Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 1001 posts

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#71

Post by Judgmentality »

digi59404 wrote: post #17
ahelwer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reads word-for-word like an email from a PM to management talking about how their project that imploded embarrassingly has so many intangible future benefits that really, it's a huge success when you think about it.

No - I doubt any PM would write what I said. What I said is more a IC in tech saying "Sure, what the PM asked for an laid out was X. But really, in the middle we found out the architecture didn't work as expected. So we pivoted and in doing so found more success using Y's Suggested Architecture" Innovation and Tech is messy. More often than not, Your definition of success changes as time goes on as you get further in…

> Your definition of success changes as time goes on as you get further into a project that's groundbreaking.

If you fail to meet your original goal because you are not capable of doing it, and then you change your goal to accommodate this reality, it doesn't change the fact that you failed in your original goal.

If my goal is to go to Mars and I only make it to the moon because it turns our Mars is just too far away, even though I did something revolutionary, amazing, and extraordinary, it does not change the fact that I failed in my original goal.

I don't even consider this to be semantics. It's people trying to justify to themselves that there is no failure. You've literally failed by your own definition of what success is. Changing the definition of success doesn't change reality.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#72

Post by rayhendricks »

It did not fail at providing money to the military-industrial-congressional complex. But of course we need more fighter jets instead of Medicare for all and UBI.

China is not going to send fighters over to Bomb the us mainland, this thing is totally unnecessary.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#73

Post by lumost »

nradov wrote: post #38
paulie_a wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US air force didnt need a new airframe

The old airframes were not survivable in a contested environment, and there was no practical way to make them survivable. That's still true today.

This may be a statement that the U.S militaries post-ww2 doctrine of air superiority is no longer viable. Large Battleships once had to face a similar reality that it was impossible to make them survivable if the enemy had air superiority.

Drones are cheap, good missiles are 1/100th the price of an F-35. It's possible that aircraft will no longer be able to enter contested space without significant risks just as it was pre-ww2 where it was impractical to achieve air superiority or to destroy anti-aircraft placements.

Considering the extreme investment of the US into aircraft as a means of projecting power and winning wars against conventional militaries, there is a chance that an opponent with a much smaller military budget could "win" in a conventional fight - making the multi-trillion dollar aircraft projects pointless.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#74

Post by decafninja »

sorokod wrote: post #36
digi59404 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes you need a Ferrari. Sometimes you need a bunch of hooligans with bullets in a converted tractor. But being caught without either, when you need one isn't a good place to be in.

Not one Ferrari but many. Sticking to the analogy, in what circumstances do you need many Ferraris?

Peer state war where everyone has Ferraris? Or at least fleets of Benzes, so you want to one up them with fleets of Ferraris.

Even without getting into a shooting war, you could argue your Ferraris will terrify the Benzes from even coming out to play, thus avoiding war. Not to mention the Toyotas and the Volkswagens.

That said, I know some people will argue a peer state war between superpowers (say, US, Russia, China, etc.) will inevitably escalate to nuclear. I don't claim to know enough to say how valid that is.

Also, at full production, the US is supposed to have a ridiculously overwhelming large zerg fleet of F-35s (more than 2000 between the branches, according to wikipedia). That totally eclipses anything planned by Russia or China for their own 5th gen fighters.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#76

Post by abarringer »

If the primary purpose was to funnel money from you -> .mil -> military industrial complex it succeed wildly beyond all expectations. Otherwise not so much.

I lived and worked very close to Eglin Air Force base where all the initial F35's went. Many Air Force people thought the primary design decisions were to spend money and little else.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#78

Post by aqme28 »

digi59404 wrote: post #7

“The F-35 has failed” is a strong statement that depends on what your definition of success is. Did it fail because it couldn’t replace the F-16? Did it fail because it’s expensive and bloated? Do those things even matter? I’m not defending the F-35 but anyone deeply and intimately familiar with the platform knows and understands that it is a Ferrari. You don’t bring your Acura TSX to a Formula 1 race track to win a…

It doesn't seem to me like the Ferrari analogy works. The Ferrari excels at a narrow use to the detriment of other potential uses.

The F-35 however was made to do everything, but excels at seemingly none of them.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#79

Post by dragonwriter »

decafninja wrote: post #65

My armchair general understanding is that the requirement of the F-35B variant is responsible for a whale sized portion of the F-35's woes?

> My armchair general understanding is that the requirement of the F-35B variant is responsible for a whale sized portion of the F-35's woes?

The desire for commonality between the A/B/C variants (notionally to reduce cost) is the big driver, but the B (STOVL) variant probably has the most difficult individual requirements.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#80

Post by GekkePrutser »

shrimp_emoji wrote: post #13
digi59404 wrote: post #7

“The F-35 has failed” is a strong statement that depends on what your definition of success is. Did it fail because it couldn’t replace the F-16? Did it fail because it’s expensive and bloated? Do those things even matter? I’m not defending the F-35 but anyone deeply and intimately familiar with the platform knows and understands that it is a Ferrari. You don’t bring your Acura TSX to a Formula 1 race track to win a…

>So did the F35 fail because we spent too much? Depends on how much it saves us later. It might not be a lot. The concept of flying Corvettes is strong, culturally and industrially, but it might be on the verge of becoming like cavalry with the advent of drone swarms.

Indeed.. There was another article today about how onboard systems saved 2 fighter pilots that passed out.

I was wondering even then, why do we still put pilots in these things? They'll fare better on their own and will have less performance constraints.

I think part of it is the military adolation of the fighter pilot. Probably not the only reason though, a hacked swarm of armed drones is a frightening prospect.

Post reply on HN