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

#151

Post by bradleyjg » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 8:06 PM UTC

650REDHAIR wrote: post #142

bradleyjg wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

What? I think you may have missed the B-1 and the enormous focus on UAVs by all of the branches.

The B-1 was an even bigger debacle than the B-2. Its development time and cost overruns were enormous, and involved a curious scandal where the Carter administration tried the kill the project, but the Pentagon illegally kept it alive off budget so that it was still around to be revived by the Reagan administration. When it finally did roll off the production line almost two decades after the RFP went out, its obsolete stealth, engine problems, and initial inability to deploy non-nuclear weapons kept it from being used in the Gulf War. So it was widely deployed in Afghanistan, 35 years after the design phase began and almost 20 years after production. After so long time had passed the stealth technology was no longer particularly effective and so the bombers were deployed after complete air dominance had been achieved, thus negating one of the chief supposed benefits of the plane over the B-52.

I am optimistic about UAVs as a relatively inexpensive replacement for a lot of aircraft, but I fear that once their successes start to endanger the justifications for testosterone toys, internal factions within the military as well as politicians in the pockets of defense contractors will hit back hard.

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

#152

Post by AsymetricCom » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 8:10 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…

A monumental fuckup of this magnitude makes me wish that this was some kind of smoke screen to cover the cost of some other kind of R&D of technology we can scarcely comprehend. $1,000,000,000,000 for a plane that doesn't work and has been outsourced to a dozen foreign contractors? I don't buy it.

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

#153

Post by VladRussian2 » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 8:10 PM UTC

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #140

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 f…

>the only limitation to the F-22 was there were too few of them.

...

>the F-22's live,

F-22 is cheaper than F-35 (and btw looks better - weapons look is important for projecting power - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtahqXjFcxU :), yet F-22 program was closed because of cost while F-35 continues (and still seems to be in R&D stage, though the late stage of R&D). Something bad about F-22 vs. that being good in F-35? Or just government spending logic?

Interesting also that there is a ban on export of F-22 (even to good friends like UK/etc) while F-35 is supposed to be available for export.

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

#154

Post by jasonwatkinspdx » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 8:18 PM UTC

spartango wrote: post #145

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #134

"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…

Actually, the Chinese have had a serious problem designing and building quality jet engines for fighter aircraft. The two prototype "stealth" aircraft they've demonstrated (J-31 and J-20) use Russian AL-31 engines pulled from Su-27s, because the native WS-10 engines fail to pass muster consistently. Indeed, the same is true of the J-15 (an Su-33 clone), which is currently the only carrier-capable aircraft they've flo…

That's an interesting point. I didn't know the domestic Chinese turbine industry was so limited. Do you know why? Chinese industry certainly is capable of high tolerance machining, and they're literally the best at the world in complex assembly, so I'd have to guess they're behind on the design or materials side.

The Liaoning is a bit of a weird duck. It provides air cover and anti-submarine capabilities to naval formations, but it's not capable of projecting power into a region via strike missions the way US carrier groups do. It fits within the posture I described. But also it seems like it may just be a boondogle to satisfy some admirals that want to be one of the nations that has a "carrier".

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

#155

Post by spartango » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 8:19 PM UTC

bradleyjg wrote: post #137

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 b…

There is money going toward the development of a replacement for the B-52, although the exact form it will take is still up in the air/under wraps. Suffice to say that the "Next Generation Bomber" project currently has funding.

Two observations along these lines, however:

* The B-52 originally was the US Air Force's all-purpose bomber when it rolled out in the 50s. It was a conventional heavy bomber, a strategic nuclear bomber, and a cruise missile platform all in one. Over time, however, the USAF's bombing roles have become split; the B-1 now takes on the role of a conventional bomber, while the B-2 is used for deep-penetration strikes and standoffs.

* One big hurdle in the development of a B-52 replacement is the limitations on the number of strategic bombers allowed under the New Start treaty. The US cannot easily develop new nuclear-capable bombers under this treaty, and thus must keep a chunk of the B-52 fleet around to maintain the nuclear capability.

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

#156

Post by venomsnake » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 8:20 PM UTC

newnewnew wrote: post #115

mparr4 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the entire contract should be converted into drone development, which will actually pay dividends ...or, maybe, education?

I don't understand. Is education good for killing your enemy? Why would that be the purview of the military?

It's the educated people that make all the fun toys that enable modern warfare.

And a insurgency with smart engineers and chemists will be one hell to contain.

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

#157

Post by dctoedt » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 8:22 PM UTC

mpyne wrote: post #141

dctoedt wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if we were to face China in a war, we'd own the seas. Once their one (maybe two by now) carrier is sunk, even assuming they sink one of ours, we just bring in one of the other 12. There have been reports that the Chinese have developed and brought to initial operational status the DF-21D, a medium-range, hypersonic, anti-ship ballistic missile specifically designed to be a carrier-killer [1]. The concern is th…

Maybe there's something I'm missing about the DF-21D, but even assuming it doesn't miss the carrier while traveling at a hypersonic speed, Big Explody Things dropping on top of American carriers during wartime is not exactly a new thing in the annals of warfare. It's one of the reason that warships in general (including carriers) are designed to be compartmentalized, to have redundant backups (and backups to the back…

> It's one of the reason that warships in general (including carriers) are designed to be compartmentalized, to have redundant backups (and backups to the backups), etc., is because it is expected they might have to survive battle damage.

For a carrier, not-sinking != operational. The flight deck, catapults, and arresting gear are necessarily exposed to anything that explodes above them. Take them out and the carrier is basically useless.

A carrier can be severely damaged or even sunk by just a few comparatively-small bombs if they're well-placed, intentionally or fortuitously. This was vividly demonstrated at the Battle of Midway in June 1942 [1], where four Japanese carriers and one American carrier were sunk. (It only took one U.S. bomb to sink the unfortunate Akagi.)

In January 1969 my former ship, the USS Enterprise, was taken out of action for several weeks by an accidental fire on the flight deck that cooked off ordinance, spread, and killed 27 sailors [2]. (It was before my time there.)

I would imagine that a ground-launched ballistic missile could carry a much bigger payload than I've been talking about. But yes, it'd be no small navigational challenge to make sure an ASBM actually got to the (moving) target and past the last-ditch defenses.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway#Attacks_on_the...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65)#Vietnam...

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

#158

Post by jasonwatkinspdx » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 8:27 PM UTC

VladRussian2 wrote: post #153

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 f…

>the only limitation to the F-22 was there were too few of them. ... >the F-22's live, F-22 is cheaper than F-35 (and btw looks better - weapons look is important for projecting power - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtahqXjFcxU :), yet F-22 program was closed because of cost while F-35 continues (and still seems to be in R&D stage, though the late stage of R&D). Something bad about F-22 vs. that being good in F-35?…

"Or just government spending logic?"

I believe it's just this. Too much of our military's decision making is influenced by the contractors that build the weapons. The F-35 is the largest single military purchase we've ever done. Too many people would lose too much if the program was abandoned, so the politicians involved cannibalized budgets from things that could be a competitor.

"Interesting also that there is a ban on export of F-22 (even to good friends like UK/etc) while F-35 is supposed to be available for export."

It is. I think that may be partly to do with materials used on the F-22, particularly the coatings. It has to be 'repainted' every so often in a very precise way, so to sell them to allies we'd also have to transfer knowledge of the materials and process.

It's worth noting that many of the customers that were in line to buy the F-35 have pulled out or are at least voicing concerns in their media.

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

#159

Post by mpyne » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 8:28 PM UTC

dctoedt wrote: post #157

mpyne wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe there's something I'm missing about the DF-21D, but even assuming it doesn't miss the carrier while traveling at a hypersonic speed, Big Explody Things dropping on top of American carriers during wartime is not exactly a new thing in the annals of warfare. It's one of the reason that warships in general (including carriers) are designed to be compartmentalized, to have redundant backups (and backups to the back…

> It's one of the reason that warships in general (including carriers) are designed to be compartmentalized, to have redundant backups (and backups to the backups), etc., is because it is expected they might have to survive battle damage. For a carrier, not-sinking != operational. The flight deck, catapults, and arresting gear are necessarily exposed to anything that explodes above them. Take them out and the carrier…

You're certainly right WRT OOC vs. sunk.

However USS Yorktown was "taken out of the action" a couple of times in WWII and still put back into the fight and playing very important roles in that fight, before eventually being sunk by a Japanese submarine. So it's definitely fair to say that simply damaging a carrier is not nearly as catastrophic as sinking one.

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

#160

Post by stcredzero » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 8:29 PM UTC

One of the biggest factors is pilot training. To put things in perspective, there are instances where US pilots in 4th gen aircraft have gotten simulated missile locks and gunsight pippers on Su-30MKIs and F-22s -- which even have thrust vectoring! You have to have the right equipment, but even great equipment in the hands of bad/inexperienced pilots will result in poor outcomes.

I've read that some think the F-35 is problematic in this regard as well. It will be more expensive to maintain pilot training in these planes, and this will result in less US pilot training.

EDIT: Also, the F-35 seems to be putting all of its eggs in the "stealth basket." It can't loiter like an A-10 for ground support. It can't turn with the F-15, F-16, or F-18 for the air superiority role. It's all about getting in undetected, and firing high-tech missiles. If something goes wrong with that, the pilots are stuck with a less dependable and less capable aircraft.