The Little “Fighter” That Couldn’t: Moral Hazard and the F-35 • Hacker News Board

Re: The Little “Fighter” That Couldn’t: Moral Hazard and the F-35

#201

Post by eru » Sun, Mar 22, 2015, 4:22 PM UTC

hackuser wrote: post #85

philwelch wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gigantic? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/politics/pentagon-plans... Have you considered the gigantic military requirements that are placed on the United States? By treaty alone, the US is required to defend almost all of Europe, Japan, and South Korea. These are not easy requirements to disentangle from; if Japan alone were allowed and required to rearm, it could lead to an arms race that would destabilize all…

I'm not sure why the parent was modded down. It's 'settled theory' in the foreign policy world, though what philwelch lists are significant risks and not certainties. Also, I would add our obiligation to ensure the flow of energy from the Middle East. There are many benefits to being a hegemon, but it comes with obligations too.

> Also, I would add our obiligation to ensure the flow of energy from the Middle East.

A serious investment in nuclear would render those obligations moot.

Re: The Little “Fighter” That Couldn’t: Moral Hazard and the F-35

#202

Post by nitrogen » Sun, Mar 22, 2015, 4:48 PM UTC

jjoonathan wrote: post #124

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linus Torvalds once quipped (in a discussion over Git) that "even if the choice of C over C++ had no other benefits than keeping the C++ programmers out, that in itself would be a huge reason to prefer C".

What is the preferred way to implement generic containers in C?

You can write the containers as a ".x" file, which is just C with all of the type names replaced by a macro name. Then you #include the .x file where needed, #define the type before, then #undef it after. Token pasting in the C preprocessor makes for unique names, so multiple container types can be used in the same namespace.

Re: The Little “Fighter” That Couldn’t: Moral Hazard and the F-35

#203

Post by xnull2guest » Sun, Mar 22, 2015, 5:14 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #199

xnull2guest wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it more complicated than that? Today being behind on military technology by as little as 5 years can be decisive in confrontation. The last decade has brought huge changes in military technology including super and hypersonic missile delivery systems (these can defeat the US's current interception capabilities), THAAD technology, directed energy weapons, new reactive armors, satellite bombing systems, startling…

The US isn't suffering waning economic dominance. In fact it's gaining economic power right now. The US Dollar is stronger than it has been in 20 years, the global reserve standard is firmly in place. The Euro and Yen present no threat to that; and the Yuan, a second tier currency, is currently being backed up by the greatest accumulation of debt in world history in China. Since 2007 the US has added around $3.x tril…

The US _is_ doing better economically than it had been during the great recession and the lead up to it - but when one looks on a longer time horizon and when looks at more than proxy measures in the short term things do not look as well. This is not to say the US is going to go belly up. It is suffering waning economic dominance. The two are not mutually exclusive. Declining dominance means that it is losing its lead and will be overtaken. A sprinter can run faster than any other leg of a race and still be overtaken. That is what we are talking about here.

From all accounts the Renminbi is doing quite well and many allies despite pressure from the US are joining to AIIB, etc. Every criticism of the Renminbi you've put forward applies equally or greater to the dollar.

Europe is not a fair comparison. Nor is Russia (it waned into collapse the same time you start your 'comparisons'). Nor is Japan (can you fairly compare to a lost generation?). These are misleading 20th century comparisons.

Always be careful of charts and data that capture narrow slices and proxy measures - especially when they are not sourced and when the data isn't published alongside methodology. Proxy measures are extremely dangerous. Though it may explain why you feel confident using Japan as a reasonable example?

When we speak of declining dominance, it is in fact the US and its relationship to the stagnating EU, Commonwealth and Japan that informs this. The growth is not in the old world.

By all accounts, bankers, financiers, politicians, advisors - the next half century will be driven economically and politically by the Asia-Pacific. By the same accounts there are significant challenges to the world order set in WWII.

Thus the US's pivot to Asia, to the rise of China and of the Pacific.

Re: The Little “Fighter” That Couldn’t: Moral Hazard and the F-35

#204

Post by Silhouette » Sun, Mar 22, 2015, 5:30 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #191

Silhouette wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your information appears to be a generation out of date. The EU in particular have been working on collective defence agreements independent of NATO for quite some time. While it's true that if current US foreign policy went away overnight it would probably make certain other parts of the world less stable for a while, such rapid change couldn't actually happen as a practical matter of international diplomacy and eve…

During the 70 year US superpower reign, there have been zero major wars between history's powerful nations (Germany, China, Japan, Italy, Spain, Britain, France, India, Russia); there have been no major wars in Latin America (eg Brazil invading and destroying Colombia); and there have been no more world war equivalents. The worst we've seen have been very small scale, eg between India and China. That's not a coincide…

That's not a coincidence, it's a benefit provided by the US military's overwhelming superiority.

Do you really think the British and the French haven't been re-enacting Waterloo lately because the United States asked us to play nicely?

Here are some other factually correct statements, using your definition of 'powerful nation':

"In the 70 years since the formation of the United Nations, there have been zero major wars between history's powerful nations."

"In the seven decades since they lost the Second World War, Germany has had zero major wars with nations that defeated them."

"Since the formation of the EEC, there have been zero major wars between its member states."

"In more than six decades since becoming a nuclear power, the UK has had zero major wars with other powerful nations."

Obviously numerous variations on these themes are also true.

The US military has also taken an extreme share of the burden of keeping global trade / shipping lanes open and safe for operation - and it has done an extraordinary job at it.

Are you sure?

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-u-s-navy-does-not-p...

No, only the US is a powerful enough threat to Russia to keep them from going on a non-stop annexation spree.

Apparently, not even the US is a powerful enough threat to Russia to keep them from going on a non-stop annexation spree.

Re: The Little “Fighter” That Couldn’t: Moral Hazard and the F-35

#205

Post by xnull2guest » Sun, Mar 22, 2015, 5:41 PM UTC

tim333 wrote: post #151

xnull2guest wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it more complicated than that? Today being behind on military technology by as little as 5 years can be decisive in confrontation. The last decade has brought huge changes in military technology including super and hypersonic missile delivery systems (these can defeat the US's current interception capabilities), THAAD technology, directed energy weapons, new reactive armors, satellite bombing systems, startling…

>US's military might has everything to do with the geopolitics that continue to make it rich I'm sceptical that the military might does that much to make the US rich besides providing basic peace. Obviously things would be screwed if WW3 started. The US has got rich mostly by trade and enterprise and producing much of the worlds high value stuff. Spending a huge portion of governments revenues on the military rather…

For example she provides energy security for Europe (why is the UAE such good friends with us - do we benefit from this relationship?), she backs her commitments with military promises (she can and does negotiate treaties and agreements, even between other countries, that fix things in her favor), her dollar is trusted more because her military is stronger (this investment is crucial), she uses her military to enforce international trade rules that benefit her (more than just 'peace' but international law - but specific international law), her military gives her access to native areas in Latin America and the Pacific that are not hers (Guam, Chile, Phillipines, etc), her military is used as a deterrent that enables her to use other strategies to break nations (she contracts and pays to kindle revolutions around the world that benefit her), she exports her old weapons and systems (a huge US export), she intervenes in nations due to natural, homegrown and installed conflict to fix a stability and peace where US companies and country have the first investment opportunities in natural resource extraction.

Re: The Little “Fighter” That Couldn’t: Moral Hazard and the F-35

#206

Post by engi_nerd » Sun, Mar 22, 2015, 6:23 PM UTC

Roboprog wrote: post #9

tokenrove wrote: post #4

It's duplicitous of me to bring this up given all the other problems with this plane, but since it's a favorite topic of argument here, let's not forget the F-35's software is mostly developed in C++, and had been, in the past, touted as a triumph of C++ over Ada.

Maybe we can put Bjarne Stroustrup into an F35 :-)

He did some consulting work for the JSF++ specification. And he's a Dane; Denmark is a Level 3 partner in JSF but hasn't officially committed to purchasing any aircraft.

Re: The Little “Fighter” That Couldn’t: Moral Hazard and the F-35

#207

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Mar 22, 2015, 6:26 PM UTC

acveilleux wrote: post #144

hackuser wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's not like the enemy isn't going to notice the slowly hovering jet plane that's strafing them and shooting missiles at them I thought the STOVL was designed to enable take off and landing without airfields and aircraft carriers. Are you sure the intent is that it will hover over the battlefield while attacking? Current planes seem to hit targets fine while flying at a much safer hundreds of miles/hour.

It's not going to hover, that would be insane (in fuel use if nothing else) but the USMC wants/needs a close air support platform. A jet that will fly sufficiently low and slow to attack ground targets effectively. Even when the friendly troops are only a few hundred meters away. That's intrinsically different from the Air Force and Navy whose planes will spend their time closer to 30k feet then 3k feet. Flight at lo…

[deleted]

Re: The Little “Fighter” That Couldn’t: Moral Hazard and the F-35

#208

Post by engi_nerd » Sun, Mar 22, 2015, 6:26 PM UTC

acveilleux wrote: post #144

hackuser wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's not like the enemy isn't going to notice the slowly hovering jet plane that's strafing them and shooting missiles at them I thought the STOVL was designed to enable take off and landing without airfields and aircraft carriers. Are you sure the intent is that it will hover over the battlefield while attacking? Current planes seem to hit targets fine while flying at a much safer hundreds of miles/hour.

It's not going to hover, that would be insane (in fuel use if nothing else) but the USMC wants/needs a close air support platform. A jet that will fly sufficiently low and slow to attack ground targets effectively. Even when the friendly troops are only a few hundred meters away. That's intrinsically different from the Air Force and Navy whose planes will spend their time closer to 30k feet then 3k feet. Flight at lo…

> It's not going to hover, that would be insane (in fuel use if nothing else)

Really nerdy aside: it would also be insane with regards to hot gas ingestion. There would be a very high likelihood that the engine would take in the missile exhaust if launches happened in the semi-jet-borne or jet-borne regions.

Re: The Little “Fighter” That Couldn’t: Moral Hazard and the F-35

#209

Post by engi_nerd » Sun, Mar 22, 2015, 6:54 PM UTC

nas wrote: post #143

transfire wrote: post #35

What should have been. https://www.google.com/search?q=boeing+joint+strike+fighter&...

Hard to say that, we don't know what the final price of the Boeing plane would be. I liked the Boeing design better, simpler and should have been cheaper and more reliable. Complexity just kills budgets, schedules and reliability. IMHO, the Lockheed plane won because it looked nicer and maybe because of politics (up and out). The VTOL and the complicated avionics is what is really killing the F-35 plane. The software…

Nerdy aside: the F-35 is not really VTOL, it's STOVL (short-takeoff/vertical landing).

Vertical takeoffs have been done in testing, but the jet really isn't going to be operated that way. Short takeoffs will be done regularly, though. It's amazing to see an aircraft go from a dead stop to being 50 feet in the air within less than 800 feet of runway.

Don't discount the looks department. In the fighter world, the adage has always been, "If it looks right, it flies right." Now, I'm not saying that is the criterion that should be used to select airplanes, but that mindset exists.

Boeing still would have been faced with many of these same avionics and software issues because their aircraft would have been outfitted with similar systems.

Re: The Little “Fighter” That Couldn’t: Moral Hazard and the F-35

#210

Post by engi_nerd » Sun, Mar 22, 2015, 7:00 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #170

acveilleux wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's as well tested in combat as any of the other fighters still flying. Pending a US-Russia or US-China war, that's all that's ever going to happen.

Not like anyone's anxious to pull the P-51 or Spitfire out of mothballs, certainly. While the Hornet doesn't have a huge combat record, it has a long flight record and a long record of carrier operations and has excelled at both with less maintenance burden than its predecessors.

I know many older maintainers who started out on the aircraft types that the F-18 replaced, and then worked on the F-18. They all say that the F-18 really was a game changer. Older aircraft had frustrating issues like panels from one aircraft not fitting onto another because those older aircraft were much more hand-made and manufactured to lower tolerances. F-18s leverage digital data buses much more, greatly reducing the messes of point-to-point wiring and patch panels that older aircraft types used, making the F-18 easier to maintain, modify, and expand.