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

How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 347 posts

Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane

#61

Post by jbooth »

chiph wrote: post #20

The USAF intends to replace the A-10 with this turkey, and it's an awful idea. A-10: holds 1350 rounds of 30mm ammo. F-35: holds 180 rounds of smaller 25mm ammo internally, plus 220 rounds externally A-10: 1.8 hour loiter time. F-35: Not listed, but as a high subsonic (stall speed) fighter, it's going to be shorter A-10: Has titanium armor protecting the pilot & critical systems. F-35: Already overweight, no chance o…

This is a jobs program. All those people who talk about cutting government waste, believing in the free market and capitalism while supporting this boondoggle? They're performance artists.

Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane

#62

Post by dodo53 »

lucaspiller wrote: post #12
Daniel_Newby wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over the 50 year projected life cycle of the F-35.

So 20 Instagrams a year?

Or supposedly most of the cost to end world hunger http://borgenproject.org/the-cost-to-end-world-hunger/

Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane

#63

Post by riggins »

orf wrote: post #30
jkl32 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Globalization, trade, and the nuclear deterrent.

The nuclear deterrent is the only valid point, and that's a shaky one.

The nuclear deterrent is the only valid point, and that's a shaky one.

I agree with this.

WRT global trade, I couldn't find the source, but I vaguely remember an article that pointed out that global trade made up a similar percentage of economic activity prior to WWI and was offered as a reason why there wouldn't be another global war.

The other factor to consider is the consequence if you're wrong. You want to take the chance of another Hitler or Stalin coming to power and not being able to stop them?

Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane

#64

Post by VLM »

munin wrote: post #53
pliny wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incide...

what?! that's an argument for more unmanned planes. imagine if the RQ-170 had been a manned spy plane and Iran had captured a human pilot.

LOL modern pilots are a little GPS focused and not as good at dead reckoning and pilotage as the olden days, and deserts are kind of featureless, but tricking a human into landing on the wrong side of the front lines is a pretty unlikely outcome.

Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane

#65

Post by greedo »

caycep wrote: post #58
greedo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Current fly away costs estimates for the F-35 are in the neighborhood of 100-150M. Current fly away costs for Block 50+ F-16 are in the 100M range depending on electronics suite. It's been a long, long time since you could buy an F-16 for $5M. Also, the F-35 is more maneuverable than the current F-16s which have to hang a ton of armament on pylons, as well as drop tanks to get range equivalent to the F-35. And try fl…

I think the F-16 over the years has suffered from mission creep, that has added weight and decreased performance. Then again, thinking about this, the USAF really plans on logistics, and most of the plans I've seen really focus on how plans can carrying something (usually bombs) to a place, from far away, and flying around enemy radar and other badness. They really need the equivalent of a fedex truck that can't be s…

Yes, the F-16's performance has suffered greatly as it's become more "multi-mission."

Ironically, the philosophy for the F-15 was "not a pound for air to ground" yet both it and the F-14 (in its F-14D Bombcat config) turned out to be exceptional tactical bombers. The F-16 isn't bad, but because of the small wing has far less range than the Mudhen or the F-35.

Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane

#66

Post by VLM »

Nobody mentioned the Osprey yet? The F-35 might suck, but at least its not an Osprey. The wikipedia article fails in being a bit too neutral PoV. Only people who are being paid to say the Osprey is great, or ordered by their CO to say its great, say its great, everyone else says it sucks. Except maybe our enemies, because using the Osprey has proven to be a reasonably effective way to kill american military personnel and waste enormous amounts of money.

I think this is one fail in the article. Yes the F-35 kinda sucks when it's given other planes jobs, compared to how well planes designed to do one specific job do at that one specific task. How about comparing it to something even worse? Then it still sucks, but its not quite the worst case, even if its still the most expensive of the bad situations.

Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane

#67

Post by greedo »

caycep wrote: post #50
chiph wrote: post #20

The USAF intends to replace the A-10 with this turkey, and it's an awful idea. A-10: holds 1350 rounds of 30mm ammo. F-35: holds 180 rounds of smaller 25mm ammo internally, plus 220 rounds externally A-10: 1.8 hour loiter time. F-35: Not listed, but as a high subsonic (stall speed) fighter, it's going to be shorter A-10: Has titanium armor protecting the pilot & critical systems. F-35: Already overweight, no chance o…

Agreed...compromised designs will be compromised designs. The A-10 was made to work with the grunts in the mud. The F-35... Of note, I think it was Pierre Sprey's (quoted in this article) baby.

Sprey was part of the fighter mafia pushing the LWF concept. I don't think he had any role in the A-10.

Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane

#68

Post by masklinn »

sschueller wrote: post #43

"Lockheed’s F-117 stealth fighter was developed in a breakneck 30 months by a close-knit team of 50 engineers led by an experienced fighter designer named Alan Brown and overseen by seven government employees." vs. "The F-35, by contrast, is being designed by some 6,000 engineers led by a rotating contingent of short-tenure managers, with no fewer than 2,000 government workers providing oversight."

The final section of "Skunk Works" touches on the bureaucratic morasses.

Although the 30 months quote is really misleading: the surface analysis prefiguring the Have Blue concept were started in 1974, XST phase one was started in 1975, the Have Blue demonstrator first flew in 1977.

31 months (not 30) is the time between the full-scale development decision and the first test model, decision to operational capability took 5 years (minus a month, November 1978 to October 1983) and almost 8 if you add the Have Blue studies.

Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane

#69

Post by greedo »

caycep wrote: post #28
dkhenry wrote: post #3

I understand the point the article is trying to make, but its not realistic. Having worked with the Navy for a few years I know that the biggest use of airplanes is not air to air combat ( which is what this article is complaining about ) It is air to land bombing. So why are we complaining about making an air force that serves our needs rather then one that might be useful for some other task. As a note he says this…

That's pretty worrisome considering the costs of a F-22, as well as the costs of an F-35 vs. a Hornet (which can outperform it apparently). From it's specs, it's a terrible bomber compared with the A-6's... Compromised designs are compromised designs.

I love the Intruder, but it simply wouldn't survive in today's environment, especially against S300 etc. It was relatively slow, had a huge radar profile, and was pretty much a single role aircraft. It did pack a huge wallop though, and had great range.

What's really sad is comparing the capabilities of today's carrier airwing with what was available in 1991. Then you had F-14D, F/A-18C, S3, A-6. A great array of aircraft that had the range to take the fight to the enemy.

Now you have the F/A-18E, F/A-18C, and that's it. No S3 for ASW, no long ranged tactical bomber, an "interceptor" that has short legs, and you've also given up your KA-6D for inflight refueling, relying on buddy tanks off the already shortlegged F-18.

sigh...

Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane

#70

Post by masklinn »

greedo wrote: post #67
caycep wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed...compromised designs will be compromised designs. The A-10 was made to work with the grunts in the mud. The F-35... Of note, I think it was Pierre Sprey's (quoted in this article) baby.

Sprey was part of the fighter mafia pushing the LWF concept. I don't think he had any role in the A-10.

Pierre Sprey is the one who wrote the A-X detailed specifications. Saying that the A-10 was his baby is not wrong, if the A-10 has a father it's Sprey.
Post reply on HN