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

F-35 is built for the wrong war

warontherocks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 719 posts

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#141

Post by tehjoker »

wredcoll wrote: post #133
expedition32 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US not going full in on drones reminds me of the British ridiculing submarines. The Chinese are going to spam literally MILLIONS of drones all over the Pacific...

I don't know if you've looked recently, but the pacific is, likev pretty big. Maybe even bigger than that. The primary problem with killing carriers is, has been, and will be, finding the things.[1] Drone strikes on oil refineries work because, with few exceptions, the refineries rarely move. You can literally program a drone to go x miles in a specific direction and then drop a bomb. It's also considerably harder to…

Yes, if you keep your carriers out of striking range they are invincible! lmao

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#142

Post by varjag »

cyberax wrote: post #98
varjag wrote: post #20

Somewhat ridiculous piece. Ukraine, 4 years after, still operates a significant number of jets it entered the war with. This is despite hundreds of attempts to eliminate them on the ground with airstrikes, drones, cruise and ballistic missiles. And naturally F-35s on that theatre would have been a game changer making mass strikes on Moscow possible. For all the dysfunctions of American military industrial complex it…

Neither Ukraine nor Russia are using manned aircraft in any significant ways. They are at most used to lob gliding bombs from far behind the front lines. > And naturally F-35s on that theatre would have been a game changer making mass strikes on Moscow possible. And then what? Kyiv has been under relentless strikes from drones and missiles for 5 years. And Moscow was hit by Ukrainian drones several times. You'll need…

> They are at most used to lob gliding bombs from far behind the front lines.

You write that, and literally quote my point about F-35 making deep strikes against dense air defense possible in the very next sentence.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#143

Post by jfengel »

vanviegen wrote: post #89

It concerns me how casual the article and some of the comments here discuss an actual war against China, as if that were a reasonable scenario. Of course I understand wanting to be prepared even for grim scenarios such as these. Military strategists should of course continually be refining such plans. But casual discussions like this, without even so much as a disclaimer about it being a hypothetical and extremely un…

A general war against China is impossible. But a "limited" war fought over Taiwan isn't beyond the realm of possibility.

Which does take it into a kind of Schroedinger's realm. The US takes it seriously, so it develops technology for it, and China doesn't invade. But would China have invaded if the US hadn't prepared for that war? Quite possibly, but you can never know.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#144

Post by tehjoker »

vanviegen wrote: post #89

It concerns me how casual the article and some of the comments here discuss an actual war against China, as if that were a reasonable scenario. Of course I understand wanting to be prepared even for grim scenarios such as these. Military strategists should of course continually be refining such plans. But casual discussions like this, without even so much as a disclaimer about it being a hypothetical and extremely un…

The people advocating for war against china will complain bitterly and weep the soon as their snacks and new electronic devices stop arriving by ship.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#145

Post by LorenPechtel »

aftbit wrote: post #79
tpurves wrote: post #8

The insight here is, that in current warfare, quantity is the quality that matters. And with quantity, cost of replacement needs to be low, platforms expendable, cheap to maintain and resupply. It, and it's support infrastructure, need to not easily be detected and targeted by drones while on the ground. F35 is not these things. It's powerful but brittle, and like many US platforms, too much value packed into too few…

I think the insight is that you need a high-low mix. Some threats call for top of the line capabilities (like early days of the Iran conflict with stand-off munitions and top-spec interceptors being used against Shahed drones and cheap cruise missiles). Some threats can be more economically serviced by a less capable, cheaper, and more available system.

100% this.

It's always been about the biggest, fastest, longest range punch. That is extremely useful for deep strike (which has always been NATO doctrine), but when the range is short you need quantity and mobility far more than you need quantity.

Being able to cut off your enemy is an extremely effective weapon if your enemy needs massive supply. Drop the major bridges between Moscow and Ukraine and the war would soon be over.

But when you can't do that for whatever reason you need quantity and mobility far more than you need quality.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#147

Post by fpoling »

mapt wrote: post #108
fpoling wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, apparently Ukraine still cannot affect fuel production in Russia to any significant point. Drones with less than 100 kg of explosives do not do particularly significant damage. One really need to deliver like a ton or more of explosives and for that one needs bombers that can penetrate air defenses or very expensive stealth cruise missiles or big ballistic missiles.

Ukraine dramatically reduced Russian fuel export revenue, and the sanctions did so even more. It was really coming to the point of urgent existential threat to the Putin regime this spring, before Trump and Netanyahu bailed him out, first by doubling the global oil price and then by relaxing sanctions. And Ukraine's drone / cruise missile portfolio includes things like the Flamingo, more than twice the payload and ra…

If Ukraine had access to Tomahawks, Russian oil industry would not exist at this point. With drones after two and halve years of attacks with multiple hits at the same refineries Ukraine reduced Russian fuel production at best by 20%.

Flamingo is still mostly vaporware. For precise strikes against Russian factories Ukraine uses either Storm Shadow or domestic Neptun.

But that just shows again that drones are not particularly effective against most industrial targets and even against oil installations the damage is not lasting.

Or consider how US was able to destroy the bridge in Iran yet Crimea bridge and bridges in Rostov that are absolutely vital to Russian war logistics still stands.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#148

Post by wredcoll »

dmos62 wrote: post #25
usrnm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a new idea, it's the same thing Germany learned about tanks in WWII.

I heard it argued that Germany didn't have the raw resources and production capacity to go for quantity. Especially later in the war. So quality it was.

Not really, the tanks were both inefficient to operate and inefficient to build (lack of standardization, constantly changing plans, have to redesign every single part..)

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#149

Post by kansface »

ceejayoz wrote: post #122
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one was going to launch mass strikes on Moscow. Russian nuclear doctrine would have treated that as an existential threat. The psychology of Ukraine's drone campaign as a response to Russia's original drone launches is very interesting. It's a classic boiling frog move. Drones are seen as an improvised amateur threat. Unlike a bombing campaign, which is seen as "proper war", drones are an annoyance. They're fragil…

> Russian nuclear doctrine would have treated that as an existential threat. They claimed that with basically every little sprinkle of new aid for like two years, until everyone realized it was a bluff. Putin is many things, but actively suicidal looks like a no.

Just because he hasn’t pulled the trigger doesn’t mean there isn’t an actual red line.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#150

Post by LorenPechtel »

sgt101 wrote: post #53
tpurves wrote: post #8

The insight here is, that in current warfare, quantity is the quality that matters. And with quantity, cost of replacement needs to be low, platforms expendable, cheap to maintain and resupply. It, and it's support infrastructure, need to not easily be detected and targeted by drones while on the ground. F35 is not these things. It's powerful but brittle, and like many US platforms, too much value packed into too few…

There are three stances that I can see in the debate at the moment. * Quantity has a quality all of its own. * Innovation and agility allows you to adapt and survive. * Low capability platforms often can't be used to deliver useful effect & commanders will try every option not to use them in a fight. When they get committed it can be disastrous. The first two clearly have merits, but every military professional I hav…

Quantity has a quality *if* it can get to the battlefield.

The big stuff is for trying to keep the small stuff away from the battlefield. When you can't do that for whatever reason you need a bunch of small stuff of your own.

But a frigate without sonar isn't inherently horrible--lots of places don't have subs.

Post reply on HN