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

231–240 of 347 posts

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

#231

Post by rainman47 »

beloch wrote: post #207

Some U.S. allies are almost certainly going to bail out of the F-35 program. Spiraling costs, the ideology requiring VSTOL, and some bizarrely secretive aspects of the JSF project are conspiring to kill the F-35 as a viable option for countries like Canada. A surprising thing is that countries taking part in development are not permitted complete access to program data. The U.S., despite making use of other nations e…

I have two anecdotes to share from my time on the program as a flight test engineer regarding access to data and aircraft.

There are two types of F-35 test aircraft: flight sciences jets, which don't have the full avionics suite, but are instrumented for testing things like flutter, flight qualities, weapons testing, etc. -- and mission systems aircraft, which have the full suite of avionics and are thus more encumbered with restrictions. Foreign persons aren't allowed around the mission systems aircraft without an escort, and aren't supposed to even see the panoramic display in the cockpit. But what do you do when it's a night shift and the only flight systems engineer on duty who is officially qualified to perform certain operations is from the UK? You get a piece of foam, cut it to the size and shape of the display, and write "BRIT BLOCKER" on it in sharpie, and use it whenever the Brits are around.

Further absurdity kicked in when some of the first jets built specifically for the UK were tested. Those jets had the full avionics systems, of course, which meant that foreigners couldn't work on them. So the UK engineers weren't even allowed to be around the jets that were to ultimately be owned and operated by the UK.

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

#232

Post by tptacek »

zobzu wrote: post #191
tptacek wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't he answer that? The A-10 also turns out to be a useful bit of materiel, but it too relies on other equipment to provide air superiority.

yeah.. the A10 will do well against pure fighters... nope, it won't. i'd rather be in a B2 and avoid the fight. The A10 is not made for the same type of missions thought. it can fight helicopters and ground forces, while avoiding light AA and light air support. funny how the planes here, like on youtube, are rated by reputation, and not by knowledge, experience, or dare i say, facts.

His point was that we have different planes for standoff air superiority against serious hostile fighter jets, and (implicitly) than the F-35 can be "good enough" for air-to-air while optimizing for it's air-to-ground mission.

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

#233

Post by smegel »

Come on, planes are only part of the equation. Weapons, radar, air-to-air refueling, C4I, logistics, aircraft carriers...they will all make a big difference.

The idea that a war is going to come down to a single F-35 vs a Sukhoi without any other support factors is a bit fanciful.

The F-35 is looking a bit expensive for what you get though.

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

#234

Post by efraim »

beloch wrote: post #207

Some U.S. allies are almost certainly going to bail out of the F-35 program. Spiraling costs, the ideology requiring VSTOL, and some bizarrely secretive aspects of the JSF project are conspiring to kill the F-35 as a viable option for countries like Canada. A surprising thing is that countries taking part in development are not permitted complete access to program data. The U.S., despite making use of other nations e…

What's wrong with buying the Saab Gripen instead? Wouldn't Canada have really similar design requirements as Sweden?

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

#235

Post by gchpaco »

jessaustin wrote: post #198
demallien wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"easily destroyed by much cheaper drones" To a certain extent, this has been true for more than two decades. I used to work as a radar engineer for the RAAF, and every time we went on exercises against US forces (both teams flying F 18s, but with different missile payloads, we had AIM9s, the Americans had AMRAAM), we would see our aircraft swatted from the sky before we could even get the bogeys on weapons-system rad…

How are AWACS defended? Are they too far away for the enemy to engage? Is it possible to stealth a plane that constantly broadcasts radar? Do they have other means of missile/drone defense? I hope that "assume AWACS doesn't get attacked" is not the first assumption in all these war game exercises.

Attacking an AWACS is very much on the table, it's just hard. It's like being a battleship captain saying "well, if we sink the bloody carrier then the problem's solved, right?"--you're not wrong but you're vastly underestimating the difficulty. AWACS radar is so strong they can be (and should!) very very very far away from anything that could possibly reach out and touch them, and actually attacking an AWACS will draw so much attention and fire that the attack is probably doomed to failure unless the air force in question is enormously overextended (very possible). I suppose you could use it to divert attention while you did something else, but it'll be a costly diversion.

Now if you did get close to one, considering that the popular ones are visibly repurposed airliners they would probably go down pretty easy. But that's a little like saying "I can sink your aircraft carrier with my 16" gun" without the proviso that "... as long as you let me get way too close first".

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

#236

Post by RougeFemme »

caycep wrote: post #38

Honestly, for those who really know the battles within the Pentagon about the design and procurement of equipment, it's no surprise. Too much design-by-committee, and mission creep from difference parts of different services who want a piece of the funding pie. When the program is billed as "one plane for all 3 services," you know there's trouble brewing on the horizon. It's telling that a lot of the quotes from this…

"The F-35 is succeeding brilliantly in its mission, though, which is to funnel taxpayer money to a nice fat cross section of the military-industrial complex."

And in one of its secondary missions, which is to generate hundreds of thousands of votes for many Reps. and Senators, spread across many Congressional districts and states - and both parties.

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

#237

Post by beloch »

bch wrote: post #228
beloch wrote: post #207

Some U.S. allies are almost certainly going to bail out of the F-35 program. Spiraling costs, the ideology requiring VSTOL, and some bizarrely secretive aspects of the JSF project are conspiring to kill the F-35 as a viable option for countries like Canada. A surprising thing is that countries taking part in development are not permitted complete access to program data. The U.S., despite making use of other nations e…

"Ottawa officially scraps F-35 purchase as audit pegs costs at $45-billion" http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-official...

This doesn't mean Canada won't decide to buy F-35's in the future unfortunately. It just means the government is open to forming a committee to consider the concept of possibly examining alternatives at an undisclosed point in the future.

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

#238

Post by pedalpete »

beloch wrote: post #207

Some U.S. allies are almost certainly going to bail out of the F-35 program. Spiraling costs, the ideology requiring VSTOL, and some bizarrely secretive aspects of the JSF project are conspiring to kill the F-35 as a viable option for countries like Canada. A surprising thing is that countries taking part in development are not permitted complete access to program data. The U.S., despite making use of other nations e…

For those not familiar with Avro and the Arrow, it was ages ahead of it's time and many of the top engineers went to NASA.

Here is actually a link to a video of the plane http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8lTGTPQlDE, note the old Canadian flag at the beginning, the Canadian flag we all know was created in '65.

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

#239

Post by cdash »

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…

I am not sure where you are getting that it will be more expensive to maintain pilot training in the f-35 from but from everything I have read it is expected to cost less to maintain training as the simulators for the f-35 are so much more advanced than any other simulators that a large portion of training will be moved from live flight to the simulator.

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

#240

Post by gchpaco »

AsymetricCom wrote: post #152
demallien wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"easily destroyed by much cheaper drones" To a certain extent, this has been true for more than two decades. I used to work as a radar engineer for the RAAF, and every time we went on exercises against US forces (both teams flying F 18s, but with different missile payloads, we had AIM9s, the Americans had AMRAAM), we would see our aircraft swatted from the sky before we could even get the bogeys on weapons-system rad…

A monumental fuckup of this magnitude makes me wish that this was some kind of smoke screen to cover the cost of some other kind of R&D of technology we can scarcely comprehend. $1,000,000,000,000 for a plane that doesn't work and has been outsourced to a dozen foreign contractors? I don't buy it.

Are you kidding? My father works in aerospace for firms doing subcontracting on non-black projects and every time he talks about work it would be about some new ridiculous boondoggle. I remember some idiots conducting testing managed to pick up and drop a piece of flight hardware the size of a car about six inches, which probably cost about $100K to realign and repair. The ISS went through I think three or four--or maybe five?--ground up redesigns requiring everybody throw everything they had already done completely out the window and start over. Many of us on the sidelines watching marveled quietly that it ever flew at all.

Small teams with tight deadlines can do wonders. This is why Skunkworks stuck. But it's important to note that Kelly Johnson was behind a lot of the big successes there and he was an amazing man. Absent organizational genius, you can run into trouble. The JSF is pretty much the antithesis of "small teams with tight deadlines".

Post reply on HN