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

201–210 of 267 posts

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

#201

Post by ckozlowski »

josst wrote: post #166
doovd wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I think there is a few factors at play here. Firstly its a misconception that that VLS has anything to do with this. VLS has only really been mounted on ships from the 80s onwards. The first US ship with VLS was the Ticonderoga class cruiser launched first in 1980, however the VLS was only used for anti aircraft missiles and the Harpoon anti ship missiles were positioned in quad launchers at the rear of the ship. The…

Completely agree with all of this. When you're looking at firing missiles like the P270 and P-700 AShMs that have a mass close to a small fighter aircraft, there's nothing to be gained by vertical launch here.

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

#202

Post by baybal2 »

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?

https://youtu.be/l8TaIP-TgRw

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

#203

Post by robbiep »

dragonwriter wrote: post #140
asdff wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many decades will it be before we see an F35 used in film?

> How many decades will it be before we see an F35 used in film? Rounded to the closest whole decade, -1; the first movie to use actual, not CGI/model/etc., F-35s on film was Man of Steel (2013).

I’m pretty sure there was also a couple of B’s in Die Hard 4

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

#204

Post by baybal2 »

josst wrote: post #166
doovd wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I think there is a few factors at play here. Firstly its a misconception that that VLS has anything to do with this. VLS has only really been mounted on ships from the 80s onwards. The first US ship with VLS was the Ticonderoga class cruiser launched first in 1980, however the VLS was only used for anti aircraft missiles and the Harpoon anti ship missiles were positioned in quad launchers at the rear of the ship. The…

> I think the idea that they put their missiles on the side to prevent self damage is a little far fetched.

All Union's VLS are designed slanted exactly to prevent that.

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

#205

Post by cartoonfoxes »

euler_angles wrote: post #189
cartoonfoxes wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why the F-35's nickname is "Fat Amy".

In case someone reads this comment and wonders what the actual names of this aircraft are: The official name is the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. It comes in three variants: * F-35A (Conventional TakeOff/Landing - CTOL) * F-35B (Short TakeOff/Vertical Landing - STOVL) * F-35C (Carrier Variant - CV) While an unofficial nickname hasn't solidly grabbed on, I think, given that USAF Fighter Weapons School calls…

Panther, as in "60% of the time it works every time"?

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

#206

Post by dragonwriter »

jariel wrote: post #197
clouddrover wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 nowhe…

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

The political role of piloting in the Air Force and the way that replacing that function for a top of the line combat platform would disrupt that.

Or, at least, that was what critics of the decisions made 25+ years ago regarding direction attributed it to, IIRC.

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

#207

Post by rch »

dodobirdlord wrote: post #130
rch wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> An unmanned combat aerial vehicle would probably win in a dogfight If by "unmanned combat aerial vehicle" you mean a missile, maybe. Up to a point fighter planes get faster as they get larger. Any "drone" that could go toe-to-toe with the F-35 is going to be around the same size and look roughly the same. But more significantly, the F-35 is a stealth fighter that serves primarily as a sensor platform for long-range…

I'm referring to a specific class of drone, e.g.:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kratos_XQ-58_Valkyrie

I agree that dogfighting is irrelevant and unrealistic.

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

#208

Post by credit_guy »

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

Whoever claims that drones are better than F35 forgets that the US military has the most and best drones, and more are coming. The US military is investing in both manned and unmanned aircraft, not in one at the expense of the other.

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

#209

Post by laverya »

souprock wrote: post #179
laverya wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 an…

I said "Vastly superior for providing CAS in uncontested airspace against enemies that struggle to acquire MANPADS", which I thought implied "enemies that have MANPADS in limited quantities". Yes, the A-10 does "fine" in that situation.

It does not do anything approaching "fine" against modern air-defense emplacements. Or against air-to-air missiles, whether radar guided or infrared. (those engine-hiding undulations won't do much against an all-aspect missile from the front)

And while accepting 1:1 losses against a peer state in a war might be the reality, I'm pretty sure the A-10 wouldn't manage such a record in hostile airspace. (That's if you count "tanks" or "infantry" on the opposite side of the ledger, of course - purely air to air the A-10 would lose to the average 3rd gen fighter as far as I'm aware)

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

#210

Post by euler_angles »

cartoonfoxes wrote: post #205
euler_angles wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case someone reads this comment and wonders what the actual names of this aircraft are: The official name is the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. It comes in three variants: * F-35A (Conventional TakeOff/Landing - CTOL) * F-35B (Short TakeOff/Vertical Landing - STOVL) * F-35C (Carrier Variant - CV) While an unofficial nickname hasn't solidly grabbed on, I think, given that USAF Fighter Weapons School calls…

Panther, as in "60% of the time it works every time"?

To give a serious answer, as in a stealthy animal that stalks its prey unseen until the final, decisive moment and then can exit the situation with haste.
Post reply on HN