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

The Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar U.S. Fighter-Jet Program

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 79 posts

Re: The Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar U.S. Fighter-Jet Program

#61

Post by alkonaut »

0xffff2 wrote: post #56
alkonaut wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the “sixth gen” or “next gen” programs recently started claim to be optionally manned. E.g the British/Swedish Tempest (introduction planned 2035) and the Dassault/Airbus NGF (also 2035-2040). It’s not inconceivable that one or both of those programs will have an optionally manned fighter in active service in 20 years (2039).

It's equally conceivable that the "optionally" will be dropped as problems develop and they need to try to control costs.

I’m not very familiar with the details of what’s needed tecnically for ”optionally manned”. Maybe it’s extremely complex and expensive. My guess would be that it’s not extremely complex or expensive. UAVs have been in active duty for years so the remote piloting/link tech is already mature. Converting a current fighter to unmanned is done routinely at under $1M per hull, to create target drones. And those fighters were never designed initially to be unmanned, that’s just a hack.

Re: The Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar U.S. Fighter-Jet Program

#62

Post by imtringued »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #59
thunderbird120 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really not. To put it mildly, the report that that article draws from has been subject to some criticism over the years. To put it less mildly, if you link it in any community that follows military aviation closely they will probably make fun of you[1]. Performance is generally better than F-16s in real wold scenarios due to the more powerful F135 engine and the internal weapons bay which means carried weapons d…

The enemy isn't a pilot flying something like an F-16, the enemy is a hypothetical low-cost high-maneuverability remotely controlled drone fighter which isn't limited by human tolerance for G-forces. Or even a linked drone swarm. On that basis, the F-35 will be obsolete against the other superpowers by around 2035 at the latest.

>The enemy isn't a pilot flying something like an F-16, the enemy is a hypothetical low-cost high-maneuverability remotely controlled drone fighter which isn't limited by human tolerance for G-forces.

The F-35 has internal and external mount points that are specifically designed to carry these drones.

Re: The Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar U.S. Fighter-Jet Program

#63

Post by thunderbird120 »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #59
thunderbird120 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really not. To put it mildly, the report that that article draws from has been subject to some criticism over the years. To put it less mildly, if you link it in any community that follows military aviation closely they will probably make fun of you[1]. Performance is generally better than F-16s in real wold scenarios due to the more powerful F135 engine and the internal weapons bay which means carried weapons d…

The enemy isn't a pilot flying something like an F-16, the enemy is a hypothetical low-cost high-maneuverability remotely controlled drone fighter which isn't limited by human tolerance for G-forces. Or even a linked drone swarm. On that basis, the F-35 will be obsolete against the other superpowers by around 2035 at the latest.

See my reply to the other person making that kind of claim https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20796007.

To expand upon that, manned aircraft aren't going away anytime soon because electronic warfare is a thing and until drones are capable of human level decision making you need a human in the loop. Drones will augment the F35's capability but against a near peer adversary you're going to need a manned aircraft at the center of every drone swarm. Especially if you're taking about small drones as those will be lacking the high powered radar which will be crucial in such engagements.

Re: The Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar U.S. Fighter-Jet Program

#64

Post by imtringued »

Havoc wrote: post #18

It still blows my mind that a trillion dollars later no american has the courage to say "so our trillion dollar plane...it doesn't fly. US is miles ahead...someone have the courage to level.

It's not 2080. The 60 years of service aren't over yet.

Re: The Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar U.S. Fighter-Jet Program

#66

Post by thebusby »

Too many folks here are commenting on the F-35's design as an airplane, instead of what it really is.

The F-35 is a beautifully designed trillion dollar uncuttable expenditure. If you look at how the program was designed to consume money, instead of deliver anything of value; it's a work of art!

Re: The Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar U.S. Fighter-Jet Program

#67

Post by [deleted] »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #37
devNoise wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the Navy and Air Force could have shared version with a lot in common. The Marines want VTOL and I understand that feature is important to the Marines. Unfortunately, the VTOL requirements have force compromises in the design. Without VTOL, I believe the Navy and Air Force would have ended up with a platform that was more acceptable then what they are getting.

In other words, nobody learned anything from the Space Shuttle program.

[deleted]

Re: The Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar U.S. Fighter-Jet Program

#68

Post by ldoughty »

thebusby wrote: post #66

Too many folks here are commenting on the F-35's design as an airplane, instead of what it really is. The F-35 is a beautifully designed trillion dollar uncuttable expenditure. If you look at how the program was designed to consume money, instead of deliver anything of value; it's a work of art!

The F-35 program could have sent every child under the age of 18 to a trade school, professional training, or college. I'm not saying we _should_ do it unconditionally.. just pointing out how we can fund an insurmountable project by not wasting money on what the big government contractors want more than our armed forces or the taxpayers

Re: The Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar U.S. Fighter-Jet Program

#69

Post by jazzyjackson »

A trillion is a big number. Space station big.

Personally, my expectation is that the F35 is America's $30,000 toilet seat -- financial cover for our secret UFO program of much higher performance vehicles. Building parts in 50 states is, of course, good congress fodder, but it's also a good way to make sure no one knows what they're building.

It is this lie I tell myself to continue believing in America's technological superiority :)

Re: The Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar U.S. Fighter-Jet Program

#70

Post by Railsify »

bonestamp2 wrote: post #7
mlb_hn wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current title I'm seeing is "Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program" which seems misleading as well; it's more of a history of press releases. Doesn't look like they interviewed anyone actually working on it aside from the fellow in charge if that.

How does such a poorly researched article get published in the NYT? My personal blog is better researched than this.

Clicks are what publishers chase now, there is only so much time a modern reporter can research before they need to publish something. They have to weigh short term revenue vs. Pulitzer prize. An article or series of articles that truly brings enough positive attention to the defense industries largest project and the players involved might be considered, but can a team focus on that in the current click driven publishing space?
Post reply on HN