Norwegian and Danish pilots and technicians love the F-35 and prefer it over the competition.

It's very typical of tech people to think we know more than domain experts.

What is their opinion about being unable to go supersonic for more than short bursts currently classified as "will not fix"? [1]

A hint they got from the world of software development clearly... :-)

"...At extremely high altitudes, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps’ versions of the F-35 jet can only fly at supersonic speeds for short bursts of time before there is a risk of structural damage and loss of stealth capability, a problem that may make it impossible for the Navy’s F-35C to conduct supersonic intercepts...

The Defense Department does not intend to field a fix for the problem, which influences not only the F-35’s airframe and the low-observable coating that keeps it stealthy, but also the myriad antennas located on the back of the plane that are currently vulnerable to damage, according to documents exclusively obtained by Defense News...

...The F-35 Joint Program Office has classified the issues for the "B" and "C" models as separate category 1 deficiencies, indicating in one document that the problem presents a challenge to accomplishing one of the key missions of the fighter jet..."

[1] - https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/supersonic-speeds...

As an interested layman I'd have thought, the higher, the better, because less friction. Now I'm wondering why. Because of lower outside air temperature, making some material expand/shrink too fast? Now I'm puzzled. Does this mean it can't go (high) supersonic at lower altitudes either? Because denser air causing even more friction? I mean something like Mach 2 at 1000 feet. Mission impossible?

> What is their opinion about being unable to go supersonic for more than short bursts currently classified as "will not fix"

Those two countries do not do carrier ops, why would they care about this at all?

The amount of hot takes is crazy.

F-35 avionic software is written in C++, so obviously any use of such an airplane is to be condemned until rewritten into an HN-approved language.

/flamebait

To contribute something productive: I'm actually often pleasantly surprised how non-IT people with relevant experience often show up on HN comment threads.

Honestly they should just scrap it all and do a full rewrite in Rust

/s

Damn it you were a fraction of a second faster.

Fortran 2008.

Another point against the F-35 - it's not Rust.

The problem with being an expert on the F-35 is, you can't talk about most of the things you know. So internet hot takes dominate and you can't refute them without revealing things that you shouldn't reveal.

That goes both ways. The problem of being an expert on the F-35 is that you can't warn friendly nations of the critical problems classified as confidential.

"The number of major F-35 flaws is shrinking, but the Pentagon is keeping details of the problems under wraps" - https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/2021/07/...

"“Details of [deficiencies] — even unclassified [deficiencies] — are not publicly releasable because the information is operationally sensitive, and its release could be detrimental to U.S. and international war fighters operating F-35s worldwide,”... Seal noted that all remaining critical deficiencies are classified as category 1B issues, which represent a “critical impact on mission readiness.” The more serious category 1A problems indicate a risk to the operator’s life..."

"...In June 2019, Defense News published an investigation into the F-35 that detailed all 13 category 1 deficiencies on the books at the time — the first and only time a full list of F-35 critical deficiencies has been publicly released."

Since Finland selection was done way before, how many of these were disclosed to them?

Nations in foreign military sales programs are briefed prior to purchase. The contents of those briefings are usually classified.

Meh, not to worry. I'm 100% positive that there are plenty of moles in every area of our DIE defense industry.

I don't understand what's the fuss about.

I would build F35 over the weekend in Rust.

I got a good laugh out of them, if I was the conspiratorial sort I'd think that the thread is being astroturfed. However my personal guess is there's a lot of posters from a certain English speaking nation that's anti-NATO and gets a lot of anti-NATO propaganda from it's government and media. So they're just reciting talking points.

Wait, I’m honestly having trouble figuring out what country you’re talking about. Is Ireland anti-NATO? Australia? I’m scratching my head trying to figure out who I’m missing.

Or is it a NATO member that’s anti-NATO? But in that case I can’t imagine that the government provides a lot of anti-NATO propaganda…

I was specifically implying India where English is an official language.

Ah, OK, fair enough. I wasn’t thinking about the relatively long list of countries that have English as an official language, though I suppose it’s quite likely the case that there are more English speakers in India than any country other than the U.S.