Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

armed-services.senate.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 173 posts

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#71

Post by mrweasel »

ecnal wrote: post #65
mrweasel wrote: post #25

>The combination of re-hosted immature software and new processors resulted in avionics stability problems that were significantly worse than Block 2B So, the upgrade actually made thing worse. I'm sure I'm colored by many of the negative articles about the F-35, but other than "we already spend a lot of money on this thing" and "there's no plan b", why aren't the F-35 scrapped? For the US, it would maybe make sense…

Because, for all their software and development delays, they significantly outperform 4.5th gen offerings and (the A, at least, which is the majority of what people are buying) don't cost nearly as much (~85-95 million for an F-35A flyaway vs. 110-120+ million for a Eurofighter or Rafale).

According to Wikipedia the $90 million is without an engine, which is just weird.

For smaller air forces, which won't have enough plane fight of the Russians anyway, there's little reason for buying a plane like the F-35. Some of the competitors are actually planes like the F-18 Super Hornet or the SAAB Gripen, priced at around $60 million. Sure they are aren't as modern, but for the needs of many small countries they're actually fine.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#72

Post by neurotech1 »

johngalt wrote: post #8

The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project. A system designed to do everything for everyone. When it should be designed to do one thing better than everything else. Divide the F-35 into three different attack aircraft. Single engine CAS with STOVL capability. Big/fast/stealthy twin engine bomber. Carrier based attack drone. All three would likely fulfill their roles better for l…

Dr Michael Gilmore, who wrote that report, apparently had not actually seen the aircraft up close until less than a year ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9re9tJckTlk

The pilot in this video, LtCol Christine Mau is a F-15E combat veteran is now flying the F-35. The video description incorrectly states the director of the JSF is "General Michael Gilmore". LTG Chris Bogdan is the JSF Executive Officer and has seen the F-35 up close and flown chased flights from an F-16.

For the OT&E Office at the Pentagon, they do not actually fly the jet, or operate the jet, or even touch the jet.

There are a handful of DoD "civilian" pilots who evaluate the aircraft for the Office of Secretary of Defense. None of the DoD pilots have made public statements regarding the F-35 airframe having any major issues.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#73

Post by ino »

vanattab wrote: post #48
mrweasel wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm half-way suspecting that the F-22 isn't available for export, because it would hurt the sales of the F-35.

The F-22 is not for export because we want to make sure we can shoot down the f35s we do export.

a software kill switch could be a solution to that problem

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#74

Post by reality_hacker »

Aelinsaar wrote: post #35
sickbeard wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

F-22 is an apex predator, F-35 is a multirole fighter/bomber. two different planes. I think you mean going back to building specific planes for specific thing rather than jack off all trades plane

The F-35 is a 1.5 Trillion black hole; a stark lesson on the sunk cost fallacy. The F-22 exists, and works. We already have bombers, and frankly it seems less useful to put humans rather than robots in harm's way for a bombing run.

> he F-35 is a 1.5 Trillion black hole; a stark lesson on the sunk cost fallacy. The F-22 exists, and works.

You compare fleet of 3k aircraft + operation costs for 80 years with fleet of 180 F-22 jets. Also F-22 can't fly from aircraft and amphibious assault ships, and do most of the ground attack missions.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#75

Post by engi_nerd »

mrweasel wrote: post #71
ecnal wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because, for all their software and development delays, they significantly outperform 4.5th gen offerings and (the A, at least, which is the majority of what people are buying) don't cost nearly as much (~85-95 million for an F-35A flyaway vs. 110-120+ million for a Eurofighter or Rafale).

According to Wikipedia the $90 million is without an engine, which is just weird. For smaller air forces, which won't have enough plane fight of the Russians anyway, there's little reason for buying a plane like the F-35. Some of the competitors are actually planes like the F-18 Super Hornet or the SAAB Gripen, priced at around $60 million. Sure they are aren't as modern, but for the needs of many small countries the…

> According to Wikipedia the $90 million is without an engine, which is just weird.

Yes, a plane without engines is just a pretty mockup that sits on the ground. But, from Lockheed Martin's perspective, the engine is government furnished equipment. LM does not build engines. The government has a totally separate contract with Pratt & Whitney for the development and production of F-135 engines, and another separate contract with Rolls Royce for the development and production of the LiftSystem in the F-35B.

This is why the costs are given as "without engine". Because the engine is a separate contract.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#76

Post by jgeada »

sickbeard wrote: post #45
ChrisBland wrote: post #34

When viewing the F-35 through the lens of a defense project, it looks silly. You must also realize that this is also an indirect federal jobs program. When the F-35 would replace other aircraft and their roles, the bases, parts suppliers, and ...sub contractors those people had to be kept employed. No member of congress wanted to say don't add that or build that if it would hurt their district. So much backroom deali…

Army: We need 3 different planes Government: Why not build one plane that can do 3 things? it will be cheaper. ... it turns out it isn't.

LMFTFY:

Government/Army: We need 3 different planes for these 3 different requirements

Private corporations @ public trough: you could "save" money by building a single plane meeting all those requirements, and we'd also bring extra jobs to your geographical area. Oh, and plus there is this extra "lobbying" money you can have you if support this project.

Politician: Sounds like a good idea...

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#77

Post by thinkcontext »

Impl0x wrote: post #68

This might be off topic, but there are a few comments on here (mostly) joking about why we even should bother designing planes like the F-35 to be operated locally by humans. I'm curious, does anyone have any info on the state of drone fighter planes, either remotely piloted or completely autonomous? Does such a project even merit consideration when we could innovate missile systems instead?

Drones are not a good replacement for the traditional fighter aircraft. Remote piloting has too much latency for dogfights and software is no where near smart enough to trust full autonomy in order to, say, shoot down another plane.

That said, would you consider a cruise missile a drone? One can imagine other types of weapons getting smarter. Additionally, its clear the roles that drones tackle will expand at the expense of manned aircraft.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#78

Post by jfb »

tomjen3 wrote: post #26
wyldfire wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fagan-style code review is likely a net productivity gain over no-reviews-at-all. Sure, scope creep is a killer, but I'd imagine it's a herculean task to create software for a new fighter. The expectation would likely be that software could control and/or monitor many features that would not have been software-controlled in previous generations. Safety requirements for flight (active life support) and armaments would…

Honestly why do we still spec these with pilots? Why not make a generation of hyper-advanced missiles? It has got to be cheaper and easier (you don't need to visualize anything, because it is a computer) and you wouldn't even need active lifesupport.

When fast jet pilots run the procurement, fast jets get bought.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#79

Post by gaius »

icegreentea wrote: post #52
gaius wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could start a brand new Harrier programme right now, same basic design but new build airframes, avionics and engines using modern materials, and you would still beat the F35 not only into-service, but in a stand-up fight if it ever came to that.

Harrier design concept is limited by the massive frontal cross section that Pegasus type engines imposes on the craft - this limits aero efficiency, and especially the ability to go supersonic. Harrier design is also completely not low observable. An F-35 could splash any harrier derivative from afar, and could probably beat out an Harrier in anything but the lowest altitude, lowest speed confrontations. F-35 is full…

F-35 could splash any harrier derivative from afar

And an X-wing could take out an F-35, I mean, if we're talking complete hypotheticals.

The Harrier is battle-proven everywhere from the Falklands to Afghanistan. Marry it up with modern radar and air-to-air missiles and you will have a very capable platform - one that the F-35 - if it ever flies in combat - which it won't because no-one will risk those mind-bogglingly expensive airframes in a shooting war - won't see coming because its radar has rebooted again.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#80

Post by dajohnson89 »

rootbear wrote: post #47
engi_nerd wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is normal in the defense industry. You must be very careful when you upgrade hardware, because it should be proven that the upgrade provides at least the capability of the previous system (regression testing) plus whatever new/improved functionality you plan. Changing hardware on the timescale of consumer electronics is simply not viable, or necessary. In other words, my response to your statement that the avion…

Similar arguments apply to spacecraft. The processors and other IT tech are usually far behind consumer gear. This is party due to the radiation hardening required, but also the lack of a real requirement for the latest-and-greatest.

I have a hard time classifying the computational power of a smartphone as latest-and-greatest.
Post reply on HN