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

601–610 of 1001 posts

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

#601

Post by glaucon »

greedo wrote: post #506
dalbasal wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Broad statements like Thiel's shouldn't be taken too literally. I don't think the main point is the broad statement about the trends themselves. The main point is the classification: Flying Cars vs 140 Characters or Bits vs Atoms. FB is worth almost $1trn. No real technical achievements or advancement. If fb didn't exist, something else would be the friendster. Tesla, Apple, MSFT, Google, etc. are closer to the flyin…

I'm no fan of FB, but to dismiss the value of a platform where you can reach 5B users is a mistake.

I thought the name of that platform was the World Wide Web.

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

#602

Post by [deleted] »

heelix wrote: post #502
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep seeing people say this. Maybe flying cars just don’t make sense? Wheels work really well when your engine dies. Have you seen people drive in 2d space? You want to add a z axis? What’s the efficiency of a small plane? Surely not better than a Prius. Edit: I looked it up and a Cessna gets ~15 mpg.

The maths are about right for MPG. Time is what you (might) save. I'll get around that at cruise - 135kts or 155mph @ ~ 10gal/hour. Better fuel usage if you slow down a bit. Tempted to say if you slowed down to max Prius speeds on the autoban, the C182 might be more fuel efficient. I'm sure it gets 50mpg at 75mph, but doubt it gets that at 109mph.

[deleted]

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

#603

Post by draklor40 »

Hmm, If I were the Indian govt. I'd atleast attempt to sell the Tejas to the US. Engine is American anyway (GE-404), Israeli radar and avionics compatible with a lot of Western block missiles. Would be an interesting reversal of fortunes.

It's sad that the F-35 is in this state. The whole "sensor fusion" (no doubt, overhyped) sounded interesting. I am curious as to how well implemented the same system is on the SAAB Gripens.

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

#604

Post by protomyth »

jetrink wrote: post #168
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…

> 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

1981: Used by Israel to blow up Iraq nuclear reactor

Oddly, they used F-15s to provide escort. This attack took place after two Phantom F-4-E of Iran missed.

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

#605

Post by torstenvl »

wongarsu wrote: post #567
johnzim wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument would be more persuasive if more countries actually met their recommended NATO spend. In reality it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Take for instance Germany. The federal republic increased their spend to $63.8b last year but that's still a shortfall of ~$27b relative to what a 2% spend would be. Aggressive estimates (above official estimates) of the UK's (a similar sized ally) spending on Afghanistan in 2…

The "recommended NATO spend" is just another way the US is costing its allies money. Sure, in 2019 Germany only spent $50bn (1.3% of GDP). But if the hypothetical enemy is Russia with a military budget of $65bn, then what's the point of spending $80bn? Especially if you are in a treaty that ensures you don't have to defend yourself alone.

The U.S. has no interest in NATO beyond keeping Europe free. Don't think for a second Russia wouldn't pull a Crimea in the Baltics or Poland if NATO were dissolved. And then what, the European Parliament will suddenly get its act together and figure out how to counteract a superpower? Any attempt to do so will last precisely as long as it takes Russia to shut down energy supplies to Germany.

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

#606

Post by relaxing »

freeopinion wrote: post #564
nerdponx wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But imagine if we put people to work building useful stuff instead of useless stuff. Power grid infrastructure, new bridges, new rail lines, etc.

Grid infrastructure and rail lines jump to my mind often in these discussions. I am reminded how we got existing rail line through much of the U.S. 19th century land acquisition for private parties who built that infrastructure is easy to spin as a travesty. In many cases it was blatant corruption. And the legacy lasts to this day. All of that land and infrastructure is still privately owned. Fast forward to today. I…

Re: USPS, I’m still waiting to hear the interesting part.

The USPS is legally obligated to deliver mail to every household, 6 days a week. The private carriers don’t come anywhere close to meeting that level of service. Most of the US is incredibly sparsely populated. There won’t be bicycle contractors lining up to deliver mail up the Adirondacks or across the Great Plains.

How would a network of private interests handing off parcels between each other under government regulation deliver better service than a single organization with the problem already solved thanks to 200 years of domain expertise?

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

#607

Post by mywittyname »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #581
Aunche wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the SR-71 as much as anyone else, but I don't think that's entirely fair. 12/32 were lost in an accident, so it looks like we lost a lot of reliability in exchange for a much faster development.

It also pushed the boundaries of what aircraft were capable of. Required all sorts of new materials technology, probably required new controls as well. I think it is fairer to compare the development of the SR-71 to something like the early development of rockets/missiles, than to the F35, which is much more incremental.

> It was also pushes the boundaries of what aircraft were capable of

Are capable of.

The SR-71 remains a marvel and it's unlikely that we could build something better today with the same design constraints. Which is part of why the successors to the SR-71 removed the on-board pilot (UAV) or the ability to lift-off without aid (satellites).

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

#608

Post by madeofpalk »

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…

> all I have is 140 characters

Well actually we've had 280 characters since 2017. Talk about progress!

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

#609

Post by angry_octet »

hef19898 wrote: post #298
angry_octet wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but FCAS will take forever, repeating the mistakes of JSF by coupling everything in a giant program. The Chinese will have it by the end of the decade.

FCAS will be a combination of the F-35, Eurofighter and A-400M. I'd put money on at least 15 years of delay. The Australians and Boeing have a fighter companion drone in the air already now. I didn#t follow that to closely, so. I also think that the manned component of FCAS, the fighter, might be ready earlier. And that fighter is everyting the French want from the program.

Boeing sees Loyal Wingman / ATS as a way to stay in the game when LM owns the only 5th gen western manned aircraft. The dual seat Super Hornet is a better control aircraft than the JSF and has a huge power budget. Boeing have also been careful with the ITAR aspects so they can sell it outside of primary US alliance countries. A system with Israeli or even Indian electronics is a possibility.

I presume the French just want to save their aerospace industry. Before Corona Airbus was looking really screwed, with 777/787 being much more efficient than the A380, but with 737 MAX fiasco and limited intercontinental flights the A320neo is looking good. But I digress.

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

#610

Post by robocat »

mikepurvis wrote: post #561
chrisco255 wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the problem is that the government has too much of a role in allocating resources in our economy as it stands. Maybe the military-industrial complex had some cool things for the first couple decades of its existence, but as the decades went on, it became a rusty, slower version of its old self as bureaucratic creep and complacency set in. Now it seems hard to disrupt that, like what tends to happen in the non…

Lots of us would love to believe this, and yet what does the unrestrained private sector churn out? Ad networks, app addiction, gig economy, throwaway culture, urban sprawl, climate apathy... hardly a winner. SpaceX is everyone's favourite private sector success story, but they're basically just a younger, leaner version of Lockheed— surviving off of NASA and doing what they're contracted to do. I don't think the pri…

> SpaceX ... surviving off of NASA and doing what they're contracted to do

Really this is more similar to VC investment where NASA funded it so they could get a return (better launches), but the future is that a probably large percentage of launches will be for commercial purposes (~50% of 2022 launches are for Starlink).

Post reply on HN