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

161–170 of 347 posts

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

#161

Post by greedo »

chiph wrote: post #131
greedo wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to include launcher costs: either an SSGN like the modified Tridents, or the SSNs that carry them. Plus, with an aircraft, you can use it multiple times, and often in unique and unexpected ways. A missile, not so much. Plus, TLAM isn't expected to be very survivable in a contested environment, especially around S300/S400 sites. That's the impetus for developing the troubled JASSM.

The GLCM launchers got treatied away with the Soviets. The transporter/erector/launcher was a 8x8 MAN truck that had good off-road capabilities. Compared to a sub, they're dirt cheap.

Yep, the INF treaty gutted them, and that's why we rely exclusively on SSGNs, SSNs, and the B1/B52 for delivery. All of which are extremely expensive. We're also range limited with cruise missiles by the same treaty, though I'm not sure if it's still in force since the dissolution of the USSR.

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

#162

Post by TsiCClawOfLight »

stcredzero wrote: post #160

One of the biggest factors is pilot training. To put things in perspective, there are instances where US pilots in 4th gen aircraft have gotten simulated missile locks and gunsight pippers on Su-30MKIs and F-22s -- which even have thrust vectoring! You have to have the right equipment, but even great equipment in the hands of bad/inexperienced pilots will result in poor outcomes. I've read that some think the F-35 is…

This really reminds of the F-4 disaster, doesn't it?

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

#163

Post by spartango »

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…

The focused airframe idea is not without a bunch of tradeoffs. The mission and target capabilities of the F-117 were extremely limited, which meant that the USAF had to have other aircraft around to pick up the rest of the missions.

Further, having a variety of specialized aircraft that do not share an airframe is a maintenance nightmare on the ground, as training and parts are necessary for each different kind of aircraft flown. Operating out of a major air base this is less of an issue, but with FOBs and aircraft carriers this is nigh impossible. Indeed, this was one of the motivating factors that drove the Navy to replace the A-6, F-14, EA-6B, and S-3B with aircraft derived from the F/A-18E/F line.

Yes, the F/A-18E will never have the unique capability of the F-14D, but apparently those planes were a massive pain to maintain. Similarly with the F-117 -> F-35. Beautiful beasts.

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

#164

Post by Symmetry »

mehwoot wrote: post #29
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…

> 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

Though modern cruisers and destroyers aren't that much smaller than the dreadnoughts that fought at Jutland, 14,000 tons vs 18,000 tons.

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

#165

Post by greedo »

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.

10. That's all we have, not twelve, and definitely not the 15 we had at the height of the Cold War. The problem is that we don't have twelve carriers that can function all at once. Some are being refueled, some are returning from a deployment, some are doing training workups prior to deployment, and there's a lot of ocean out there. That's why talk of cutting the # of CVNs to under the current totals is extremely dangerous. The way to look at it is for each carrier you have deployed, you need two more. So we currently have four carriers deployed, for ready to surge if needed, and three unavailable for maintenance reasons. And it's not as if a carrier can transit from its homeport to the far side of the ocean quickly...

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

#166

Post by neurotech1 »

This article is very biased. The F-35 is being compared to a clean (no external stores) F-16, not a F-16 with same combat radius and weapons as internally carried on the F-35.

The F-35 also has significantly better avionics than the F-16C Block 50.

For a more balanced opinion go to http://www.f-16.net

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

#167

Post by greedo »

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 haven't put much into carriers, but have a ton of ballistic missile ships."

This is changing...

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

#168

Post by Symmetry »

caycep wrote: post #48
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 |…

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…

Actually, Boyd's breakthrough in allowing designers to quantify a plane's ability to gain and lose energy is pretty much what led to the F16 and F15 being so good at it. It's true that it doesn't boil down easily to a single number, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-Maneuverability_theory

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

#169

Post by greedo »

TsiCClawOfLight wrote: post #162
stcredzero wrote: post #160

One of the biggest factors is pilot training. To put things in perspective, there are instances where US pilots in 4th gen aircraft have gotten simulated missile locks and gunsight pippers on Su-30MKIs and F-22s -- which even have thrust vectoring! You have to have the right equipment, but even great equipment in the hands of bad/inexperienced pilots will result in poor outcomes. I've read that some think the F-35 is…

This really reminds of the F-4 disaster, doesn't it?

I wouldn't consider one of the best fighter programs we've seen a "disaster." Perhaps you're confusing it with the F-111 (TFX) program?

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

#170

Post by spartango »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #154
spartango wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 flo…

That's an interesting point. I didn't know the domestic Chinese turbine industry was so limited. Do you know why? Chinese industry certainly is capable of high tolerance machining, and they're literally the best at the world in complex assembly, so I'd have to guess they're behind on the design or materials side. The Liaoning is a bit of a weird duck. It provides air cover and anti-submarine capabilities to naval for…

The public claim is that the quality control and reliability on the WS-10 production lines is poor, but there's evidence that there's more to it than just that. The WS-10 is produced mostly natively, but its design is largely reverse engineered from the AL-31F. In fact, its turbine blades are imported from Russia. This corroborates reports that the Chinese lack the design expertise at present to design a fighter engine from scratch.

Also, keep in mind that the WS-10A is derived from the AL-31F, which was first flown on the Su-27, but has since been replaced in Russia by modernized AL-31FM1 and 2 or the new 117 family engines. The FM and 117 series engines have generally better performance than the older F/FN parts, and likely are more efficient. Thus, we can see that the Chinese are working off an old design.

Post reply on HN