How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by tptacek » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 5:46 PM UTC

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.

If your whole argument is that all manned air-ground mission planes should be replaced with drones, it's a stretch to call the parent "absurd". Your comment would be better without its first and last sentences.

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

#112

Post by tptacek » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 5:47 PM UTC

nkuttler wrote: post #16

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

Didn't he answer that? The A-10 also turns out to be a useful bit of materiel, but it too relies on other equipment to provide air superiority.

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

#113

Post by moocowduckquack » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 5:52 PM UTC

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #55

mehwoot wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once the huge, lumbering aircraft carriers are sitting on the sea floor, they will be replaced by heavily armored battleships. In a major war, the only sea launched aircraft will be VTOLs. Huh... there isn't a single battleship in service in any navy in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship#Modern_times

There will be in a major war. Nothing else can stand up to nukes and lasers.

The only way a battleship would help against nukes is if it somehow fell on whoever is in charge of the nukes.

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

#114

Post by mgoeppner » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 5:55 PM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #100

antubbs wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To their credit, the F-117 also wasn't a multirole fighter, was built in low quantities, wasn't planned for export uses, and was relatively quickly retired. It's a one-trick pony designed to sneak in, drop a precision bomb, and get out.

> the F-117 also wasn't a multirole fighter, was built in low quantities [...] It's a one-trick pony designed to sneak in, drop a precision bomb, and get out. These are all good things, though. It's a focused airframe absolutely excellent at what it does. Much like the A10 really. > and was relatively quickly retired Beg pardon? The F-117 reached operational capability in 1983 and was retired in 2008 (the original pl…

25 years is a short lifespan for a military aircraft -- Most military aircraft have been in service between 30 and 50 years.

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

#115

Post by newnewnew » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 5:59 PM UTC

mparr4 wrote: post #110

conformal wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't understand. Is education good for killing your enemy? Why would that be the purview of the military?

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

#116

Post by ergest » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 6:03 PM UTC

John Boyd fought for years to build single-purpose fighters, but the idea of one, all-purpose warplane is just too seductive. (See John Boyd's biography by Robert Coram)

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

#117

Post by TsiCClawOfLight » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 6:08 PM UTC

newnewnew wrote: post #115

mparr4 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the entire contract should be converted into drone development, which will actually pay dividends ...or, maybe, education?

I don't understand. Is education good for killing your enemy? Why would that be the purview of the military?

To be honest, if the US education stays the same, the military and it's contractors will crash and burn. Education is desperately needed there, or else both engineering and strategic capabilities will soon (1 generation) fall short of usefulness.

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

#118

Post by turar » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 6:10 PM UTC

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…

>> however we still have the F-22 as our air superiority fighter which is still believed to be better then anything out there

I'm just going to leave this here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBKvlLzGkvU

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

#119

Post by ImprovedSilence » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 6:12 PM UTC

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.

Drones are great, but not failproof. what happens when you command links are taken down? (RF jamming, satellites destroyed, etc) You're gonna need a "human powered" "analog" fallback.

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

#120

Post by ImprovedSilence » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 6:16 PM UTC

Nelson69 wrote: post #71

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…

Has it not been realized? I think it has, there is a ton of drone stuff going on. The DoD hasn't rewritten the war fighting manual and strategy yet though so manned fighters and bombers are still part of the plans but I don't think UAVs haven't proven themselves. This is a titanically slow moving organization... lives and deaths are on the line with their decisions. One of the real lesson of the JSF is the amount of…

Drones are great, but their control systems are ridiculously easy to take down. What happens when you command links are taken down? (RF jamming, satellites destroyed, etc) You're gonna need a "human powered" "analog" fallback.