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

421–430 of 1001 posts

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

#421

Post by centimeter »

tlogan wrote: post #407
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 want just to add that Peter Thiel is one of the reason why we cannot have / invent ‘cool stuff’. But he is also not wrong about what he saying: I’m just saying that it is not so simple.

How do you blame Thiel for bureaucratic bloat in the US government? NASA, the canonical example of a formerly productive organization becoming hopelessly turgid, was dysfunctional by the time he was a teenager.

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

#422

Post by jksmith »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #322
jksmith wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well your single customer is your paycheck and your deal with the devil. If you triple the price of what you really think it will take because the gov will be inflating dollar supply by double digits every year and you're working a 10 year project, then the gov may go for a different/multiple contractors. So you have to just milk the project for as long as you can beyond 10 years and hope you can dollar/cost over tim…

They have to rip the government off to stave off inflation? How's inflation been looking, oh, these past 40 years or so?

Hah, and throw in this dimension: Don't need F35's patrolling the Persian Gulf, because the need for oil is disappearing. Can't fuel those planes with petrodollars, just burning paper. This is not good.

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

#423

Post by bhupy »

robotresearcher wrote: post #356
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…

The phone in my hand is a miracle of cool shit technology. And a large fraction of the population of the world owns one. We take the miraculous for granted when it’s frequent, sigh about the things we don’t have, and declare its all terrible.

A lot of it enabled by Defense projects too! (Internet, GPS)

I don’t have a fully formed opinion around how I feel about defense spending, but it’s definitely complicated.

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

#424

Post by kilroy123 »

coldcode wrote: post #396
jetrink wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Not to mention the F-16 itself, which the F-35 was meant to replace: 1972: RFP for prototypes 1974: Maiden flight of the first prototype 1975: Production begins 1980: The aircraft officially enters service

The F16 was designed and built originally by General Dynamics, Lockheed bought it much later. I worked on it early in my career at GD.

Any interesting stories you can share from that time? I'd love to hear more.

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

#425

Post by ausbah »

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 think it's a combination of science is simply harder because the low picking fruits have mostly been picked, and environments that lead to breakthroughs like fission appear only under exceptional circumstances

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

#426

Post by thu2111 »

hef19898 wrote: post #144
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…

Well, it failed to replace the F-16, for starters. And the A-10. It failed in becoming the NATO / Western end-all jet. It is expensive, there aren't that many. The stealth capabilities are lacking by modern standards. Maintenaince if expensive and the combat aircraft equivalent of an iPhone. Compare that to the cold war fighters. High numbers, used by the majority of US allies and even comparable cheap. Desiged to be…

The point of the F-35 is to be so technologically superior that you do not get into a war of attrition where you are bleeding planes at the same rate as your enemy. If that was the case it would mean none of the technology upgrades actually gave an advantage, which would be strange given their fundamental nature.

What really matters is how many F-16s or cold war era aircraft an F-35 could take out before being shot down. There is a discussion of such numbers below.

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

#429

Post by [deleted] »

sandworm101 wrote: post #364
bun_at_work wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't entirely true. The US subsidizes military costs for all of our allies. It costs a lot, and a huge amount of funds go to that. There are parts that are like jobs programs, and the contractors intentionally drive up costs as part of their business model, but there are also real expenses to maintaining stability across the parts of the world where our military operates.

>>> The US subsidizes military costs for all of our allies. Speaking as one of those allies... not really. Often times US allies spend money they really don't want to in order to keep the US happy. Canada and the UK probably wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan if not for their obligations as US allies. That certainly wasn't cheap. Canada is soon to replace its fighter fleet. Will it buy to cheaper Saab Grippen? Or will…

[deleted]

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

#430

Post by eitland »

captain_price7 wrote: post #315
Thorentis wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we just cant build cool shit anymore I sadly agree. Unis spend so much time teaching CAD software, processes, etc, you wonder how much understanding engineering grads actually have. I just think we've stagnated as a technological society. We rely so much on computers to do everything, that we can't innovate in the same way anymore. Unless our new x has an onboard super-computer, we just can't get it to do anything.

> Unis spend so much time teaching CAD software, processes, etc, you wonder how much understanding engineering grads actually have That's interesting. The popular sentiment in programming world seem to be Unis don't tech practical stuff enough, or interviews for (junior) developers don't test their practical knowledge enough- a point I always found a bit strange.

> That's interesting. The popular sentiment in programming world seem to be Unis don't tech practical stuff enough,

I think the point might be that there might be a sweet spot somewhere between

- demanding Java code to be created by students using only Notepad and javac

and

- just teaching the latest js trends

I think it is fully possible - and a lot more motivating - to teach theoretical problems hand in hand with practical problems.

Post reply on HN