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

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971

Post by atleta »

chmod775 wrote: post #863
atleta wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fun fact: the mRNA vaccines were developed in about 2 weeks after the publication of the SARS2 DNA sequence. (At least the Pfizer/BioNTech one was.)

Was it though? The science that made this possible was in the works for decades, and it took Moderna and BioNTech many many years to get the technology right. So that's many years of effort with the stated goal of getting a vaccine out the door fast when it's needed. But there was relatively little "science" left to be done when COVID struck. The only interesting aspect here are the logistics to make vaccines in the…

Interesting. You are arguing with something I've never said. I was just responding to the comment above that said "We developed two very effective vaccines using mRNA technology in a few months". That indeed those few months were about two weeks. Of course, given all the preexisting research that went into both creating the mRNA platform and the coronavirus vaccines in general. (The spike protein can be produced by itself due to the replacement of two amino acids, which allows it to keep its shape without being on the surface of the actual virus. This is a 3-4 year old result.)

So, yeah, I'm fully aware of it, I was just responding to the comment above, using the same context. (The very point of the mRNA vaccines is that they are a generic and easy to use platform where we can get a vaccine candidate very quickly.)

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

#972

Post by crazygringo »

brokenmachine wrote: post #966
crazygringo wrote: post #941

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The glass is always half-empty I guess, right?

Well it's worse than all the alternatives, so... yes?

Not when you've got your hands tied up with messy dough or kids or your computer is across the room.

Or you're dictating an urgent message on your watch while you're out running without your phone.

Or, you know, you're physically impaired.

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

#973

Post by King-Aaron »

marshmallow_12 wrote: post #637
WalterBright wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have flying cars. They're called helicopters. They're very expensive to operate, mainly because of the very high maintenance costs. Those high costs are due to the fundamental problem that helicopters cannot survive losing a blade.

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…

We have this, it's called the F35 (Also AV8B in previous years). See the article in this thread however :P

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

#974

Post by newsclues »

toddh wrote: post #579
newsclues wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The horse and the automobile were used in two world wars last century.

And how did the work out for the british in WWI? They could have invested in tanks and used the Blitzkrieg one war early, but the officers loved their horses. Using horses was not a sign of health, it was sign of backward thinking and nearly cost them everything.

It was necessity for both sides, because of limited infrastructure, fuel supplies, and priorities in manufacturing.

Most horses were used for logistics if I recall.

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

#975

Post by paulie_a »

ericd wrote: post #263
lumost wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may be a statement that the U.S militaries post-ww2 doctrine of air superiority is no longer viable. Large Battleships once had to face a similar reality that it was impossible to make them survivable if the enemy had air superiority. Drones are cheap, good missiles are 1/100th the price of an F-35. It's possible that aircraft will no longer be able to enter contested space without significant risks just as it w…

What replaces it? Loitering missile drones + a big expansion of satellite imagery?

Nothing, we don't replace it because we don't need it

It's a tremendous waste of money

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

#976

Post by brokenmachine »

crazygringo wrote: post #972
brokenmachine wrote: post #966

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it's worse than all the alternatives, so... yes?

Not when you've got your hands tied up with messy dough or kids or your computer is across the room. Or you're dictating an urgent message on your watch while you're out running without your phone. Or, you know, you're physically impaired.

How many urgent messages do you need to dictate while you're running without your phone?

I'm actually surprised that the watch would work for that without the phone.

It wouldn't have network, so it works offline by itself and saves the urgent message until it regains a network connection?

I'm very thankful that I'm not physically impaired so I'm not forced to rely on the garbage that is the current state of voice commands.

I find it so infuriating to use that I won't do it, but you go for it. Perhaps your training data will improve it enough to eventually arrive at a usable state.

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

#978

Post by goatinaboat »

chipsa wrote: post #961
goatinaboat wrote: post #899

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also sounds like they made a lot of thoroughly unreasonable requests for a completely modular platform that could outperform everything in all branches of military at once. The concept of modularity is a sound one. Imagine this: You buy an F35 and it comes with 2 sets of wings. It has a empty bay just behind the pilot, and it also comes with a lift engine and a spare fuel tank, and a tailhook that can be easily sl…

The idea of having one aircraft be able to become any of the other variants isn't actually that great. Air Force planes don't operate from carriers, and Navy planes don't need to operate from very small fields. The common bits are actually really useful to have in common. The radar is expensive to develop. The optical sensors are too. Engines are expensive, and the F135 engine is like 1/6 of the aircraft's cost. Deve…

The idea of having one aircraft be able to become any of the other variants isn't actually that great. Air Force planes don't operate from carriers, and Navy planes don't need to operate from very small fields.

I disagree, there have been cases where it could have been very useful. For example in the 1980s the RAF were operating the Harrier for the close support role (from austere forward airfields) and the RN were operating the Sea Harrier for air defence, but when the Falklands War kicked off, RAF aircraft were brought onto the carriers. The RAF were also operating the Tornado for long-range bombing and another variant of Tornado for air defence, plus the Jaguar. That's 4 different aircraft that could be merged into a "kit" F35 if it were possible to do so.

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

#979

Post by boxed »

ktln2 wrote: post #185

F-35 is not expensive if you consider the alternatives: Brazil bought 36 JAS-39E for $5.8 billion. [1] Taiwan ordered 66 F-16V for $8.1 billion. [2] Korea is going to get 20 F-35A for $3.3 billion. [3] [1] https://www.flightglobal.com/saab-brazil-finalise-gripen-ng-... [2] https://nationalinterest.org/feature/taiwans-f-16v-fighter-j... [3] https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2019/10/10/s...

155 per JAS vs 100 per F35. But Brazil didn't pay th3 development costs for the JAS. Didn't the US pay that?

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

#980

Post by dublin »

SCAQTony wrote: post #674
bumby wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The root of the F-35 program's problems is a cost plus style contract that gave Lockheed every incentive to overrun I’m fond of the saying “once you understand people’s incentives, you understand everything” as it applies to contracting. I will add, however, that fixed price contracts have their own problems as it relates to cutting corners. E.g., it can put downward pressure on retaining talent and performing best…

I am not trying to be a smart ass but how about this for an human incentive: Build us plane that fulfills these outlined objectives, that meets are budget requirements, or we will shop somewhere else.

Sounds like the Air Force still needs the F-20 Tigershark (killed by Ft. Worthless Jim Wright to protect the F-16 from competition) to bail out the F-35 Trillion Dollar Turkey.

The F-20 may have been the last time an aircraft company ever pitched an airplane developed on the company's money. Despite being highly praised by all who flew it (including Chuck Yeager), it's ugly demise at the hands of politics (it was less than half the price of the F-16) was an example to all to never do this again...

Post reply on HN