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

271–280 of 347 posts

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

#271

Post by rdtsc »

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…

Do we have to? In other words are our opponents (strategic only so far) China and Russia have aircraft that would be superior? In other words do we need to improve or it would just be nice to.

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

#272

Post by rdtsc »

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #262
demallien wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

This is the best comment in this whole thread: >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…

A drone?

Why even bother putting a pilot into a steel tube with wings so it can fly some distance ahead, launch another faster steel tube with fins, then turn back.

The only reason to even have a person in there is for dog-fighting for what I see. Otherwise with specs you described, it is just a pointless waste of money.

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

#273

Post by rdtsc »

jacques_chester wrote: post #216
jessaustin wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are AWACS defended? Are they too far away for the enemy to engage? Is it possible to stealth a plane that constantly broadcasts radar? Do they have other means of missile/drone defense? I hope that "assume AWACS doesn't get attacked" is not the first assumption in all these war game exercises.

The point being that the radar range of an AWACS vastly exceeds the range of any air-to-air missile in production or under design. So when you see hostile planes driving towards you, you send some fighters to go and shoot them down. Meanwhile the AWACS can be supporting air, sea and ground battles happening for hundreds of kilometres in every direction. They really are powerful tools.

How about disabling it from space. Load a cruise missile onto a satellite and launch?

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

#274

Post by lostlogin »

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?

Is this a joke? Some basic thought processes would probably have avoided some of the BS that the US has engaged in. Which recent wars have been fought that didn't involved US weapons being used against the US? Long term thinking is required. Less fixation on war, killing, rendering, torturing, interrogating dominating and conquering might, see something productive happen with the vast sums of wasted money and lives. Edit: Words and stuff.

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

#275

Post by marshray »

beloch wrote: post #207

Some U.S. allies are almost certainly going to bail out of the F-35 program. Spiraling costs, the ideology requiring VSTOL, and some bizarrely secretive aspects of the JSF project are conspiring to kill the F-35 as a viable option for countries like Canada. A surprising thing is that countries taking part in development are not permitted complete access to program data. The U.S., despite making use of other nations e…

Seems like a big place like Canada might prefer something with a larger combat radius than the Arrow (660 km). Maybe, say, an F-35 (1,080 km)?

They could probably just build four times as many for less cost. I don't know what it would look like once you factored in readiness, basing, pilots, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35

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

#276

Post by InclinedPlane »

It's tradition. Some of the biggest turds in fighter-plane history have come out of big, bloated "one-size-fits-all" development programs (like the F-111). And interestingly a lot of the most capable and long-lived combat aircraft have come about through rogue programs and fly offs trying to remedy the problems of being saddled with planes that just didn't work well. The F-16, A-10, F-14, etc.

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

#277

Post by bencollier49 »

pedalpete wrote: post #238
beloch wrote: post #207

Some U.S. allies are almost certainly going to bail out of the F-35 program. Spiraling costs, the ideology requiring VSTOL, and some bizarrely secretive aspects of the JSF project are conspiring to kill the F-35 as a viable option for countries like Canada. A surprising thing is that countries taking part in development are not permitted complete access to program data. The U.S., despite making use of other nations e…

For those not familiar with Avro and the Arrow, it was ages ahead of it's time and many of the top engineers went to NASA. Here is actually a link to a video of the plane http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8lTGTPQlDE , note the old Canadian flag at the beginning, the Canadian flag we all know was created in '65.

Wow, what a plane! Thanks for the link, hadn't heard of the Arrow before. Shame was cancelled.

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

#278

Post by masklinn »

mgoeppner wrote: post #114
masklinn wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the F-117 also wasn't a multirole fighter, was built in low quantities [...] It's a one-trick pony designed to sneak in, drop a precision bomb, and get out. These are all good things, though. It's a focused airframe absolutely excellent at what it does. Much like the A10 really. > and was relatively quickly retired Beg pardon? The F-117 reached operational capability in 1983 and was retired in 2008 (the original pl…

25 years is a short lifespan for a military aircraft -- Most military aircraft have been in service between 30 and 50 years.

> 25 years is a short lifespan for a military aircraft

As of late, and not for a first-of-its-kind craft.

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

#279

Post by nwzpaperman »

beloch wrote: post #207

Some U.S. allies are almost certainly going to bail out of the F-35 program. Spiraling costs, the ideology requiring VSTOL, and some bizarrely secretive aspects of the JSF project are conspiring to kill the F-35 as a viable option for countries like Canada. A surprising thing is that countries taking part in development are not permitted complete access to program data. The U.S., despite making use of other nations e…

What land were you born in?

What's wrong with hackernews today are a bunch of musq-worshipping, "smartphone" toting, self-righteous dolts opining on subjects they have zero depth on.

Let me guess, you are boss with a joystick on your Apple Thunderbolt display and MSFT Simulator-X.

Do you understand what drives the cost of a physical good? Do you understand why the US government has structured the defense contractors into a prime-sub hierarchy? Do you understand why the US government has cost-plus contracts?

What do you know that I can't read on Wikipedia?

Why don't you Google the Forbes list and tell us about all of the billionaires the government is minting in the defense contracting industry?

You know where the money is going? Look at raw materials.

Why do we have prime contractors? So they aren't "too big to fail."

Why do we have cost-plus contracts? Because no one can hedge raw material and labor costs for projects that are 10-30+ year contracts. You see, the US government issues its own currency and as we have seen the Federal Reserve do since 2008, it can spend and self-finance(quantitative easing) as long as the political will exists to spend. The government has no budget constraint other than the arbitrary ones we periodically invent for it.

Canada's military budget is a fart in the wind and the only reason we are SHARING any piece of the development with anyone is diplomacy.

Tell us all something substantive and save the impassioned platitudes.

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

#280

Post by rdl »

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?…

I thought the issue was the F-35 could be multirole, and F-22 couldn't, so they needed to replace F-16/F-18/A-10/etc., which the F-22 couldn't do.

I still think manned combat aircraft are probably on the way out, and absent a current threat, we should be life-extending our existing aircraft, spending 10% of F-35/F-22/etc. on combat UAVs, and end up with ultimately better capability (like, 100x more UAVs than manned aircraft, the ability to go on one-way missions, etc.) Kills the aviator officer career path, though.

Post reply on HN