Pentagon Puts F-35 Full-Rate Production Decision on Hold • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by kens » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 1:17 AM UTC

wtvanhest wrote: post #59

Judgmentality wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In any case it's also good military thinking. Or more likely enemies see it as posturing and strike full force, thinking they can pierce the superficial veil of technological supremacy. Come on, security theater is bullshit. How many people actually think the TSA does anything useful? If anything it lulls people into a false sense of safety, making us weaker. If our enemies are so easily deterred that our appearanc…

Hijackings were extremely common prior to flight security. TSA was another level, that was extremely frustrating throughout the 2000s, but at a minimum it prevents wildly unstable people from boarding with weapons Check out this list https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings

I don't think people realize just how common hijackings were in the early 1970s, with sometimes two hijackings on the same day. (Between 1968 and 1972 there were over 130 US hijackings.)

But after a hijacker threatened to crash a plane into a nuclear reactor in 1972, the FAA introduced passenger screening and metal detectors. Before that, there was basically no security.

An interesting article: https://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11326472/hijacking-airplanes-e...

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

#172

Post by toomuchtodo » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 1:19 AM UTC

dodobirdlord wrote: post #119

ardit33 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bingo. The F-35 as a bomb delivery platform might be already obsolete, as drones are far cheaper. You still need air defense/air superiority fighter though.

The F-35/s future role is as a sensor platform and networking hub for a group of lighter-weight, cheaper, and more expendable drones. Eventually the F-35 will also be unmanned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kratos_XQ-58_Valkyrie

Isn’t a Global Hawk, Triton, or similar with high altitude loiter capabilities and StarLink support not a more pragmatic option for such a role? They’re also unmanned. If carrier support is required, there’s the X-47B/X-47C vehicle.

Platforms should go high and slow (but faster when necessary, when in range of bad times). Ordinance should go fast, very fast, with no people onboard.

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

#173

Post by redis_mlc » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 1:25 AM UTC

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.

US Air Force policy is "the best at any price, to obtain air dominance."

So you will never see an affordable choice.

The only exception is refurbished F-5s for misc. base operations, and training aircraft.

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

#174

Post by arthurcolle » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 1:27 AM UTC

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?

Isn't the Sukhoi Su-57 pretty evenly matched with the F-35? Idk if it can hover but it looks pretty awesome.

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

#175

Post by chiefalchemist » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 1:28 AM UTC

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #125

chiefalchemist wrote: post #118

As I read this latest update on the F-35 I can't stop thinking about the $741 billion the US Congress just approved. Bipartisan. And overrode a POTUS veto. In the 2016 State of the Union Obama said, "We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined." The budget then was significantly less. And the F-35 is just now finally being snuffed?

>"We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined." I'll translate this to defense speak: We get ripped off more than the next eight nations combined.

Well it might be the next 20, 25 or even 30 at this point.

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

#176

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 1:29 AM UTC

chiefalchemist wrote: post #175

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined." I'll translate this to defense speak: We get ripped off more than the next eight nations combined.

Well it might be the next 20, 25 or even 30 at this point.

I work in defense and it just makes me laugh when people cite money spent as putting us somehow ahead. We spend $10 for $1 of work. My scrum master has never heard of Git. I am in hell

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

#177

Post by sudosysgen » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 1:29 AM UTC

arthurcolle wrote: post #174

strictnein wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Isn't the Sukhoi Su-57 pretty evenly matched with the F-35? Idk if it can hover but it looks pretty awesome.

It's seriously inferior in most ways.

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

#178

Post by ajxs » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 1:31 AM UTC

Reading through the Wikipedia article detailing serious issues with the avionics software's development[0], I can't help but think of the choice to use C++ as the standard language for development on most of the JSF's systems. I recall reading a document written by the (then-current) lead dev on the project outlining the criteria used to assess C++'s suitability for the project. He conceded that Ada was the superior choice in most every aspect except for the ease of finding developers. Unfortunately I can't find that document now. If anyone knows the document I'm referring to and could point me to it, I'd appreciate it. I thought I had it saved.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...

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

#179

Post by souprock » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 1:32 AM UTC

laverya wrote: post #51

bfieidhbrjr wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much anything from the last generation. Embarrassingly the F-16 beat it in combat, for example. For close air support the A-10 is vastly superior. The F-35 is an employment program like the TSA.

> For close air support the A-10 is vastly superior. Vastly superior for providing CAS in uncontested airspace against enemies that struggle to acquire MANPADS, let alone a modern air defense network or their own air force, perhaps. But the argument is that the US military should be designed for fighting the biggest plausible enemy, and that's Russia or China, not goat herders in Afghanistan. A major inefficiency in…

MANPADS are not the end of the A-10. The A-10 was designed with them in mind. Note how the strange tail wraps around the engine exhaust. That is a tiny bit of stealth, blocking the IR seekers from seeing the engines from most angles.

Other factors also reduce vulnerability. MANPADS are essentially never radar-seeking for reasons of physics; they do not have a large enough diameter to carry a proper forward-looking antenna at radio frequencies. The A-10 has some redundancy and armor, and the MANPADS have very small payloads, so hitting a single engine isn't going to doom the aircraft. The A-10 is normally flown in a way that avoids dangerous exposure, with complicated undulating movement that would break an IR seeker lock. (now you see the engines... and now you don't) The A-10 doesn't have to fly alone against an enemy. Pairing it with the EA-18G Growler would be a decent idea.

Once you consider the enemy to be an advanced country, the standards for acceptable losses change. You're speaking of World War III. Look back to the bomber pilots of World War II to see what is accepted. At times, typical survival for a pilot was a month. In war with an advanced country, 1:1 loss ratios are to be expected.

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

#180

Post by lumost » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 1:36 AM UTC

chmod775 wrote: post #155

dodobirdlord wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AWACS can be shot down by near-peer adversaries. And satellites travel in known orbits and have no capacity to evade. It's well known at this point that nations that can make current-generation fighter jets can also shoot down satellites.

Making a fighter jet is way harder than hitting a satellite with a few grams worth of kinetic projectile (or, more accurately, letting the satellite run into a field them). I wouldn't bet on any nation not being able to pull that off. In fact I can think of some teams of university students who could probably hit a Starlink satellite if you gave them some funding.

Any nuclear armed adversary could knock out a whole hemisphere of starlinks with a single missile.