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

The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 1001 posts

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#261

Post by ansible »

So The F-35 costs too much.

In other industries, you would look for ways to cost-down the product. We often keep the same basic structure or components, but figure out less expensive ways to accomplish the same goals. Often, the revised product can be more durable and reliable too.

It is a shame that the incentives in weapons system development / purchase don't seem to help with this at all. It seems all the incentive is to make the product more and more expensive, and requiring more service.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#262

Post by g9yuayon »

misiti3780 wrote: post #86

The saddest thing about all of this IMO is they have been working on this for 14 years, and how much money was spent/wasted? Now, read about Skunkworks - they were able to build the SR71 (without supercomputers) in less than half that time and for a fraction of the cost. This isn't just planes, this seems to be everything nowadays. Fission was discovered in 1938/1939 and we dropped two bombs on Japan in 1945. No chan…

I wonder if this has to do with the overall decline of manufacturing in the US. Supply chains have been moving out of the US so iteration will be slower and more costly. Fewer talents would like to go to manufacturing. Fewer university professors are researching traditional mechanics now, for example, but more on "cutting-edge" stuff like nanometer materials. We also get fewer and fewer highly trained workers on lathing, welding, milling and etc over the years. As a result, it gets more expensive and more risky to build something as complex as F35.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#263

Post by ericd »

lumost wrote: post #73
nradov wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The old airframes were not survivable in a contested environment, and there was no practical way to make them survivable. That's still true today.

This may be a statement that the U.S militaries post-ww2 doctrine of air superiority is no longer viable. Large Battleships once had to face a similar reality that it was impossible to make them survivable if the enemy had air superiority. Drones are cheap, good missiles are 1/100th the price of an F-35. It's possible that aircraft will no longer be able to enter contested space without significant risks just as it w…

What replaces it? Loitering missile drones + a big expansion of satellite imagery?

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#264

Post by [deleted] »

antattack wrote: post #128
misiti3780 wrote: post #86

The saddest thing about all of this IMO is they have been working on this for 14 years, and how much money was spent/wasted? Now, read about Skunkworks - they were able to build the SR71 (without supercomputers) in less than half that time and for a fraction of the cost. This isn't just planes, this seems to be everything nowadays. Fission was discovered in 1938/1939 and we dropped two bombs on Japan in 1945. No chan…

Speaking of military expenses. One would think spending fraction of military budget towards vaccine research would protect our country better. Alas, building machines of destruction seems to the prerogative.

[deleted]

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#265

Post by throwaway6734 »

misiti3780 wrote: post #86

The saddest thing about all of this IMO is they have been working on this for 14 years, and how much money was spent/wasted? Now, read about Skunkworks - they were able to build the SR71 (without supercomputers) in less than half that time and for a fraction of the cost. This isn't just planes, this seems to be everything nowadays. Fission was discovered in 1938/1939 and we dropped two bombs on Japan in 1945. No chan…

We found multiple vaccines for Covid in less than 1 year.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#267

Post by phkahler »

medium_burrito wrote: post #100
misiti3780 wrote: post #86

The saddest thing about all of this IMO is they have been working on this for 14 years, and how much money was spent/wasted? Now, read about Skunkworks - they were able to build the SR71 (without supercomputers) in less than half that time and for a fraction of the cost. This isn't just planes, this seems to be everything nowadays. Fission was discovered in 1938/1939 and we dropped two bombs on Japan in 1945. No chan…

You misunderstand the purpose the F35- it is a jobs and pork program first and foremost, like SLS. It has the side benefit of keeping people trained to build this sort of thing, so SpaceX can hire them. We can build cool shit, but our government and most companies don't optimize for that.

>> We can build cool shit, but our government and most companies don't optimize for that.

I don't think they know how. They want cool shit too. Imagine a pork project that also produces cool shit - they would love that.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#268

Post by nemothekid »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #250
nemothekid wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, a while back I was interested "where does billions we spend on national defense actually go" and I came to the conclusion that the DoD is really just a giant jobs program. Ultimately I think the reason we don't have things like flying cars is that the private sector gets stuck in local maxima (such as getting people to click ads) and in the public sector it's very hard to have focused time-blocked short term goa…

I keep seeing people say this. Maybe flying cars just don’t make sense? Wheels work really well when your engine dies. Have you seen people drive in 2d space? You want to add a z axis? What’s the efficiency of a small plane? Surely not better than a Prius. Edit: I looked it up and a Cessna gets ~15 mpg.

I would look at flying cars are a metaphor, not as a literal thing people are opining over.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#269

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

mountainb wrote: post #257
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep seeing people say this. Maybe flying cars just don’t make sense? Wheels work really well when your engine dies. Have you seen people drive in 2d space? You want to add a z axis? What’s the efficiency of a small plane? Surely not better than a Prius. Edit: I looked it up and a Cessna gets ~15 mpg.

You ever fly over a mountain? It saves a lot of time.

Developed countries tend to build tunnels for lengthy mountain routes for which there is serious demand, so there is less a case for flying cars here.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#270

Post by jksmith »

misiti3780 wrote: post #86

The saddest thing about all of this IMO is they have been working on this for 14 years, and how much money was spent/wasted? Now, read about Skunkworks - they were able to build the SR71 (without supercomputers) in less than half that time and for a fraction of the cost. This isn't just planes, this seems to be everything nowadays. Fission was discovered in 1938/1939 and we dropped two bombs on Japan in 1945. No chan…

Well your single customer is your paycheck and your deal with the devil. If you triple the price of what you really think it will take because the gov will be inflating dollar supply by double digits every year and you're working a 10 year project, then the gov may go for a different/multiple contractors. So you have to just milk the project for as long as you can beyond 10 years and hope you can dollar/cost over time for the best profit. Lockheed should offer a store of value price and a dollar price. Otherwise, this is the new standard for long-term gov contracts. Lockheed can't lay their legendary game down when dealing with this kind of client. Is what it is.
Post reply on HN