Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

F-35 is built for the wrong war

warontherocks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 719 posts

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#51

Post by pohl »

titzer wrote: post #34
tpurves wrote: post #8

The insight here is, that in current warfare, quantity is the quality that matters. And with quantity, cost of replacement needs to be low, platforms expendable, cheap to maintain and resupply. It, and it's support infrastructure, need to not easily be detected and targeted by drones while on the ground. F35 is not these things. It's powerful but brittle, and like many US platforms, too much value packed into too few…

The total cost of the entire program over its projected lifetime is $1.7 trillion. The F-35 is made by one company, Lockheed Martin (with some pieces made by a couple others). This entire program is a massive transfer of taxpayer money into one company. Another data point is that it's estimated that all student debt in the US combined is $1.7 - 1.8 trillion. No wonder America keeps falling behind.

I think you're ignoring subcontractors and other suppliers. It's probably more like a thousand or so companies.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#52

Post by credit_guy »

freediddy wrote: post #31

I think ultimately the real weapon of mass destruction will be long-range drones the size of a DJI drone, each holding a small but extremely powerful explosive. And then send millions of them, with specific single targets. Each AI controlled to target single weakpoints in buildings, bridges, or even specific people. You can't stop a million of them even with EMPs because you can just end a million more. You can destr…

I think the opposite. Drones are subject to the tyrany of the rocket equation: they need fuel (or batteries) to fly, then fuel (or batteries) to carry the fuel, etc, in a compounded way. Which makes long range drone inherently more expensive than short range ones.

Right now, the novelty of the technology means the offensive has an advantage. But long term it will be the defensive who will benefit the most from drones.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#53

Post by sgt101 »

tpurves wrote: post #8

The insight here is, that in current warfare, quantity is the quality that matters. And with quantity, cost of replacement needs to be low, platforms expendable, cheap to maintain and resupply. It, and it's support infrastructure, need to not easily be detected and targeted by drones while on the ground. F35 is not these things. It's powerful but brittle, and like many US platforms, too much value packed into too few…

There are three stances that I can see in the debate at the moment.

* Quantity has a quality all of its own.

* Innovation and agility allows you to adapt and survive.

* Low capability platforms often can't be used to deliver useful effect & commanders will try every option not to use them in a fight. When they get committed it can be disastrous.

The first two clearly have merits, but every military professional I have ever worked with has cited them at me, so I don't think that they are underweighted in discussion. I believe that the last one is not treated with enough weight in the debate. The best example I have of it is the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Platforms with glaring problems, fielded and maintained at huge cost, completely unable to achieve their strategic purpose. Even when sulking in port these ships have proven to be deadly for their crews and maintainers. Another example is the TB3 drone. It had a staring role for about 10 days in the Ukraine, but those were 10 days where the Russians ran out of petrol to run their air defence systems on. It hasn't been in evidence since because it just can't be used in the current environment.

One that worries me is the upcoming T31 (uk arrowhead variant) frigate. The argument for it is that it is a relatively affordable platform that the RN will have enough of to actually be able to get out and about. However, it doesn't have a sonar, so... what actual use is it as a frigate (I know the story about the helicopter and some other bits and bobs... but... really?)

Sure, when the other side has run out of the good kit dragging crap out of storage might work, but until then you are going to be sending good men to their death in second rate equipment. Is that going to build war winning morale?

Second rate equipment is for playing lets pretend, or for fighting wars of national survival. We should avoid both.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#54

Post by virtue3 »

varjag wrote: post #20

Somewhat ridiculous piece. Ukraine, 4 years after, still operates a significant number of jets it entered the war with. This is despite hundreds of attempts to eliminate them on the ground with airstrikes, drones, cruise and ballistic missiles. And naturally F-35s on that theatre would have been a game changer making mass strikes on Moscow possible. For all the dysfunctions of American military industrial complex it…

That is totally false.

They have been getting replacement MiG-29s and Su-25s from allies and are starting to use f-16s from NATO nations.

"A coalition of NATO countries, primarily the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, and Belgium, are providing F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine. The United States authorized the transfer and is providing training and spare parts, with deliveries having begun in 2024 to strengthen Ukraine's air force against Russia."

So yes, they still have an airforce. They're just getting re-supplied.

Also the Ukrainian airforce was ULTRA conservative about sorties to make sure they conserved as many fighters as possible.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#55

Post by wmf »

fooker wrote: post #38

The primary purpose of something like the F-35 program is not producing a bunch of jets that we can use to win wars. Similar to how NASA's purpose is not to make large rockets that send things to orbit for cheap. It is to investigate new technologies (i.e. how do we control a thousand drones) and preserve domain knowledge in a large number of engineers spanning multiple generations. If all these engineers go work at…

The primary purpose of something like the F-35 program is not producing a bunch of jets ... It is to investigate new technologies

I thought the F-22 investigated the technologies and the F-35 is the mass-produced version.

When we have to fight the next serious war ... it's going to be something built on a similar platform in larger numbers to specifically address challenges of that era.

Not if every jet takes 20 years to develop.

If it can not be made cheap enough, whatever contractors involved are going to be nationalized.

Which would accomplish nothing since the rot is so deep.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#56

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

softwaredoug wrote: post #7

Increased defense spending actually makes the US less, not more, safe. Everyone we're going to fight is prepared for an asymmetric, cheap war. We're vulnerable in how much they can make us spend to wage that war. A million dollar patriot missile to shoot down a cheap drone, etc.

> Increased defense spending actually makes the US less, not more, safe.

It just makes us spend more money on defense, which is the entire point.

The industry obviously wants more and more profits.

They are never going to recommend getting rid of $200m F22s and replacing them with 30 $300k drones that would be more effective and cost 5% as much money.

That's 5% as much profit for them. They're not interested.

They are interested in profits, not national security.

And as you pointed out, they'd prefer a LESS secure world that inherently demands more money going to security.

You could spend more on security to actually be more secure. It's just that no one with any power is interested in that world.

They're only interested in making more money.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#57

Post by nextstep »

Writers of history or historical fiction often wonder how did average people in militaristic, fascist societies from the past view their society? I think it’s obvious from the present-day US: they were amused. They were entertained by it. Human suffering, a necessary feature of such cultures, is trivialized by draping the death machine behind the veneer of fun, exciting game!

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#58

Post by xd1936 »

Opponents of the Dragon Tank point to it's 10-Million-Dollar fangs and 35-Million-Dollar prehensile tail and say this is somewhat excessive... But developing new technology is essential to maintaining America's military advantage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxJLUZWPEb8

(Re-Upload: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8__8--YAm4)

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#59

Post by anon84873628 »

lanthissa wrote: post #48

theres a lot of things to critique about the us, but the f35 isn't one of them. Over the past few years we have seen it operate with impunity over multiple countries. It astounding to me that in the 12 day war and the iran conflict there hasn't been issues from maintance alone. We dont know how well the F35 holds up against patriots or s400's, but what we do know for certain is that against virtually everything else…

The article isn't critiquing the F-35, in fact describes how "exquisite" it is multiple times.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#60

Post by fpoling »

01100011 wrote: post #21
softwaredoug wrote: post #7

Increased defense spending actually makes the US less, not more, safe. Everyone we're going to fight is prepared for an asymmetric, cheap war. We're vulnerable in how much they can make us spend to wage that war. A million dollar patriot missile to shoot down a cheap drone, etc.

I agree to a point. But also look at Ukraine. They are punching well above their weight with asymmetrical tactics, but Russia is not defeated . Drones and other autonomous, cheap weaponry changes a lot. Smaller states and non-state actors can inflict much more serious and expensive damage now more than ever. Large weapons still matter though. If we ever were to enter an existential battle you would quickly see how bi…

Yep, apparently Ukraine still cannot affect fuel production in Russia to any significant point. Drones with less than 100 kg of explosives do not do particularly significant damage. One really need to deliver like a ton or more of explosives and for that one needs bombers that can penetrate air defenses or very expensive stealth cruise missiles or big ballistic missiles.
Post reply on HN