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

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

#711

Post by marshmallow_12 » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 1:30 AM UTC

paulmd wrote: post #688

marshmallow_12 wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

blades are too expensive. We need a powerful new powerplant that can direct a stream of deficient energy in sufficient quantities to enable flight. Powerplant doesn't yet exist, and my energy converter doesn't, either. In the 50's it wasn't imagined that commanding computers would use so many resources, rather human ingenuity would be directed towards revolutionising existing technology. This is yet to materialise. S…

"directed energy stream of sufficient quantity" sounds like a jet engine, which exists. if you're proposing something more powerful than that... that sounds like a fantastic weapon. Someone get the Pentagon on the horn, let's get this shit funded! With apologies to Larry Niven: "A reaction drive's efficiency as a weapon is in direct proportion to its efficiency as a drive."

steam engines were replaced by oil, and then, the rulebook was rewritten when jets were invented. That was 80 years ago. Jets are old. We need to minimise the moving parts. To do so we need to increase the density of stored energy so more can be used. The answer is atoms. Not old fashioned uranium atoms, but fresh, new fusion reactors. They shall create not heat, but clean electricity. It is long overdue. Even professor calculus knew that the best way to get tintin to the moon was by using nuclear energy. We need to reinvent the plane, not make a better version.

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

#712

Post by dodobirdlord » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 1:30 AM UTC

brianwawok wrote: post #620

bpodgursky wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The next-gen bomber program (B-21) as far as I'm aware is also going well. Fast purchase of an a platform intentionally only incrementally more advanced than the current model.

Does it have a human pilot? Any combat aircraft project with a human on board should be stopped. It has no hope of long term parity of a drone controlled airplane without having to cart around meat bags with limited speed and turning power.

These airframes will be around for decades. They’ll be retrofit to remove human crew when that becomes a viable option.

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

#713

Post by dghughes » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 1:33 AM UTC

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 saddest thing about all of this IMO is they have been working on this for 14 years, and how much money was spent/wasted?

You think that's bad? In Canada my government funded the F-35 program but we're not buying any F-35 jets. Spending a bit less than $1 billion for nothing.

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

#714

Post by cwkoss » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 1:36 AM UTC

The F-35 didn't fail. The goal was to provide porkbarrel jobs in the districts of the politicians who pushed for it.

It has been clear that it wasn't going to be a useful platform for USAF for years.

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

#715

Post by neurotech1 » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 1:38 AM UTC

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #464

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…

While the US does have a problem with building civil engineering projects today, that dynamic isn't really what happened with the F-35. The root of the F-35 program's problems is a cost plus style contract that gave Lockheed every incentive to overrun on cost and time table. Ash Carter fixed that by telling Lockheed if they didn't agree to his new contract he'd kill the entire thing. And oh hey what a surprise sudden…

Sec. Ash Carter [0] did some really good work at reforming the pentagon, especially acquisitions, both as Deputy SecDef and later returning as SecDef. He also served as Under Secretary for Acquisitions (AT&L)

Sec. David Norquist [1] was another Deputy SecDef who helped reign in DoD costs. He also served as Comptroller before DepSecDef. There was whispers that he did actually fire people for wasting DoD funds.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_Carter

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Norquist

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

#716

Post by WalterBright » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 1:38 AM UTC

paulmd wrote: post #681

WalterBright wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its already madness to allow wealthy citizens into space. ?? > filled with tungsten rods, away from becoming there own nation - with non-nuclear deterrence. In WW1, they tried dropping flechettes onto troops. Didn't work. As for becoming a nation, that's hardly going to work without the launch/recovery site being part of that nation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment

I doubt the ability to lift enough of them into orbit to make a difference.

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

#717

Post by Johnny555 » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 1:40 AM UTC

the Air Force should initiate a “clean-sheet design” for a new low-end fighter.

I think that before a brand new manned fighter design leaves the assembly line and takes its first flight, unmanned drones will rule the air.

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

#718

Post by WalterBright » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 1:42 AM UTC

marshmallow_12 wrote: post #711

paulmd wrote: post #688

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"directed energy stream of sufficient quantity" sounds like a jet engine, which exists. if you're proposing something more powerful than that... that sounds like a fantastic weapon. Someone get the Pentagon on the horn, let's get this shit funded! With apologies to Larry Niven: "A reaction drive's efficiency as a weapon is in direct proportion to its efficiency as a drive."

steam engines were replaced by oil, and then, the rulebook was rewritten when jets were invented. That was 80 years ago. Jets are old. We need to minimise the moving parts. To do so we need to increase the density of stored energy so more can be used. The answer is atoms. Not old fashioned uranium atoms, but fresh, new fusion reactors. They shall create not heat, but clean electricity. It is long overdue. Even profes…

A solid fuel rocket engine has no moving parts.

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

#719

Post by WalterBright » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 1:43 AM UTC

wongarsu wrote: post #548

WalterBright wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communism does an even worse job of allocating resources.

Communism had a great many failings, but they did allocate a lot of money to infrastructure and science. But what real communism did isn't even relevant here, I'm pretty sure GP is talking about imaginary communism in the sense that anything that is good for the general population is somehow called communism in US politics.

If communism allocated resources effectively, communist economies would be powerhouses instead of third-world.

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

#720

Post by neaanopri » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 1:43 AM UTC

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…

Risk tolerance is not just engineering, but also how comfortable we are risking human lives.

In a "good war" like WW2 we should recognize that fighting that war is worth the risk and that casualties are going to happen. We don't need our own aircraft to compromise their performance to be 99.9% reliable instead of 99%, because we strongly believe we need to e.g. beat Hitler.