Pentagon’s $55B mystery plane is secret, but debate on cost is appearing • Hacker News Board

Re: Pentagon’s $55B mystery plane is secret, but debate on cost is appearing

#11

Post by codeonfire » Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 8:59 AM UTC

gamegoblin wrote: post #7

desdiv wrote: post #2

Northrop Grumman seriously paid for a Super Bowl ad? Oh sure, next time I'm out shopping for a long range stealth bomber maybe I'll subconsciously remember the ad and choose a Northrop Grumman one. I've been a long time Boeing-Lockheed customer but the powerful imagery from that ad left quite the impression on me. I get that defense officials and congressmen watch the Super Bowl, but there must be more cost effective…

It could also be targeted at recruiting rather than customers. Someone might watch that and think "damn, I could work on some cool projects there!"

A superbowl ad is not going to inspire the people you want to start working on advanced aircraft. The people you want are already working on advanced aircraft or are trying to get into the advanced aircraft business. You need people that know what they're doing, not the "dang that's cool" crowd.

Re: Pentagon’s $55B mystery plane is secret, but debate on cost is appearing

#12

Post by c-slice » Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 9:07 AM UTC

tree_of_item wrote: post #3

desdiv wrote: post #2

Northrop Grumman seriously paid for a Super Bowl ad? Oh sure, next time I'm out shopping for a long range stealth bomber maybe I'll subconsciously remember the ad and choose a Northrop Grumman one. I've been a long time Boeing-Lockheed customer but the powerful imagery from that ad left quite the impression on me. I get that defense officials and congressmen watch the Super Bowl, but there must be more cost effective…

Don't forget the signaling value: Northrop Grumman is not a small shop, and wants to show these officials and congressman that they're the real deal and have plenty of money to spend on flashy and super expensive things like Super Bowl ads.

I think this is completely PR - they want to create buzz and excitement in the public for the "hot new spy plane" such that its politically impossible for congress to cancel the program/cut the budget.

Re: Pentagon’s $55B mystery plane is secret, but debate on cost is appearing

#13

Post by gamegoblin » Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 9:08 AM UTC

codeonfire wrote: post #11

gamegoblin wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could also be targeted at recruiting rather than customers. Someone might watch that and think "damn, I could work on some cool projects there!"

A superbowl ad is not going to inspire the people you want to start working on advanced aircraft. The people you want are already working on advanced aircraft or are trying to get into the advanced aircraft business. You need people that know what they're doing, not the "dang that's cool" crowd.

You're also targeting future engineers. If you can make a highschool kid get into aeronautical engineering who otherwise wouldn't have, that's a strategic win. Younger people are very much in the "dang that's cool" crowd.

Look at most of the modern military commercials. They very much appeal to young people who grew up playing Call of Duty and whatnot.

Re: Pentagon’s $55B mystery plane is secret, but debate on cost is appearing

#14

Post by venomsnake » Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 9:09 AM UTC

ojbyrne wrote: post #9

venomsnake wrote: post #8

Isn't the future in 3d printed automated drones, with absurdly low cost, that can saturate any defense.

"Absurdly low cost" won't work with the giant welfare system that is the DoD.

There are nations that have the outdated ideas of winning wars and not stimulating the economy ... for them the ideas of mass produced drones built at BOM, with some stolen IP from US are tempting.

Re: Pentagon’s $55B mystery plane is secret, but debate on cost is appearing

#15

Post by sitkack » Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 9:10 AM UTC

ojbyrne wrote: post #9

venomsnake wrote: post #8

Isn't the future in 3d printed automated drones, with absurdly low cost, that can saturate any defense.

"Absurdly low cost" won't work with the giant welfare system that is the DoD.

The OP is referring to real vs perceived (manufactured) threats, but you know that.

Re: Pentagon’s $55B mystery plane is secret, but debate on cost is appearing

#16

Post by _yosefk » Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 9:20 AM UTC

ricardobeat wrote: post #10

Did I seriously just read a cry for "disrupting the combat aircraft market"? How about disrupting the tobacco business? Disrupting human traffic? Exaggerations aside, not everything is about making (or saving) money. I sure as hell don't want military weapons to become the latest startup trend.

I can see how we'd be better off without human trafficking and, to a smaller extent, without the tobacco business. I'm not sure we'd be better off without weapons. In fact, if the club became world's most advanced weapon tomorrow, it would, among other things, likely boost human trafficking.

Re: Pentagon’s $55B mystery plane is secret, but debate on cost is appearing

#17

Post by smhinsey » Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 9:24 AM UTC

So what happens if we find ourselves in a war of attrition again? Most/all of the potential opponents in such a war are nuclear powers so it's theoretically not a possibility but history is littered with theoretical impossibilities made real. It seems like we have all of these incredibly dominant and expensive weapons but only a relatively tiny supply, no timely and cost-effective way to replace losses, and not many options if they run out. I didn't attend a service academy so maybe I'm missing something, but what if the initial battle is not decisive and after 6 months of somehow-only-conventional war there are no more LRSBs or F-22s or whatevers?

Re: Pentagon’s $55B mystery plane is secret, but debate on cost is appearing

#18

Post by tormeh » Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 9:29 AM UTC

ricardobeat wrote: post #10

Did I seriously just read a cry for "disrupting the combat aircraft market"? How about disrupting the tobacco business? Disrupting human traffic? Exaggerations aside, not everything is about making (or saving) money. I sure as hell don't want military weapons to become the latest startup trend.

There are, of course, defense startups. This one is pretty futuristic/terrifying: http://www.proxdynamics.com/home

Re: Pentagon’s $55B mystery plane is secret, but debate on cost is appearing

#19

Post by adventured » Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 9:35 AM UTC

smhinsey wrote: post #17

So what happens if we find ourselves in a war of attrition again? Most/all of the potential opponents in such a war are nuclear powers so it's theoretically not a possibility but history is littered with theoretical impossibilities made real. It seems like we have all of these incredibly dominant and expensive weapons but only a relatively tiny supply, no timely and cost-effective way to replace losses, and not many…

The other major nuclear powers are no more capable of fighting a war of attrition than the US is.

Further, the US is highly unlikely to be dumb enough to fight a war in China or Russia. That would require ten million soldiers just to get started anyway. It simply isn't going to happen, any more than Russia or China are going to cross the Pacific or Atlantic and invade the US. China has very little capability to project outside its borders, and is in the process of modernizing its military and shrinking its forces. Russia has zero capability of projecting serious conventional might outside of its borders, or those extremely close by.

So what war of attrition is likely to occur? Whatever that is, it'll be fought closer to the enemy's backyard, than the US backyard. The US has military bases all around the planet, nobody else does. So the US can strike, perpetually, at foreign targets via force projection, while limiting damage to its domestic manufacturing capabilities. Said manufacturing capabilities would be, much like WW2, ramped up to meet demand. The US has a massive labor pool, and if desperately needed, could grant citizenship to tens of millions from Latin America in exchange for building armaments in factories. Unlike China, the US is capable of 100% domestic commodity supply, and if pressed can also fulfill all of its own manufacturing and technology needs (which China can as well, but they don't have the domestic commodities the US possesses).

To win a war of attrition, in a conventional war, the US could simply spam the construction of new B-52s and bombs, and then leverage its global bases, pressing an unrelenting bombing campaign taking out all of the enemy's manufacturing capabilities. No present or likely future enemies of the US could strike back at the US domestically for any sustained period of time.

Now, if we're talking China in 30 years, will they be able to project across the Pacific all the way to Hawaii and California? Interesting question, it's going to depend on whether their economy melts down due to the hyper debt accumulation they're undergoing now, and whether they end up in perpetual debt stagnation like Japan (while their demographics melt simultaneously, and the demand for entitlements to take care of the elderly soars, sapping their financial capabilities even further).

Re: Pentagon’s $55B mystery plane is secret, but debate on cost is appearing

#20

Post by cturner » Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 9:40 AM UTC

smhinsey wrote: post #17

So what happens if we find ourselves in a war of attrition again? Most/all of the potential opponents in such a war are nuclear powers so it's theoretically not a possibility but history is littered with theoretical impossibilities made real. It seems like we have all of these incredibly dominant and expensive weapons but only a relatively tiny supply, no timely and cost-effective way to replace losses, and not many…

It's a good question to ask, but the US would be far better placed to respond to this kind of attrition than any other nation. There'll be a stack of spare capacity in the training system and well-mothballed in airplane graveyards. The US is also awash with spare capacity in pilots. The carrier groups can be redeployed to weak areas. Plus diversified economy, good situation with food and energy sufficiency, transport redundancy, friendly border neighbours.

Negotiations between Australia and the US have ended with parts for planes being exchanged (trade agreement in late 90s). Extra parts for previous-generation planes are high-value to partners, near-zero marginal cost to the US.