Of course it failed. All the other services got their fingers in the development pie and suddenly the F-35 was supposed to do everything. Doesn’t work that way though with a machine this complex.
I don’t have any first hand knowledge of this, but with the way government contracts work, I’d wager that every time somebody new at the Pentagon came up with a silly new idea or dumb performance requirement, the contract either got renegotiated or a change order was filed. Every single time, that meant a shitload more money.
You nailed it. I remember the headlines about there being mod after mid to the contract, and eventually people started openly saying they’re getting money shoveled to them with no end in sight.
I don’t have any first hand knowledge of this, but with the way government contracts work, I’d wager that every time somebody new at the Pentagon came up with a silly new idea or dumb performance requirement...
This right here! You ain't wrong. Govies love to put too many chefs in the kitchen. Every Tom, Dick, and Karen from every division wants their say to be equal to everyone else. For a machine like a jet fighter, that shit doesn't fly - or at least flies like a shit would.
The bureaucracy is fucking useless; doubly so when you start throwing in "diversity and inclusion."
The project is one to make the most expensive fighter possible. Also one that will be out of date in many respects as soon as it comes of the production line and over kill when a jet a tenth the cost can do the job in most cases.
one that will be out of date in many respects as soon as it comes of the production line
Seriously, dude, quit having strong opinions on topics you clearly are 100% absent any knowledge whatsoever about. The fucking F-35 "came off" the production line a fucking decade ago.
Like, did you seriously not know that it's already conducted combat missions?
Why are you so convinced with these strong opinions when you apparently didn't even know it's been flying since early 2012?
Are you the F35 salesman? Not every combat force or potential buyer thinks it's ready and it's say too complicated constantly having to be revised and updated.
What combat missions? The ones existing planes already work for? Bombing out of date military assets in run down third world countries mostly.
When it comes to war with more sophisticated adversaries if they play their cards right you might find yourself in a spot of bother. Perhaps they will make the same mistakes but if they do you'll find them hitting you with more use case specific up to date arsenal that more than pulls its own weight.
No but I am one of the only people around here who is a bonafide expert.
It's like being a master welder and some guy who hasn't operated something higher power than a soldering iron starts telling you how easy your job is. Wouldn't that be fucking annoying?
Example: "Constantly being revised and updated". The former is a lie and the latter is misleading.
Nothing about the F-35 has been "revised". And yes it is constantly updated... That was literally part of the design spec. In order to eliminate the typical technology gap that legacy fighters saw when they spent 10 years in OT&E, the F-35 was planned to have pilots training on immature systems right away while other processes were finalized.
At any rate I never thought "updates" were any more common than on legacy fighters. On the F-15E we replaced the CC and MPDP and upgraded to block 4 and block 5 rolled out only a couple years later. Now they're getting RMP and block 6.
Fighters are updated all the time... And who cares anyway? It's like 99% software. You plug in a laptop and push a button. Why is that horrible?
It's a manner of speaking but thanks for the pedantry.
Saying that there has been a lot of talk about their level of combat readiness.
The only thing they're sure to do is to cost a lot and there are far more cost effective solutions.
It's a problem if you hundred million dollar or trillion dollar asset can be taken out by a weapon ranging anywhere from some tens of thousands of dollars to a few million dollars.
At present technology is advancing quite quickly and there's some question just how much of a role traditional air power might serve in many potential conflicts.
I can render any fighter aircraft unflyable with nothing but a hammer so I have no idea what pont you're making. Guns and misdiliare always cheaper than fighters, name one time in history that had ever NOT been true.
$100 million per plane. Only 250 built. Low readiness from high complexity. As the article says, the services are already asking for a lower cost and less maintenance intensive replacement - when that’s what the F-35 was sold as in the first place.
Also, why do I want evil fascist dictators bombing everything in sight spouting genocidal rhetoric directed at their own people while they cheat on fake elections and invite a new people into the country and kowtow to foreign dictators for bribes - to have more effective high tech weapons, again?
You know what it went to? The cellar of expensive imported liquor in the Joint Chiefs of Staffs' offices, the finest caviar and cuts of meat daily for breakfast lunch dinner for every MIC employee, properties overseas, etc.
They dropped the F-22's for the F-35's and the F-22 is still superior in every way IMO.
BTW we are still flying F-14's, F-15's, and F-16's. Which have retrofitted multiple times now. They still haven't managed to replace ol' reliable yet.
I guess the only good thing to come from the F-35 program is the replacement for the Harrier (which is a death trap). That's all I can think of. What a fantastic waste of our money.
The F-22 was the perfect solution for 30 years ago. By the time it came out, it was obsolete for its role. Plus the 1000 hrs of service to 1hr of flight thing makes it useless for anything beyond one time use counter attacks.
You know what the F-22 really excels at though? Getting fucked up by hurricanes because the brainiacs in the air force decided stationing 20 billion dollars worth of planes in an Air Force base on the gulf and then just leaving them there in the path of a cat 5 hurricane was a good idea.
They dropped the F-22's for the F-35's and the F-22 is still superior in every way IMO.
It is not, IMEO.
Civilians think the F-22 is better because they don't know anything. The F-35 is objectively better. It's safer, cheaper, more efficient, and the biggest feather in its cap: the avionics are generationally better, and much of it cannot simply be retrofit into the F-22.
For fuck's sake dude, THE F-22 CANNOT EVEN DIRECT A LASER-GUIDED BOMB.
And by the way, it's fucking stupid to share airframes for planes in different roles. You need a whole different shape of a plane for different types of maneuvers to be done effectively.
Yeah this isn't 1955 anymore, bud. We have relied almost exclusively on multirole fighter aircraft for the last 40 years, all this whining about needing 'purpose built aircraft' is a level of unfathomable stupidity.
Do you know why the fuck we don't have the Army running around with submachine guns and trench guns anymore? Because an M4 does almost literally everything about as good as any other weapon, so you don't "need" a 'purpose-built CQB weapon' anymore. You just fucking shoot dudes at close range with your M4.
Hell, with the IAR experiment replacing the M249, that means that a rifle team is now literally 8 guys running around with AR-pattern weapons, except the designated marksman has a 7.62x51 instead of a 5.56mm.
Wow, it's almost like if you can design a tool that's good 98% of the time in 98% of situations, you don't need to waste tons of time and money on "special weapons" that are 100% good in only 10% of situations and 100% useless everywhere else.
They aren't "totally different" at all. A decent amount of the structure is different, but internally they're almost identical. The USAF and USN use the exact same engine, the USMC one is the same engine with some modifications. The avionics are all identical.
I mean that's literally how it's working. You don't replace massive pieces of fuselage... Like... Ever. Everything that breaks is shit like avionics, valves, pumps, wiring, and nearly all of that shit is common. The ICP rack cards are identical, I can take an SPIO from a -B and it will instantly work in a -A.
Shit in my entire career I saw only one structure piece replaced on any fighter and it was when APG towed an F-15 wing into a front end loader.
The F-35 is not and never was intended to be a replacement for the B-52, lol. Did you bitch about the F-15E because it's a bomb truck, and that "It'S nOt As GoOd As A b-1!"?
As for the A-10, dude, this is what I'm talking about.
The A-10 is an obsolete piece of shit. I know you know BRRRRT memes and video games and think that the A-10 has some kind of "role", but the fucking A-10 barely even flies combat sorties anymore.
Do you know what aircraft provides over 90% of all CAS sorties?
The MQ-9. A fucking glider made out of carbon fiber.
Your 'mighty' A-10 was replaced with a plane that literally weighs less than an F-350 pickup truck.
Look I'm not trying to be a dick, but the A-10 fucking blows and I can reinforce this with a second point: The A-10 was literally designed to do a mission that it could not actually do by the time it was operational.
You probably know that the A-10 is a "tank buster" and the gun is supposed to kill tanks, right?
Did you know that the gun was spec'd only to achieve top-kills on T-55 tanks, which when the plans were laid down, was the mainstay of Soviet armored divisions?
Did you also know that by the time the A-10 was operational, the USSR had replaced and retrofitted all their T-55s with T-62s, which had substantially more top armor, which meant the A-10 had to get closer and fire more precise shots to knock them out?
Did you also know that by the time the A-10 was operational the USSR had invested heavily into mobile SHORAD, and things like the ZSU-23-4 would shred an A-10 before it got close enough?
Did you also know that the reason the AGM-65 Maverick was used so prodigiously on the A-10 was because the USAF knew it couldn't get close to anything anymore, and they changed the A-10 to a platform that simply lobs missiles from 8 miles away? Did you know that a half dozen other fighters could carry that same missile and do that exact same job? Once you pickle off the missile it literally doesn't matter what it was attached to.
Seriously, research this shit if you don't believe me. There's a REASON why the Air Force wanted the A-10 gone and it has nothing to do with F-35 conspiracies.
The thing can't even operate in poor weather, since the piece of crap doesn't even have an A/G radar system. All you need to defeat an A-10 is a cloud.
The A-10 has literally been incapable of doing anything it was ever designed to do. But you don't criticize it for that, and now you're complaining that the F-35 can't piss around and shoot a mud hut with its cannon?
Fuck off with this clickbait. The Air Force said no such thing. Forbes (why are we posting Forbes articles) is citing some "former" shitdick who was literally never once in charge of or ever was around fighter aircraft, and is pretending to be a voice of trusted authority.
Don't be like fucking Reddit, you retards, where you're a bunch of know-nothings gossiping about something like the F-35 that is so unfathomably beyond your knowledge and comprehension but somehow you all think you're experts on it.
Hey assholes:
Nobody wrote a $1.7 trillion check. Only leftists are stupid enough to believe this. That figure is a back-of-the-napkin estimate to fund every single aspect of the entire program for half a century. That includes paying people to fix the fucking thing to buying new chocks to putting gas in it.
The money for things like the F-35 provide tens of thousands - if not hundreds - of well-paying middle class jobs. Isn't that exactly what you should be fighting for? Instead you're crying like communists asking for your handout.
Your headline is kind of misleading. It is not failed in the traditional sense, but failed to serve the function it was originally made it for (light weight and inexpensive)
Did you ever see the movie "The Pentagon Wars" about the development of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle? The only inaccuracies were in how offices are numbered in the Pentagon.
I thought they should make a sequel about the F-22 program and that shitshow, but lately I've been hoping it was about the F-35. They could call it "The Pentagon Wars 2: Lightning Strikes Twice"!
It failed because Chyyyyynuh got their grubby hands on a lot of the specs through their rat like corruption ways and made an exact copy of the jet so now we need something different because we haven’t figured out how to only let Americans develop our products
I read somewhere that they spread the funding out over all the states to keep getting approvals for budget increases.
Which meant that parts didn't match up properly, the software (Microsoft) constantly crashed, one series of pilot helmets were too large to allow the pilot to turn their head inside the compartment.
Did you seriously just post a video from Battlefield?
The F-35 is objectively the safest fighter aircraft ever developed. There's been only three airframe losses after nearly a decade of service, with only one fatality. One was an engine malfunction and it burned on the runway. One was a Japanese pilot losing orientation and controlled flight into the ocean. The last was a USMC pilot accidentally running into the tanker. So of the three, two were pilot-induced.
In 1982 alone, the shit-reeking F-16 had killed five pilots in twenty-three crashes.
Of course it failed. All the other services got their fingers in the development pie and suddenly the F-35 was supposed to do everything. Doesn’t work that way though with a machine this complex.
I don’t have any first hand knowledge of this, but with the way government contracts work, I’d wager that every time somebody new at the Pentagon came up with a silly new idea or dumb performance requirement, the contract either got renegotiated or a change order was filed. Every single time, that meant a shitload more money.
You nailed it. I remember the headlines about there being mod after mid to the contract, and eventually people started openly saying they’re getting money shoveled to them with no end in sight.
This right here! You ain't wrong. Govies love to put too many chefs in the kitchen. Every Tom, Dick, and Karen from every division wants their say to be equal to everyone else. For a machine like a jet fighter, that shit doesn't fly - or at least flies like a shit would.
The bureaucracy is fucking useless; doubly so when you start throwing in "diversity and inclusion."
I did enough contracting myself to never want to hear the words "RFC" ever again.
The project is one to make the most expensive fighter possible. Also one that will be out of date in many respects as soon as it comes of the production line and over kill when a jet a tenth the cost can do the job in most cases.
Seriously, dude, quit having strong opinions on topics you clearly are 100% absent any knowledge whatsoever about. The fucking F-35 "came off" the production line a fucking decade ago.
Like, did you seriously not know that it's already conducted combat missions?
Why are you so convinced with these strong opinions when you apparently didn't even know it's been flying since early 2012?
Are you the F35 salesman? Not every combat force or potential buyer thinks it's ready and it's say too complicated constantly having to be revised and updated.
What combat missions? The ones existing planes already work for? Bombing out of date military assets in run down third world countries mostly.
When it comes to war with more sophisticated adversaries if they play their cards right you might find yourself in a spot of bother. Perhaps they will make the same mistakes but if they do you'll find them hitting you with more use case specific up to date arsenal that more than pulls its own weight.
No but I am one of the only people around here who is a bonafide expert.
It's like being a master welder and some guy who hasn't operated something higher power than a soldering iron starts telling you how easy your job is. Wouldn't that be fucking annoying?
Example: "Constantly being revised and updated". The former is a lie and the latter is misleading.
Nothing about the F-35 has been "revised". And yes it is constantly updated... That was literally part of the design spec. In order to eliminate the typical technology gap that legacy fighters saw when they spent 10 years in OT&E, the F-35 was planned to have pilots training on immature systems right away while other processes were finalized.
At any rate I never thought "updates" were any more common than on legacy fighters. On the F-15E we replaced the CC and MPDP and upgraded to block 4 and block 5 rolled out only a couple years later. Now they're getting RMP and block 6.
Fighters are updated all the time... And who cares anyway? It's like 99% software. You plug in a laptop and push a button. Why is that horrible?
It's a manner of speaking but thanks for the pedantry.
Saying that there has been a lot of talk about their level of combat readiness.
The only thing they're sure to do is to cost a lot and there are far more cost effective solutions.
It's a problem if you hundred million dollar or trillion dollar asset can be taken out by a weapon ranging anywhere from some tens of thousands of dollars to a few million dollars.
At present technology is advancing quite quickly and there's some question just how much of a role traditional air power might serve in many potential conflicts.
I can render any fighter aircraft unflyable with nothing but a hammer so I have no idea what pont you're making. Guns and misdiliare always cheaper than fighters, name one time in history that had ever NOT been true.
I've worked contracts like these, where the requirements and wish list grows ever larger. They always fail.
Except the F-35 has been flying for a decade and already conducted combat sorties and it's loved by everyone who flies it, so...
$100 million per plane. Only 250 built. Low readiness from high complexity. As the article says, the services are already asking for a lower cost and less maintenance intensive replacement - when that’s what the F-35 was sold as in the first place.
Also, why do I want evil fascist dictators bombing everything in sight spouting genocidal rhetoric directed at their own people while they cheat on fake elections and invite a new people into the country and kowtow to foreign dictators for bribes - to have more effective high tech weapons, again?
Oh right. I don’t.
They haven't been 100M for like five years. Flyaway cost is 85M now.
That's comparable to any other new production modernized fighter.
You know what it went to? The cellar of expensive imported liquor in the Joint Chiefs of Staffs' offices, the finest caviar and cuts of meat daily for breakfast lunch dinner for every MIC employee, properties overseas, etc.
Military Industrial Complex is swamp central.
They dropped the F-22's for the F-35's and the F-22 is still superior in every way IMO.
BTW we are still flying F-14's, F-15's, and F-16's. Which have retrofitted multiple times now. They still haven't managed to replace ol' reliable yet.
I guess the only good thing to come from the F-35 program is the replacement for the Harrier (which is a death trap). That's all I can think of. What a fantastic waste of our money.
The F-22 was the perfect solution for 30 years ago. By the time it came out, it was obsolete for its role. Plus the 1000 hrs of service to 1hr of flight thing makes it useless for anything beyond one time use counter attacks.
You know what the F-22 really excels at though? Getting fucked up by hurricanes because the brainiacs in the air force decided stationing 20 billion dollars worth of planes in an Air Force base on the gulf and then just leaving them there in the path of a cat 5 hurricane was a good idea.
fuck
It is not, IMEO.
Civilians think the F-22 is better because they don't know anything. The F-35 is objectively better. It's safer, cheaper, more efficient, and the biggest feather in its cap: the avionics are generationally better, and much of it cannot simply be retrofit into the F-22.
For fuck's sake dude, THE F-22 CANNOT EVEN DIRECT A LASER-GUIDED BOMB.
Why do you say things that you don't even know? We stopped flying F-14s over a decade ago.
Edit: Oct 2006
https://theaviationist.com/2013/10/04/last-tomcat-flght/
lol OLE RELIABLE!!! The F-14 was held together with fucking duct tape, likely because pilots wouldn't stop pushing the airframe too hard.
Also left out f18s. They're kind of a big deal, certainly more than the F14s that all got shredded.
You’ll never get the answer to this
Yeah this isn't 1955 anymore, bud. We have relied almost exclusively on multirole fighter aircraft for the last 40 years, all this whining about needing 'purpose built aircraft' is a level of unfathomable stupidity.
Do you know why the fuck we don't have the Army running around with submachine guns and trench guns anymore? Because an M4 does almost literally everything about as good as any other weapon, so you don't "need" a 'purpose-built CQB weapon' anymore. You just fucking shoot dudes at close range with your M4.
Hell, with the IAR experiment replacing the M249, that means that a rifle team is now literally 8 guys running around with AR-pattern weapons, except the designated marksman has a 7.62x51 instead of a 5.56mm.
Wow, it's almost like if you can design a tool that's good 98% of the time in 98% of situations, you don't need to waste tons of time and money on "special weapons" that are 100% good in only 10% of situations and 100% useless everywhere else.
We still operate heavy bombers, don't we?
Lol, you mean we don't need to develop a night fighter for night battles any more?
They aren't "totally different" at all. A decent amount of the structure is different, but internally they're almost identical. The USAF and USN use the exact same engine, the USMC one is the same engine with some modifications. The avionics are all identical.
I mean that's literally how it's working. You don't replace massive pieces of fuselage... Like... Ever. Everything that breaks is shit like avionics, valves, pumps, wiring, and nearly all of that shit is common. The ICP rack cards are identical, I can take an SPIO from a -B and it will instantly work in a -A.
Shit in my entire career I saw only one structure piece replaced on any fighter and it was when APG towed an F-15 wing into a front end loader.
The F-35 is not and never was intended to be a replacement for the B-52, lol. Did you bitch about the F-15E because it's a bomb truck, and that "It'S nOt As GoOd As A b-1!"?
As for the A-10, dude, this is what I'm talking about.
The A-10 is an obsolete piece of shit. I know you know BRRRRT memes and video games and think that the A-10 has some kind of "role", but the fucking A-10 barely even flies combat sorties anymore.
Do you know what aircraft provides over 90% of all CAS sorties?
The MQ-9. A fucking glider made out of carbon fiber.
Your 'mighty' A-10 was replaced with a plane that literally weighs less than an F-350 pickup truck.
Look I'm not trying to be a dick, but the A-10 fucking blows and I can reinforce this with a second point: The A-10 was literally designed to do a mission that it could not actually do by the time it was operational.
You probably know that the A-10 is a "tank buster" and the gun is supposed to kill tanks, right?
Did you know that the gun was spec'd only to achieve top-kills on T-55 tanks, which when the plans were laid down, was the mainstay of Soviet armored divisions?
Did you also know that by the time the A-10 was operational, the USSR had replaced and retrofitted all their T-55s with T-62s, which had substantially more top armor, which meant the A-10 had to get closer and fire more precise shots to knock them out?
Did you also know that by the time the A-10 was operational the USSR had invested heavily into mobile SHORAD, and things like the ZSU-23-4 would shred an A-10 before it got close enough?
Did you also know that the reason the AGM-65 Maverick was used so prodigiously on the A-10 was because the USAF knew it couldn't get close to anything anymore, and they changed the A-10 to a platform that simply lobs missiles from 8 miles away? Did you know that a half dozen other fighters could carry that same missile and do that exact same job? Once you pickle off the missile it literally doesn't matter what it was attached to.
Seriously, research this shit if you don't believe me. There's a REASON why the Air Force wanted the A-10 gone and it has nothing to do with F-35 conspiracies.
The thing can't even operate in poor weather, since the piece of crap doesn't even have an A/G radar system. All you need to defeat an A-10 is a cloud.
The A-10 has literally been incapable of doing anything it was ever designed to do. But you don't criticize it for that, and now you're complaining that the F-35 can't piss around and shoot a mud hut with its cannon?
Is the MQ-9 shooting things with its gun?
Probably all 1.7T didn’t go to the program except for “crumbs” as Nancy would say it.
10% for the big guy!!!
That's chump change compared to the money laundering at NASA!
MORE A10's!!!
They failed to cancel the A-10 a long time ago. It's staying because it works bigly.
And sounds cool!
Is this fucking Reddit now?
Fuck off with this clickbait. The Air Force said no such thing. Forbes (why are we posting Forbes articles) is citing some "former" shitdick who was literally never once in charge of or ever was around fighter aircraft, and is pretending to be a voice of trusted authority.
Don't be like fucking Reddit, you retards, where you're a bunch of know-nothings gossiping about something like the F-35 that is so unfathomably beyond your knowledge and comprehension but somehow you all think you're experts on it.
Hey assholes:
Nobody wrote a $1.7 trillion check. Only leftists are stupid enough to believe this. That figure is a back-of-the-napkin estimate to fund every single aspect of the entire program for half a century. That includes paying people to fix the fucking thing to buying new chocks to putting gas in it.
The money for things like the F-35 provide tens of thousands - if not hundreds - of well-paying middle class jobs. Isn't that exactly what you should be fighting for? Instead you're crying like communists asking for your handout.
The program failed because there weren't enough non-whites and vaginas working on it. It's the only possibility! /s
I’m sure at least $1 million went to the project. All those bills in Congress are money laundering!
Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
I hate reading opinions of complete morons that know nothing about Defense Industry or acquisition.
That also ironically sums up almost all the comments in this thread.
People talking about fighters like it's 1954, and we need 'purpose built' aircraft all over again.
People talking about how the F-22 is a better plane even though they've never even seen one in person.
People talking about how the A-10 is good because BRRRT memes.
Unfortunately, this. People that know, rarely talk. While ignorance is spread quite thick by people with zero understanding.
i'm a firm believer the majority of government spending is stolen, kickbacks, etc.
I’m curious is this has anything to do with the USAF having a flyable 6th generation fighter prototype.
It doesn't since the article is 100% bullshit clickbait.
Your headline is kind of misleading. It is not failed in the traditional sense, but failed to serve the function it was originally made it for (light weight and inexpensive)
It failed in a historic sense, this is from 2012 https://finance.townhall.com/columnists/mikeshedlock/2012/04/30/flying-piano-costs-pentagon-15-trillion-n1173501
It didn't fail at all. Why are you quoting ragebait bullshit nonsense?
Did you ever see the movie "The Pentagon Wars" about the development of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle? The only inaccuracies were in how offices are numbered in the Pentagon.
I thought they should make a sequel about the F-22 program and that shitshow, but lately I've been hoping it was about the F-35. They could call it "The Pentagon Wars 2: Lightning Strikes Twice"!
Wait, what? How the hell has it failed?
Edit: Bullshit lmao. This is just grift. The F-35 is doing exactly what it's supposed to do in a reality where we don't have to be at war 24/7.
It failed because Chyyyyynuh got their grubby hands on a lot of the specs through their rat like corruption ways and made an exact copy of the jet so now we need something different because we haven’t figured out how to only let Americans develop our products
Just over $5,000 for every US citizen. They don’t mention the upkeep costs... probably 5 trillion
I'd say at least half.
And of course it failed. A fucking multi role anything means it wont ever do any of the roles well, just all of them "okay"
Fucking retarded graft bullshit.
If we kill communism 99% of our problems will go away for two or three generations.
Well, that sounds like a 100 mil dollar plane with a 1.69 Trillion dollar toilet.
And no one is accountable.
AF failed/lost another Trillion in 2012...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pentagon-brokenfixes-specialrepor/special-report-why-the-pentagons-accounting-fixes-end-up-broken-idUKBRE9BM0HM20131223
Is it really bad or does it mean the F-35 is really that good?
I read somewhere that they spread the funding out over all the states to keep getting approvals for budget increases.
Which meant that parts didn't match up properly, the software (Microsoft) constantly crashed, one series of pilot helmets were too large to allow the pilot to turn their head inside the compartment.
Watch this gem of a flaw, the software crashed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDMMVjBfjNo
Did you seriously just post a video from Battlefield?
The F-35 is objectively the safest fighter aircraft ever developed. There's been only three airframe losses after nearly a decade of service, with only one fatality. One was an engine malfunction and it burned on the runway. One was a Japanese pilot losing orientation and controlled flight into the ocean. The last was a USMC pilot accidentally running into the tanker. So of the three, two were pilot-induced.
In 1982 alone, the shit-reeking F-16 had killed five pilots in twenty-three crashes.
Sir that’s from a vidya.