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

231–240 of 1001 posts

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

#231

Post by OliverJones »

Well, $100M for a device intended to be shot at!

A device that's faster and slicker than everything else. That has a version that can fly vertically.

If you're in the sf bay area, go take a tour of the SS Jeremiah O'Brien when things reopen. It's a WWII Liberty Ship freighter. They built well over 2000 of these things, fast, and cheap, to haul military stuff from continent to continent. They had to be fast to build: many were needed. They had to be reasonably cheap: the enemy sank many of them.

And, look at the design of this here Hacker News web app. Functional. High capacity. Simple.

Why can't US weapons factories build stuff like liberty ships and simple web sites, that work and are serviceable?

Too many committees? Too many senators? Unwillingness to tell some branch of the service (the Marines) to use helicopters? Another branch (the Navy's aircraft-carrier service) to use purpose-built planes?

I wonder if engineering and business schools should reintroduce this thing I was taught in college. "Any clod can build something heavy for a dollar. It takes skill and dedication to build something light for a quarter."

Grumble.

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

#232

Post by beowulfey »

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…

You need a purpose behind progress. Look at any of the major developments of the 20th century and there is something huge providing the motivation.

Science continues on and incredible discoveries are made all the time. But when it comes to building incredible things... there just isn’t any push for it right now.

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

#233

Post by mikewarot »

rubicon33 wrote: post #182
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…

I wonder if anyone has any theories as to why? Assuming it's true that technological innovation peaked in the mid 40s/50s, it begs the question why it has ground to such a halt now. Recognizing that is a big assumption of truth, would anyone here be willing to posit an explanation?

We don't have a government anymore... it started breaking down with the death of FDR. The only thing that kept it going was the cold war.

We don't invest in research like we should.

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

#234

Post by HalfANut »

exar0815 wrote: post #110

It's quite simple. The successfull military programs are the ones building one thing to do one thing well. A-10, F-16, B-52. The Programs wanting to do everything in one System fail. F-35, Zumwalt, Eurofighter.

I'm so glad you named these specific models/platforms. Thank you for your half-nut, as went with everyone else. Best post on Hacker News. Totally agreed.

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

#235

Post by Negitivefrags »

rubicon33 wrote: post #182
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…

I wonder if anyone has any theories as to why? Assuming it's true that technological innovation peaked in the mid 40s/50s, it begs the question why it has ground to such a halt now. Recognizing that is a big assumption of truth, would anyone here be willing to posit an explanation?

It’s a combination of factors but all with the same theme.

Basically nobody is willing to take any risk for anything.

This is on every level, from being wrong about a simple decision all the way up to not taking any personal risk with your life.

And it’s impossible to argue against it because at any point you can always make an argument for reduction of risk, and anyone arguing against it is demonized.

How can you argue against more health and safety standards after all? More rigourous engineering standards? More environmental protection standards? More consultation with the public?

But it’s not just a government thing, it’s on a societal level. In large companies it’s the same exact phenomenon of buck passing and responsibility dodging.

Each thing only has a tiny multiplicative cost, but the sum total of all of it is the inability to make any progress.

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

#236

Post by noir_lord »

protastus wrote: post #143

> The F-35 is a Ferrari, Brown told reporters last Wednesday It became a Ferrari due to feature creep and an enormously complex and expensive technology stack. The F-16 is not a Ferrari and NATO needs a multirole single-seat fighter that is affordable to purchase and fly. My most charitable view is the F-35 became a jobs program for Lockheed Martin and subcontractors. People were trained and (allegedly) useful techno…

The US has done this before, they had a winner with the F5E/F-20 Tigershark back in the day, they could have sold those to everyone but they killed the program to boost F16 sales.

It was cheap to buy, cheap to run (like really cheap for the capability which in the case of the F20 matched F16’s of the era) but because the USAF didn’t want to buy them it got cut off at the knees.

Damn thing has a thrust to weight ratio of 1.16 to 1 (it could accelerate in a vertical climb) and do Mach 2, largely because they shoved a single F18 engine in to replace the two much older engines the F5 had.

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

#237

Post by tus89 »

> The F-35 is a Ferrari, Brown told reporters last Wednesday. “You don’t drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays. This is our ‘high end’ [fighter]

The F-35 is not a fighter, it is a strike aircraft. It is big and heavy and bloated and would be eaten alive in air to air combat.

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

#238

Post by angry_octet »

juancn wrote: post #203

Why not just drop the manned fighters and develop drones instead?

You need to command them from close by, because anything else will be jammed. It needs to be an integrated concept with manned fighters, AEW&C, strike, etc.

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

#239

Post by onepointsixC »

exar0815 wrote: post #118
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 is Air to dirt against shepherds with rusty Kalashnikovs. The best plane for that is the A-10. Interestingly, exactly the plane the Army grunt and brass loves and the Air Force Brass wants to get it killed ASAP.

The best plane for that isn't a plane, but a helicopter which has better loitering time. Combine that with the range and speed of the Future Vertical Lift program proposals and there is no need for the A-10 in the future.

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

#240

Post by hef19898 »

inglor_cz wrote: post #117
hyko wrote: post #47

The test of a combat aircraft is in combat. Nobody will give a fuck what the programme cost or that it couldn’t do X if it gives you a decisive advantage in war. It’s fashionable to hate on the F-35, but let’s face it: if the allies have to establish air superiority somewhere in the world, they will be using F-35s to do so, and I’m not aware that anyone has the platform to stop them.

My question would be: if you buy N drones for price of one F-35, do you get better military value for your money or not? At the very least, N drones can't be destroyed at once (unless stored really carelessly) and can be individually specialized in a way that provides wider spectrum of capabilities. A massive bonus: pilotless aircraft can perform manoeuvres unsurvivable for humans, and the ability to maneuver was alw…

These drones themselves are rather expensive, and you need large numbers of them. Also, smaller drones would tend to be expendable one-use things. But sill that's what most concepts call for today. These concepts do need refinement, so, especially on the cost side. An for continued use in a conventional conflict.
Post reply on HN