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

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

#251

Post by euler_angles » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 6:38 PM UTC

syshum wrote: post #246

euler_angles wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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.

No where in my comment did I say it was not capable of combat at all, but it certainly has not lived up to the billed goal of the program nor will be be effective in its billed role of "Fighter jet to replace all Fighter Jets" It is mediocre in all roles for which was designed to replace. It is not as good at dog-fighting as its counter parts, it is not as good at close air support as its counter parts, it does not h…

Not sure who bills it as "fighter jet to replace all fighter jets" but that's certainly not what the Operational Requirements Document for F-35 says.

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

#252

Post by pdonis » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 7:42 PM UTC

fireattack wrote: post #3

What does "full-rate production" mean? I searched and find a few military/defense related articles, but none of them really explain it in average Joe's terms.

In a US defense program, there are two production milestones. The first is low rate initial production, which the F35 passed some time ago. That milestone can be passed even if there is still operational testing that is not completed, but it only allows a limited number of units to be produced, and, as the name implies, the rate of production is slower to allow for changes based on results from testing. The second milestone is full rate production, which can't be passed until all operational testing is completed. Once that is passed the full number of units can be produced.

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

#253

Post by fireattack » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 8:40 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #252

fireattack wrote: post #3

What does "full-rate production" mean? I searched and find a few military/defense related articles, but none of them really explain it in average Joe's terms.

In a US defense program, there are two production milestones. The first is low rate initial production, which the F35 passed some time ago. That milestone can be passed even if there is still operational testing that is not completed, but it only allows a limited number of units to be produced, and, as the name implies, the rate of production is slower to allow for changes based on results from testing. The second mi…

Thank you!

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

#254

Post by dogma1138 » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 8:48 PM UTC

bfieidhbrjr wrote: post #162

dogma1138 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Israeli's seem to be happy with it, use it in combat and are buying more.

They don't pay for them. It's where all the "aid" money goes.

They do, even if it's partially done via aid money. And again they could buy multiple F-16's for the price of a single F-35 through the same aid program.

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

#255

Post by rawgabbit » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 8:50 PM UTC

I have only read about the F35 and seen a few videos. Can someone check my understanding?

The F35 has the same or even better air superiority capabilities than the F22.

It will have electronic command and control capabilities that will remove the need for AWACS or JSTARS. The vision is that the F35 will defeat any enemy aircraft, enemy air defenses, and provide the sensor coverage that will enable fleets of drones to operate.

(The videos I saw had to do with the cockpit main display panel. I was very impressed by it. It really looked like a video game with its touch inputs and ability for the pilot to configure it any way he likes. I am also amazed at how minimalistic the cockpit is. Reminds me of the Tesla but with much more intuitive UI.)

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

#256

Post by jariel » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 9:05 PM UTC

rawgabbit wrote: post #255

I have only read about the F35 and seen a few videos. Can someone check my understanding? The F35 has the same or even better air superiority capabilities than the F22. It will have electronic command and control capabilities that will remove the need for AWACS or JSTARS. The vision is that the F35 will defeat any enemy aircraft, enemy air defenses, and provide the sensor coverage that will enable fleets of drones to…

No, the F22 has much better capabilities than the F35, and many of them are kept secret.

The F22 is designed to be the 'Uber Alpha' of the Skies and to have no peer. It's made in the USA and is not sold to allies.

The F35 is a 'secondary 5th gen fighter. Cheaper, a little less stealthy, sometimes a little more purpose fit, designed to be exported to allies.

The packages on these planes are getting more and more powerful, and to some extent, they are mattering more and more to the point where the plane itself is less of what matters.

The need for supporting electronic warfare will only increase, even as the capability of individual units increases.

FYI - it's really hard to tell how much more powerful the F22 is because it's much more secret than F35, results are not always published, and they are full of assumptions about pretend scenarios.

For example, the stealth aspects are nebulous, small factors make a big difference, and radar systems are always improving.

Edit: missed the obvious and that is F22 is very specifically an early stage A2A focus role, not so much ground attack, whereas F35 will probably spend most of it's life in those kinds of roles. F22 is 'own the skies' F35 is then 'use the sky'.

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

#257

Post by WJW » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 9:14 PM UTC

chipsa wrote: post #160

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?

It's an artifact of the technology they use. US launchers are hot launch: the motor ignites in the cell, and then leaps out under its own power. This has some disadvantages with having hot exhaust inside the ship. Soviet launchers used a cold launcher. They pushed the missile out first, then ignited the motor after it was out of the cell. This is good for reducing exhaust impingement. But you can end up with a live m…

Fun fact, due to the same design choices US-designed missiles are vulnerable to a failure mode called a "hang fire" (see for example https://www.navaltoday.com/2018/06/25/sm-2-missile-fails-to-... ) where the rocket engine has ignited but the missile is stuck inside the ship for some reason.

The VLS designers had to massively overengineer the bottom part of the VLS "plenum" (the bottom part) to be able to withstand the largest missile that will fit inside a VLS to fully burn out inside it without melting through the bottom and endangering the structural integrity of the ship it is in.

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

#258

Post by jariel » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 9:14 PM UTC

skissane wrote: post #188

tpmx wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> I don't think I was the only one to miss how that conflict related to the F35. Do tell? Turkey had a lot of success in its Syria incursion using lots of relatively inexpensive drones. Syria's Russian-equipped air defence systems struggled to stop them. And then Turkey-equipped Azerbaijan used the same drones to great success in the recent war against Armenia. The message is that the future of warfare is drones that…

That's not quite the message.

The message is, in low-grade conflicts, with varying situations, 'very small cheap drones' have a role.

Turkey's drones are small, cheap, often used for reconnaissance - not exactly the role of a fighter.

It means we're going to see a lot more drone use for close ground support, but that was inevitable.

But again - a capable enemy has defences against those drones, and generally speaking those drones are not going to be doing deep into territory doing tactical strikes, again those types of drones are easily defended against.

Drones are also not carrying payloads of 500lb and 1000lb bombs and other larger munitions.

The role of drones in Azerbaijan and Libya is quite somewhat different from the what role of the F35 would be.

Edit: I should add - obviously not just in low-grade situations, smaller drones especially will be fairly ubiquitous.

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

#259

Post by jariel » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 9:17 PM UTC

sn_master wrote: post #216

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.

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

This comment implies pilots could magically be replaced by tech, and yet, that tech has never been used in any real scenario - ever. Wonder why? Because the kind of control offered by said tech just isn't remotely suitable for real missions.

Of course, a 'major directive' to convert f35s into drones would look like something else entirely and may possibly work, but it's all fiction for now.

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

#260

Post by jariel » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 9:24 PM UTC

pm90 wrote: post #218

credit_guy wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the US military itself concedes that drones are superior, then other countries would presumably want to purchase drones which are likely far cheaper and easier to operate than expensive F-35s.

They are used for different things, by different countries that have different needs, situations, budgets, different support capabilities.