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

21–30 of 347 posts

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

#21

Post by antubbs »

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #14
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…

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…

Gotta be careful about history; when the F-35 program started, drone-based warfare was pretty infantile.

Drone payloads are still relatively light compared to heavily-laden fighter-bombers (or indeed outright bombers). This will likely evolve over time (the future bomber program requires both manned and unmanned capabilities in some proposals).

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

#22

Post by jkl32 »

riggins wrote: post #17
jkl32 wrote: post #9

$1 trillion; this is why the US has no health care. Does anyone realistically believe you will go to war with China or Russia anymore? It's time to stop the charade of war, and help your own citizens instead.

Does anyone realistically believe you will go to war with China or Russia anymore? Historically there have been military conflicts between superpowers. So I'd say its incumbent on those claiming we won't have wars to explain what's changed and why we won't have anymore major military conflicts.

Globalization, trade, and the nuclear deterrent.

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

#23

Post by digitalengineer »

dkhenry wrote: post #6
coldcode wrote: post #2

Having worked on the F16 at one point in my career it kicks the F35 is the ass every day and twice on Sunday. Plus you can buy 20 of them for every F35. It's all about money though, the F16 is too cheap to keep Lockheed in business no matter how much you upgrade it.

I don't think this is to replace the F16. The F22 replaces them. How do you think the F35 compares to the F18 ?

Dutchman here. We're buying the F-35 'Flying Piano' to replace our F-16's...

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

#24

Post by lmg643 »

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #14
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…

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…

Agree on drones and unmanned aircraft. Manned combat planes are going to be the cavalry of war in a few years (if not already) for the simple fact that a pilot cannot withstand the g-forces that an unmanned plane or missile can.

US hasn't realized this yet because we are currently using our military might to pick on folks who are decades if not a century or more behind us technologically but would likely be a different story against a more up to date competitor.

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

#25

Post by caycep »

coldcode wrote: post #2

Having worked on the F16 at one point in my career it kicks the F35 is the ass every day and twice on Sunday. Plus you can buy 20 of them for every F35. It's all about money though, the F16 is too cheap to keep Lockheed in business no matter how much you upgrade it.

The F-16 design was too well done for its own good. Its history as a "no compromise" design (at least in the beginning, before Pentagon paper pushers got to it) from the "Fighter Mafia" is well known.

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

#26

Post by runarb »

coldcode wrote: post #2

Having worked on the F16 at one point in my career it kicks the F35 is the ass every day and twice on Sunday. Plus you can buy 20 of them for every F35. It's all about money though, the F16 is too cheap to keep Lockheed in business no matter how much you upgrade it.

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 |
  | Dry thrust             | 76.3 kN   | 125 kN   |
  | Thrust w. afterburner  | 127 kN    | 191 kN   |
  | First flight           | 1974      | 2006     |
  |------------------------|-----------|----------|
0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_...

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_...

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

#27

Post by antubbs »

ryusage wrote: post #11

To be honest, I'm surprised they haven't started switching to air-to-air drones yet. They seem to be using them for everything else these days.

This is more conjecture, but I don't think this is so much a capability problem (they're already mounting stingers on drones; larger models with large electronic sensor platforms/radar and sidewinder/amraams are just a matter of time). The problem remains rules of engagement, which are currently easier to verify/enforce with a human in the seat.

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

#28

Post by caycep »

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…

That's pretty worrisome considering the costs of a F-22, as well as the costs of an F-35 vs. a Hornet (which can outperform it apparently). From it's specs, it's a terrible bomber compared with the A-6's...

Compromised designs are compromised designs.

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

#29

Post by mehwoot »

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #14
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…

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

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

#30

Post by orf »

jkl32 wrote: post #22
riggins wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone realistically believe you will go to war with China or Russia anymore? Historically there have been military conflicts between superpowers. So I'd say its incumbent on those claiming we won't have wars to explain what's changed and why we won't have anymore major military conflicts.

Globalization, trade, and the nuclear deterrent.

The nuclear deterrent is the only valid point, and that's a shaky one.
Post reply on HN