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

181–190 of 347 posts

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

#181

Post by riggins »

jacquesm wrote: post #174
riggins wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> You want to take the chance of another Hitler or Stalin coming to power and not being able to stop them? That presumes some foreknowledge about where that will happen. No part of the world is immune from a Hitler or Stalin coming to power, so for all you know he'll inherit those toys.

that's a strong rebuttal

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

#182

Post by spartango »

s_q_b wrote: post #123
turar wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> however we still have the F-22 as our air superiority fighter which is still believed to be better then anything out there I'm just going to leave this here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBKvlLzGkvU

There's also this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/13/olsen_raptor_case_ge... And the fact that the F-22's stealth coatings, even if they work, ablate in rain. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/f-35-gets-stealthier... And of course the ludicrous idea that the F-35 can replace the A-10 Warthog in combat. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/a-10-f-35-air-force-... The A-10 problem bugs me more than the o…

It's strange...I love the A-10, both its rugged design and its crazy anti-tank capability. Keep in mind that retirement plans for the beast are slated for 2028, and all plans to retire it sooner have been shot down. That's 52 years of service, which is a solid service lifetime.

But that said, I think there's a decent argument that can be made for phasing it out given current operational needs:

The A-10 was originally designed in the Vietnam-era as a close air support(CAS) aircraft for conventional wars, armed with a payload of unguided bombs and shells to destroy tanks.

Helicopters at the time couldn't carry these types of anti-armor heavy weapons, and strike aircraft like the A-1, A-6, and F-4 couldn't survive anti-aircraft fire at low enough altitudes to put their bombs on target. In CAS roles, missing the target meant killing friendlies, obviously unacceptable.

Thus, the A-10 was built like a beast so that it could survive SAM/AAA fire at the low-altitudes needed to deploy these weapons accurately.

Over time, however, CAS munitions have evolved with guidance, from missiles like the AGM-65 and Hellfire, to laser-guided (GBU-27) and GPS-guided (JDAM) bombs. These have longer ranges and thus don't require the carrier aircraft to be nearly as survivable. The A-10s resistance to AAA and small arms fire seems less relevant.

This suggests that the A-10 may be less necessary for strike roles, even if it carries them out admirably.

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

#183

Post by anigbrowl »

kqr2 wrote: post #178
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…

The War Nerd has a great essay on why aircraft carriers are obsolete in modern warfare: http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779

...from 2002. Since then, the Chinese have kept developing their own carrier capability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_progra...

Possibly they are only doing this to fake us out, and I don't disagree with the war nerd's argument that carriers make worryingly good targets...but I wouldn't write off the whole concept just yet.

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

#184

Post by spartango »

Symmetry wrote: post #164
mehwoot wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once the huge, lumbering aircraft carriers are sitting on the sea floor, they will be replaced by heavily armored battleships. In a major war, the only sea launched aircraft will be VTOLs. Huh... there isn't a single battleship in service in any navy in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship#Modern_times

Though modern cruisers and destroyers aren't that much smaller than the dreadnoughts that fought at Jutland, 14,000 tons vs 18,000 tons.

Most modern cruisers or destroyers aren't over 10,000 tons fully loaded, and are thus comparable to the light cruisers of WWII. The Dreadnoughts were a fair bit bigger (2x at ~20,000 loaded), but indeed were not nearly as heavily armored as the WWII battleships of 30 years later. A loaded Iowa-class battleship displaced nearly 60,000 tons.

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

#185

Post by spartango »

Spooky23 wrote: post #98
Nelson69 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has it not been realized? I think it has, there is a ton of drone stuff going on. The DoD hasn't rewritten the war fighting manual and strategy yet though so manned fighters and bombers are still part of the plans but I don't think UAVs haven't proven themselves. This is a titanically slow moving organization... lives and deaths are on the line with their decisions. One of the real lesson of the JSF is the amount of…

The Marines have "amphibious assault ships" that are sort of like aircraft carriers for helicopters. S/VTOL aircraft can operate from these locations. I was told by a Marine that the Harrier obsession stems from Guadalcanal in WW2. The waters in the Solomons were heavily contested and the Navy basically took off and left the Marines stranded. That institutional memory is hard to shake.

Further, the next generation of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS, Freedom- and Independence-class) have large enough "flight decks" that drones and other small aircraft can be launched from them.

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

#186

Post by zobzu »

neurotech1 wrote: post #176
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 F-35 has EODAS for spherical optical threat detection vs OLS front only on a Su-35 Flanker. Also, a Su-35 Flanker cant fire a missile at 50km without radar lock, which would be difficult against a F-35. Even if they did fire a future Long-Range IR missile, the F-35 would detect and release flares to avoid the missile. Also, the kinetics of the missile would make it hard to track a F-35 during terminal phase. A F/…

Sounds pretty much like the latest gens of the french rafale, except for the VTOL ;-)

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

#187

Post by dragonwriter »

anigbrowl wrote: post #183
kqr2 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The War Nerd has a great essay on why aircraft carriers are obsolete in modern warfare: http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779

...from 2002. Since then, the Chinese have kept developing their own carrier capability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_progra... Possibly they are only doing this to fake us out, and I don't disagree with the war nerd's argument that carriers make worryingly good targets...but I wouldn't write off the whole concept just yet.

> Possibly they are only doing this to fake us out

No, they are doing it to maintain their regional position with regard to potential conflict areas with regional rivals in the Indian Ocean/South China Sea area, particularly, India.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/12/world/asia/india-aircraft-carr...

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

#188

Post by takluyver »

greedo wrote: post #165
Zimahl wrote: post #104

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. I know people fear China but they are no cold-war Russia. Anything conventional and the US is in the lead by a lot. There's no reason to discuss anything nuclear because everyone loses in that case.

10. That's all we have, not twelve, and definitely not the 15 we had at the height of the Cold War. The problem is that we don't have twelve carriers that can function all at once. Some are being refueled, some are returning from a deployment, some are doing training workups prior to deployment, and there's a lot of ocean out there. That's why talk of cutting the # of CVNs to under the current totals is extremely dan…

The rest of the world put together has 9 active carriers, all smaller than any of the US carriers. That's including the Chinese one, which they're still practising flying from, and the UK one, which doesn't have any aircraft until our JSFs turn up in a few years. Besides the US, only the French have an active nuclear powered carrier. So I don't really agree that discussion of reducing the number of US carriers is "extremely dangerous".

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

#189

Post by sliverstorm »

kqr2 wrote: post #178
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…

The War Nerd has a great essay on why aircraft carriers are obsolete in modern warfare: http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779

Hmm... this assumes that a carrier would directly engage the enemy. To my understanding, in modern times they are more like a mobile airstrip and supply base, and you would leave the carrier far over the horizon away from hostiles.

Your only other options are to fly your planes straight from the USA to your target, or to build bases with airstrips all over the world, which are easily bombed.

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

#190

Post by zobzu »

turar wrote: post #118
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…

>> however we still have the F-22 as our air superiority fighter which is still believed to be better then anything out there I'm just going to leave this here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBKvlLzGkvU

its not like if the F22 didn't have supermanoeuvrability - it does. but then again, when was the last important dog fight ? yea..
Post reply on HN