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

Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

armed-services.senate.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 173 posts

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#131

Post by JimboOmega »

nealrs wrote: post #113

we found, designed a plan to, and (nearly) recovered an entire nuclear submarine from the ocean floor -in secret- using a giant grappling hook in under than 8 years and for $3.8 billion ($800 million in '74) dollars. but we can't design a marginally improved fighter jet for less than a trillion or under 20 years? ref: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Project_Azorian

We also built the golden gate bridge in 4.5 years for an inflation adjusted $1.3B, the new Eastern span of the bay bridge took what, $6.4B and 11 years?

That's just seems to be the nature of all public projects - the cost rises way faster than inflation.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#132

Post by nickpsecurity »

neurotech1 wrote: post #110
coredog64 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, the F-22 has the equivalent of a Harris Night Hawk computer onboard. That was a big deal 20 years ago , but computationally outclassed by a $100 smartphone today. My memory, faulty as it may be, seems to recall a two page ad in AW&ST touting the Night Hawk "supercomputer" that would be in each F-22.

IIRC The F-22 uses an array of 39 i960MX processors in each of the two Common Integrated Processor (CIP) "Super Computers". Each i960 processor has 30M Instructions per Second capability. I'm not sure the clock speed, but its under 100 MHz. Each computer also has several custom DSP processors. This processing capacity could be replaced with a couple of high density MILSPEC FPGAs. Its likely they'd use a 64-bit PowerP…

Not to mention the old i960's had advanced segmentation and error handling vs common RISC due to BiiN project requirements. I really wish i960 got traction and updates to modern nodes as my security engineering work would've been soooo much easief than x86 bullshit.

Like you said, though, they can be emulated or replaced with PPC if necessary. I encourage someone to emulate i960 anyway given it was badass enough to deserve at least one FPGA clone. :)

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#133

Post by branchan »

gaius wrote: post #41
johngalt wrote: post #8

The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project. A system designed to do everything for everyone. When it should be designed to do one thing better than everything else. Divide the F-35 into three different attack aircraft. Single engine CAS with STOVL capability. Big/fast/stealthy twin engine bomber. Carrier based attack drone. All three would likely fulfill their roles better for l…

You could start a brand new Harrier programme right now, same basic design but new build airframes, avionics and engines using modern materials, and you would still beat the F35 not only into-service, but in a stand-up fight if it ever came to that.

....I assume your design would be just as fast as a F-35 and also just as stealthy?

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#134

Post by smitherfield »

johngalt wrote: post #8

The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project. A system designed to do everything for everyone. When it should be designed to do one thing better than everything else. Divide the F-35 into three different attack aircraft. Single engine CAS with STOVL capability. Big/fast/stealthy twin engine bomber. Carrier based attack drone. All three would likely fulfill their roles better for l…

>Carrier based attack drone

Drones were science fiction back in the early 90's when the F-35 program was started. Even today they can't even come close to outperforming a skilled human pilot in a combat scenario. (Although perhaps if it were Google working on the hardware and software it'd be doable).

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#135

Post by wavefunction »

smitherfield wrote: post #134
johngalt wrote: post #8

The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project. A system designed to do everything for everyone. When it should be designed to do one thing better than everything else. Divide the F-35 into three different attack aircraft. Single engine CAS with STOVL capability. Big/fast/stealthy twin engine bomber. Carrier based attack drone. All three would likely fulfill their roles better for l…

>Carrier based attack drone Drones were science fiction back in the early 90's when the F-35 program was started. Even today they can't even come close to outperforming a skilled human pilot in a combat scenario. (Although perhaps if it were Google working on the hardware and software it'd be doable).

What if that skilled human pilot was flying a "drone"/unmanned craft rather than sitting in the cockpit? I imagine there are benefits to being "in-person" but the unmanned craft could theoretically endure far more extreme maneuvers that would leave a human pilot unconscious or dead.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#136

Post by neurotech1 »

gaius wrote: post #91
ecnal wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because, for all their software and development delays, they significantly outperform 4.5th gen offerings and (the A, at least, which is the majority of what people are buying) don't cost nearly as much (~85-95 million for an F-35A flyaway vs. 110-120+ million for a Eurofighter or Rafale).

Wasn't the F35 spanked by an obsolete F16 recently? Which means modern MiGs are going to eat it for breakfast.

It was a Basic Fighter Maneuvers test point. The F-35 was supposed to maneuver in response to an F-16 behind them, and they did. This was not an evaluation of dogfighting performance of the F-35.

At TOPGUN (& FWS) the F-5 "spanked" the Tomcats and Eagles on most dogfight missions. That same F-5 runs out of fuel pretty quick, limiting its frontline effectiveness.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#137

Post by dragonwriter »

smitherfield wrote: post #134
johngalt wrote: post #8

The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project. A system designed to do everything for everyone. When it should be designed to do one thing better than everything else. Divide the F-35 into three different attack aircraft. Single engine CAS with STOVL capability. Big/fast/stealthy twin engine bomber. Carrier based attack drone. All three would likely fulfill their roles better for l…

>Carrier based attack drone Drones were science fiction back in the early 90's when the F-35 program was started. Even today they can't even come close to outperforming a skilled human pilot in a combat scenario. (Although perhaps if it were Google working on the hardware and software it'd be doable).

> Drones were science fiction back in the early 90's when the F-35 program was started.

AFAICT, the first armed drones deployed by the US military were ASW drone helicopters in the 1960s. Ground attack jet drones were successfully tested in the 1970s, and some preliminary and positive testing on air-to-air combat drones also happened in the 1970s. Drones certainly weren't science-fiction in the early 1990s, even if the military hadn't gotten around to actually fielding armed drones (despite the tests) beyond those old Navy ASW drones.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#138

Post by popmystack »

enraged_camel wrote: post #96
hga wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project Or an example of how we don't learn from history, for the same exact thing happened with the '60s TFX, except the F-35 substitutes S/VTOL for air superiority. 5 models of it were planned, two for the Navy, all but what ended up as the F-111 were canceled, and we resumed building focused planes like the F-14 through F-16, and the A-10 I…

>>Or an example of how we don't learn from history Of course we learn from history. The thing you have to understand is that everything is working as intended. F-35, and programs like it, are a way to use public money to create private sector jobs. They aren't meant to be efficient or even effective means to develop and manufacture military hardware. You can see a direct analogy of this in the space sector, where Spa…

The thing you have to understand is that your initial statement has literally no foundation to it. There isn't any solid proof that program failures like this are direct means to keeping workers employed (where it is implied that they otherwise wouldn't be). I am also not really sure how some crazy guy (I am being hyperbolic) betting hundreds of millions of dollars (some of it his own funds) somehow becomes analogous with a purposefully obtuse military industrial complex scheme to keep people employed.

There are certainly cases where the government soaks up funding, gives it to a company, for absolutely no other reason that we can tell other than to just funnel money along into their little corner of the country (and thus their constituents).

But I have a really hard time believing that is the case here.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#139

Post by mjevans »

wavefunction wrote: post #135
smitherfield wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Carrier based attack drone Drones were science fiction back in the early 90's when the F-35 program was started. Even today they can't even come close to outperforming a skilled human pilot in a combat scenario. (Although perhaps if it were Google working on the hardware and software it'd be doable).

What if that skilled human pilot was flying a "drone"/unmanned craft rather than sitting in the cockpit? I imagine there are benefits to being "in-person" but the unmanned craft could theoretically endure far more extreme maneuvers that would leave a human pilot unconscious or dead.

Most of that benefit is that you still have something capable of mission decisions when an enemy engages in jamming or other information distortion tactics.

On the positive side for 'drones': they can be viewed as both expendable (with costs/limits) and capable of performing maneuvers that would kill a human.

I can see narrow beam transmissions on multiple carriers and extremely fault resistant communication protocols combining with remotely manned vehicles. The pilots might best be closer for speed of light delay reduction, but realistically you could have a relay in some kind of helicopter type vehicle a short distance from the actual fight, and the expert pilots stationed somewhere even more safe.

While you're at it, that helicopter/blimp/etc could also be your primary communication platform for a local region; it's already a high value target so there's little reason not to use it as an additional uplink.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#140

Post by dragonwriter »

tomjen3 wrote: post #26
wyldfire wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fagan-style code review is likely a net productivity gain over no-reviews-at-all. Sure, scope creep is a killer, but I'd imagine it's a herculean task to create software for a new fighter. The expectation would likely be that software could control and/or monitor many features that would not have been software-controlled in previous generations. Safety requirements for flight (active life support) and armaments would…

Honestly why do we still spec these with pilots? Why not make a generation of hyper-advanced missiles? It has got to be cheaper and easier (you don't need to visualize anything, because it is a computer) and you wouldn't even need active lifesupport.

> Honestly why do we still spec these with pilots?

I'm not sure that we do. We did when the JSF project that produced the F-23 was launched, but that was in 1993. More recently, the 6th gen fighter project that would be the follow-on seems to have been abandoned by the air force in favor of a strategy of disaggregating into independent component upgrade projects; for the attack role, it looks like the real replacement for existing manned airframes will be drones (the MQ-9 Reaper seems to be taking that role now, and the air force is training more drone pilots than anything else.)

> Why not make a generation of hyper-advanced missiles? It has got to be cheaper and easier (you don't need to visualize anything, because it is a computer) and you wouldn't even need active lifesupport.

Drones carrying the same type of missiles a manned attack plane would carry are cheaper over time and more flexible in use than "hyper-advanced missiles" that fly the whole mission themselves and are consumed each flight.

Post reply on HN