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

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

#191

Post by syshum » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 2:00 AM UTC

mrtksn wrote: post #87

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

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

clearly that depends on what you define as better?

Ethically there is a reason that war should cost lives on both sides, if we get to the point where War is one sided or worse the only lives lost are civilian non-combatants "collateral" damage that does not seem like it would be "inherently better" for the world.

Past US presidents have already played Judge, Jury and Executioner with the US Drone program, nothing stopping future US Presidents from using fully automated US War machine to commit massive acts of war in the world as there would be no risk to "US Lives"

I do not see such a condition as inherently better

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

#192

Post by clouddrover » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 2:02 AM UTC

jariel wrote: post #151

mrtksn wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> slow moving sitting ducks I don’t think this needs to be the case. Jets don’t fly fast because they have human inside.

But it is the case though. Jets today fly much faster than drones, even as you point out - they don't have the 'pilot limitation'. There are many reasons for that obviously, not just 'G Force'. Air Superiority Drones are an entirely different kind of entity, and they don't materially exist today. Also for a variety of reasons. Though they likely will in the future.

> Jets today fly much faster than drones

Then make drones which are jets, like Boeing and the Royal Australian Air Force are doing:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33271/everything-we-le...

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35806/australias-loyal...

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

#193

Post by thedrbrian » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 2:04 AM UTC

systemvoltage wrote: post #22

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.

This is not your weird theory. There is some truth to it. Look up Kelly Johnson’s account on several books about military airplanes. In case if anyone doesn’t know he is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Johnson_(engineer) Basically his philosophy, at some corner of his brains was "If it cools beautiful, it will fly well." The way I think of it is - streamlined shapes are generally more pleasing to human vision…

Ben Rich , Kelly’s successor, also though the military gave out contracts to less good aircraft/companies due to how much other work they had. For example Lockheed got the F-117 but didn’t get the order for the follow up large bomber. That went to their competitor because they hadn’t had a contract in years and might be going out of business.

See Lockheed’s SENIOR PEG here https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/lockheeds-senior-peg-the-f...

Interesting idea to have a larger force of cheaper planes rather than the small group of super expensive B-2s that the US got.

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

#194

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 2:06 AM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #161

nickff wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Eh, if we're honest in that conflict it's airstrip would have been bombed instantly and persistently.

[deleted]

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

#195

Post by jariel » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 2:07 AM UTC

baybal2 wrote: post #190

jariel wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not comparable. Drones are 'slow moving sitting ducks' that can be easily destroyed by an enemy with basic capabilities. You need 'some degree of air superiority' to use drones. That could mean extensive electronic warfare or whatever. But drones, in the way they are used as we see them today ... are easy targets for anyone with capability. So they are different things. Now, that said, it still may make more…

A very valid observation, undeservedly downvoted. But, a counter argument to that is that your adversary can simply launch a wall of 20 drones with one A2A missile for every of your F-35, and 20 more to bomb its airfield, and still win attrition-wise. If prices for drones will continue to drop at the current pace, soon they will become near disposable by standards of military hardware.

They would need advanced radar and other integrated systems, which they don't have today.

Today, an F35 would clear out a squadron of drones way beyond the horizon, before the drones were aware of the F35.

So yes 'a lot of drones' would be a problem initially, but they would still be cleared out within hours of being airborne.

Basically organized actors have the ability to down drones with impunity, they stand out on radar, and they require extensive networking.

Momar Gaddaffi was not very prepared, but Iran for example, is.

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

#196

Post by baybal2 » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 2:12 AM UTC

jariel wrote: post #195

baybal2 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A very valid observation, undeservedly downvoted. But, a counter argument to that is that your adversary can simply launch a wall of 20 drones with one A2A missile for every of your F-35, and 20 more to bomb its airfield, and still win attrition-wise. If prices for drones will continue to drop at the current pace, soon they will become near disposable by standards of military hardware.

They would need advanced radar and other integrated systems, which they don't have today. Today, an F35 would clear out a squadron of drones way beyond the horizon, before the drones were aware of the F35. So yes 'a lot of drones' would be a problem initially, but they would still be cleared out within hours of being airborne. Basically organized actors have the ability to down drones with impunity, they stand out on…

You need 10 F-35 to down 40 drones in an ideal scenario of 1 missile per drone.

In real conflict, I doubt anybody with a $120m plane would even think of trading it, and a pilot for a drone.

Even a minimal attrition rates like 1 in 40, mean an attrition loss.

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

#197

Post by jariel » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 2:12 AM UTC

clouddrover wrote: post #192

jariel wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it is the case though. Jets today fly much faster than drones, even as you point out - they don't have the 'pilot limitation'. There are many reasons for that obviously, not just 'G Force'. Air Superiority Drones are an entirely different kind of entity, and they don't materially exist today. Also for a variety of reasons. Though they likely will in the future.

> Jets today fly much faster than drones Then make drones which are jets, like Boeing and the Royal Australian Air Force are doing: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33271/everything-we-le... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35806/australias-loyal...

Yes. 'Prototype'. And they were 'prototyping' F35's 25 years ago.

Since they could have made those 25 years ago - and chose not to - you have to contemplate why.

Drones are mostly used for surveillance, tactical strikes, close air support - so they don't need speed, they want to be slower in fact, and have longer loiter times.

One day, over the next generation, those 'fast drones' will be a threat, but they are nowhere near that just yet.

Until then, drones are lumbering fat targets that stick out on radar and have 'shoot me' signs on their backs.

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

#198

Post by jariel » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 2:20 AM UTC

baybal2 wrote: post #196

jariel wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They would need advanced radar and other integrated systems, which they don't have today. Today, an F35 would clear out a squadron of drones way beyond the horizon, before the drones were aware of the F35. So yes 'a lot of drones' would be a problem initially, but they would still be cleared out within hours of being airborne. Basically organized actors have the ability to down drones with impunity, they stand out on…

You need 10 F-35 to down 40 drones in an ideal scenario of 1 missile per drone. In real conflict, I doubt anybody with a $120m plane would even think of trading it, and a pilot for a drone. Even a minimal attrition rates like 1 in 40, mean an attrition loss.

Ok, but nobody can actually field that many drones (remember it's not just the craft, it's pilot, tech ground support, comms, rads, networks, etc.) especially in a scenario they are not suited for, and, it's not as though the F35's wouldn't also be supported by drones and other support.

We know the 1st wave will be done-on-drone for sure ...

... but the idea Russia is going to be able to man and send up 400 drones (!) for even a single opposing squadron is just far fetched.

40 drones out over the Black Sea? Maybe. But again, as they are 'slow lumbering targets' they will be mopped up pretty quick by a single squadron of F35 and whatever other ground/naval forces are in the region.

Every drone in the air facing a capable enemy is basically on a suicide mission.

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

#199

Post by ckozlowski » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 2:25 AM UTC

doovd wrote: post #136

Animats wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was an issue with US guided missile cruisers when vertical launch came in. The launchers just show as little hatches in the deck. There's usually a modest gun turret, the only visible weapon. There are some Close In Weapons System units, but they just look like machine guns. The USSR built ships with much more visible armament on deck, facing outward. Partly because it looked fierce, and partly because they didn…

> they didn't quite trust their missiles not to launch straight up and come back down on the ship. This sounds like some ridiculous cold war propaganda, source?

It happens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9-LjeoOpeM

That said, I think it's more propaganda than a rule. Especially since plenty of Russian vessels utilize vertical launch systems. I believe the necessity of the angled launch systems like what you'd find on the Kirov, Slava, and Kara classes were more due to the immense size of those missiles. Look at the U.S. Talos and UK "Sea Slug" missiles for western examples. As missile technology became better and more miniaturized, you start seeing more vertical launch systems where it makes sense.

The one area I've seen consistent arguments for horizontal launch are in places where a missile failure (see above) would be much more dangerous, such as on a carrier deck. This is why I believe you still see Sea Sparrow and SeaRAM systems placed on the wings and below the deckline, so that a failed launch won't land back on a deck full of fuel and ordinance. The ranges that point defense systems are working at can't allow for a missile body to "tip over" and still hit the target at range.

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

#200

Post by baybal2 » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 2:29 AM UTC

sn_master wrote: post #183

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

Neither party had modern fighter jets. If Armenia had a dozen F-35s with a good stock of LGBs, I am sure they would have gotten the edge on azerbaijan regardless of how many drones the other party uses.

They had!

They were just terribly afraid to lose them when the battlefield was so tiny, air was full of near disposable targets, and capable air defence had a field day.