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

251–260 of 719 posts

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#251

Post by Rury »

dmix wrote: post #166
jjk166 wrote: post #158

> Meanwhile, modern conflict, from Ukraine’s drone war to naval engagements in the Red Sea to Iran’s own mass missile and drone salvos, increasingly favors systems that can be produced at scale and replaced when lost. The F-35 is a masterpiece. But a force designed around a masterpiece is not designed for long, protracted wars, and U.S. adversaries know this. The problem is that the F-35 was intended to be the low co…

The same issues with fighter jets procurement infect everything these days. Public transit, space, government software, etc.

I blame the four horsemen of project management: Brooke's Law, Metcalfe's law, the Ringelmann Effect, and Parkinson's law.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#252

Post by marklar423 »

carefree-bob wrote: post #250
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would dispute the depletion of expensive munitions, but I still believe that is largely irrelevant next to political exhaustion. I do not think most Americans would care to defend Taiwan, even against the China boogeyman. The practical realities of losing Chinese goods would be a devastating reality few are prepared to face.

I agree, political exhaustion is the real constraint. I personally would not be willing to do anything to defend Taiwan from China. But then again, I don't support any of the wars we fought in the middle east, either.

Just want to drop this link to the excellent https://acoup.blog/2026/02/13/collections-against-the-state-... which discusses the different costs of war, including how significantly weaker powers can win by increasing political costs.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#253

Post by [deleted] »

bluGill wrote: post #237
ExoticPearTree wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It concerns me how casual the article and some of the comments here discuss an actual war against China, as if that were a reasonable scenario. The last few wars started by the US were based on scenarios that looked good on paper and in reality they did not went so well. Look at the Iran war: "we're gonna kill their supreme leader and the regime will fall". Almost two months later nothing changed in any significant…

The iran war - for all it was a bad idea eliminated a lot of iran's war capacity which seems to be the real goal - near as anyone can tell what they were. Regime change would be nice, but needs more than the us was ever gave indication they would do. the followon effects like the closing of the straight were obvious which is why few Iran hatehs thought it was a good idea

[deleted]

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#254

Post by chrisss395 »

I would just point out that 10-15 years ago Defense executives were talking about drone warfare (search "The Third Offset Strategy"). I recall an executive client being obsessed with this, and in fairness back then they had lost major contracts because their components (think electronic warfare) were designed for max power, i.e., max size and weight.

Again, this was 10-15 years ago. Now with the Ukraine war everyone acts like it is obvious...and I agree, it has been for awhile. We just never had a theater to test this stuff in. I suspect US defense contractors were on-board for Ukraine and Iran to advance development efforts significantly.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#255

Post by angry_octet »

ghaff wrote: post #205
scottyah wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The F-35 is a massive success. It is a common design that brought together what would have been three to five different planes into one. Costs doubling is further proof of how amazing it is- inflation has basically outpaced that. Cost per flight hour has more to do with data analytics and the Socialism within the DoW (it's a jobs program) than actual need. A lot of delays were quasi-on purpose. It has crazy supply ch…

Given budgets and slipped timeframes, there was a lot of criticism of the F-35 unifying platforms as opposed to just letting every service do their own one (or two) things as had been the norm. But, at the end of the day, not clear it was a bad strategy.

It is actually pretty clear. Getting there in the end doesn't mean it was a good choice.

The range of the F-35 is too low for the Navy, because it sits in the F-16 concept. But there is no fighter/interceptor split in the AF either, and the range is too low for AF as well.

So now we have the F-47, a very belated ack that the F-35 has short legs. But it also won't fix the problem because it is too focused on the F-22 role, absolute air dominance against e.g. J-20.

No one should call it success. It is what it is.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#256

Post by gozucito »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #230
carefree-bob wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Iran war is a skirmish by any reasonable measure. It does not exhaust either the US Navy or the Airforce, and the Army isn't even participating. Now I understand it has a large impact because of oil prices and the closing of the strait of hormuz, but don't confuse the economic impact of the closing of shipping lanes with something that "exhausts" the US military. Remember this is the military that spent two decad…

I would dispute the depletion of expensive munitions, but I still believe that is largely irrelevant next to political exhaustion. I do not think most Americans would care to defend Taiwan, even against the China boogeyman. The practical realities of losing Chinese goods would be a devastating reality few are prepared to face.

The reality of losing TSMC is no joke either. I remember Covid times when many G20 leaders went to Taiwan begging for some chips so that they could keep exporting cars and other things that need computer chips.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#257

Post by vogre »

eek2121 wrote: post #138
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one was going to launch mass strikes on Moscow. Russian nuclear doctrine would have treated that as an existential threat. The psychology of Ukraine's drone campaign as a response to Russia's original drone launches is very interesting. It's a classic boiling frog move. Drones are seen as an improvised amateur threat. Unlike a bombing campaign, which is seen as "proper war", drones are an annoyance. They're fragil…

Tell that to the folks on the front lines, along with folks on both sides, military or not, who have had to deal with it. Russia would never nuke Ukraine to begin with. They know that by doing so, most of the world would unite against them, and many, including Putin, would be on the chopping block.

> Russia would never nuke Ukraine to begin with

Mostly because that's useless. Ukrainian weapon production and economy is located in Europe. Ukraine is basicaly western PMC now.

If nuclear war starts, nukes would be falling on European cities and facilities, not Ukrainian.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#258

Post by fooker »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #90
fooker wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mass produced means something very different when it comes to wars between comparable powers. There are barely more than a thousand F-35s, the number of US aircrafts used in WW2 was about 300,000. If China produces 100 times or 1000 times their current numbers (and they can), marginal differences in capability are not going to matter.

Quantity has been replaced by precision. In WW2 the US would send a 1,000 bombers to hit a target and still miss. That's why they needed so many. Now a single attack jet can hit multiple targets with very high probability.

Maybe you should read the article?

Quantity is back in the game again thanks to drones, right now we would lose without escalating to a nuclear war.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#259

Post by 999900000999 »

vanviegen wrote: post #89

It concerns me how casual the article and some of the comments here discuss an actual war against China, as if that were a reasonable scenario. Of course I understand wanting to be prepared even for grim scenarios such as these. Military strategists should of course continually be refining such plans. But casual discussions like this, without even so much as a disclaimer about it being a hypothetical and extremely un…

I'm convinced War Hawks in all countries are much like WWE performers.

The hype is it's own product.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#260

Post by carefree-bob »

gozucito wrote: post #248
carefree-bob wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Iran war is a skirmish by any reasonable measure. It does not exhaust either the US Navy or the Airforce, and the Army isn't even participating. Now I understand it has a large impact because of oil prices and the closing of the strait of hormuz, but don't confuse the economic impact of the closing of shipping lanes with something that "exhausts" the US military. Remember this is the military that spent two decad…

Do you know what percentage of THAADs have been used in Iran?

I get what you are saying, and I was sympathetic to this view in the Ukraine war (where we gave orders of magnitude more munitions than have been spent on Iran).

At that time, I believed it "We are running out of missiles, we are running out of shells", etc.

But it turns out the US adapted. They increased production, they substituted for next best options, they got other countries to produce for us, and still we have not run out. Not after years of Ukraine.

So I am no longer on the "US is running out of munitions" bandwagon. Plus, this military spending increases productive capacity.

Post reply on HN