earlier this month, the US Navy’s top officer, Admiral Michael Gilday, lit into defence contractors at a major industry conference for lobbying Congress to “build the ships that you want to build” and “buy aircraft we don’t need” rather than adapt to systems needed to counter China. “It’s not the ’90s any more,”
Aircraft we don’t need is what the F-35 program is about. The main threat related to countering China is defending Taiwan (and hopefully in a way where there’s deterrence that prevents the war from happening in the first place).
EDIT:
If you would make some argument about the Navy already having the correct position here because Michael Gilday is advocating the correct position, if there would be a hypercompetent faction in the military, that group should have no problems with exerting their power in a way to get defense contractors to produce the weapons that high military leaders consider desirable to develop.
I mostly agree with your perception of state (or something) competence, but this seems to me like a sloppy argument? True, the US does have to prepare for the most likely wars, but they also have to be prepared for all other wars that don’t happen because they were prepared, aka. deterrence. The F-35 may not be the most efficient asset when it comes to e.g. Taiwan, but it’s useful in a wide range of scenarios, and its difficult to predict what exactly one will need as these platforms have to be planned decades in advance.
Not sure how to put this in a way that isn’t overly combative, but since the only point you made where I have domain specific understanding seems to be sloppy, it makes me wonder how much I should trust the rest? At a glance it doesn’t look like artight reasoning.
EDIT: As a sidenote, what the airforce culture wants is in itself a military consideration. It’s often better to have the gear that works well with established doctrine than some other technology that outperforms it on paper.
I didn’t just talk about Taiwan, I also talked about Afghanistan and Iraq. Those were wars that the US military essentially lost.
The US military failed to create the kind of innovation that they would have needed to pursue those conflicts successfully.
F-35 also doesn’t help with the Ukraine war.
A key alternative for the F-35 plan would have been unmanned aircraft for the same job.
What wars do you think the F-35 deters?
When it comes to military matters, the beliefs I have come from reading some articles and interviews.I wouldn’t be surprised if there are other people here with a lot more domain knowledge.
Evaluating whether or not the military spends its money well is generally hard as a lot of relevant information is secret.
Palmer Luckey from Anduril who would know seems to say that there was a severe underinvestment into autonomous vehicles.
Alex Karp from Palantir also speaks about underinvestment of the military into AI.
I’m not an expert either, and I won’t try to end the F-35 debate in a few sentences. I maintain my position that the original argument was sloppy. “F-35 isn’t the best for specific wars X, Y and Z, therefore it wasn’t a competent military decision” is non sequitur. “Experts X, Y and Z believe that the F-35 wasn’t a competent decision” would be better in this case, because that seems to be the real reason why you believe what you believe.
Generally, in security threat modelling is important. There’s the saying “Generals always fight the last war” which is about a common mistake in militaries that they are not sufficiently doing threat modeling and investing in technology that would actually help with the important threats.
There are forces where established military units aren’t looking for new ways of acting. Pilots wants planes that are flown by pilots. Defense contractors want to produce weapons that match their competencies.
I do see the question of whether a military is able to think well about future threats and then invest money into building technology to counter those threats as an important aspect of competency.
This is not that I just copied the position from someone else but I have a model feed by what I read and which I apply.
The argument I made seems also be made by military generals:
Aircraft we don’t need is what the F-35 program is about. The main threat related to countering China is defending Taiwan (and hopefully in a way where there’s deterrence that prevents the war from happening in the first place).
EDIT:
If you would make some argument about the Navy already having the correct position here because Michael Gilday is advocating the correct position, if there would be a hypercompetent faction in the military, that group should have no problems with exerting their power in a way to get defense contractors to produce the weapons that high military leaders consider desirable to develop.