Live data from Hacker News

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

thedrive.com

231–240 of 267 posts

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

#231

I'm really surprised on a forum like HN that there isn't more questioning of what the Joint Simulation Environment is really supposed to do and why the development of a simulation should hold up the full production of a tactical aircraft. JSE is really interesting, it's meant to be a high-fidelity electronic warfare simulation with actual aircraft software in the simulation loop. The F-35 that's present in the JSE is…

> what the Joint Simulation Environment is really supposed to do

It's for formal verification and validation (V&V).

> why the development of a simulation should hold up the full production

Why shouldn't it hold up production? The program has requirements for formal V&V that they haven't met yet. In theory, you could start production by accepting the risk that you might need to do some rework, but I don't know if that was even an option.

> step through iterations with very quickly

The argument for doing a simulation is to get higher fidelity. It doesn't really make the process any faster on its own. The simulations themselves take a trivial amount of time compared to the preparation and analysis.

> nothing like this has been done before

There's a lot of simulation in aerospace and defense. I don't know exactly how JSE compares in terms of extent and reliance on it, but it's not a completely new idea.

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

#232
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The F-35 was never about actual combat I do not believe for a second the F-35 was ever designed to be an actual combat jet, I think is was all just a giant smoke screen to serve several political goals on both the domestic and Foreign fronts. It is simultaneously a prime example of a Jet designed by committee, a 1 Trillion + dollar program that will never serve the purpose it was sold to the taxpayers for...

...And yet it has served in actual combat with the US, UK, and Israel. Do you really think that an aircraft not meant to do something would be fielded by those nations and used to do that very thing? And of course the program has political goals, every defense acquisition program does, to pretend otherwise would be silly.

did it engage in dog fights, or only bombing missions?

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

#233
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.

This can be fixed with new, smaller anti drone AA missiles. One doesn't need a full Sidewinder missile to blow up a drone. Even purely kinetic missiles without an explosive charge are usable on smaller drones.

There are already many ground based anti drone platforms such as Rafael Systems' Drone Done which can be installed on a pickup truck. If Armenia had any of those, they woulld have had an advantage in the recent war with Azerbaidjan.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/air-and-missile-war-nagorno-ka...

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

#234
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So that's a valid point actually (and probably still valid today), however the more obvious reason is that 25 years there was no evidence drones had any real material capability - especially given at that time, the US had no idea they'd be involved in long, low-grade engagements.

And of course, the internet upon which our drones depend, didn't even exist as we know it now.

Drones were 'new tech' and not until they started being used, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq 2, did it start to become very obvious how valuable they were especially in those kinds of conflicts.

Nobody predicted how incredibly 'useful' they would be.

Put all those pieces together, and you see that drones are what they are today.

And doubling down: completely useless in a conventional situation without support, cover, protection and basically superiority. A squadron of 5th gen. fighters with their great radar and support will take out any number of drones over time. As would ground based systems. With impunity. Predator style will never even come close to being 'in range' of the F35's let alone be able to target them with anything.

Drones light up on the dumbest, easiest radar, they fly relatively slowly, they have no defensive capabilities.

It's like comparing Apaches to trucks with a 50-cal + maybe a guy inside with a crappy shoulder mounted MANPAD out in the desert, with nowhere to hide.

All this talk of 'drones vs. F35s' literally when a drone has never even shot down another aircraft. We literally, just in 2018 were able to test fire some A2A munitions. We know fighters can easily clear out drones ... but the inverse is still purely speculative.

As for F35s: they are the only choice, their deployment is inevitable because there's nothing else on the horizon for a very long time. The development timeframe of new gear is growing quite a lot, surely due to bloat, but also to to complexity - an F35 is not an 'aircraft with a few missiles' - it's a 'weapons platform that happens to fly'.

A long time ago, I visited a distant family member's home in Texas, and his uncle was a senior leader on the F22 project, they were doing trials, it was very exciting! But took another 15 years (!) for that thing to reach maturity.

Surely the Americans have some things up their sleeves we don't know about, but how well deployed and useful can something be if it's a total secret? The old F117 Nighthawk was kept quiet until Iraq 1, but that was before the internet.

We're going to see F35s and upgraded 4th Gen Fighters in the mix for a long time. Canada is using it's F18's something like 3x longer than planned.

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

#235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There was (bad) CGI of an X-35B in that movie. Real F-35Bs don't have an internal gun, and if they did, the guns wouldn't fire from the intakes, and if the aircraft took a large chunk of concrete directly into the LiftFan it wouldn't shudder and slowly fall out of the sky, it would be a catastrophic and near instantaneous loss of aircraft and likely aircrew life.

> There was (bad) CGI of an X-35B in that movie.

Models (both miniature and full size) were used.

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

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

UAVs like the Global Hawk or Triton aren't large enough to be fast enough to be useful against enemy fighters. As for StarLink, all relevant LEO satellites are coming down in the early stages of any open combat between the US and a near-peer adversary. To contest air superiority requires a platform that goes very fast and can see very far. To fight enemy fighters or to strike ground targets in places without air superiority a stealth fighter large enough to be fast and to carry a long-range sensing and jamming suite is needed.

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

#237
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.

Lookup the QF-4 and QF-16. US knows how to convert fighter jets into drones just fine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_A_rEZoXSg

Sure, however it must be liberating to not have the "carry a human and keep it alive" constraints when when building the thing in the first place. Sizes can shrink, payloads can increase, mission objectives can omit parts like "come back to the base in one piece", manoeuvre limits can be stretched to the structural limits of the device, things like shaking might have greater margin for acceptance.

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

#238
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Technology isn't there yet - the recent AI vs. F-16 thing was a publicity stunt: The performance of the AI was impressive, but it was both cheating and competing in an environment where the pilot wasn't really comfortable (IIRC Simulators are almost never used to practice combat tactics, so they might as well've got a competitive DCS player in) 2. A pilot isn't just a sack of meat that uses monkey-instincts to ste…

Simulators are used quite regularly to practice combat tactics! In fact, that's one of the intended uses of the Joint Simulation Environment that the article discusses. DCS's missile simulation models are so far from the real thing that DCS is what simulation engineers refer to as "negative training". That is, if you train to fight using DCS, you're training to fight within DCS , not training in a way that's going to…

They didn't have missiles hence why the DCS pilot may have done better as they said at the time the pilot was not practiced on the simulator.

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

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 accele…

No, it's because the engineers have to balance structure weight versus everything else. F-15As are G limited to 7.3G. The Cs are limited to that same amount at altitude. F-18s were limited to 7.5G as well. And both of those are with "clean" aircraft. Start putting munitions and external fuel on, and that limit starts going down, because they wings have more weight to withstand.

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

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There was (bad) CGI of an X-35B in that movie. Real F-35Bs don't have an internal gun, and if they did, the guns wouldn't fire from the intakes, and if the aircraft took a large chunk of concrete directly into the LiftFan it wouldn't shudder and slowly fall out of the sky, it would be a catastrophic and near instantaneous loss of aircraft and likely aircrew life.

You can see the same error in The Avengers: F-35B hovering and firing guns from the intakes.

I think it's a bad job of converting from a AV-8, which does have internal guns, located under each intake.

Post reply on HN