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

221–230 of 1001 posts

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

#221

Post by jboog »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #115
tyingq wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry...what countries?

China, so we can defend Taiwan without having to go nuclear to do it. Russia, over the rest of the Ukraine. Perhaps Iran, if we have to stop their nuclear program by force, or some other contingency.

China can't even field a blue water Navy and their Air Force is about 20-30 years behind the US and its allies.

We don't need an F-35 or another 2 Trillion dollar procurement process to sink literally anything China wants to put in the water.

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

#223

Post by angry_octet »

Zardoz84 wrote: post #93
kcb wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how do you translate that into hitting something going Mach 1 at 40k feet? A UAV capable of attacking a jet can exist. My point is that it would need to be a fully capable aircraft not something that can be produced cheaply and deployed in swarms. There's a lot of space in the sky.

At some point these jets must be at ground, not ? A swarm of UAVs can do a lot of damage on these situation.

Hence counter-swarm swarms. Either single use, fired from a canister, or with their own little runways, flying low level CAP and ready launch at any time, unsleeping vigilance. Plus a bunch of CIWS (C-RAM), which are very effective despite scaring the fuck out of you as they tear open a portal to hell.

https://youtu.be/AcTXYtB9Lfs

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

#224

Post by onepointsixC »

tyingq wrote: post #191
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China, so we can defend Taiwan without having to go nuclear to do it. Russia, over the rest of the Ukraine. Perhaps Iran, if we have to stop their nuclear program by force, or some other contingency.

I just don't see the US fighting China or Russia in a direct, conventional weapons conflict. How does it not escalate?

It doesn't escalated because neither Moscow nor DC are willing to go nuclear over Tallinn while Beijing is overwhelmingly inferior in their nuclear capability compared to either.

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

#226

Post by Koshkin »

cgearhart wrote: post #200
supernova87a wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe someone with more industry knowledge or interesting sources can corroborate -- But I believe that one of the things that happened to the military aviation industrial complex was that in the WW2, early Cold War era, planes and military development programs were very much driven by individuals or very small teams responsible for designing the requirements, overseeing the planning, and the outcome of new aircraft.…

At least three things happened: - congressional oversight increased, with the result that the purchasing authority is no longer generally the end user. We aren’t just buying a ship (plane, gun, etc.), we’re maintaining a logistics and manufacturing industrial base to produce that type of item (and maintain jobs in congressional districts). So maybe we should buy a few more tanks/ships/bombs than we need so that we do…

I am not sure about "incredibly simple" in general though. Look at how insanely sophisticated the P-51D fighter was, for example. But sure, something in engineering as we see it today, and around it, has been lost.

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

#227

Post by hef19898 »

medium_burrito wrote: post #114
CivBase wrote: post #102

> This is our ‘high end’ [fighter], we want to make sure we don’t use it all for the low-end fight. What exactly is a "low-end fight" when it comes to the USAF? Seems to me like the real problem is the F-35 was built to be a do-it-all plane when it would make far more sense to have a more varied fleet of more cost-effective, purpose-built aircraft.

Low end fight is where we use drones and Super Tucanos (A29) and play "Aces over Afghanistan" (or wherever-Stan we go next). Purpose built aircraft are indeed better, and flexible cheap and reliable aircraft like Tucanos are the ideal solution for many scenarios.

I do remember these discussions around FCAS, the French-German F-22 if you want. The concept called for a Gen 5+ stealth jet and supporting drones. The jet itself should also be a strike bomber. And then the official concept papers say, that these jets in engangement with comparable craft, will end up in close dog fights. Because both sides see each other rather late. In these dog fights, a dedicated air superiority jet will beat a multi-role strike bomber. They also want to have the strike bomber capabiliy covered by the drones. I was basically laughed at when I asked why the manned FCAS element would be anything else than a specialized dog fighter.

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

#229

Post by clownpenis_fart »

misiti3780 wrote: post #86

The saddest thing about all of this IMO is they have been working on this for 14 years, and how much money was spent/wasted? Now, read about Skunkworks - they were able to build the SR71 (without supercomputers) in less than half that time and for a fraction of the cost. This isn't just planes, this seems to be everything nowadays. Fission was discovered in 1938/1939 and we dropped two bombs on Japan in 1945. No chan…

Yeah, it's really sad how we can't have nice things anymore like nuking hundreds of thousands of civilians.

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

#230

Post by jboog »

hef19898 wrote: post #206
jboog wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US and NATO is so far ahead of China and Russia in the conventional fight it's comical. No one outside of the US or its allies even has a blue-water Navy. China has ONE carrier and it's a pile of shit compared to what we have. We have 11 super carriers, add in the smaller ones and we have another 40 or so. That's not even counting the rest of NATO. Let's not even get into to the backwater that is the PRC's air fo…

There are multiple account of carriers being "sunk" during excersices by non-nuclear subs. Numbers still matter, and while the Russians and Chinese are't he best in force projection, the Chinese not yet, neither one is to be triffeled with in their backyards.

I'm not saying China can't sink a carrier or two.

What I am saying is that if they do we have a backup of about 40-50 more. And that's not even counting Nato.

Or the fact that hundreds of other ships and subs led by Navy folks that are far better trained and with better equipment than anything China or Russia could ever hope to compete with in the next 15-20 years at best.

My point isn't that China can't give us a bloody nose or two, it's just that they are so far behind the NATO force's militaries that we don't need to waste another few trillion on the latest greatest tech.

Post reply on HN