Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

jqpublicblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 233 posts

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

#211

Post by ryanx435 »

eru wrote: post #201
hackuser wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

nuclear powered planes, trains, and automobiles?

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

#212

Post by philwelch »

mschuster91 wrote: post #181
philwelch wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US military also effectively subsidizes the national defense of a large portion of the world, much of which we trade with. It's because of our treaty obligation to defend South Korea that, instead of investing in an arms race with North Korea, they can afford to manufacture cell phones and cars and televisions and trade them to us. Likewise for Japan and the NATO members.

> instead of investing in an arms race with North Korea, NK is so poor they can barely stay alive. I don't believe there could be any sort of meaningful arms race...

NK is starving because they're investing all their wealth into their army.

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

#213

Post by philwelch »

ryanx435 wrote: post #211
eru wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

nuclear powered planes, trains, and automobiles?

Electric trains and cars are technologically feasible.

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

#214

Post by greedo »

krapht wrote: post #19
spiritplumber wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So get rid of the USAF / fold it back into the Army, this way the Navy has an air wing, and the Army has an air wing. Large sky battles are unlikely to happen ever again... the USAF was designed to deal with those, right around when they had become obsolete. Hooray for Parkinson's laws. The A-10 is a magnificent brute of a plane and does exactly the job it was designed to do, very well... so of course they want to mo…

The A10's minigun is ineffective at killing modern main-battle tanks, so I wouldn't say it's a raging sucess. In addition, it would certainly be blown up immediately if it came within shooting distance of a tank by any number of man-portable anti-air missiles. What it can do is provide reasonable close air support against Toyota pickups and infantry, but replacement parts for the plane or the molds to create them don…

Minigun? Have you seen the size of the shell fired by the GAU-8? It's designed to shoot through the top of the tank, either the turret, or the engine. Quite easy to do, even against modern tanks. Now whether it can do so against modern air defenses is to be determined.

And the primary anti-tank weapon of the A-10 isn't its gun, but the Maverick missile.

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

#215

Post by protomyth »

Symmetry wrote: post #178
protomyth wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I don't see why mothballing the A10 is a poor decision" Because we do not have any aircraft that can stay on station above our troops stuck out in the middle of nowhere and keep them safe by shooting for multiple hours. Every other aircraft (drone include) is a drop-a-few-and-leave. That is not good enough. Where have we faced modern main-battle tanks? We should remove close air support from the Air Force's mission…

I thought the AC-130 was pretty good at that. It's even worse at not getting shot down of course but could provide fire support for just as long and over a wider area.

I haven't heard of an AC-130 doing it, but the folks that I talk to mention the A-10 often. More of a sharp shooter thing instead of an area effect thing.

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

#216

Post by eru »

philwelch wrote: post #213
ryanx435 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nuclear powered planes, trains, and automobiles?

Electric trains and cars are technologically feasible.

And, if you have cheap enough energy, you can make synthetic fuels from scratch.

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

#217

Post by hueving »

Silhouette wrote: post #156
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…

Have you considered the gigantic military requirements that are placed on the United States? Placed by whom, exactly? It's not as if the US took on those treaty commitments involuntarily or expecting no benefits in return, and it's not as if the rest of the world would not adapt if the US reduced its military commitments over time. For example, you talk about the US being required by treaty to defend almost all of Eu…

Your comment is lacking any specific examples or citations so it's essentially an armchair analysis based on what sounds like a simplistic "USA is sucky" opinion.

Where is this "reasonable thought" that a world without superpowers would not devolve back into world wars and mass conflict? What's different this time to prevent that from happening?

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

#218

Post by Silhouette »

hueving wrote: post #217
Silhouette wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered the gigantic military requirements that are placed on the United States? Placed by whom, exactly? It's not as if the US took on those treaty commitments involuntarily or expecting no benefits in return, and it's not as if the rest of the world would not adapt if the US reduced its military commitments over time. For example, you talk about the US being required by treaty to defend almost all of Eu…

Your comment is lacking any specific examples or citations so it's essentially an armchair analysis based on what sounds like a simplistic "USA is sucky" opinion. Where is this "reasonable thought" that a world without superpowers would not devolve back into world wars and mass conflict? What's different this time to prevent that from happening?

What's different this time to prevent that from happening?

- Real-time international communications

- Much better global diplomacy

- Many more small agreements between neighbours

- Knowledge of history

- Numerous countries possessing weapons so terrible that their mere existence should send shivers down everyone's spine

How many do you want?

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

#219

Post by ArkyBeagle »

ghostberry wrote: post #76
ArkyBeagle wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the mission becomes opposing ISIS style forces, I doubt guns will be obsolete.

For attacking an enemy that doesn't have and real air defences they shouldn't be using a multirole jet fighter like the F-35 or a jet ground attack aircraft like the A-10. They're both way too expensive to run. They should be using a counter-insurgency aircraft, like the A-26s the Afghan Air Force is about to receive.

True all that.

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

#220

Post by ArkyBeagle »

hackuser wrote: post #86
ArkyBeagle wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how this was downvoted - it's completely true. Read any bio of Eisenhower. Eisenhower was involved in big experiments just to see if men and materiel could even be moved across country in the US by wheeled vehicles.

> I don't know how this was downvoted Perhaps it was the tone, "utterly false". When I see writing like that, I generally stop reading; often what follows is another hyperbolic Internet rant and I've seen enough of them for my lifetime.

I hear ya - fatigue happens.
Post reply on HN