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

101–110 of 347 posts

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

#101

Post by Spooky23 »

jzwinck wrote: post #45
lmg643 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree on drones and unmanned aircraft. Manned combat planes are going to be the cavalry of war in a few years (if not already) for the simple fact that a pilot cannot withstand the g-forces that an unmanned plane or missile can. US hasn't realized this yet because we are currently using our military might to pick on folks who are decades if not a century or more behind us technologically but would likely be a differe…

One punchline at the end of the article seems to implicitly agree on drones: > Ward said any future warplane should have clear and narrow requirements, as opposed to the F-35's broad, incompatible guidelines. Development timelines should be fast, budgets should be inexpensive, the overall concept should be simple and hardware should be as tiny as possible. The one way we have today to accomplish all those goals toget…

I'd argue that most of the truly successful military aircraft in the US inventory started out as single-purpose aircraft. The F-4 and F-15 were pure fighters. The F-117 and A-10 were pure attack aircraft.

The political process drives the insanity of trying to serve multiple purposes with thousands of design engineers strategically located in as many Congressional districts as possible.

I think drones should be used for every application that they are appropriate for -- why put people on the line when computers can do the work? But just like the JSF project attempted to serve many masters, assuming drones are the optimal decision for all military aircraft requirements is dumb.

The Chinese and Russians are building high performance aircraft for less than $1 Trillion. There's a reason for that. We can too.

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

#102

Post by greedo »

mpweiher wrote: post #84
runarb wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate a little more on which aspects of the 40 year old F-16 design you think is better than the F-35? After looking on the Wikipedia page[0][1] it looks for me that the F-35 outperforms the F-16 in all aspects: |------------------------|-----------|----------| | | F-16 | F-35 | |------------------------|-----------|----------| | Maximum speed | Mach 1.2 | Mach 1.6 | | Combat radius | 550 km | 1 080 km |…

The F-16 has Mach 2+ top speed, the Mach 1.2 figure is "at sea level", so the F-35 is significantly outclassed there, not just by the F-16, but also by most potential adversaries. One advantage that the F-35 does have is "super cruise", the ability to go supersonic without afterburners (F-22 and Eurofighter Typhoon have the same ability). Other fighters are restricted to subsonic speeds except for short supersonic da…

A clean F-16 might have Mach 2 as its top speed, but not even close to that with bags and bombs.

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

#103

Post by protomyth »

antubbs wrote: post #54
caycep wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to add weight, and wing loading area, and what G's the plane is rated at. These are key variables. The F-16's max speed is far greater than Mach 1.2, I thought, or at least it used to be before they added on weight to the thing. It's also well known that the designers optimized the F-16's ability to quickly lose/gain kinetic energy, what they call "dump and pump". This is hard to quantify. Some of the "nextg…

The assumption with the F-35 seems to be that technology (better sensors & automation) will overcome performance & armament disparities. This is not a new assumption in the air superiority game, but I don't think history's been kind to it to this point.

You're right, history hasn't been kind. The F-4 going into service with only missiles an no internal cannon is a pretty good example. After all, the new missiles would overcome and air combat maneuvering was a thing of the past.

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

#104

Post by Zimahl »

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #14
dkhenry wrote: post #3

I understand the point the article is trying to make, but its not realistic. Having worked with the Navy for a few years I know that the biggest use of airplanes is not air to air combat ( which is what this article is complaining about ) It is air to land bombing. So why are we complaining about making an air force that serves our needs rather then one that might be useful for some other task. As a note he says this…

Won't the air to ground bombing mission be done mostly by drones? Manned aircraft will be increasingly reserved for special operations and dirty little wars, which is pretty much the Marines' job description. Also, the vertical takeoff capability will be mandatory for a hypothetical future war against a major power. Once the huge, lumbering aircraft carriers are sitting on the sea floor, they will be replaced by heav…

Even if we were to face China in a war, we'd own the seas. Once their one (maybe two by now) carrier is sunk, even assuming they sink one of ours, we just bring in one of the other 12.

I know people fear China but they are no cold-war Russia. Anything conventional and the US is in the lead by a lot. There's no reason to discuss anything nuclear because everyone loses in that case.

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

#105

Post by astrodust »

greedo wrote: post #73
VLM wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A solved problem, you launch cheap cruise missiles until you obtain relative superiority.

Cheap? Hardly. A Tomahawk is far north of $1M a shot, and JASSM is above $1M as well.

The bombs they drop are not free either, some of the smart munitions cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

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

#106

Post by JackFr »

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #14
dkhenry wrote: post #3

I understand the point the article is trying to make, but its not realistic. Having worked with the Navy for a few years I know that the biggest use of airplanes is not air to air combat ( which is what this article is complaining about ) It is air to land bombing. So why are we complaining about making an air force that serves our needs rather then one that might be useful for some other task. As a note he says this…

Won't the air to ground bombing mission be done mostly by drones? Manned aircraft will be increasingly reserved for special operations and dirty little wars, which is pretty much the Marines' job description. Also, the vertical takeoff capability will be mandatory for a hypothetical future war against a major power. Once the huge, lumbering aircraft carriers are sitting on the sea floor, they will be replaced by heav…

Aircraft carriers on the sea floor? Not if they're refitted with megawatt lasers, railguns, UAVs and USVs.

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

#107

Post by JackFr »

greedo wrote: post #51
Daniel_Newby wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Won't the air to ground bombing mission be done mostly by drones? Manned aircraft will be increasingly reserved for special operations and dirty little wars, which is pretty much the Marines' job description. Also, the vertical takeoff capability will be mandatory for a hypothetical future war against a major power. Once the huge, lumbering aircraft carriers are sitting on the sea floor, they will be replaced by heav…

People have been saying the demise of the carrier is upon us for 5 decades. Yet nothing offers the flexibility and power projection capabilities of a CVBG. And guess what submariners call "heavily armored battleships?" Targets... And if you think CVNs are expensive, you should research how much retrofitting an Iowa Class with a STOVL flight deck would cost. And then factor in manning costs for a ship that needs close…

And when (if?) energy weapons and railguns become a reality, all of a sudden a 100MW reactor is not a bad thing to have.

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

#108

Post by dctoedt »

Zimahl wrote: post #104
Daniel_Newby wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Won't the air to ground bombing mission be done mostly by drones? Manned aircraft will be increasingly reserved for special operations and dirty little wars, which is pretty much the Marines' job description. Also, the vertical takeoff capability will be mandatory for a hypothetical future war against a major power. Once the huge, lumbering aircraft carriers are sitting on the sea floor, they will be replaced by heav…

Even if we were to face China in a war, we'd own the seas. Once their one (maybe two by now) carrier is sunk, even assuming they sink one of ours, we just bring in one of the other 12. I know people fear China but they are no cold-war Russia. Anything conventional and the US is in the lead by a lot. There's no reason to discuss anything nuclear because everyone loses in that case.

> Even if we were to face China in a war, we'd own the seas. Once their one (maybe two by now) carrier is sunk, even assuming they sink one of ours, we just bring in one of the other 12.

There have been reports that the Chinese have developed and brought to initial operational status the DF-21D, a medium-range, hypersonic, anti-ship ballistic missile specifically designed to be a carrier-killer [1]. The concern is that our carriers might be chased from the Western Pacific.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#DF-21D_.28CSS-5_Mod-4.29_... -- also http://thediplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2013/06/12/why-china...

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

#109

Post by moocowduckquack »

VLM wrote: post #36
nkuttler wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the biggest use of airplanes [...] is air to land bombing But what happens to your bombers when you don't have air superiority?

A solved problem, you launch cheap cruise missiles until you obtain relative superiority.

Tomahawks work ok against midrange opponents, but I suspect that the Chinese have SAM systems that can knock them out of the sky, given their lack of stealth capabilities and low speed. Given that the Chinese government can hit a satellite from the ground, I think they might be able to target something that is 500mph and radar-visible.

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

#110

Post by mparr4 »

conformal wrote: post #15
dkhenry wrote: post #3

I understand the point the article is trying to make, but its not realistic. Having worked with the Navy for a few years I know that the biggest use of airplanes is not air to air combat ( which is what this article is complaining about ) It is air to land bombing. So why are we complaining about making an air force that serves our needs rather then one that might be useful for some other task. As a note he says this…

the F-35 is one of the largest wastes of government money that is publicly known. by the time the aircraft has all the bugs ironed out, it will have cost USD 1 tln and be easily destroyed by much cheaper drones. the entire contract should be converted into drone development, which will actually pay dividends. trying to argue that we need the F-35 or that it will provide any kind of strategic military value is absurd.

> the entire contract should be converted into drone development, which will actually pay dividends

...or, maybe, education?

Post reply on HN