That would be…impressive, actually. But I doubt any variant of the F-35 has demonstrated takeoff, vertical or otherwise, without fuel, though I suppose if you were extremely generous with your definition of “takeoff”, the F-35C might be able to, given its CATOBAR capability.

The F-35B is STOVL (Short Takeoff/Vertical Landing), not VTOL (Vertical Takeoff and Landing).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW28Mb1YvwY

Lockheed Martin says of the video: "An F-35B test aircraft completes its first-ever vertical takeoff (VTO) at NAS Patuxent River, Md., on May 10, 2013. While not a capability used in combat, VTOs are required for repositioning of the STOVL in environments where a jet could not perform a short takeoff. In these cases, the jet, with a limited amount of fuel, would execute a VTO to travel a short distance."

The F-35 comes with a bunch of other technology that make it truly formidable. The cost has also come down substantially, so it’s probably the cheapest option out there as well.

Mind you, eventually this will be correct... just it's been declared prematurely for 60 years and so this still may not be the correct moment to say so.

> The F-35 pilot just needs to point their head towards the enemy to lock on.

Missile performance won't be equal in this case; if the enemy can launch missiles with higher pkill, well..

The enemy COULD pop out from just behind the mountain/hill in front of you, and force you to have to resort to short ranged (FOX 2) missiles or even guns.

Still, though, this is not enough to prioritize extreme agility over stealth today. The F35 is more than agile enough for the few times this occurs, especially if there is a wingman around.

I remember reading an interview with a pilot who flew in the Iraq war after major hostilities were over. He described a situation, iirc, where he got a radar contact. He notified his superiors (can't remember the exact term he used) and they said they no friendlies should be flying there. It was ok for him to shoot it down. Something felt off and decided to try to id the plane first. It turned out to be a civilian plane carrying contractors or dignitaries (can't remember which).

I can try to find the article again if necessary. The main point is that there are some cases where you do need to "ask questions first" (ie. id the plane) and then shoot.

My understanding is that the "dogfighting is over" rhetoric stopped being proven wrong during the Iran-Iraq war, when Iraqi fighters started mysteriously exploding in the sky during operations.

If you can safely entirely rely upon on IFF and deconfliction, all is great.

If you ever have to close to identify targets, then you might end up with some significant maneuvering, etc. Of course, the F-35 isn't terrible at this, and stealth and efficiency lets it better choose the terms of this engagement.

A naval variant capable of carrier landings of the F-22 was considered by the US Navy but was ultimately not adopted. The airframe is definitely capable of it, if given sufficient military and political will.

For example, lets see what Bayraktar MIUS will be doing.

Someone will eventually produce an aircraft to rival the 5th gen capabilities of the US, but it hasn’t been done yet. Every competitor so far has been theater. Meanwhile, the US is actively developing and testing 6th gen combat aircraft.

But aircraft tech, yes - absolutely. The US knows how to build impressive planes. But stand-off ballistics and drones are now the better bang for the buck.

What do you mean “ballistics”? Ballistic missiles? If so, then, sure, Russia has much longer range conventional SRBMs than the US (though that should change this year, with the PrSM coming online), which has largely (until comparatively recently) focused on manned aircraft abd cruise rather than ballistic missiles for the same use.

> But stand-off ballistics and drones are now better bang for the buck.

In the specific tacrical environment of the Ukraine war, they may be, given the inability of either side to achieve reliable air superiority. Certainly, as terror weapons against civilian populations it is true.

More generally, that's less clear.

Ukraine is not the United States military, and is not being armed with its full complement of weapons for very specific diplomatic reasons. Whereas Russia has been free to unload all it's conventional weapons as it sees fit.

The problem is: what exactly do you bomb? I.e. what is the battle-related purpose of this machine?

Bombing tank formations would, of course, make sense, let's say if you encounter a formation of 10-15 tanks a F-35 sortie would make sense. But then the enemy adapts and starts only using tanks in "solitary", so to speak, or at most in "pairs". Does it make economic and operational sense to fly and risk a F-35 just to destroy two tanks? I don't know.

The same goes for enemy artillery. Does it make economic sense to risk a F-35 sortie just to try and take out howitzers scattered over the entire front line? I think it doesn't, for example the Russians have been reasonably good at taking NATO-sent M777s just by using counter-artillery or Lancet suicide mini-drones (orders of magnitude cheaper than a F-35, excluding the opportunity costs of losing an airplane pilot's life).

Of course, F-35s would be best in destroying civilian infrastructure related to the enemy's war effort behind the front-lines, stuff like power transmission units, bridges, railways etc, meaning what NATO did in Serbia in 1999 and what the Allies tried to do against Germany in WW2. But, again, it's much cheaper to do it with cruise missiles (the Russians have also proved that that is doable during the current war in Ukraine), ignoring the fact that it might not work (the Germans carried out producing war stuff until the early months of 1945, despite the very heavy aerial bombings).

I think the US military has been the victim of its own success in the first Gulf War, when indeed air superiority allowed them to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait with almost no losses on the US side. But the second Gulf War proved that once the war gets more complicated (in that case when it got close to Baghdad and to populated centers) then relying on airplanes alone is not enough.

You then use your vast fleet of less capable planes to ramp up sorties, provide air support during combined arms operations, etc. You can still use your magic airplane for protection of those assets during sorties, and for strike missions on high-value, high-threat targets.

That is why it is not a problem to have 'few' expensive magic planes. The US only had a hand full of U2's and SR71's, because you're not doing spying runs over Russia 10x a day.

That works for a very short war, like those in Iraq/Kuwait in 1990-1991 and in Serbia in 1999 happened to be, meaning it was cost effective to have invested so much money in the far more superior US planes because the wars in themselves were short (so the US got a good ROI out of using those advanced planes).

But what to do in case of a war that spans over an entire year or more? (like the current war in Ukraine). The marginal utility of those first debilitating air strikes carried out by advanced planes goes down quite rapidly, nobody cares after 12 months of intense on-the-ground war if some airfields behind the front have been blasted just as the war started, most probably those airfields have already been repaired.

And there's also the opportunity costs. The money spent on developing a very advanced plane like the F-22 could have been put to better use by investing in the US's artillery shells-making industry (of which the West has not enough of right now), artillery shells which provide a much better ROI during a 12-month land-war compared to an advanced plane.

It's all a matter of what future wars the US plans to get into and how it thinks those wars will actually develop.

If there's a war in 5-10 years with china, will drones be fighting on the battlefield, maybe preventing the us' billions in fighters from doing things?

If I were an accountant for the US military, yes, I would do that. But, of course, things are a lot more complicated, because if they have built it they'll have to use it, you can't go in front of a Congressional budget commission and say that it doesn't make sense to use a F-35 when the F-16 can do the job just as fine, because they'll furiously ask you why did you need all that money for the F-35 in the first place.

> If there's a war in 5-10 years with china, will drones be fighting on the battlefield

Could be. Either way, I think we haven't reached the "maximum" when it comes to the use of aerial drones in modern warfare, not by a long shot. Partly also because of institutional reasons, when you've spent so much money on a project like the F-35 you don't ask your best military minds to think too much about drones so that you could best employ them on the battlefield, you ask those bright minds to put the F-35 to use (because a general's future career prospects depend on it). This would only get alleviated by the US having to fight a real war, when, supposedly, those institutional motives would be overcome by the reality of war.

About a possible US war against China I can't comment much because I don't know the situation in that geographic area all too well. It is my understanding though that the US is preparing for a war over the vast area of the Pacific, a repeat of their WW2-campaign if you wish, but I'm not sure China will fall into that trap. But this is pure unsubstantiated speculation from me, time will tell.

Then you've already won. Tanks are by far most useful on offense when concentrated. Individual tanks can not break through infantry lines, if the infantry has any amount of anti air weaponry attached.

> The problem is: what exactly do you bomb?

F35's main responsibility would be to ensure air superiority, by keeping the air free of enemy aircraft (including any medium to large drones) and by supressing and finally destroying enemy air defences.

Once that is achieved, they can be used for any kind of traditional CAS or go hunting enemy artillery positions. When on the defensive, aircraft are superb at limiting enemy mobility, by attacking trains, convoys bridges and rail heads.

Also, and espeicially in large wars where satellites are likely to be shot down, having aircraft over a warzone provides a huge intelligence advantage. Even when out of bombs, the aircraft can use cameras and data links to send coordinates for enemy artillery, bunkers and tanks back to HQ or to friendly forces.

And obviously, once air supremacy has been achieved, all the 4th gen aircraft can also join in the CAP/Ground Attacks/Interdiction missions.

> it's much cheaper to do it with cruise missiles

This is not true. Cruise missiles are quite expensive when compared to bombs. A tomahawk missile costs $2M per unit. By comparison, a JDAM bomb costs about $25K. Even when including aircraft maintainance, fuel, etc, bombs are an order of magnitude cheaper than cruise missiles.

> But the second Gulf War proved that once the war gets more complicated (in that case when it got close to Baghdad and to populated centers) then relying on airplanes alone is not enough.

The second gulf war was primarily a TV war for public opinion. The best approach to wars where you're not willing to use the amount of force necessary to win it, is to not fight it.

fwiw, if you're looking for a particular kind of strike target, the F-35 is widely regarded as the USAF's most credible SEAD/DEAD platform. It's suitable for a wide range of other roles, but SEAD really sets it apart.