Elon Musk, who helped Donald Trump win the US presidential election, recently expressed his views on the F-35 fighter jet, calling it a “shit design” and stating that “manned fighter jets are obsolete in the age of drones anyway.” His comments have sparked a lot of debate. If the F-35 is truly “obsolete,” should China continue copying the J-35?
Musk often randomly expresses various opinions, some of which continue to spark controversy, at the very least maintaining the social media attention he receives. Importantly, people are free to discuss topics of interest, even if it leads to confrontations. Such debates may not always yield results, but many are inspired by them. Similar debates are commonplace in the United States, and many are beneficial, often influencing final decisions positively. This is perhaps one of the reasons why the US can be considered the world’s leading superpower.
On November 24, Musk retweeted a video of a drone swarm and commented, “Meanwhile, some idiots are still building manned fighter jets like the F-35.”
User @VKtz86 responded to Musk, saying that the F-35 can fly higher, faster, exponentially increase flight time (flying approximately 3,200 km without air refueling and external fuel tanks), and most importantly, can carry highly advanced air-to-air and air-to-ground munitions. To people like you, this is a shockingly stupid behavior.
This user directly countered Musk and listed the advantages of the F-35. Musk replied, calling it “a shit design.”
Another user, @ValentinaForUSA, joined the discussion, stating that drones represent a new level of warfare.
User @veryvirology claimed that F-35 can fly slightly higher, carry more effective payload, and fly farther. These replace infantry, not air power.
The views of these two users align closely with Musk, but according to the understanding of the second user, drones should be more effective in providing tactical support on the ground.
User @2aHistory said, “I think F-35’s flight time exceeds 30 or 60 minutes.”
This user is referring to the drone swarm in the video shared by Musk, i.e., civilian small drones. However, military drones have much greater range and flight time; the US military’s MQ-9 drone can stay airborne for up to 27 hours.
The discussions among users are sometimes not on the same level. Musk again replied, saying that manned fighter jets are an inefficient way to extend missile ranges or drop bombs. Reusable drones can achieve this without all the expenses of human pilots. If the enemy has advanced ground-to-air missiles or drones, fighter jets will quickly be shot down, as demonstrated in conflicts such as with Russia. Fighter jets do have the advantage of helping Air Force officers get dates. Drones are much less effective in this regard.
On November 25, Musk made another comment, stating that the design of the F-35 has been broken on a demand level because it needs to provide too much to too many people, making it an expensive and complex Swiss Army knife but not a master of any aspect. Success is never about a range of possible outcomes. Anyway, manned fighter jets are obsolete in the age of drones. They will only end up killing pilots.
Musk’s subsequent comments were directed at manned fighter jets in general.
User @juhanihonkala said, “AI-controlled drones will cover 99.9% of missions, including long-range ones. Human pilots are limiting factors.”
User @VKtz86 replied again, saying, “You don’t know what you’re talking about. Show me one drone with the capabilities of the F-35. Offensive, defensive, range, and independence. Give me the full specs. Elon referred to the precise drones shared in the video. These are FPV drones. They can’t even carry a single GBU small gravity bomb.”
User @uncertza said, “You can’t fly an F-35 in skies where countries have S-400 missile defense systems. They are vulnerable, but drones can penetrate any air defense system when deployed in large numbers. Any team led by you will lose a war quickly compared to Elon’s team. Victory will happen with Elon’s concepts – replace big financlayers.”
@VKtz86 responded again, saying, “Israeli F-35 flew over the S-400-equipped skies of Syria, Iraq, and Iran. They not only went undetected but also destroyed a bunch of S-400 systems. This happened just weeks ago. The F-35 took off from Israel, flew 2,500 km to Iran, then returned another 2,500 km. The range of FPV drones is only a few hundred kilometers. In any scenario, how exactly would they be utilized?”
User @RobO_65 stated, “One drone can damage the engines of an F-35. Imagine a scenario with a thousand drones flying in. Suicide drones are destroying tanks and armored carriers. Drones are tracking ground forces, sinking ships on the water – Elon must have been briefed.”
@VKtz86 continued the conversation, saying, “The maximum flying altitude of your so-called drone swarm is just the altitude at which an F-35 performs defensive aerial maneuvers (meaning the F-35 almost never flies that low), and the fastest FPV drone moves at the same speed as the landing speed of an F-35. Research the fifth-generation jet fighters and then tell me how FPV drones hit an F-35 (excluding the one sitting in an open hangar)??”
User @PeteSroka opined, “I think this is a cost issue. Let’s compare the purchasing situation in detail. With the same budget, how many drones can you buy and operate compared to the overpriced jet fighters that still need a person to fly in the air?”
User @DaBoiBigg stated, “This attitude is as detrimental as it caused arms races, space races, or any other failures. The F-35 is a great work in American aviation history and will long reside in the armories. He (Elon) just simply stated, instead of continuing to invest in the ongoing construction of the F-35, the funds could be distributed elsewhere.”
User @ANDYJ978 said, “Drones are 1000% more efficient in the battlefield than jet bombers.”
User @Michael03282460 commented, “I agree that F-35 is still needed. Their firepower is much stronger.”
The views of users seem to each have their merits, which can be considered along two basic lines of thinking:
1) Can drones completely replace piloted aircraft in future air strikes?
2) Can drones completely replace piloted aircraft in future aerial combat?
On the Russia-Ukraine battleground, drones have become essential weapons for both sides. The fighters and bomber aircraft from both sides dare not easily challenge the opponent’s air defense network; Russia’s missile inventory is running low, and production cannot keep up with usage; Ukraine’s missile aid is also limited, and domestic missile production takes time. Small drones are much cheaper, with a simpler production process, but these are mainly disposable small suicide drones, and there are very few large drones that can be reused.
Ukraine’s drones continue to kill Russian frontline soldiers, paralyze Russian tanks and armored vehicles, and can also attack Russian ammunition depots. Still, they struggle to destroy fortified buildings and underground facilities. Small drones carry limited ammunition and have limited long-range striking capabilities. The US military provides the Spring Knife drone to Ukraine and Taiwan, but its power and strike range are not sufficient.
Reusable long-range drones are expensive, such as the US MQ-9 drone, with a production of over 300 units, an average unit price around $32 million, a maximum takeoff weight of 4.76 tons, capable of carrying 8 Hellfire missiles but unable to carry large missiles; can fly 1,900 km, but the maximum speed is 482 km/h. Slow drones are easily shot down and struggle to penetrate dense air defenses to effectively complete long-range airstrikes. Once lost, the costs are significant.
If drones were made similar in size to medium-sized fighter jets like the F-35, with similar speed, range, and payload capacity, the cost might not be much lower than that of the F-35. Such expensive drones, if not effectively controlled remotely, would struggle to achieve long-range strike missions; adversaries could interfere, and in case of failure or capture, or even reverse attacks on friendly targets.
Before eliminating buyer concerns completely, it is challenging for expensive, large, reusable drones to get bulk orders. The US military’s B-21 bomber, dubbed the sixth-generation aircraft, aims to keep the unit cost around $500 million and hopes to deploy it quickly, but it still relies on piloted operations. The B-21 needs to be able to drop nuclear bombs deep into enemy territory, such as destroying Chinese rocket army bases; if unmanned, once losing contact or control, it risks a $500 million loss, resulting in a critical strategic bombing mission failure, severely impacting the entire war theater.
The unit price of fifth-generation fighter jets is close to or exceeds $100 million, making them similarly unable to bear the risk of loss of contact or control. Without ensuring continuous communication and resistance to strong interference completely, no one dares to bet on large, reusable drones to replace piloted fighter jets for long-range airstrikes. The US military is constantly preparing to counter the threat from China—requiring a large number of mature and reliable equipment.
China continues to increase production of the J-20 and is likely to push for early mass production of the J-35. Before the emergence of sixth-generation fighters, the US military needs to maintain the advantage of fifth-generation fighters and not halt the procurement of F-35. Fourth-generation fighter jets like the F-15 and F-16 also need to remain in service; however, this does not mean that the US military is reluctant to explore actively.
In recent years, the US military has been testing low-cost autonomous drones for air combat, such as the XQ-58 Valkyrie, which can be controlled by F-22, F-35 fighters, also compatible with F-15, F-16 and can be deployed independently. The XQ-58 drone is slower than fighter jets and less capable of attacking them but may target bombers; its primary mission includes reconnaissance and absorbing enemy fire.
The unit price of the XQ-58 drone is around $4 million, possibly dropping below $2 million if mass-produced or even cheaper than Tomahawk cruise missiles; with similar speeds, a similar range to the missiles. The XQ-58 drone, if manned or controlled autonomously by AI, should be deployable alongside cruise missile units. The XQ-58 drone can release the Altius-600 small drone from its internal bay to execute additional reconnaissance missions. It’s unclear which low-cost drone is included in the US military’s thousands of drone projects.
Russia has similar projects. In October 2024, a Russian S-70 drone lost control and was reportedly shot down over Ukraine by a Russian Su-57; this drone was supposed to be the Su-57’s wingman. If the mother aircraft is also unmanned and loses control, becomes enemy-controlled, disobeys commands, or attacks arbitrarily, the consequences are unimaginable and are something that no air force wants to encounter, though there are no foolproof measures at present.
The double-seat version of China’s J-20S and the J-35 were recently showcased at the Zhuhai Airshow. According to Chinese propaganda, the double-seat J-20S can control unmanned drone wingmen; CCTV footage has shown J-20s flying alongside the GA-11 drone. However, from appearances, the GA-11 doesn’t seem like a low-cost disposable drone but a reusable ground-attack drone. There appears to be a substantial gap in China’s unmanned drone projects.
Projects uniting manned fighter jets and drones are still in testing, and it will take time before they can be deployed in large numbers in actual combat; the fully unmanned combat jet model proposed by Musk is a requirement for sixth-generation fighters, and his company may be involved in its development.
The US military is also modifying F-16 fighters for AI autonomous aerial combat trials; if fully validated, they may be deployed in small quantities; decommissioned F-16s could be rejuvenated; however, they are unlikely to be competitive with fifth-generation fighters; even converting F-35s to unmanned operation is possible.
The complete replacement of manned aircraft by drones is a vision, and the mainstay of active fighter jets for the next few years in various countries will still be manned fighter jets, with drones possibly serving as aerial wingmen. The breakthrough of high-cost, reusable, long-range, strike-capable large drones requires overcoming cost and technological risks before true development potential is realized; medium and small aerial assault drones will likely dominate.
Epoch Time’s primary source