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

301–310 of 347 posts

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

#301

Post by TsiCClawOfLight »

spartango wrote: post #182
s_q_b wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/13/olsen_raptor_case_ge... And the fact that the F-22's stealth coatings, even if they work, ablate in rain. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/f-35-gets-stealthier... And of course the ludicrous idea that the F-35 can replace the A-10 Warthog in combat. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/a-10-f-35-air-force-... The A-10 problem bugs me more than the o…

It's strange...I love the A-10, both its rugged design and its crazy anti-tank capability. Keep in mind that retirement plans for the beast are slated for 2028, and all plans to retire it sooner have been shot down. That's 52 years of service, which is a solid service lifetime. But that said, I think there's a decent argument that can be made for phasing it out given current operational needs: The A-10 was originally…

It will be necessary when vietnam happens all over again because of jamming and we need 'analog' weapons.

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

#302

Post by kalleboo »

bjelkeman-again wrote: post #257
efraim wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And it was a huge snub to Sweden when Norway went with the F-35 for clearly political reasons (later confirmed by Wikileaks cables). There's probably a lot of Schadenfreude going around now…

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

#303

Post by kalleboo »

nwzpaperman wrote: post #279
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 land were you born in? What's wrong with hackernews today are a bunch of musq-worshipping, "smartphone" toting, self-righteous dolts opining on subjects they have zero depth on. Let me guess, you are boss with a joystick on your Apple Thunderbolt display and MSFT Simulator-X. Do you understand what drives the cost of a physical good? Do you understand why the US government has structured the defense contractors…

Your monologue on the cost structure of the US military industrial complex is a non-sequitor

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

#304

Post by Tloewald »

neurotech1 wrote: post #282
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stand behind what I've said and encourage you to dig into the open source docs on this. The RAND study is worth a start but there's a lot more, including English language materials from the SU design staff. "As for your comment about stealth when the F-22 fires a missile, that assumes the F-22 doesn't change course after firing said missile." Doesn't matter. Once you've got a launch flare that gives you a position…

The 2008 RAND study has been widely debunked. Any idea of the RCS(X-band) of a F-22, or a F-35 for that matter? F-22: 0.0005 m2 F-35: 0.0015 m2 F-16C: 1.0m2 Su-27/Su-30 Flanker: 10.0m2 (China has this series and J-11 "Flankers" built domestically) Su-35 (Advanced) Flanker: 1.0m2 (Russia only) From the front a stealthy F-35 is basically noise against the background using X-Band radar. The latest L-Band radar on a Su-3…

Before the battle of Midway the Japanese navy wargamed the battle and cadets (playing the US) did to the Japanese exactly what the actual US navy did. Naval command debunked the results, changed the rules, ran a new wargame, and won. They then went and got the core of their actual navy destroyed.

Any argument like this in favor of the F35 is very dubious. You're talking about the F35 allegedly defeating older technology with radar, stealth, and missiles. Yow know what will win using radar, stealth, and missiles? Drones. Who might suddenly show up to a battlefield with a lot of drones?

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

#307

Post by greedo »

stcredzero wrote: post #171
greedo wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't consider one of the best fighter programs we've seen a "disaster." Perhaps you're confusing it with the F-111 (TFX) program?

There were considerable challenges to overcome in Vietnam having to do with disadvantages in maneuverability, lack of guns, and missile reliability.

The Phantom was designed to be a fleet interceptor, not a dogfighter. Once it was pressed into the role of providing air superiority over Vietnam, it had troubles due to restrictive rules of engagement, a poor missile in the AIM7, and yes, a lack of guns. The Navy also suffered from a lack of ACM training that they rectified with the TOPGUN program. But to put all of these problems at the foot of the Phantom is missing the forest for the trees.

And once changes were implemented in these areas, the Phantom went on to excel as an aircraft in the USN, the AF, and the airforces and navies of many other countries.

If you look at the entire lifespan of the Phantom, its obvious that it was an overwhelming success.

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

#308

Post by greedo »

TsiCClawOfLight wrote: post #179
greedo wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't consider one of the best fighter programs we've seen a "disaster." Perhaps you're confusing it with the F-111 (TFX) program?

The initial deployment of the Phantom was a disaster. It wasn't maneuverable enough, and the lack of cannons made it almost useless in the fight. The "future" of missiles-only combat had to be rethought, and gun pods mounted to make the F-4 useful.

Yes, the initial deployment presented tremendous challenges, and Vietnam led directly to a rethinking and a return to air combat's roots. But I was referring to the entire lifespan of the Phantom. It was no Edsel...

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

#309

Post by greedo »

takluyver wrote: post #188
greedo wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10. That's all we have, not twelve, and definitely not the 15 we had at the height of the Cold War. The problem is that we don't have twelve carriers that can function all at once. Some are being refueled, some are returning from a deployment, some are doing training workups prior to deployment, and there's a lot of ocean out there. That's why talk of cutting the # of CVNs to under the current totals is extremely dan…

The rest of the world put together has 9 active carriers, all smaller than any of the US carriers. That's including the Chinese one, which they're still practising flying from, and the UK one, which doesn't have any aircraft until our JSFs turn up in a few years. Besides the US, only the French have an active nuclear powered carrier. So I don't really agree that discussion of reducing the number of US carriers is "ex…

And the rest of the world hasn't taken on the obligations that the US has.

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

#310

Post by greedo »

stcredzero wrote: post #175
VLM wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, dirt cheap. Even if you use Hollywood accounting like "flyaway costs" you can get 100 Tomahawks for the cost of one F-35, and the point of the wargame was you only get roughly one sortie per F-35 unless you have air superiority. So economically its far cheaper to not build one F-35 while buying 100 Tomahawks, then cruise missile every airfield, than to lose your entire stock of F-35 on one sortie. Another way to…

The thing to do is to launch 100 Tomahawks so that you can then use stealth aircraft to trash the SAM sites and interceptor aircraft that reveal themselves to shoot them down.

The problem is that against a peer opponent with S300 or higher SAM networks, the TLAM will get shot down.
Post reply on HN