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

#281

Post by jacques_chester » Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 6:50 AM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #273

jacques_chester wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why not railguns? Or laser beams?

The point is to deal with what exists currently and what is likely to exist in the service life of a military system.

You're right though. Space will eventually and inevitably be much more militarised.

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

#282

Post by neurotech1 » Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 6:52 AM UTC

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #247

neurotech1 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/…

I stand behind what I've said and encourage you to dig into the open source docs on this. The RAND study is worth a start but there's a lot more, including English language materials from the SU design staff. "As for your comment about stealth when the F-22 fires a missile, that assumes the F-22 doesn't change course after firing said missile." Doesn't matter. Once you've got a launch flare that gives you a position…

The 2008 RAND study has been widely debunked. Any idea of the RCS(X-band) of a F-22, or a F-35 for that matter?

F-22: 0.0005 m2

F-35: 0.0015 m2

F-16C: 1.0m2

Su-27/Su-30 Flanker: 10.0m2 (China has this series and J-11 "Flankers" built domestically)

Su-35 (Advanced) Flanker: 1.0m2 (Russia only)

From the front a stealthy F-35 is basically noise against the background using X-Band radar. The latest L-Band radar on a Su-30MKI (Bars N011M) or Su-35 AESA couldn't actually track a stealth target but might get a faint return.

My comment about the missile is that most missiles don't maintain full thrust the entire flight over 30NM - they have an initial boost to Mach 2.5+, then they coast at lower thrust until reaching the target. Newer missiles might have terminal boost but this would likely not be enough to hit an F-35 that sees the missile on EODAS. Very few Russian (or US made) missiles can shoot down a jet fighter at 20NM+ when that fighter detects the missile.

I'm familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the Su-27 and Su-30. The Su-27 OLS is the best feature against a stealth adversary but its nowhere near as good as the F-35 EODAS.

A F-35 would be almost impossible to track at 30NM using AESA radar much less a F-22. An F-15C with the latest APG-82 AESA can't track a F-22 for radar lock at 1000 ft range so what chance would a Su-30 have at 30NM. The SU-30 pilot would have to manually cue the OLS without radar. Auto-cueing a heat source would lock onto the flares.

In around 60-90 seconds into the merge an F-35 would be within range for an AIM-9 Sidewinder missile shot while the Su-30 pilot is trying to cue the OLS manually. Most recent dogfights are over in under 2 minutes.

Take a look at this documentary on the F-22 program. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-Sh1SAaJz0

And here is the RAND press release about the previous report you referenced. http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/09/25.html "Those reports are not accurate."

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

#283

Post by anoncowherd » Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 6:52 AM UTC

nwzpaperman wrote: post #279

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…

That was strangely hostile.

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

#284

Post by neurotech1 » Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 6:59 AM UTC

6d0debc071 wrote: post #206

neurotech1 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/…

> 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. If you know how much heat is coming out, then you know roughly what thrust should be being produce…

Actually, A-6Bs on SAM suppression flights idled their engines and dived for the deck to avoid SAMs fired at them over Vietnam.

There have been cases of MiG-21s and Mirage F1s releasing flares and successfully avoiding an AIM-9 missile fired at them from less than 10NM. The engaging fighter usually speeds towards the target and fires a second missile at closer range and shoots it down.

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

#285

Post by pedalpete » Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 7:11 AM UTC

bencollier49 wrote: post #277

pedalpete wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you want to know more, their is an interesting film with Dan Ackroyd about it. I just realised it's on YouTube for free http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PMnlnqRex4 (it was created by the gov't of Canada, and probably isn't available through other channels. I'm in Oz, and can't get it here through iTunes).

It is a very interesting look at this bit of Canadian and aviation history, and the conspiracy theory that the program was cancelled due to political pressure from the US.

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

#286

Post by lostlogin » Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 7:12 AM UTC

venomsnake wrote: post #156

newnewnew wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd go so far as to say that it WAS one hell to contain. That wasn't a dumb insurgency, and I suspect it achieved a fair few of its aims.

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

#287

Post by tsotha » Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 7:25 AM UTC

mparr4 wrote: post #110

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.

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

No. We already spend too much on education. The one thing we've managed to conclusively prove in the last 30 years is you can't improve education by throwing money at it.

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

#288

Post by tsotha » Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 7:33 AM UTC

andrewflnr wrote: post #125

munin wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A manned plane probably wouldn't have been tricked.

The drone may not have been tricked either. It may have simply crashed.

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

#289

Post by spartango » Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 7:34 AM UTC

bradleyjg wrote: post #259

spartango wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 nucl…

The nuclear triad always seemed a bit circular to me. We have three main means of delivering nuclear weapons, so it must be a good idea to have three different means of delivering nuclear weapons. I don't see it. With geographic diversity and at least one delivery system that is mobile and easy to hide we should be more than capable of asserting a second strike capability. What's really needed from a modern bomber is…

I think specifying the requirements for a modern bomber is made difficult by the variety of ground attack missions a "bomber" might fulfill.

The requirements of "high munition capacity, a large combat radius, and long loiter times" closely fit the description of a close air support role, which has been the primary role for bombers and strike aircraft in recent years (Iraq and Afghanistan).

With that said, there are certainly other roles for bombers; missions where strategic facilities, supply lines, and bases/defenses must be destroyed. These are rooted in more conventional warfare than we've seen recently, but I'm less than convinced that they would be rare in a major conflict.

These conventional missions demand speed and stealth not only to penetrate evade enemy air defenses, but also to keep up with intelligence on mobile/time-sensitive targets. This timely delivery problem is hard to accomplish with small numbers of loitering aircraft or where the target has advance warning.

Also, given the proliferation of advanced mobile SAM and radar systems, I'm unsure of the assumption that US aircraft will have clear skies in a future conflict. Certainly in the early days of any conflict this will be untrue, and those are the days where strategic bombing will be most valuable; disrupted enemy infrastructure allow ground forces to move without resistance.

Thus, I think there's a need for both roles--CAS and penetrating bomber--and it seems to me that the USAF is actually tackling these separately, efficiently. While the Reaper lacks a large payload, it seems that the large numbers providing spatial coverage will have sufficient munitions in aggregate. The B-2 was designed to be the penetrator.

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

#290

Post by tsotha » Thu, Aug 15, 2013, 7:36 AM UTC

gadders wrote: post #40

I'm surprised at the criticism the harrier gets in the article. They're popular in the UK and appeared to perform pretty well in the Falklands, for instance.

There's a lot wrong with the harrier, though. It's pretty complicated and expensive to maintain, it doesn't have very good range, and it's safety record isn't great (though I admit the F-35B's is yet to be seen).