Live data from Hacker News

F-35 is built for the wrong war

warontherocks.com

311–320 of 719 posts

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#311
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US not going full in on drones reminds me of the British ridiculing submarines. The Chinese are going to spam literally MILLIONS of drones all over the Pacific...

When did Britain ridicule submarines?

First Sea Lord Admiral Wilson famously called submarines "underhanded, unfair, and damned un-English." Yet this didn't prevent the RN from purchasing submarines from the US in 1901, far earlier than most other industrial nations.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#312
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the insight is that you need a high-low mix. Some threats call for top of the line capabilities (like early days of the Iran conflict with stand-off munitions and top-spec interceptors being used against Shahed drones and cheap cruise missiles). Some threats can be more economically serviced by a less capable, cheaper, and more available system.

Ukraine is using old school propeller trainer craft to shoot down some of the slower Russian drones. https://theaviationist.com/2024/06/26/ukrainian-yak-52-kill-... There's usually new footage of this every week on social media. Don't really see or hear about the USA building or using propeller driven planes in military outside of special ops.

It isn't reasonable to expect that propellor drones will be used long term - they are too easy to shoot down. you need just enough ability to force the enemy to not waste they energy making them when something more expensive is harder to shoot down and thus more likely to work.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JP Morgan is predicting $5/gallon gas. Apparently gas prices are one of the best indicators to predict presidential support. In normal times, this seems unfair-lots of external factors can influence gas prices. Rare that you can so directly point towards administration action causing an effect. Every day this conflict continues is going to have devastating political outcomes. I largely subscribe to the belief that Ka…

The problem here is that gas prices have bifurcated to the point that an "average" doesn't mean much. I'm pretty sure I know how California will vote regardless of the gas price, but gas in Texas and much of the midwest will remain cheap. This map should be eye opening. https://gasprices.aaa.com/

For sure. I am in SoCal, and when I hear people complaining of the “$4 gas”, I can only laugh. I still believe the average represents a real increase being borne across the country, even if it is felt unevenly.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#314

So none of them lost on ground in Iran. No US ship was to my knowledge even hit by a drone/missle. Iran has been prepping forever for this with Russian/Chinese equipment. This sounds identical to previous arguments I saw of how hard it would be for US to beat Iran in open conflict. China is different but comparing theoretical ability with reality is different also. The only reality we have as of now is that f35 compl…

So we should expect the Strait of Hormuz to be open tomorrow, then?

Nothing in the world would have stopped iran launching cheap drones at civilian ships. Article is trying to say F35 is a problem when clearly it's not.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "losing TSMC"? It's not ours. Do you know what does belong to the west? ASML. What makes TSMC actually work.

ASML is not "yours" too in that case as it happens to be european.

ASML's largest shareholder is Intel, and they rely on a supply chain from American, German, and other western European countries, all on the US leash.

But more importantly, ASML does exactly what America tells them to do.

And Europe for the most part does as well.

Sorry, I wish Europe had the fortitude to not be subordinated to the US, but that's how it is.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#316
post #8

The insight here is, that in current warfare, quantity is the quality that matters. And with quantity, cost of replacement needs to be low, platforms expendable, cheap to maintain and resupply. It, and it's support infrastructure, need to not easily be detected and targeted by drones while on the ground. F35 is not these things. It's powerful but brittle, and like many US platforms, too much value packed into too few…

You can just do both. The US does have some cheaper, more expendable drone platforms, and it's continuing to work on more. It should probably scale up production of them, though.

You don't scale up today - you just make sure you can. Otherwise next year you have a ton of obsolete drones to scrap.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#317
post #158

> Meanwhile, modern conflict, from Ukraine’s drone war to naval engagements in the Red Sea to Iran’s own mass missile and drone salvos, increasingly favors systems that can be produced at scale and replaced when lost. The F-35 is a masterpiece. But a force designed around a masterpiece is not designed for long, protracted wars, and U.S. adversaries know this. The problem is that the F-35 was intended to be the low co…

The F-35 is a massive success. It is a common design that brought together what would have been three to five different planes into one. Costs doubling is further proof of how amazing it is- inflation has basically outpaced that. Cost per flight hour has more to do with data analytics and the Socialism within the DoW (it's a jobs program) than actual need. A lot of delays were quasi-on purpose. It has crazy supply ch…

> and has greatly strengthened ties with our allies

If you count as "allies" the smaller countries that feel like they need to buy US planes otherwise they will get bullied, knowing that the US routinely threatens to invade them... I guess.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe satellites are usually in an orbit. They can’t follow an carrier for example. The satellites may be in a constellation that can track the carrier. That is why anti-satellites weapons have been developed. E.g., a jet fighter flies straight up and then fires a long range missile. https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Ty... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon

Do you think a carrier can very far in the couple of hours it takes for a satellite to orbit around the Earth?

If the carrier is aware of the overflight (and I assume the USN isn't run by complete idiots), it can adjust course after the overflight. And at 30 knots, can be 100s of miles away from its initial location when the satellite returns.

Now satellite constellations make it harder, since their numbers limit this strategy. But currently, none of the know systems utilize SAR like the LEO satellites, so they wouldn't function well in bad weather. They'd have to rely on optics which can be severely degraded.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#319

we could do a moonbase for 2 trillion

But why? I'm not against the idea in principle, but there has to be a motivation beyond "It's possible". Even the search for knowledge, which is a good reason to invest in R&D, but how much would we learn on the moon for that 2 trillion that we couldn't learn more cheaply through other means?

Seems like a better use of money than weapons and killing each other with said weapons on Earth

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Iran war is a skirmish by any reasonable measure. It does not exhaust either the US Navy or the Airforce, and the Army isn't even participating. Now I understand it has a large impact because of oil prices and the closing of the strait of hormuz, but don't confuse the economic impact of the closing of shipping lanes with something that "exhausts" the US military. Remember this is the military that spent two decad…

This is a misconception, and honestly it's hubris talking. The US has already burned through a big chunk of its key munitions. More than half of its THAAD interceptors, about a quarter of its Patriot stock, roughly 1,000 total with limited yearly production, and a serious slice of Tomahawks, some of which will take years to replace. Even with ramp ups, you are looking at 3 to 4 years before extra production actually…

The asymmetry with Iraq goes both ways. In Iraq, the goal was regime change and occupation. In Taiwan, the goal is to disrupt the most difficult type of military operation in existence (opposed landing). No one is planning to roll Abramses into Beijing.
Post reply on HN