Elon Musk’s F-35 ‘idiots’ remark was wrong, says Lockheed Martin boss
Elon Musk’s F-35 ‘idiots’ remark was wrong, says Lockheed Martin boss
Interview: Paul Livingston hits back at the billionaire’s claim the fighter jets will soon be obsolete
Summary
Lockheed Martin UK’s chief, Paul Livingston, defended the F-35 stealth jet program after Elon Musk called it obsolete due to advances in unmanned drones.
Livingston emphasized the F-35’s unmatched capabilities, including stealth, battlefield data-sharing, and cost-efficiency by replacing multiple aircraft types.
While Musk labeled the program overly expensive and poorly designed, Livingston argued drones alone can’t match the F-35’s capabilities or defend against threats like China’s J20 jets.
Despite criticism over cost and reliability, the F-35 remains integral to NATO defenses, with widespread adoption across 19 nations, including the UK.
Elon is such an idiot.
This is the same shit he pulled back when he pushed drones as a solution to all those kids trapped in a cave. They weren't even remotely viable, and when human beings rescued them, he called the leader of that successful operation a "pedo" for absolutely no reason other than his own childish idiocy.
he called the leader of that successful operation a "pedo" for absolutely no reason other than his own childish idiocy.
I think it's darker than that. Their solution involved doping the kids so they were heavily sedated during transport. This was out of fear they would panic and threaten their own life and that of the person transporting them.
The dark part is how Musk's mind associated sedating a child to make them more docile with sexual assault.
or like when he brained up hyperloop to prevent normal high speed trains development in california, but this one is too glaringly stupid and it's going against thing that already is proven to work, and with no equals
That was the first time heard about Musk other than a few articles about him. And it was the moment I knew that he was an actual dumbass.
One is an example of a team of people doing what elon's dumb solution shouldn't. The F-35 isn't a solution to anything other than funneling tax dollars to Lockheed, and he's dumb for thinking drones will replace everything, but not much more stupid than people seriously defending and advocating for the F-35 to replace everything, let alone anything
The bad stories about the F-35 are greatly exaggerated. The niche it fills is lugging 18,000 pounds of ordnance into contested air without getting shot down. Something the A-10 is less and less capable of every year. In the future, the development roadmap, they want the F-35 to use it's electronics to guide arsenal drones in that bring even more ordnance. In an air to air fight one F-35 out in front can already launch all of the AIM-174s that a Super Hornet can carry, before the F/A-18 can even see the targets. Vastly improving survivability and deadliness.
There's several very good reasons to use these things.
"Fifth columnist says top of the line weapons system that is already paid for and being fielded is actually fucking stupid and you should totally divest from it and pursue some vague futuretech solution."
It's all so tiresome.
it's all "hey don't do the thing that works, instead give money to meeee"
The guy that can't deliver self driving cars wants to talk about self driving planes?
To be fair(TM) planes are a bit easier. Fewer obstacles up there and typically a lot of things broadcast that they are there. They were landing the Russian space shuttle by computer in the 80s.
No one was jamming the Russian space shuttle, or shooting missiles at it.
It’s one thing to have an autonomous landing program on an aircraft, it’s another thing entirely to have a program that can react to surface to air missiles, enemy jamming, and over the horizon air to air missiles.
Elon musk is an idiot if he thinks a drone can replace all of the capabilities of even an F22, let alone the F35, which is a multi-role aircraft capable of handling all of the above and more. The F35 can jam, do reconnaissance, network with friendly fighters to fire over the horizon missiles, and drop bombs that weigh 1000 times what a drone can carry. Was it a good use of tax dollars considering the budget overruns? Probably not. But can it be replaced by drone swarms? Hell no. The F35 is an unmatched weapons platform, that’s why nato countries have been buying them.
The cars were going to fly short distances too.
He said he was going to use monopropellant thrusters to make his cars fly.
Hopefully I do not need to point out the many reasons this is a very bad idea, if not functionally impossible.
He also said he was working on an electric aircraft at one point.
Other companies have actually made such things... not Musk though.
if lithium battery fires were bad, i'm sure that firefighters are thrilled to see hydrazine fires, several hundreds of kg at a time, after random crashes. lmao. what the fuck was he thinking?
Drones can be jammed. You cannot match a trained human pilot with an onboard AI pilot, as much as Mr Snake Oil would like you to believe. Imagine fighter jets with the piloting equivalent to the Tesla “FSD”.
Edit: here’s a paywall free mirror for the curious
Yup, I’m sure that autonomous aircraft will eventually be able to fly better than humans, but that’s very far out. If musk wants to start funding it he can start selling stock and do it himself, don’t give him a dime of taxpayer money
Self driving planes will be fully functional next year, I'm sure!
it's rich coming from dude whose brainchild is cybertruck to say that F-35 sucks
overly expensive and poorly designed
Oh, like a flying cyber truck?
Is he doing this just to stay relevant?
You know, no publicity is bad publicity (in both meanings).
Why not criticise hospitals, roads, electric transport, burgers, breathing when he's at it?
Count down until Musk throws a hissy-fit and calls Paul Livingston a "pedo".
maybe he lost interest in F-35 because its first flight was 18 years ago
On one hand, unmanned airplanes (drones or remote controlled) will outfly anything with a human on board, because humans are generally the weakest part of the plane. No human = no cockpit or life support, no hatch, no windows, no ejection seats, etc. An equivalent drone plane will be lighter, more structurally sound, and can maneuver at g-forces that will kill a human pilot.
That's the hardware side of things, of course.
The software and information security is definitely not there yet... But I'm sure Elon thinks it'll be ready "next year" just like Full Self Driving...
Every word out of elons mouth is complete and utter bs.
"We made waaaay too much money off that jet to be idiots!"
It's expensive, sure.
In some cases, it has no use. In a small Eastern European country, it makes more sense to buy drones, artillery and air defense. If the possible opponent is right next to you, an airfield hosting the F-35 would simply be smashed with ballistic missiles, leaving the fighter homeless. The same money in the form of other items would serve one better.
Far over the ocean, far in the rear - different things make sense. Projecting force quickly to a big distance or intredicting an opponent that does that - requires fighter jets.
For a country whose threat model involves supersonic bombers launching hypersonic missiles at its navy or shipping or coastline from beyond air defense range - that cannot be solved with today's drones, but can be solved with F-35: "intercept the bombers before they launch anything, destroy their airfields". Drones cannot currently stop a stealth fighter, or even stop an ordinary fighter: it will outrun them and possibly run circles around them.
Drones of the future? Could take any form. Maybe some day, the F-35 is indeed a mobile command post in the sky and drones do the hard job. But not currently.
what a take
yeah this must be why south korea, japan, singapore, israel, finland, poland, romania and greece don't have, or procure, F-35
hardened hangars are a thing, and unlike magic drones, F-35s already exist
That is also why Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia and several other countries aren't planning to get any. Easier to let others have fighters, based in safer locations. Always possible to bring them forward to local air fields.
South Korea doesn't have a rear area to rely on, even its capital is in artillery range from the north - it has no plan B except overcoming the opponent very fast (to decapitate a command chain, you need stealth strikes through their air defense).
Japan is an island far from the mainland - plenty of advance warning about an incoming ballistic payload. Poland has strategic depth like Ukraine. Greece doesn't have that kind of a neigbour, but otherwise would qualify. Since it has very articulated landscape, it must optimize its ability for naval and air operations, so it needs good planes.
Romania and Finland are the countries in your list that fit my categories and make me think - maybe there is some benefit to a country with small strategic depth in having a very expensive air force.
In case of Finland, they have a large GDP per capita (enough to sustain an expensive project) and want their airforce to survive in range of the St. Petersburg air defense district of Russia (relatively densely armed). I think that, given the options (Jas-39 Gripen vs. F-35), they decided that "we must have an air force" and "nothing but a stealth air force will last in predictable conditions".
In case of Romania, I keep wondering why they chose it. I think they simply added Ukraine to their strategic depth calculation and and concluded "we have plenty of strategic depth, there will be lots of advance warning if anyone comes at us over Ukraine".
As for hardened hangars, the last ones over here (Estonia) to have them were the Soviets/Russians. Forward-deployed allied planes spend their time in lightly built above-ground hangars. I have no doubt in the planners knowing the state of the art. They simply aren't that optimistic. There is every expectation that in case of war, planes cannot stay, but must temporarily retreat out of harm's way. But you are correct to mention hardened shelters for planes, they should exist. But if one wants to keep operating in range of SRBM-s and attack drones - hardened everything, not just hardened hangars. (Sweden for example decided it wouldn't have hardened everything, and designed a domestic fighter capable of flying off straight stretches of paved road.)
To summarize: if you foresee fighting in a phone booth, don't choose a longsword. :)
Elon thinks bcz he's rich the defense contractors can't get him? Michael Hastings got ended bcz he talked a little too much about a general.
Elon might have an accident with his Special K.
Regardless of what you think of the F-35, China stole the schematics and built their own.
I mean, Musk isn't totally wrong, the F-35 isn't all we'd hoped for. It had a well documented history of cost over-runs, problems in development, and failing the way all multi-tools do, they generally don't do as good of a job as specific tool. Further, the drone war in Ukraine/Russia is showing how effective drones really can be. However, drones are also a specific tool for a specific type of job.
I think it's reasonable to think that both types of flight-based warfare will continue to be relevant, and neither will necessarily dominate the other, because... once again... the right tool, for the right job.
I mean, Musk isn’t totally wrong, the F-35 isn’t all we’d hoped for. It had a well documented history of cost over-runs, problems in development, and failing the way all multi-tools do, they generally don’t do as good of a job as specific tool
Your views hew ridiculously close to talking point that heavily associated with Russian state media. Please don't be offended, this isn't an insult It's an FYI.
Ask yourself: how does the F-35 (in cost overruns, accidents, re-designs, ect..) compare to other fighter jets developed by the US and her allies? If you don't know, wonder how you only bumped into info that paints the project in a bad light. Who benefits from the F35 being perceived as a boondoggle?
Youtuber Lazerpig addresses all of this directly and with sources if your interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxVsS9ZNUOU
Thanks for the heads up, but yeah, my opinions of this were developed during the Bush era and it was from US media sources discussing the issues with the F-35's development. I honestly hadn't thought about the F-35 in years and had to go to Wikipedia to make sure I was thinking of the right plane. I'm generally anti-war so I thought it was pretty wasteful in general at the time.
The F-35 is good bc... Russia says it's bad so we have to knee-jerk in the opposite direction? Am I interpreting that right?
It's the worst fighter jet we have xD the cost is inexcusable and the reliability is dog shit, we don't need to be defending overpriced balsa gliders just bc russia bad or something
it's a superior replacement to about any other plane (with single exception of F-22 for air dominance, but it's not made now anyway) absolute state of the art apex predator in air, and scale of procurement brings costs down
there is a reason why no one makes single-purpose planes anymore and it's degree of flexibility multirole allows, simplified logistics, less number of airframes needed for mission and a couple others. drones are very narrow purpose tools with short range relying on unjammed radio spectrum, or else extremely specialized long range heavier systems available only in small numbers. these things are replacement of ATGMs and cruise missiles, not aircraft. these things don't even come close to each other
Let me repeat myself because this keeps coming up,
It's a superior replacement to about any other plane
Sure, if you pretend money doesn't exist? Baseline for getting your money's worth from spending 1.5 TRILLION more than anybody else on development of a type of airplane is that your airplane should be the best airplane of that type.
That doesn't prove that money was well spent, it just proves you have way more money than anybody else to throw at things though I guess the confusion makes sense, we 'muricans have such a very hard time telling the difference between those two concepts.
These massive cost overruns aren't just a single one time strategic failure, like a good modern western tech product the f35 is built to burn money over its entire lifetime by having WAY higher operating costs. Thus the failure is compounded and compounded and as Sun Tzu would point out, the battle has been lost before it even began.
Yes, the F-35 is so bad that literally every single allied country is ordering and is willing to wait for like 5+ years just to receive it. It is the best selling aircraft out there, with insane capabilities for its price. America cant produce these things fast enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Operators
More than 20 allied countries have bought/ordered it and in significant numbers. It is going to be the future backbone of the airforce of most of those countries. Just because it had issues, doesnt mean that it isnt good or that many of its serious issues havent been resolved.
Also the F-35 has built-in networking and infrastructure to work as a mothership for "drones" or other remote controlled/ai platforms.
I guess you have never heard of the concept of "too big to fail"? because you basically just made an argument that pretends that massive, corrupt and ethically dubious corporations don't routinely employ this strategy as a defensive bulwark against society getting upset about the extreme degree of systematic theft they are doing.
The F-35 is so bad that it was used to destroy almost all iranian air defense with impunity. Elon is such a dumbass
The difference between an F-35 and a drone is that the F-35's Electronic Warfare suite can force the drone to do a factory reset in mid-air and return it to the sender.
Okay that's an exaggeration, but cutting it's communication link and spoofing it's navigation to make it crash are in the realm of possibility.
The broken clock strikes (but actually not really, the idea that drones can entirely replace all manned aircraft in the near future is kinda ridiculous. He just happens to be right about the F-35 being bad lol)
Instead of downvoting me, why not prove me wrong? Why not post some evidence of how it's actually not super unreliable and overpriced? Wasting time and energy defending the air force's biggest waste of money isn't actually going to do anything good
Instead of downvoting me, why not prove me wrong?
You ever consider that it's not worth it? Kinda like wrestling a pig in mud - you end up filthy and at some point realize the pig is enjoying it.
But speaking of pigs...
I mean everybody is right by accident some of the time..
I love libs defending the f35 like the good warhawks they pretend to not to be.
Yes the f35 is a good fighter jet, if you ignore THAT IT COST 1.7 TRILLION and completely forget about the concept of lost opportunity cost.
Lol downvote me you fools the f35 was set in stone as strategic catastrophe before it ever entered combat by virtue of destroying an incomprehensible amount of our shared wealth. The f35 is a tool of the military industrial complex designed to suck up as much cash as possible, the functionality of the plane is a distant concern in practice which explains why it barely works even given the obscene amount of money spent on it.
Please explain how the cost overruns on the development program have any bearing on the effectiveness of the finished product?
Because anything you make with 1.7 trillion is going to look impressive unless you just throw all the money into barrels and just burn it?
Excluding the context of astronomical amounts of money like that is fundamentally disgenous to any accurate description of reality.
edit go on people, keep downvoting me to feel better because you don't have an actual response, the jet looks cool and Musk is a pathetic loser with a billion dollars, but to admit the f35 is the same species of rot that the rise of oligarchs like Musk are an indicator of is too high a dose of reality for you :)
F-15s cost 55-100 million depending on make and year. The F-35 is on the high end of that at 80-100 million but it is not outside the range of what we pay for aircraft. Furthermore Boeing's Eagle upgrade the EX is actually more expensive than the F-35.
The only other option was to keep buying legacy aircraft. Which might work with Russia but the Chinese are actually figuring some stuff out.
The F-35 would be good if they hadn't wasted so much time and energy and weight on having a pilot in it. On board pilots are a complete waste.
(Plus I bet dollars to doughnuts every F-35 we've sold to an "ally" has a secret switch somewhere to turn it into a drone.)
It would be impressive if it didn't have a meat sack in it that needs climate control and fresh air and not to turn to hard...
there's a reason the F-16 and F/A-18 are still the major US workhorses in the skies. (And of course my favorite the A-10 for blowing shit up on the ground.)
The Air Force just selected to use pilots in their NGAD fighter. Drones are not capable of standing up to humans yet. Especially in an electronic warfare situation where maintaining a communications link is not possible due to jamming. So the drone has to rely on on board tech for decision making. It would certainly be different if a super computer AI could control it over the communications link but that's not where we are.
Edit to Add - The Air Force has more F-35As than they do all types of F-15, and about a 1:2 ratio of F-35 to F16. The F-35C had been slower to roll out but 100 have been delivered to the Navy and Marine Corps and the Corps is already using them in Yemen.
Also, as a former infantryman I love the A-10. But it's time is done. The AF did it dirty and tried to cancel it a hundred times but it still did it's job. But the F-35 is everything we asked for in a replacement except for grass stains on the fuselage. It carries a similar load, has a good loiter time, and benefits from more advanced precision technology so danger close is slightly more survivable.
The A-10, good lord... 🤣
Why not bring back the p-51!
And of course my favorite the A-10 for blowing shit up on the ground
Your favorite is the one famous for friendly fire?
Yeah, not surprising you'd hate the F-35 if you like that POS
The F-35 would be good if they hadn't wasted so much time and energy and weight on having a pilot in it. On board pilots are a complete waste.
no, as a manned fighter the f35 is an embarassment of an arms development program independent of any discussion about the effectiveness of future manned vs. unmanned fighters. The program is a historic cost overrun and makes the litoral class of us navy ships look downright functional and frugal in comparison.
