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

US military grounds entire fleet of F-35 jets

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–178 of 178 posts

Re: US military grounds entire fleet of F-35 jets

#171

Post by Stranger43 »

stcredzero wrote: post #151
adrr wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd take F-22s over F-35 for air superiority and ship-launched cruise missiles for ground attacks.

Ship launched cruise missiles for close air support? I'm skeptical. F-22's are better for air superiority, but the F-35 was designed as a bomb and missile truck. Potentially, it could do that job very, very well.

And the fact that the artillery(and the navy) is way better at deploying standoff range munitions then any fighter will ever be is a big part of the F-35 problem. Is it’s designed to do a job the artillery is better.

The problem here is that the one role where manned planes still makes sense is the high risk low altitude visual range infantry support role the Air Force brass don’t like as it means they ave to plan for the same kind of casualty rates as the infantry tend to sustain.

In a lot of ways that unwillingness to put infantry first is why the us have not had a independent military success since the horse mounted cavalry went obsolete.[1]

1: The two wold wars don’t count as the us general staff was not in charge of strategy in any of those conflicts.

Re: US military grounds entire fleet of F-35 jets

#172

Post by jki275 »

xvf22 wrote: post #111
Rebelgecko wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The F-35 is at over 100,000 flight hours[1], and the Osprey is at around 400,000. The Osprey hit 100k hours in 2001[2], by which point it had 6 crashes and 34 deaths, most of which were in the United States [3]. The V-22 deaths have been mostly passengers, so technically it's not a fair comparison since the F-35 only seats one. However, this was the first F-35 crash and it has had zero deaths, making the number of pe…

While I very much acknowledge the Osprey program failures, the claim was that the JFS is the safest program ever fielded.

Well it's a JSF, not a JFS, and similar comparisons can be made to the Harrier, the F16, and F18. I don't have the numbers in front of me at the moment but they're roughly as bad as the MV-22 numbers (in terms of class A mishaps, not personnel casualties as they're single seat/dual seat aircraft) based on my recollection. MV-22's numbers are a bit inflated in terms of casualties due to a single crash that killed about 12 people as I recall.

The fact that the JSF has 100k flight hours and one total aircraft loss and 0 fatalities is unheard of.

Re: US military grounds entire fleet of F-35 jets

#173

Post by jki275 »

1001101 wrote: post #103
jki275 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty standard response -- inspect everything to make sure there aren't any more of the faulty components (which evidently they've identified, which is a bit surprising in terms of speed), and then let them fly again. Happens all the time.

This surprised me: "If suspect fuel tubes are installed, the part will be removed and replaced. If known good fuel tubes are already installed, then those aircraft will be returned to flight status." How do they not know this? What if we were at war?

What exactly are you asking?

Re: US military grounds entire fleet of F-35 jets

#174

Post by Stranger43 »

dragontamer wrote: post #127
dragonwriter wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The alternative is to build a ton of smaller carriers... but smaller carriers can't launch airplanes. Outside of the US supercarriers, all other carriers are smaller, and many launch planes (often V/STOL aircraft, particularly commonly Harriers.)

Fair. But still, the point stands. The shorter the runway, the fewer planes you can launch. And yes, there's a catapult to help launch the planes, but the longer the runway, the less stress you put on the planes, and the more kinds of airplanes can land on your carrier. US Supercarriers have more than just fighter-jets, they also have larger cargo aircraft like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_C-2_Greyhound . C…

One of the consequences of the F-35B being late and over budget is that the uk now have a brand new carrier with no fixed-wing planes.

Re: US military grounds entire fleet of F-35 jets

#175

Post by sololipsist »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #163
sololipsist wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some things don't deserve a response. In that cases it's perfectly acceptable to note this and move on with your life. If you correct every brain-dead thing people tell you on the internet, either never say anything remotely controversial so you don't get ill-informed but confident replies, you spend all day correcting people, or you literally just started saying things on the internet to tell me how to live my life.

> Some things don't deserve a response. But you responded anyway. You just didn't respond with anything useful. So what you did, essentially, was waste 10,000 people's time by having them look at your non-response "response".

okay mom ::rolls eyes::

Re: US military grounds entire fleet of F-35 jets

#176

Post by cmroanirgo »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #146
kibwen wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> assumes it is because it is so far beyond what "opposing" forces can field they will do anything to delay its operation This doesn't hold water; nation-state propaganda doesn't have any effect on the funding this program receives. Nobody should have any trouble believing that an overly-ambitious pie-in-the-sky kitchen-sink project that has been in development for 30 years might be having a hard time meeting its lof…

> This doesn't hold water; nation-state propaganda doesn't have any effect on the funding this program receives. Again, I wasn't offering up my father as an expert (other than having been in the Air Force, which is weak at best), just sharing his take on the observation of all the negative articles. And you don't need to go to the Shuttle, look at the CVN-X program (21st century aircraft carrier, aka the Ford class)…

Don't forget there are some of us completely against warfare, no matter how it is being sold to us.

Seeing any report on defective military weaponry warms my heart... Why? Imho, because the sole purpose of weaponry is to cause harm to others.

Isn't it time we grow up and stop the sabre rattling, and live good, honest lives that respects the life of others? There was a Jew, 2000 yrs ago who tried to spread this message... It seems that we're just as deaf as ever though.

Re: US military grounds entire fleet of F-35 jets

#177

Post by ChuckMcM »

cmroanirgo wrote: post #176
ChuckMcM wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This doesn't hold water; nation-state propaganda doesn't have any effect on the funding this program receives. Again, I wasn't offering up my father as an expert (other than having been in the Air Force, which is weak at best), just sharing his take on the observation of all the negative articles. And you don't need to go to the Shuttle, look at the CVN-X program (21st century aircraft carrier, aka the Ford class)…

Don't forget there are some of us completely against warfare, no matter how it is being sold to us. Seeing any report on defective military weaponry warms my heart... Why? Imho, because the sole purpose of weaponry is to cause harm to others. Isn't it time we grow up and stop the sabre rattling, and live good, honest lives that respects the life of others? There was a Jew, 2000 yrs ago who tried to spread this messag…

I certainly resonate with your message but I also see a bit of nuance. It hinges on the question of what others are trying to do to you as well right? Military weapons exist, and there are people who will use those weapons to assert control over you (you can the people of Crimea, Syria, Kuwait, Yemen, Myanmar, etc). So if you are ok with submitting to the whims of anyone who has weapons, then not having weapons of your own is a viable option. I don't see that as a very common point of view however.

Re: US military grounds entire fleet of F-35 jets

#178

Post by jessaustin »

mr_overalls wrote: post #95
wpdev_63 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for sharing this beautiful quote.

No problem. I've always found it fascinating that a military general turned President warned us so strongly against the dangers of the military-industrial complex.

I think Eisenhower gets too much credit here. If anyone was ever well-placed to prevent the rise of MIC, it was a five-star general two-term president who just happened to be president exactly when MIC was consolidating its Korean War gains. Ike was like "holy crap this horrible thing happened on my watch but I had no idea!" The most charitable interpretation is that he acquiesced in the burgeoning abomination to protect his son's military career.
Post reply on HN