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

Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 101 posts

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#31

Post by wepple »

mrtksn wrote: post #26
wepple wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> remote control + AI? We might be getting close to advanced AI for a lot of domains, but are we ready to have one making independent decisions with bombs? I’m not a military expert but I’d much prefer having a human making decisions rather than AI for at least the next decade. I’m not sure that remote connectivity is reliable and high bandwidth enough everywhere for a drone fighter jet

We already have drones that are making independent decisions with bombs, but that’s not the point. You can still have people in the loop, people that are not on board.

For 100% of tasks that an F35 can perform?

I know we currently have this capability, but aren’t up to speed if you can rely on it everywhere and every situation.

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#32

Post by fsloth »

mrtksn wrote: post #21
hunglee2 wrote: post #4

Yet despite these problems, the F-35 remains the most commercially successful airframe in the world, with over 670 sold, and 2,500 on order from US-allied countries all over the world. What could explain this sales pipeline, if the F-35 was the boondoggle this article implies it to be?

> What could explain this sales pipeline, if the F-35 was the boondoggle this article implies it to be? Easy, desire to please American politicians to fetch political support from the USA and strengthen your position as military ally. Ideally, you will be looking so scary that you wouldn’t have to actually use the plane.

” you will be looking so scary that you wouldn’t have to actually use the plane.”

I’d say this is the main intent. But not only because of the political aspects.

AFAIK the plane is intended to be used like an ultra-mobile target aquisition and launch platform designed to engage targets Really Far Away and then return to base (any base since it’s NATO compatible). It’s not really supposed to engage in Top Gun -style dogfighting.

So the main question is the capability of the radar and the missiles you carry, not necessarily the air frame itself. And as I understand those are fit for purpose.

Ofc if you are launching missiles far away for defensive purposes surely you could do it a lot cheaper, and that I would see as the main point of critique.

I’m not saying the issues are not issues, but as a non-expert-paying-customer (my country bought 64 of them I think) as long as you get airborn, acquire target lock and can launch missile, you are more or less using the offering as promised.

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#33

Post by unwind »

orwin wrote: post #10
hunglee2 wrote: post #4

Yet despite these problems, the F-35 remains the most commercially successful airframe in the world, with over 670 sold, and 2,500 on order from US-allied countries all over the world. What could explain this sales pipeline, if the F-35 was the boondoggle this article implies it to be?

For the first sales (Australia and either Norway or sweden, i dont remember), the US and lockheed Martin hid away the issues and lied on operating cost and availability. For sales to NATO: you have to buy a plane that can carry the US bomb if you don't have one yourself (despite the fact that nukes will probably never be launched from aircrafts if at all). For sales against competition, i don't have a lot of data, bu…

Norway for sure, they have been in NATO since they helped found it in 1949. Us Swedes needed a while to think about it, and joined on March 7, 2024. Sweden does not have the F-35, since we build our own [1] multi-role military aircraft.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#34

Post by lm28469 »

mrtksn wrote: post #24
lm28469 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Besides, it's not invisible despite calling it that. It's visible in the visible spectrum and hearable in the human hearing range We didn't wait Musk to know planes weren't literally invisible or silent lmao, maybe don't take your military analysis from a man child with 0 experience in the domain. They either fly high enough that you neither hear nor see them, or low/fast enough that you're dead long before you're…

Musk can be many bad things, but he is also right in some things. Flying high might make it invisible for human observers but the idea is that it’s not invisible in that wavelength, therefore it must be possible to create devices that can detect it. Also, this is a brand new machine that is still not ready. Just write it off, liquidate any useful work that might have been done on it and go all in drones. What’s the p…

If a bunch of microphones and binoculars would defeat stealth fighters (or any kind of jets) don't you think someone in the US, Chinese or Russian army would have thought about it ? Just as a reminder the thing is coming at mach 1.5-2 and as soon as it can it'll send a little present coming your way at mach 2-4

> therefore it must be possible to create devices that can detect it.

What's the probability some over worked dude who tweet 20 times an hour came up with something the US military–industrial complex hasn't thought about in the last 50 years ?

Remember the early Ukraine invasion when a couple of bayraktars almost single handedly saved the country during the initial wave ? It was neither stealthy nor fast

https://defence-blog.com/bayraktar-tb2-drones-saved-the-coun...

btw his brand new idea is at least a hundred years old: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eyPsCUn0O68/V8jmQwIYR5I/AAAAAAAAK...

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#35

Post by orwin »

lloeki wrote: post #25
orwin wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the first sales (Australia and either Norway or sweden, i dont remember), the US and lockheed Martin hid away the issues and lied on operating cost and availability. For sales to NATO: you have to buy a plane that can carry the US bomb if you don't have one yourself (despite the fact that nukes will probably never be launched from aircrafts if at all). For sales against competition, i don't have a lot of data, bu…

> despite the fact that nukes will probably never be launched from aircrafts if at all "if at all": that's deterrence. I don't think any nuke-able aircraft small-country customer intent is to launch, but you gotta have the ability to. "from aircrafts": when you have no submarines/silos and carting ground launch platforms around is impractical for your country, aircraft is the only remaining option to display deterren…

If the US need Belgium planes to launch nukes, well, europe is truly fucked anyway.

If the US had the French doctrine i.e. any army moving toward France's strategic assets will be targeted with a "warning" shot (yes, the warning shot is to be nuclear), but it does not, US nuclear force is for retaliation only. It will never be launched from planes in the foreseeable future. Which is more than the operational lifetime of F35.

No, this is bully tactics and frankly i really, really hope that Trump dissolve NATO so Belgium don't have to buy planes that can fly 30% of the time.

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#36

Post by compass_copium »

mrtksn wrote: post #15

Elon Musk recently made some remarks about F-35 on Twitter: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1860574377013838033 It's exactly what I was thinking about: Having a pilot onboard is overhead and its a limiting factor for the flight envelope as you have to keep it alive. Besides, it's not invisible despite calling it that. It's visible in the visible spectrum and hearable in the human hearing range, which means that you can…

>Besides, it's not invisible despite calling it that. It's visible in the visible spectrum and hearable in the human hearing range, which means that you can build detection and tracking systems in those wavelengths instead of pretending that its invisible because its hard to detect at radar wavelengths.

There have absolutely been programs to reduce the visual signatures of aircrafts. Yehudi lights, COMPASS GHOST, BoP, etc. Don't get your information on anything from Musk.

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#37

Post by mrtksn »

compass_copium wrote: post #36
mrtksn wrote: post #15

Elon Musk recently made some remarks about F-35 on Twitter: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1860574377013838033 It's exactly what I was thinking about: Having a pilot onboard is overhead and its a limiting factor for the flight envelope as you have to keep it alive. Besides, it's not invisible despite calling it that. It's visible in the visible spectrum and hearable in the human hearing range, which means that you can…

>Besides, it's not invisible despite calling it that. It's visible in the visible spectrum and hearable in the human hearing range, which means that you can build detection and tracking systems in those wavelengths instead of pretending that its invisible because its hard to detect at radar wavelengths. There have absolutely been programs to reduce the visual signatures of aircrafts. Yehudi lights, COMPASS GHOST, BoP…

Good point but all these things can be fitted on a drone too.

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#38

Post by fyt2024 »

imwillofficial wrote: post #14
hunglee2 wrote: post #4

Yet despite these problems, the F-35 remains the most commercially successful airframe in the world, with over 670 sold, and 2,500 on order from US-allied countries all over the world. What could explain this sales pipeline, if the F-35 was the boondoggle this article implies it to be?

Unfortunately we do not measure combat weapons in terms of commercial success. We measure them in terms of lethality and reliability.

[dead]

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#39

Post by mrtksn »

lm28469 wrote: post #34
mrtksn wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk can be many bad things, but he is also right in some things. Flying high might make it invisible for human observers but the idea is that it’s not invisible in that wavelength, therefore it must be possible to create devices that can detect it. Also, this is a brand new machine that is still not ready. Just write it off, liquidate any useful work that might have been done on it and go all in drones. What’s the p…

If a bunch of microphones and binoculars would defeat stealth fighters (or any kind of jets) don't you think someone in the US, Chinese or Russian army would have thought about it ? Just as a reminder the thing is coming at mach 1.5-2 and as soon as it can it'll send a little present coming your way at mach 2-4 > therefore it must be possible to create devices that can detect it. What's the probability some over work…

Ukrainians already built a microphone network to detect incoming missile and planes.

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#40

Post by mangamadaiyan »

mrtksn wrote: post #24
lm28469 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Besides, it's not invisible despite calling it that. It's visible in the visible spectrum and hearable in the human hearing range We didn't wait Musk to know planes weren't literally invisible or silent lmao, maybe don't take your military analysis from a man child with 0 experience in the domain. They either fly high enough that you neither hear nor see them, or low/fast enough that you're dead long before you're…

Musk can be many bad things, but he is also right in some things. Flying high might make it invisible for human observers but the idea is that it’s not invisible in that wavelength, therefore it must be possible to create devices that can detect it. Also, this is a brand new machine that is still not ready. Just write it off, liquidate any useful work that might have been done on it and go all in drones. What’s the p…

> Musk can be many bad things, but he is also right in some things

Indeed. A broken clock also tells the time correctly twice a day.

Post reply on HN