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

291–300 of 719 posts

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#291

Post by greedo »

angry_octet wrote: post #255
ghaff wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The F-35C has greater range than the F/A-18 Super Hornet, the F-16, and the F-22. It's only exceeded by the F-35A and the F-15EX. And "no fighter/interceptor split"? What does that even mean? The USAF hasn't had a true interceptor since the F-106 was retired.

The F-35 achieved exactly what was written on the tin. To be a stealthy replacement for the F-16, A-7, and AV-8B.

The fact that the USN doesn't have a long-legged air superiority fighter has nothing to do with the F-35, and the USAF never considered China as a concern when the ATF requirements were issued (that became the F-22).

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#292

Post by cjbgkagh »

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 program was intended to make money and it did. My university has ties to the military and I was talking to people working on the Joint Strike Fighter about ways to reduce software bugs, I was told candidly that software bugs are job security and they’ll be riding that gravy train all the way to retirement, which they did.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#293

Post by dgroshev »

gozucito wrote: post #215
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…

But what would you rather have? 2000 Shahed/Lucas drones or a single F35? Same cost for both. The saying "Quantity has a quality all of its own" is not obsolete in 2026.

A single F-35, because Shaheds don't have the legs required in the Pacific.

You can fit three Ukraines between Guam and Taiwan.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#294

Post by chung8123 »

benoau wrote: post #262
rjbwork wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you send a swarm and fly a few sacrificial drones them into the airplanes.

Yeah but that drone swarm costs as much as the Cesna so it neutralizes the cost advantage / disadvantage.

A pilot is pretty expensive.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#295

Post by bawolff »

dinfinity wrote: post #284
bluGill wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More than any other non wartime fighter in recient history. and if war breaks out we can produce a lot more once we gear up factories - as every other war needed-

That's a non-answer. You're comparing it within its category when the point of contention is specifically and explicitly that its production can't match that of drones etc. In a broader sense the entire category of manned fighter jets can't scale to keep up with drone production. Ukraine produces thousands of drones a day , including interceptor drones. A valid question is how the investment in drone warfare is best…

If the headline of the article was that fighter jets are bad in general instead of just F-35, i suspect the convo would be very different.

But still, even if you assume that was what the author meant, its still a confusing article. The status quo already is that we dont just use fighter jets.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#296

Post by poszlem »

carefree-bob wrote: post #267
gozucito wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What do you mean by "losing TSMC"? It's not ours. Do you know what does belong to the west? ASML. What makes TSMC actually work.

ASML is not "yours" too in that case as it happens to be european.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#297

Post by defrost »

benoau wrote: post #224
spongebobstoes wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$25k per flight hour is a lot more than what drones cost

What's crazy is there's lots of videos of Ukranians shooting drones from open-cockpit propeller planes that barely cost more than the drones! I think in a serious drone war we would just have fleets of Cesnas flying around with a person hanging out the door with a shotgun lol.

> we would just have fleets of Cesnas flying around with a person hanging out the door with a shotgun lol.

Pfft, get real - Robinson R22 light broomstick choppers with muster pilots and crop dusting family STOLs make far more sense for their agility, ground hugging, and rough short take off / landing field capabilities.

That quibble aside, I can see things going that way, until flooding waves of many drones push up the human life cost past being able to respond.

Either way, they still need to be backed by some agile radar capabilities - variations of the E-7A Wedgetail design for ground and air to keep sensing on the hop.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#298

Post by storus »

ceejayoz wrote: post #122
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…

> Russian nuclear doctrine would have treated that as an existential threat. They claimed that with basically every little sprinkle of new aid for like two years, until everyone realized it was a bluff. Putin is many things, but actively suicidal looks like a no.

I suspect Israel and Russia are looking at each other with "You first!" so that they can start nuking and blame the other for starting it.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#299

Post by greedo »

einpoklum wrote: post #222
eek2121 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Russia is not fighting Ukraine, it is fighting NATO in Ukraine. And, IIANM, it has the capability of hitting non-Ukranie NATO targets in various places around the world - with cruise missiles and such. The assumption that "oh, Russia will never do this" is actually quite reckless and dangerous; and I don't just mean dangerous to whoever would get attacked, but dangerou…

Such nonsense. The EU may be supplying Ukraine with some munitions etc, but if NATO was actively involved, the war would have been over in a year; either conventionally or via nuclear weapons.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#300

Post by tdb7893 »

Rover222 wrote: post #238
tdb7893 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think aerospace is a good example of efficiency in the private sector. Lockheed Martin did the F-35 and it's main competition in the US is Boeing... I'm not an expert but from my friends in the industry (including multiple at Lockheed and Boeing), it's definitely not a story about how good and efficient the private sector is. Boeing especially sounds like it's been a real mess with a lot of project management…

Those traditional prime contractors are basically part of the govt bureaucracy with how they operate. SpaceX and Anduril are good counterpoints.

Boeing's commercial (not government contracting) division is famously dysfunctional and has been for a long time.
Post reply on HN