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

Pentagon Puts F-35 Full-Rate Production Decision on Hold

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 267 posts

Re: Pentagon Puts F-35 Full-Rate Production Decision on Hold

#101

Post by anonisko »

stretchcat wrote: post #44
anonisko wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be shocked if the military doesn't include aesthetics when considering which new equipment to use. You'd want to look badass and cool to the people you serve and hellish and terrifying to those you attack. The psychological impact in both directions almost certainly has important, real world consequences.

I think to an extent the public will decide ugly planes look badass if the planes are presented that way in media. The F-117 was a really bizarre plane, but became so iconic gamers today still buy computer mice that look like it. This said, I think there are limits. I don't think the F-35 will ever achieve the same level of coolness that the F-22 has; the F-22 look very sleek while the F-35 looks like it ate too many…

It could be a moving or cyclical target.

Once the collective subconscious comes to consensus that a particular design is what looks 'cool', then it opens up a niche for someone to come in and do something 'ugly' as a demonstration of power. It's like saying, "this is so much better that we don't even care what you think about its appearance."

I think the Cybertruck is attempting to do exactly this to wedge itself into the 'badass' American pickup truck market. "Oh that's a cute little F-150 with all it's smooth curves. Does the paint job match your nail polish?"

Those without power will always look for new niches and edges to leverage their way into power. That often comes from just mentally reframing what you decide is valuable, because the market for traditionally valuable things is already too crowded.

Note; I'm not really giving a moral judgement or approval of this kind of machismo mentality. Just doing some armchair psychology.

Re: Pentagon Puts F-35 Full-Rate Production Decision on Hold

#102

Post by sandworm101 »

ReptileMan wrote: post #96
mrtksn wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drones should be inherently better anyway since they don’t have to carry 80KG of meat that needs to be kept alive.

Actually around 30% of the aircraft weight is for keeping the wetware alive. And a lot of the flight envelope limitations are just to not squish it too hard.

Not exactly. There are penty of aerodynamic limitations outside of the pilot. Aircraft might be able to pull a few more gs in some very contrived circumstances, but a pilotless fighter would not be an aerodynamic superman. for instance: Stall/flow separation speeds at paticular wing loadings are often well below the pilot's physical G limitations.

Re: Pentagon Puts F-35 Full-Rate Production Decision on Hold

#103

Post by bpodgursky »

ceejayoz wrote: post #7

It's really baffling that the US isn't looking more heavily at cheaper, easier to field aircraft like the A-29 Super Tucano for counter-insurgency operations like Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm all for having Super Tucanos available for cheap counterinsurgency operations, but let's be real — they are not a strategic deterrent to Russia or China, and that matters.

Certainly we should not be blowing up pickup trucks with F-35s and F-22s, but we absolutely do need stealthy fast smart planes available in a pinch.

Re: Pentagon Puts F-35 Full-Rate Production Decision on Hold

#104

Post by onepointsixC »

lumost wrote: post #69
ardit33 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not good. Like it or not, this is the only alternative NATO has for the forceable future. The British Tempest and the French/German stealth fighter won’t be operational until 2035-2040 The only alternative are modernizes 4gen fighters which are very vulnerable to modern air defenses. A ‘buggy’ F-35 might still be a better alternative. Also the British are counting for the F-35 to equip its carriers.

I keep hearing concerns that modern radars may be able to defeat the F-35's stealth, or will be able to defeat it in the near future. I can't help but think that it will be hard to keep a plane flying at mach 1 hidden in the face of fast scanning and networked phased array radars with modern deep learning based detection algorithms. My understanding is that if you take away the stealth aspect the F-35 is a sluggish f…

>I can't help but think that it will be hard to keep a plane flying at mach 1 hidden in the face of fast scanning and networked phased array radars with modern deep learning based detection algorithms.

Yes a sophisticated network of radars, sensors, and computers could potentially detect lower RCS aircraft from further away. But that problem would exist for larger RCS aircraft as well. Such a system is a prime target for first hour strike by cruise missiles as the radars required are very large and power intensive. It's not just about detection, but also being able to acquire a firing solution. A lower RCS plane is harder to track, easier to hide with jamming, and ultimately much more of a headache than a higher RCS plane.

>My understanding is that if you take away the stealth aspect the F-35 is a sluggish fighter bomber that would be outperformed by most 4th gens.

F35's performance is superior to the planes it replaces while providing both greater range and payload. It's got very high AoA capabilities which only the F-22 can surpass. Even more impressively it is able to do maneuvers which other plans cannot do without thrust vectoring.[0]

>Considering an F-35 is nearly the price of 10 4th gen fighters the choice to "upgrade" becomes pretty suspect for a lot of Nato partners.

Wrong. Lot 14 F-35A's cost $78M.[1] That's less than new Eurofighters and Dassault Rafale.

The F35 is the best thing currently in production. That's not to say it's perfect. The F-35's biggest flaws are not that of maneuverability or insufficient stealth. But of range. Despite improving on the airframes which it is replacing in range, it is not enough given the realities of Chinese A2/AD capabilities. The USAF needs a new fighter which is capable of significantly greater ranges as to not over stretch it's tanker network. The NGAD program hopes to address this.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-APFmIGo1k [1]: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/10/29/in-newly-inked-de...

Re: Pentagon Puts F-35 Full-Rate Production Decision on Hold

#105

Post by nickff »

ReptileMan wrote: post #96
mrtksn wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drones should be inherently better anyway since they don’t have to carry 80KG of meat that needs to be kept alive.

Actually around 30% of the aircraft weight is for keeping the wetware alive. And a lot of the flight envelope limitations are just to not squish it too hard.

That 30% is very much on the high side, and would only be true on something like a single-engine fighter.

Initial flight envelope requirements are often drafted to be the maximum a pilot can take, but there are other considerations. Designing an airframe that can handle a 20G turn will actually make it less maneuverable overall, as it requires a heavier structure. Fighter design is a delicate balancing act.

Re: Pentagon Puts F-35 Full-Rate Production Decision on Hold

#106

Post by Animats »

guscost wrote: post #11

Weird theory of mine: The DoD ultimately picks these winning planes based on which one “looks cooler” or basically has better aesthetics. I think the F-35 has better aesthetics than the Boeing X-32, just like the F-22 has better aesthetics than the YF-23. You could say I’m used to seeing the winning designs as “normal”, but I distinctly remember having this reaction before the JSF competition was over.

Have you seen the F-35 in VTOL mode? [1] All those covers open and nozzles stick out so the thing can exert thrust downward. It's amazing that it works. It's not surprising how expensive it was to make it work.

The Harrier was kind of elegant, just some pivoting nozzles.

[1] https://youtu.be/zW28Mb1YvwY

Re: Pentagon Puts F-35 Full-Rate Production Decision on Hold

#107

Post by rch »

strictnein wrote: post #14
sschueller wrote: post #4

Yet for some weird reason this plane is still one of the 4 plains in the running to replace the old FA-18 in the Swiss air force.

Which plane, exactly, is superior to the F-35?

An unmanned combat aerial vehicle would probably win in a dogfight, but that's irrelevant given the anti-access/area denial strategy evolving in e.g. Crimea and the South China Sea.

Re: Pentagon Puts F-35 Full-Rate Production Decision on Hold

#108

Post by tpmx »

waiseristy wrote: post #8

After seeing what happened in Armenia & Azerbaijan, I'm wondering if the US's customers are pushing for these cheaper drone options instead of the F35. The F35 has been in development so long, that it's seeing its own combat role supplanted

> After seeing what happened in Armenia & Azerbaijan

I don't think I was the only one to miss how that conflict related to the F35. Do tell?

Re: Pentagon Puts F-35 Full-Rate Production Decision on Hold

#109

Post by landryraccoon »

sandworm101 wrote: post #102
ReptileMan wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually around 30% of the aircraft weight is for keeping the wetware alive. And a lot of the flight envelope limitations are just to not squish it too hard.

Not exactly. There are penty of aerodynamic limitations outside of the pilot. Aircraft might be able to pull a few more gs in some very contrived circumstances, but a pilotless fighter would not be an aerodynamic superman. for instance: Stall/flow separation speeds at paticular wing loadings are often well below the pilot's physical G limitations.

How much of that is because engineers designed with those limitations in mind?

Nobody has attempted to push what is possible with material science and aerodynamics because there is no point if the pilot wouldn't be able to handle the forces involved. With automation, those limitations no longer apply.

For an example of what I'm thinking of, look at air to air missiles. Sidewinder air-to-air missiles achieve an acceleration of 20g, far more than a human pilot can withstand. Drones in the air superiority role could likewise be designed more like larger, more advanced missiles than traditional aircraft.

I suspect that if engineers design combat aircraft to be pilotless, you'll soon see them executing maneuvers that would be far too punishing if the craft had to support a human pilot.

Re: Pentagon Puts F-35 Full-Rate Production Decision on Hold

#110

Post by nickff »

waiseristy wrote: post #8

After seeing what happened in Armenia & Azerbaijan, I'm wondering if the US's customers are pushing for these cheaper drone options instead of the F35. The F35 has been in development so long, that it's seeing its own combat role supplanted

As a close follower of F-35 development, and of the A&A conflict, I am not exactly sure what you mean. The F-35 would have been very useful to either side willing to use it for the SEAD/wild weasel role.
Post reply on HN