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

311–320 of 347 posts

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

#311

Post by greedo »

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…

The nuclear triad is designed so that technical advances can't obsolete any one leg of the triad. Currently, ICBMs are vulnerable, and are out of favor due to the accuracy of SLBMs and ICBMs in a first strike role. So we put our emphasis on SSBNs and stealth bombers. Now what do we do if an opponent manages to work out an effective means of tracking our boomers on patrol? Perhaps some odd trail of bioluminescence kicked up by the sub's wake underwater; who knows. Then we're down to one leg. B2s. We only have 19-20, and they can only fly so many missions, plus their bases a vulnerable to ICBMs and SLBMs as well...

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

#312

Post by greedo »

TsiCClawOfLight wrote: post #299
nknighthb wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the navy is right there with them because heavy planes can't take off from aircraft carriers This seems an inadequate and/or overly-simplified explanation. The F-14 was a beast, far heavier than the F-35 or, for that matter, the A-6. And that was 1960s technology. Surely now we could build a capable, carrier-launched ground-attack craft with weight comparable to an F-14?

we did. The F14B ;)

Yep, I loved the Bombcat. Oh, and we also flew the A-5 Vigilante, which was huge. Heck, we've even had C-130 Hercules to take off and landings on a CV.

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

#313

Post by greedo »

rdtsc wrote: post #272
alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because a pilot can control a plane when GPS is down, when jamming prevents remote control from Creech AFB, and because the Mark One eyeball is still pretty good.

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

#314

Post by greedo »

shabble wrote: post #180
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.

I imagine it's not a novel idea, but taking something along the lines of an airliner/AWACS platform and stuffing it full of drone pilots in cubicles and using line-of-sight optical or tightbeam microwave comms direct to your drone herd[1] a few hundred km away would be pretty hard to block. Tightbeam comms also make it a lot harder to find than a radar emitting AWACS, and you can have multiple redundant controllers f…

Jamming doesn't need to always block the source transmitter, you can also block the receivers on the drones by flooding the frequencies, or spoofing GPS, etc etc. At this level though, it's just easier to send up a fighter to shoot the drone down, since most drones are on par with a Cessna 172 in terms of performance.

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

#315

Post by greedo »

stcredzero wrote: post #160

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…

Pilots who have actually flown the F-35 would argue with your claim that it can't turn with the "Teen" jets. The kinematics of the F-35, when compared with comparably loaded Teen fighters, is superior.

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

#316

Post by shabble »

greedo wrote: post #314
shabble wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine it's not a novel idea, but taking something along the lines of an airliner/AWACS platform and stuffing it full of drone pilots in cubicles and using line-of-sight optical or tightbeam microwave comms direct to your drone herd[1] a few hundred km away would be pretty hard to block. Tightbeam comms also make it a lot harder to find than a radar emitting AWACS, and you can have multiple redundant controllers f…

Jamming doesn't need to always block the source transmitter, you can also block the receivers on the drones by flooding the frequencies, or spoofing GPS, etc etc. At this level though, it's just easier to send up a fighter to shoot the drone down, since most drones are on par with a Cessna 172 in terms of performance.

> Jamming doesn't need to always block the source transmitter, you can also block the receivers on the drones by flooding the frequencies, or spoofing GPS, etc etc.

AFAIK it works by lowering the signal/noise ratio to the point the channel is useless for it's intended purpose.

Something with extremely tight focus via aimable directional antenna or phased array, along with spread spectrum hopping would be extremely hard to jam, because you need to get enough energy into the channel to mess with it.

GPS jamming can be countered by a better inertial nav system, and even the tightbeam comms themselves can be used to locate approx positions with enough links.

Regarding combat capabilities, is there any fundamental reason for their relative lack of performance beyond it being unnecessary/risky with high-latency comms? From a quick scan of current costs, you could get >10 Avenger/Predator C drones (~15M ea) for a single F-35 (~200M) or F-22 (~150M).

I suspect (but am utterly unqualified to say) that such an encounter would go badly for the (human) fighter, especially if everyone has modern AMRAAM or similar BVR weapons ("... we only need to be lucky once").

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

#317

Post by ansible »

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…

What's really needed from a modern bomber is a high munition capacity, a large combat radius, and long loiter times. Cheap to build and operate would be great too.

Those requirements make me thing of schemes where cruise missiles are dumped out the back of a C-130J Super Hercules for air-launch.

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

#318

Post by rdtsc »

greedo wrote: post #313
rdtsc wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because a pilot can control a plane when GPS is down, when jamming prevents remote control from Creech AFB, and because the Mark One eyeball is still pretty good.

A pilot still uses eyes, gyroscopes and has an understanding of terrain and how to manipulate a flight controls to make the aircraft go a certain way. Presumably all those things can be done by technology, terrain following, and autopilot systems are not new. If jamming detected it can return back to destination. I am sure it can be done for less than $1TN

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

#319

Post by bradleyjg »

greedo wrote: post #311
bradleyjg wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The nuclear triad is designed so that technical advances can't obsolete any one leg of the triad. Currently, ICBMs are vulnerable, and are out of favor due to the accuracy of SLBMs and ICBMs in a first strike role. So we put our emphasis on SSBNs and stealth bombers. Now what do we do if an opponent manages to work out an effective means of tracking our boomers on patrol? Perhaps some odd trail of bioluminescence kic…

Could the exact same arguments be made about a nuclear dyad or quad? What makes three so special?

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

#320

Post by TsiCClawOfLight »

greedo wrote: post #312
TsiCClawOfLight wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we did. The F14B ;)

Yep, I loved the Bombcat. Oh, and we also flew the A-5 Vigilante, which was huge. Heck, we've even had C-130 Hercules to take off and landings on a CV.

Thanks for reminding me of the A-5, I completely forgot it!
Post reply on HN