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

251–260 of 347 posts

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

#251

Post by guiomie »

jamoes wrote: post #130
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…

So, if spending unilaterally stimulates the economy, then why stop at $1 trillion? Why not just spend quadrillions of dollars and really stimulate the economy? The answer is that the there is a very real opportunity cost to their spending. That trillion dollars could have been spend on other infrastructure, or education, or even a more efficient warplane, and all of those expenditures would have resulted in greater v…

Sir, thanks for the link! I feel like I am going to bed more intelligent tonight.

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

#252

Post by tlear »

beloch wrote: post #237
bch wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Given fiscal being the cornerstone of the conservatives policy and wins in elections I think F35 is basically dead in Canada

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

#253

Post by stcredzero »

cdash wrote: post #239
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.

I am specifically talking about live pilot training. Simulators are not a substitute for actual operations. Reducing actual operations time is going to reduce operational experience, period. Simulators are not a 1-1 substitute.

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

#254

Post by bradleyjg »

nkuttler wrote: post #16
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…

> the biggest use of airplanes [...] is air to land bombing But what happens to your bombers when you don't have air superiority?

Check to see if you are in a Tom Clancy novel, because you certainly aren't in any war the US is plausibly going to be involved in. Every country with fighters >= 4.5th generation is locked into either nuclear or economic (or both) MAD with the US.

What would China's economy look like after they decided to launch an invasion of Taiwan?

SEAD, CAS, precision bombing, cargo and personnel transport -- these are missions that our military will actually be called on to perform, not the dogfighting the fighter pilot mafia wishes was needed.

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

#255

Post by stcredzero »

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 about the F-15 Silent Eagle?

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

#256

Post by tlear »

demallien wrote: post #132
conformal wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the F-35 is one of the largest wastes of government money that is publicly known. by the time the aircraft has all the bugs ironed out, it will have cost USD 1 tln and be easily destroyed by much cheaper drones. the entire contract should be converted into drone development, which will actually pay dividends. trying to argue that we need the F-35 or that it will provide any kind of strategic military value is absurd.

"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…

That was the theory in Vietnam, then jammers happened.. reality intruded and Mig17 with a cannon savaged far more advanced US craft that outnumbered them by orders of magnitude. oops. Drones are even more fun, notice how Iranians took control of one and got in perfect condition. Want to be defending your carrier then realize hmm I dont think we have concat with our toys oops indeed

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

#257

Post by bjelkeman-again »

efraim wrote: post #234
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?

Politics generally block these type of deals. I bet Finland also have similar requirements, but they went and purchased F-18 instead than whatever SAAB had to offer.

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

#258

Post by stcredzero »

ImprovedSilence wrote: post #119
conformal wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the F-35 is one of the largest wastes of government money that is publicly known. by the time the aircraft has all the bugs ironed out, it will have cost USD 1 tln and be easily destroyed by much cheaper drones. the entire contract should be converted into drone development, which will actually pay dividends. trying to argue that we need the F-35 or that it will provide any kind of strategic military value is absurd.

Drones are great, but not failproof. what happens when you command links are taken down? (RF jamming, satellites destroyed, etc) You're gonna need a "human powered" "analog" fallback.

By the same token, missiles and stealth are not fail proof either.

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

#259

Post by bradleyjg »

spartango wrote: post #155
bradleyjg wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is money going toward the development of a replacement for the B-52, although the exact form it will take is still up in the air/under wraps. Suffice to say that the "Next Generation Bomber" project currently has funding. Two observations along these lines, however: * The B-52 originally was the US Air Force's all-purpose bomber when it rolled out in the 50s. It was a conventional heavy bomber, a strategic nucl…

The nuclear triad always seemed a bit circular to me. We have three main means of delivering nuclear weapons, so it must be a good idea to have three different means of delivering nuclear weapons. I don't see it. With geographic diversity and at least one delivery system that is mobile and easy to hide we should be more than capable of asserting a second strike capability.

What's really needed from a modern bomber is a high munition capacity, a large combat radius, and long loiter times. Cheap to build and operate would be great too. Super stealth as well as high speeds and maneuverability are simply expensive distractions.

For the rare situation where we need to deliver something like a conventional bunker buster deep inside of territory that we don't wish to first completely destroy the AA cababilities of first -- i.e. an Osirak type mission -- we still have 20 of those $2 billion B-2s.

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

#260

Post by tlear »

bradleyjg wrote: post #254
nkuttler wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the biggest use of airplanes [...] is air to land bombing But what happens to your bombers when you don't have air superiority?

Check to see if you are in a Tom Clancy novel, because you certainly aren't in any war the US is plausibly going to be involved in. Every country with fighters >= 4.5th generation is locked into either nuclear or economic (or both) MAD with the US. What would China's economy look like after they decided to launch an invasion of Taiwan? SEAD, CAS, precision bombing, cargo and personnel transport -- these are missions…

Successful invasion of Taiwan? Most likely mad boom, total economic and political dominance of Asia would do that. Not to mention internally it would cement the government for a generation or two
Post reply on HN