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

151–160 of 173 posts

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

#151

Post by Spooky23 »

dexterdog wrote: post #13
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…

Plus if it's three different ones when the world changes and you need 85% carrier drones, 10% stealth bombers and 5% close air support you can build accordingly. Not to mention the fact that one of those can be available when it's done instead of not getting anything until they are all done.

Sounds like a great idea.

It's not like an adversary could shoot down satellites, jam controller transmissions or hack a drones control plane.

We'd be better off buying aircraft from the French.

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

#152

Post by 1812Overture »

reality_hacker wrote: post #74
Aelinsaar wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This aircraft is never going to be risked on a ground attack mission. It was dumb for them to think it could fill that role.

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

#153

Post by stcredzero »

sneal wrote: post #141
stcredzero wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A. C. Clarke _Superiority_ This fits the Tiger Tank vs. T-33 in WWII. The T-33 had very good firepower and armor. The Tiger was superior in both those regards. However, the T-33 could be more easily produced, dealt better with Russia's muddy seasons and winters, and was far cheaper to maintain.

I think you meant the T34, the second most produced tank in history.

Doh. Off by one! Yes. T-34. There was a recent analysis by the DoD, finding that the logistic costs of modern MBTs scale by the fifth power of their weight. This is a big problem with state of the art modern tanks. Right now, reactive armor is good enough to stymie 105mm and 120mm guns in battle conditions. However, making tanks heavy enough to support 140mm and larger guns looks like it will make them prohibitively expensive.

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

#154

Post by [deleted] »

wavefunction wrote: post #135
smitherfield wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Carrier based attack drone Drones were science fiction back in the early 90's when the F-35 program was started. Even today they can't even come close to outperforming a skilled human pilot in a combat scenario. (Although perhaps if it were Google working on the hardware and software it'd be doable).

What if that skilled human pilot was flying a "drone"/unmanned craft rather than sitting in the cockpit? I imagine there are benefits to being "in-person" but the unmanned craft could theoretically endure far more extreme maneuvers that would leave a human pilot unconscious or dead.

[deleted]

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

#155

Post by hga »

tomohawk wrote: post #146
hga wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project Or an example of how we don't learn from history, for the same exact thing happened with the '60s TFX, except the F-35 substitutes S/VTOL for air superiority. 5 models of it were planned, two for the Navy, all but what ended up as the F-111 were canceled, and we resumed building focused planes like the F-14 through F-16, and the A-10 I…

My dad was a fighter pilot in the USAF at the time the F-111 was supposed to come out. It was late, so he ended up flying the F-100. McNamara was the genius pushing the F-111. Also the genius behind the Ford Edsel. When he came to visit the base one time, one of the NCOs who was near retirement had an Edsel painted in the camo pattern specified for the F-111. It was parked within clear view so that McNamara could see…

From my reading of the excellent book Clashes: Air Combat over North Vietnam, 1965-1972 (http://www.amazon.com/Clashes-Combat-North-Vietnam-1965-1972...) that would imply your father was fighting over South Vietnam (or perhaps to the west), but, hmmm, it didn't mention F-111 missions at all. For the big operations up north, the Air Force used up its F-105 inventory, and had to switch to their own version of the Navy's (spit) F-4.

Ah, per Wikipedia the F-111 was employed, but I can see why it wasn't covered in book, it was ideally employed as a low level terrain following penetrator, so it would not be a part of the big daytime flocks of birds that the NVA were be able to follow and vector their Migs to for one pass attacks. So not relevant to a book focused on air combat per se.

Heh, love the anecdote about the Edsel. The Official Story, on Wikipedia at least, is that he saved Ford not by pushing it, but by killing it, but I have my doubts, everything he touched after that turned to shit, including his disastrous tenure at the World Bank where he destroyed untold agricultural systems in the Third World....

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

#156

Post by hga »

coredog64 wrote: post #118
neurotech1 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RAND didn't mention the commonality between the F/A-18A and the F-117A aircraft. McDonnell-Douglas significantly upgraded the YF-17 mission systems and cockpit avionics for the F/A-18A/B and it was more advanced than the F-16A version at the time. The F-117A basically used the same mission avionics and engines as the F/A-18 which was a few years ahead in development. Having inter-service commonality in major systems…

F-117 commonality was due to the "Skunk Works" model. Lockheed didn't have the time to pursue a custom set of avionics. IIRC, Lockheed also used existing forgings for landing gear for a similar reason.

There's great coverage of all that in: http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/d...

In particularly, they patched together their prototype in a way which all hackers will appreciate.

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

#157

Post by hga »

bdowling wrote: post #145
sharpy wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always felt that F-35B at least should have been its own design. As for A & C, there have been successful examples of naval aircraft being used by air forces too - such as F-4, and F/A-18. But trying to have a design that is also STOVL capable?

It is my understanding that the biggest problem with the naval version is that it has only one engine. The F-4 and F/A-18 were both twin engine planes and if one engine failed or was damaged, the plane could still fly and the pilot could land on the aircraft carrier and save the plane. With the F-35C, if the engine is damaged far from the carrier, the pilot will probably have to eject and be rescued. In that case, ev…

Well, the Navy's been there fairly recently, the single engined A-4 Skyhawk, the F-8 Crusader, and the A-7 Corsair which was based on the latter all saw heavy service in Vietnam. And per Wikipedia, the latter replaced the A-1 Skyraider (to the extent a jet like that could) and the F-100.

But for the obvious reasons they vastly prefer two engined planes, plus I've read the F-35's single engine is so big their current logistics system will have trouble getting new ones to a fleet at see, I assume this means it can't fit in a C-2 or maybe V-22.

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

#158

Post by aidenn0 »

stcredzero wrote: post #126
neurotech1 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RAND didn't mention the commonality between the F/A-18A and the F-117A aircraft. McDonnell-Douglas significantly upgraded the YF-17 mission systems and cockpit avionics for the F/A-18A/B and it was more advanced than the F-16A version at the time. The F-117A basically used the same mission avionics and engines as the F/A-18 which was a few years ahead in development. Having inter-service commonality in major systems…

Avionics and engines can be treated in a modular fashion. Airframes cannot, and that's probably the biggest sin of the F-35.

I think it's more complicated than that. If you develop avionics and engines for a single specific craft, then you can be focused on the requirements at hand and a single working version. When you develop them for 3 or 4 crafts all at the same time, the feature creep gets pushed back into those modules as well.

I bet most of the avionics that get adapted for a new plane require some modification to get them working. This is, IMO, much easier if you start from a working version.

Consider the semi-disaster that is JTRS[1] (basically the f-35 of software defined radios). It was designed to be modular, and that was part of the failure. If they had picked a single form-factor that was useful in isolation, that would have allowed a single system to get up and running, and then it would make sense to grow it out from there, reusing where it made sense to.

Instead there was this byzantine connection of interdependencies and parallel development with few integration points that seemed likely to doom it.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Tactical_Radio_System#Pr...

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

#159

Post by jwatte »

enraged_camel wrote: post #96
hga wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project Or an example of how we don't learn from history, for the same exact thing happened with the '60s TFX, except the F-35 substitutes S/VTOL for air superiority. 5 models of it were planned, two for the Navy, all but what ended up as the F-111 were canceled, and we resumed building focused planes like the F-14 through F-16, and the A-10 I…

>>Or an example of how we don't learn from history Of course we learn from history. The thing you have to understand is that everything is working as intended. F-35, and programs like it, are a way to use public money to create private sector jobs. They aren't meant to be efficient or even effective means to develop and manufacture military hardware. You can see a direct analogy of this in the space sector, where Spa…

It is an extremely inefficient jobs program, an extremely inefficient research program, and an extremely inefficient aircraft. As he said: do one thing, and do it well.

It /is/ a pretty good wealth distribution program, though. If you count dollars distributed, not number of recipients.

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

#160

Post by [deleted] »

adventured wrote: post #100
sickbeard wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

funny because just 3-4 years ago everyone was saying how expensive the f-22 was and couldn't even win in a dogfight. Now we want more? http://www.businessinsider.com/f-22-wont-win-a-dogfight-thru... 5 years later will there be comments saying how awesome the f-35 is and that we should build more?

That article you linked to says absolutely nothing about the F22 not winning in a dogfight. The F22 is still vastly superior to its competition.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN