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

141–150 of 347 posts

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

#141

Post by mpyne »

dctoedt wrote: post #108
Zimahl wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Maybe there's something I'm missing about the DF-21D, but even assuming it doesn't miss the carrier while traveling at a hypersonic speed, Big Explody Things dropping on top of American carriers during wartime is not exactly a new thing in the annals of warfare.

It's one of the reason that warships in general (including carriers) are designed to be compartmentalized, to have redundant backups (and backups to the backups), etc., is because it is expected they might have to survive battle damage.

Obviously an ASBM may change the calculus of whether you send carriers in early in the conflict (preferring instead to use submarines with cruise missiles to take out Dong Feng launch sites or whatever you'd have been trying to bomb in the first place). But I don't see how ASBM is a guaranteed single-shot carrier kill by any stretch either.

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

#142

Post by 650REDHAIR »

bradleyjg wrote: post #137
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…

In addition to being a crappy fighter the F-35 is also a crappy bomber and close air support aircraft. Not that it's a surprise that a plane designated fighter (or 'strike' or 'fighter/attack') isn't good at these things. We've virtually abandoned A and B line planes because the testosterone blinded fighter mafia in the airforce would rather have fun toys than useful equipment, and the navy is right there with them b…

What?

I think you may have missed the B-1 and the enormous focus on UAVs by all of the branches.

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

#143

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

My prediction of how this will end up playing out: We'll waste money on the JSF, but thankfully won't ever put it into a real combat threat. The Defense Dept will pretend everything was a grand success while moving to UCAV's with haste. I think it's clear Navy decision makers came to this view long ago. They tried to pull out of the JSF program but Robert Gates smacked them back in line. Meanwhile they're pushing the X-47 development program as fast as they can.

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

#144

Post by mpyne »

dodo53 wrote: post #62
lucaspiller wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So 20 Instagrams a year?

Or supposedly most of the cost to end world hunger http://borgenproject.org/the-cost-to-end-world-hunger/

World hunger isn't a simple resourcing problem, otherwise it already would be solved.

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

#145

Post by spartango »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #134

"It could be that China doesn’t know how to build a working lift fan and that’s why they left it off, Aboulafia said. But for a country that has unveiled two different radar-evading stealth warplane prototypes in just the last two years, that seems unlikely. It’s more plausible that China could build a lift fan-equipped plane and has chosen not to." The major difference is in posture. The US military wants to be able…

Actually, the Chinese have had a serious problem designing and building quality jet engines for fighter aircraft. The two prototype "stealth" aircraft they've demonstrated (J-31 and J-20) use Russian AL-31 engines pulled from Su-27s, because the native WS-10 engines fail to pass muster consistently.

Indeed, the same is true of the J-15 (an Su-33 clone), which is currently the only carrier-capable aircraft they've flown. Fewer than 16 of these aircraft have been built. Its use of the AL-31F makes the J-15 hard to produce, but also severely limits its payload/range.

For reference, over 500 of the mainstay F/A-18E/F Super Hornets have been built, and ~1500 of the previous models (A-D) were produced.

The Russians are none too pleased about Chinese repurposing and reverse engineering of their aircraft (particularly for engines), and have stopped selling Su-27s and many aircraft parts to the Chinese over IP disputes.

The lack of Chinese airpower and carrier operations isn't a product of posturing or strategic differences. They've invested a huge amount of money retrofitting the Admiral Kuznetsov (now Liaoning), are building a second one, and are training pilots for carrier ops with foreign trainers.

The Chinese air capabilities are instead hampered primarily by a lack of engine technology and production capability. Never mind the lift-fans.

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

#146

Post by rosser »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #134

"It could be that China doesn’t know how to build a working lift fan and that’s why they left it off, Aboulafia said. But for a country that has unveiled two different radar-evading stealth warplane prototypes in just the last two years, that seems unlikely. It’s more plausible that China could build a lift fan-equipped plane and has chosen not to." The major difference is in posture. The US military wants to be able…

This is the same reason why the Chinese ... have a ton of ballistic missile ships.

And many of those ships are carrying large numbers of SS-N-22 Sunburns, only one of which can sink a carrier, and which stand reasonable odds of penetrating even the latest generation point-defense platform. Fire ten at a carrier, maybe one or two get through, no more carrier, battle over.

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

#147

Post by VladRussian2 »

s_q_b wrote: post #123
turar wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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

There's also this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/13/olsen_raptor_case_ge... And the fact that the F-22's stealth coatings, even if they work, ablate in rain. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/f-35-gets-stealthier... And of course the ludicrous idea that the F-35 can replace the A-10 Warthog in combat. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/a-10-f-35-air-force-... The A-10 problem bugs me more than the o…

>The A-10 problem bugs me more than the others. The A-10 is a proven warplane that ground troops count on for cover. The F-35 doesn't have the capability to fulfill its role, which could place our troops in greater danger.

It is hard to beat A-10 in its role, instead i think something new will be developed on the edge of its envelope, specifically on the low end - big RC planes (mid-size VTOL drones carry-able by one Hummer) with Hellfires/etc controlled by the troops who need the cover - that would provide more prompt (though less powerful) air support than calling in for big guys help and waiting for it to appear.

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

#148

Post by dragonwriter »

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?

> Is education good for killing your enemy?

Education is good for figuring out how to acheive your goals, including if those goals are "killing your enemy".

> Why would that be the purview of the military?

Because its a substantial force multiplier.

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

#149

Post by michaelt »

sshconnection wrote: post #128
mikegagnon wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States economy is based upon Military Keynesianism. The federal government does not analyze spending the same way we do because __spending benefits the economy__, which is part of the government's responsibility. They intentionally spend money to stimulate the economy. So when the military spends $1 trillion on planes, they are really trading $1 trillion for planes plus economic stimulus. In other words, t…

Not all spending is equal. If they want to pour money into projects, there is plenty of infrastructure that needs to be built here.

Ah, but you forget the myriad other benefits:

1. If you don't believe in globalization, you can legitimately lock out foreign competition and insist on an all-American supply chain, keeping jobs and money in the US.

2. It allows you to bring home the pork. Military contractors have a proven willingness to situate assembly plants to deliver jobs in politically convenient locations.

3. It's compatible with Libertarian/Tea Party beliefs, as military spending tends to get a free pass from the balanced budget brigade.

4. People will call you "a hawk" and "strong on defense" and "supporting our troops". Or at least they won't call you the opposite of those things.

5. Spending on things like DARPA funds cool things like the internet and the DARPA Grand Challenge and robots and things. Pretty sciencey and cool.

6. $60 million in lobbying in 2012 https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=D01&yea... with Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin all in the top 20 individual donors https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s&showYe...

Compare that to funding boring old schools and bridges and things which have none of these benefits.

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

#150

Post by dragonwriter »

Spooky23 wrote: post #98
Nelson69 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The Marines have "amphibious assault ships" that are sort of like aircraft carriers for helicopters. S/VTOL aircraft can operate from these locations. I was told by a Marine that the Harrier obsession stems from Guadalcanal in WW2. The waters in the Solomons were heavily contested and the Navy basically took off and left the Marines stranded. That institutional memory is hard to shake.

> The Marines have "amphibious assault ships" that are sort of like aircraft carriers for helicopters.

There actually very much like medium-deck carriers, which are the biggest carriers anyone not the US Navy operates anywhere. The Marines seaborne aviation capacity carried on its various amphibious ships outclasses, IIRC, all the non-US naval aviation in the world combined.

Post reply on HN