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

401–410 of 719 posts

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#401

Post by mapt »

fpoling wrote: post #147
mapt wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine dramatically reduced Russian fuel export revenue, and the sanctions did so even more. It was really coming to the point of urgent existential threat to the Putin regime this spring, before Trump and Netanyahu bailed him out, first by doubling the global oil price and then by relaxing sanctions. And Ukraine's drone / cruise missile portfolio includes things like the Flamingo, more than twice the payload and ra…

If Ukraine had access to Tomahawks, Russian oil industry would not exist at this point. With drones after two and halve years of attacks with multiple hits at the same refineries Ukraine reduced Russian fuel production at best by 20%. Flamingo is still mostly vaporware. For precise strikes against Russian factories Ukraine uses either Storm Shadow or domestic Neptun. But that just shows again that drones are not part…

That bridge is A) incredibly expensive and something a postwar Ukraine would prefer to exist for economic reasons, B) extremely overbuilt in certain ways, and C) not strictly required if Russia can keep rail going on the landbridge.

It might be in play if the land bridge fell.

It would be almost trivial in terms of range to make it a target of any number of strike munitions. If you can hit the Baltic ports or factories in the Urals...

As for drones vs cruise missiles - at this point every missile strike is associated with drone accompaniment, it's part of the counter SHORAD proposition.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#402

Post by wredcoll »

angry_octet wrote: post #289
wredcoll wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If China produces 100 times or 1000 times their current numbers (and they can), marginal differences in capability are not going to matter. If china somehow learnes magic and produced 10,000 f16 equivalents and got into a major non-nuclear shooting war with the united states... they'd lose 10,000 planes. At some point there is such a qualitative difference that numbers don't really matter.

This is delusional. The PLAAF is a capable force and innovates more quickly than the USAF. Chinese A2A weapons are very good kinetically, and while EW and stealth would have an advantage, engagement geometry means an 4:1 fight is always going to be costly. We could expect significant attrition in EW and stealth advantage over the first few weeks as their RADARs and seekers adapt.

> engagement geometry means an 4:1 fight is always going to be costly

That's not how 6th gen fighter combats work. You get hit by missiles and explode without ever even detecting the opponent.

Does china have better stuff than f16s? Sure (and modern f16s are not the same as 1970s f16s which makes my point harder to understand in the first place anyways) but at some point, with some military technologies, you can't beat them with quantity.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#404

Post by wredcoll »

bayindirh wrote: post #161
wredcoll wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, just because viola, cello and double bass looks like a violin is borderline insult to all of them at once, and ignoring the other heavy lifters like clarinets, oboes and fagots. I don't think that last bit translated well. Beyond that, what on earth are you talking about. Frankly what is the grandparent talking about? $2m violins cost that much because they're rare and famous and have a story, not because the…

> I don't think that last bit translated well. I don't think so. It's a good analogy how F-35 needs a good ground crew and logistics chain to keep it flying. Like how an orchestra needs these instruments to create subtle but extremely important pillars of sound, even if they're rarely or barely heard. Also, not al $2MM violins cost that much because they have a story, but they're built by distinguished builders and b…

[dead]

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#405

Post by carefree-bob »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #381
dinfinity wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that underwater drones exist and have been successfully used against Russian ships, right?

In the navy they call long-range underwater drones a "torpedo". It has been assumed to be a primary threat against ships for a century. Modern navies have many systems purpose-built to deal with that threat.

Plus these things have a range of about 50 miles. It's not like if you are a carrier floating in the pacific, you will be swarmed with a thousand torpedoes. To launch one requires a submarine, and while one may hide, it's not so easy to penetrate the defenses of a carrier group in the middle of the pacific.

Ukraine has had success against mostly unarmored and a few lightly armored Russian ships (and let's face it, these are small ships compared to carriers) in the black sea because the front lines are there and they can launch from a port, travel 5 miles, and hit one of these ships. That's a completely different situation.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#406

Post by jandrewrogers »

greedo wrote: post #379
bawolff wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A million dollar patriot missile to shoot down a cheap drone, etc. Except this is more propaganda than truth. In general america does not use patriots to shoot down drones except in exceptional circumstances. Not that the ecconomics of missile defense isnt a problem. It can be. But some of it has been highly exagerated.

The US just blew through a large percentage of its PAC-3/PAC-2 inventory fighting Iran. Other than Patriot, the US doesn't really have much GBAD anymore. A few Avenger systems, some Stinger MANPADs, etc. It's either Patriot or THAAD; and hopefully they're not dumb enough to be using THAAD against drones. I'm sure they burned through quite a few AMRAAM and Sidewinders doing intercepts as well. Patriot is much more exp…

There are many different flavors of APKWS, that is the most expensive type. There is real tension between reducing unit costs by maximally leveraging whatever systems they are attached to instead of putting everything in the guidance package and the overhead cost of the customization that entails.

They've been experimenting with variants for many years. There is some belief that they may be able to get unit costs down to $5k for some common variants. Everyone believes $10k is achievable.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#407

Post by maxerickson »

wredcoll wrote: post #402
angry_octet wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is delusional. The PLAAF is a capable force and innovates more quickly than the USAF. Chinese A2A weapons are very good kinetically, and while EW and stealth would have an advantage, engagement geometry means an 4:1 fight is always going to be costly. We could expect significant attrition in EW and stealth advantage over the first few weeks as their RADARs and seekers adapt.

> engagement geometry means an 4:1 fight is always going to be costly That's not how 6th gen fighter combats work. You get hit by missiles and explode without ever even detecting the opponent. Does china have better stuff than f16s? Sure (and modern f16s are not the same as 1970s f16s which makes my point harder to understand in the first place anyways) but at some point, with some military technologies, you can't be…

It depends a little bit on how many bang bangs the boom boom has.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#408

Post by phil21 »

bluGill wrote: post #361
greedo wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The days of China manufacturing cheap junk is long past. These same arguments were made against Japan. Look at a BYD EV and it will have a fit and finish comparable to any US manufacturer. In aviation, they're catching up quickly to the US, and are arguably ahead of Europe and Russia.

yes and no - they do make plenty of quality too - but they are most visible for the cheap junk.

I suppose visible is subjective. But they are also key component and raw material suppliers for essentially everything high value as well. The west simply does not have the heavy industrial or resource extraction base to account for anything else to be the case. Every time I’ve looked into literally any product China is at the start of the supply chain if lot much further into it.

And yes, I am alleging outright fraud and misrepresentation when it comes to stuff supposedly required to be entirely domestically sourced due to national security. If China froze all exports to the US and its allies, the US manufacturing base would simply cease to exist in rather short order. The China link might be 35 steps down the supply chain and buried 4 countries deep - but it’s almost always there.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#409

Post by carefree-bob »

fpoling wrote: post #147
mapt wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine dramatically reduced Russian fuel export revenue, and the sanctions did so even more. It was really coming to the point of urgent existential threat to the Putin regime this spring, before Trump and Netanyahu bailed him out, first by doubling the global oil price and then by relaxing sanctions. And Ukraine's drone / cruise missile portfolio includes things like the Flamingo, more than twice the payload and ra…

If Ukraine had access to Tomahawks, Russian oil industry would not exist at this point. With drones after two and halve years of attacks with multiple hits at the same refineries Ukraine reduced Russian fuel production at best by 20%. Flamingo is still mostly vaporware. For precise strikes against Russian factories Ukraine uses either Storm Shadow or domestic Neptun. But that just shows again that drones are not part…

Why do you think this bridge is vital when there is a land bridge (Kherson) with multiple rail links all in Russian controlled territory containing the entry and exit points of the bridge?

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#410

Post by PearlRiver »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #386
dgroshev wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a serious war drone factories are getting bombed (by F-35s) and there is no need to handle a never-ending stream of drones. The war in Ukraine is special because neither side is capable of air supremacy. Note that the original article doesn't say anywhere that F-35-like capability is not needed.

So Ukraine isn't a serious war then? And I take it you believe we failed to employ that strategy in Iran ... why, exactly? The alternative interpretation being that isn't how things work. Swarms of cheap drones are the new reality thus appropriate countermeasures are required on the front lines.

America does not want to prepare for that kind of conflict. It wants B2 bombers because those look cool when they fly over during the Superbowl.

Ukraine is a real war and it is about men and women crawling in the mud constantly terrified of getting blown up. It is literally battle of the Somme again. How do you recruit college kids for that?

Post reply on HN