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

Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 101 posts

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#11

Post by [deleted] »

ossobuco wrote: post #9
hunglee2 wrote: post #4

Yet despite these problems, the F-35 remains the most commercially successful airframe in the world, with over 670 sold, and 2,500 on order from US-allied countries all over the world. What could explain this sales pipeline, if the F-35 was the boondoggle this article implies it to be?

> What could explain this sales pipeline, if the F-35 was the boondoggle this article implies it to be? The overwhelming USA sphere of influence over its "allies". I don't really see a NATO member buying new fighter jets from China or Russia instead without that causing a big ruckus.

[deleted]

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#12

Post by invalidname »

hunglee2 wrote: post #4

Yet despite these problems, the F-35 remains the most commercially successful airframe in the world, with over 670 sold, and 2,500 on order from US-allied countries all over the world. What could explain this sales pipeline, if the F-35 was the boondoggle this article implies it to be?

The article is sensational and deeply misleading.

Yes, the plane has a lot of bugs. It's got complicated software and hardware. You can't compare it to the relatively simple older designs that didn't deal with stealth.

Yes they don't need to test dogfights because war isn't a video game. When the enemy sees the f35 it is after it already sent the missile in your direction. You don't need to dogfight if you're an invisible ghost that can kill from a distance.

The f16 had a ton of bugs such as flipping over when south of the equator. It's a much better machine now and the f35 has all the makings to be a similar leap forward.

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#13

Post by rjsw »

orwin wrote: post #10
hunglee2 wrote: post #4

Yet despite these problems, the F-35 remains the most commercially successful airframe in the world, with over 670 sold, and 2,500 on order from US-allied countries all over the world. What could explain this sales pipeline, if the F-35 was the boondoggle this article implies it to be?

For the first sales (Australia and either Norway or sweden, i dont remember), the US and lockheed Martin hid away the issues and lied on operating cost and availability. For sales to NATO: you have to buy a plane that can carry the US bomb if you don't have one yourself (despite the fact that nukes will probably never be launched from aircrafts if at all). For sales against competition, i don't have a lot of data, bu…

Typhoon would have been a good fit for Canada but the US vetoed it.

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#14

Post by imwillofficial »

hunglee2 wrote: post #4

Yet despite these problems, the F-35 remains the most commercially successful airframe in the world, with over 670 sold, and 2,500 on order from US-allied countries all over the world. What could explain this sales pipeline, if the F-35 was the boondoggle this article implies it to be?

Unfortunately we do not measure combat weapons in terms of commercial success.

We measure them in terms of lethality and reliability.

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#15

Post by mrtksn »

Elon Musk recently made some remarks about F-35 on Twitter: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1860574377013838033

It's exactly what I was thinking about: Having a pilot onboard is overhead and its a limiting factor for the flight envelope as you have to keep it alive. Besides, it's not invisible despite calling it that. It's visible in the visible spectrum and hearable in the human hearing range, which means that you can build detection and tracking systems in those wavelengths instead of pretending that its invisible because its hard to detect at radar wavelengths.

Why just not drop any manned vehicles and go for the remote control + AI? What is the logic? Sunken cost fallacy? Military industrial complex needs it?

The only thing I can think of is the political implications of downing plane with a soldier on board.

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#16

Post by potato3732842 »

mrtksn wrote: post #15

Elon Musk recently made some remarks about F-35 on Twitter: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1860574377013838033 It's exactly what I was thinking about: Having a pilot onboard is overhead and its a limiting factor for the flight envelope as you have to keep it alive. Besides, it's not invisible despite calling it that. It's visible in the visible spectrum and hearable in the human hearing range, which means that you can…

This is already the air force's tentative plan. They made several announcements (10+yr ago) when it was new about the F35 being the last manned fighter and then kinda walked that back because PR but kept pursuing it.

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#17

Post by reisse »

mrtksn wrote: post #15

Elon Musk recently made some remarks about F-35 on Twitter: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1860574377013838033 It's exactly what I was thinking about: Having a pilot onboard is overhead and its a limiting factor for the flight envelope as you have to keep it alive. Besides, it's not invisible despite calling it that. It's visible in the visible spectrum and hearable in the human hearing range, which means that you can…

> Why just not drop any manned vehicles and go for the remote control + AI? What is the logic?

When the F-35 program was started in late 1980s-early 1990s, neither reliable remote control nor AI existed (I'm not even sure supersonic-reliable remote control exists now). Now, if there exists research programs utilizing unmanned fighter jets, they're likely classified and we won't know about them for quite some time.

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#18

Post by nosianu »

invalidname wrote: post #12
hunglee2 wrote: post #4

Yet despite these problems, the F-35 remains the most commercially successful airframe in the world, with over 670 sold, and 2,500 on order from US-allied countries all over the world. What could explain this sales pipeline, if the F-35 was the boondoggle this article implies it to be?

The article is sensational and deeply misleading. Yes, the plane has a lot of bugs. It's got complicated software and hardware. You can't compare it to the relatively simple older designs that didn't deal with stealth. Yes they don't need to test dogfights because war isn't a video game. When the enemy sees the f35 it is after it already sent the missile in your direction. You don't need to dogfight if you're an invi…

> The f16 had a ton of bugs such as flipping over when south of the equator.

In the simulator - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4541685

The page that comment links to lists some (minor) problems found on the real plane too though.

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#19

Post by aa-jv »

hunglee2 wrote: post #4

Yet despite these problems, the F-35 remains the most commercially successful airframe in the world, with over 670 sold, and 2,500 on order from US-allied countries all over the world. What could explain this sales pipeline, if the F-35 was the boondoggle this article implies it to be?

>What could explain this sales pipeline, if the F-35 was the boondoggle this article implies it to be?

A lack of actual proven fight-testing.

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#20

Post by belter »

hunglee2 wrote: post #4

Yet despite these problems, the F-35 remains the most commercially successful airframe in the world, with over 670 sold, and 2,500 on order from US-allied countries all over the world. What could explain this sales pipeline, if the F-35 was the boondoggle this article implies it to be?

Microsoft enters the room....
Post reply on HN