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

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

#131

Post by chiph » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 7:18 PM UTC

greedo wrote: post #92

VLM wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, dirt cheap. Even if you use Hollywood accounting like "flyaway costs" you can get 100 Tomahawks for the cost of one F-35, and the point of the wargame was you only get roughly one sortie per F-35 unless you have air superiority. So economically its far cheaper to not build one F-35 while buying 100 Tomahawks, then cruise missile every airfield, than to lose your entire stock of F-35 on one sortie. Another way to…

You have to include launcher costs: either an SSGN like the modified Tridents, or the SSNs that carry them. Plus, with an aircraft, you can use it multiple times, and often in unique and unexpected ways. A missile, not so much. Plus, TLAM isn't expected to be very survivable in a contested environment, especially around S300/S400 sites. That's the impetus for developing the troubled JASSM.

The GLCM launchers got treatied away with the Soviets. The transporter/erector/launcher was a 8x8 MAN truck that had good off-road capabilities. Compared to a sub, they're dirt cheap.

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

#132

Post by demallien » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 7:21 PM UTC

conformal wrote: post #15

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…

the F-35 is one of the largest wastes of government money that is publicly known. by the time the aircraft has all the bugs ironed out, it will have cost USD 1 tln and be easily destroyed by much cheaper drones. the entire contract should be converted into drone development, which will actually pay dividends. trying to argue that we need the F-35 or that it will provide any kind of strategic military value is absurd.

"easily destroyed by much cheaper drones"

To a certain extent, this has been true for more than two decades. I used to work as a radar engineer for the RAAF, and every time we went on exercises against US forces (both teams flying F 18s, but with different missile payloads, we had AIM9s, the Americans had AMRAAM), we would see our aircraft swatted from the sky before we could even get the bogeys on weapons-system radar. Talk about dog-fighting maneuverability and visibility is just ridiculous - if you're using those characteristics, you've already lost the battle. In the control room we used to joke that the USN could have sent P51s equipped with AMRAAMs and AWACS support and they would still win.

Modern fighter aircraft need to:

a) not be seen b) be fast (time to target is still important!) c) carry a decent payload of weapons.

Ideally target selection should be provided by AWACS, and missile-sensors provide the final kill guidance, allowing the fighter (AKA missile-launch platform) to remain stealthy. In the absence of AWACS, the fighter will need to carry it's own sensor suite.

Modern air warfare is all about sensors, ECM and stealth. The airframe is almost inconsequential.

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

#133

Post by mikegagnon » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 7:26 PM UTC

jamoes wrote: post #130

mikegagnon wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States economy is based upon Military Keynesianism. The federal government does not analyze spending the same way we do because __spending benefits the economy__, which is part of the government's responsibility. They intentionally spend money to stimulate the economy. So when the military spends $1 trillion on planes, they are really trading $1 trillion for planes plus economic stimulus. In other words, t…

So, if spending unilaterally stimulates the economy, then why stop at $1 trillion? Why not just spend quadrillions of dollars and really stimulate the economy? The answer is that the there is a very real opportunity cost to their spending. That trillion dollars could have been spend on other infrastructure, or education, or even a more efficient warplane, and all of those expenditures would have resulted in greater v…

There is always a debate about how much to spend and what to spend it on. I believe these issues are what primarily distinguish republicans from democrats.

I agree that Military Keynesianism is not the best way for the government to stimulate the economy. That does not change the fact that it is the de facto economic policy of the United States.

Here are some relevant analyses from inside and outside the Pentagon.

- Spinney's "Defense Power Games" http://www.dnipogo.org/fcs/def_power_games_98.htm * Chomsky's -

- "The Pentagon System" http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/PentagonSystem_Cho....

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

#134

Post by jasonwatkinspdx » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 7:27 PM UTC

"It could be that China doesn’t know how to build a working lift fan and that’s why they left it off, Aboulafia said. But for a country that has unveiled two different radar-evading stealth warplane prototypes in just the last two years, that seems unlikely. It’s more plausible that China could build a lift fan-equipped plane and has chosen not to."

The major difference is in posture. The US military wants to be able to project power globally. That means fighting from carriers or allied bases of varying quality half way around the world. The Chinese only care about their borders and regional power projection. VSTOL doesn't gain them anything since they'll never be that distant from their own bases.

This is the same reason why the Chinese haven't put much into carriers, but have a ton of ballistic missile ships.

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

#135

Post by Retric » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 7:28 PM UTC

demallien wrote: post #132

conformal wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the F-35 is one of the largest wastes of government money that is publicly known. by the time the aircraft has all the bugs ironed out, it will have cost USD 1 tln and be easily destroyed by much cheaper drones. the entire contract should be converted into drone development, which will actually pay dividends. trying to argue that we need the F-35 or that it will provide any kind of strategic military value is absurd.

"easily destroyed by much cheaper drones" To a certain extent, this has been true for more than two decades. I used to work as a radar engineer for the RAAF, and every time we went on exercises against US forces (both teams flying F 18s, but with different missile payloads, we had AIM9s, the Americans had AMRAAM), we would see our aircraft swatted from the sky before we could even get the bogeys on weapons-system rad…

What I think most people miss is that Air to Air missiles are effectively beyond-visual-range Mach 4+ drones at this point. Stealth works, dog fighting is pointless.

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

#136

Post by mikegagnon » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 7:29 PM UTC

sshconnection wrote: post #128

mikegagnon wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States economy is based upon Military Keynesianism. The federal government does not analyze spending the same way we do because __spending benefits the economy__, which is part of the government's responsibility. They intentionally spend money to stimulate the economy. So when the military spends $1 trillion on planes, they are really trading $1 trillion for planes plus economic stimulus. In other words, t…

Not all spending is equal. If they want to pour money into projects, there is plenty of infrastructure that needs to be built here.

I agree. I think Military Keynesianism is a bad economic policy.

I have seen lots of articles that discuss wasteful DoD spending. But I see very few that discuss __why__ the DoD spends money this way. And why it continues. This type of spending is not a new phenomenon.

To me these "why" questions are the most important and intellectually interesting aspects of these issues. But they are often ignored.

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

#137

Post by bradleyjg » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 7:38 PM UTC

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…

In addition to being a crappy fighter the F-35 is also a crappy bomber and close air support aircraft. Not that it's a surprise that a plane designated fighter (or 'strike' or 'fighter/attack') isn't good at these things.

We've virtually abandoned A and B line planes because the testosterone blinded fighter mafia in the airforce would rather have fun toys than useful equipment, and the navy is right there with them because heavy planes can't take off from aircraft carriers. It doesn't help that the one bomber the air force begrudgingly agreed to acquire is an obscenely expensive hanger queen, designed for nuclear bombing runs deep into the Soviet Union.

If the army wasn't barred from operating fixed wing aircraft by the pernicious Key West agreement, maybe they would operate as a voice of reason.

We should be working on a replacement for the AC-130 (1968), the A-10 (1977), and B-52 (1955!). To the extent we actually need more air superiority fighters they can bring back the F-22 line.

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

#138

Post by mikeash » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 7:38 PM UTC

bediger4000 wrote: post #129

I think this article glosses over the general "fossilization" of aerospace/defence corporations in the USA, and Lock/Mart in particular. Before merging, Lockheed and Martin both had the reputation of being really hidebound. From experience, Martin was exceptionally married to processes and procedures and tradition. If you look at other things that LockMart has (like the Littoral Combat Ship, http://www.wired.com/dang…

I worked for them very briefly a few years ago, as part of a complex (but apparently normal for government stuff) scheme to have me do contract programming work for NIH. After experiencing their internal procedures and management, I don't see how this company can make a sandwich, let alone a fighter jet.

My experience started off with a two-hour meeting discussing retirement benefits and health insurance, when I was a temporary part-time employee who got neither, and went downhill from there.

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

#139

Post by mpyne » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 7:41 PM UTC

EliRivers wrote: post #121

ImprovedSilence wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drones are great, but not failproof. what happens when you command links are taken down? (RF jamming, satellites destroyed, etc) You're gonna need a "human powered" "analog" fallback.

Unless you tell the drone beforehand what you want it to do, so it knows what to do when comms go down.

Even the military isn't yet on board with the idea of allowing drones to autonomously choose when to kill.

In fact that's one of the big reasons the U.S. requires their pilots to be commissioned officers, is because they have to be cognizant of the laws of war, current Rules of Engagement that are in force, the effect of a given attack on the geopolitical framework, etc. and this has to happen in an environment where they are the only ones with an accurate (or semi-accurate) understanding of the actual picture on-the-ground.

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

#140

Post by jasonwatkinspdx » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 7:46 PM UTC

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…

"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."

Because the JSF is a shitty bomb truck too. It doesn't have the range, capacity or loiter time of nearly any other option. And for CAS vs bomb hauling, the JSF simply doesn't have the gun (and again, lacks the loiter time).

"As a note he says this will be the 'new mainstay of the air force' however we still have the F-22 as our air superiority fighter which is still believed to be better then anything out there, and indeed in their simulation the only limitation to the F-22 was there were too few of them."

We aren't dealing in hypotheticals where we can have any number of planes we want. That's the basic lesson of the RAND study: dollar for dollar you can have so many more SU-3 7 derivatives that even if the F-22's have a perfect kill probability, they quickly exhaust their magazines and have nothing else to do. And that's the outcome of the simulation: the F-22's live, most of the rest of the blue force dies, and red gains air superiority over the straight of Taiwan via the remaining flankers.

"It sure beats the Harrier and the F-18."

The FA-18 is more capable than the F-35 in both the A2A and A2G missions as a result of its superior capacity, range, and time on station. Comparing the FA-18 to the F-22 is more muddled, and IMHO comes down to an assesment of the relative performance of stealth vs EW. The prevailing attitude among the Russian military designers is that stealth is mitigated by state of the art communicating radars and passive emission detection (they claim detection of the F-22 at 50km on passive IR alone). And of course, as soon as the F-22 takes a shot stealth is no longer a consideration. Thankfully the F-22 is fast enough that it can turn and run. The F-35 can't, which is why they were decimated in the sim.