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

321–330 of 347 posts

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

#321

Post by alexeisadeski3 »

rdtsc wrote: post #272
alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the best comment in this whole thread: >Modern fighter aircraft need to: a) not be seen b) be fast (time to target is still important!) c) carry a decent payload of weapons. Ideally target selection should be provided by AWACS, and missile-sensors provide the final kill guidance, allowing the fighter (AKA missile-launch platform) to remain stealthy. In the absence of AWACS, the fighter will need to carry it's…

A drone? Why even bother putting a pilot into a steel tube with wings so it can fly some distance ahead, launch another faster steel tube with fins, then turn back. The only reason to even have a person in there is for dog-fighting for what I see. Otherwise with specs you described, it is just a pointless waste of money.

The article isn't about drones vs piloted aircraft, it's about one type of piloted aircraft vs another.

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

#322

Post by yxhuvud »

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?

Partly, assuming Canada wants to use them mainly for protecting their own airspace.

However, I'm not certain the Gripen have enough range - at least not until Gripen NG comes around. That may change that equation.

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

#323

Post by greedo »

bradleyjg wrote: post #319
greedo wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nuclear triad is designed so that technical advances can't obsolete any one leg of the triad. Currently, ICBMs are vulnerable, and are out of favor due to the accuracy of SLBMs and ICBMs in a first strike role. So we put our emphasis on SSBNs and stealth bombers. Now what do we do if an opponent manages to work out an effective means of tracking our boomers on patrol? Perhaps some odd trail of bioluminescence kic…

Could the exact same arguments be made about a nuclear dyad or quad? What makes three so special?

Well, I think the designers of SIOP were fond of tripods. ;)

Two legs is obviously less secure than three, and we don't have a fourth because we haven't developed a fourth technology for delivering nuclear weapons.

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

#324

Post by greedo »

shabble wrote: post #316
greedo wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jamming doesn't need to always block the source transmitter, you can also block the receivers on the drones by flooding the frequencies, or spoofing GPS, etc etc. At this level though, it's just easier to send up a fighter to shoot the drone down, since most drones are on par with a Cessna 172 in terms of performance.

> Jamming doesn't need to always block the source transmitter, you can also block the receivers on the drones by flooding the frequencies, or spoofing GPS, etc etc. AFAIK it works by lowering the signal/noise ratio to the point the channel is useless for it's intended purpose. Something with extremely tight focus via aimable directional antenna or phased array, along with spread spectrum hopping would be extremely ha…

Well, the Avenger/Predator drones can't engage in A2A combat; they lack radar for tracking and targeting another aircraft. They could use an infrared missile like the AIM9, but that is often cued via radar as well. Plus, the Predators maneuver like crap. I don't have the specs at hand, but I think they're g limited to under 3g. A single F-35 would have no trouble defeating 10 Predators.

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

#325

Post by greedo »

rdtsc wrote: post #318
greedo wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because a pilot can control a plane when GPS is down, when jamming prevents remote control from Creech AFB, and because the Mark One eyeball is still pretty good.

A pilot still uses eyes, gyroscopes and has an understanding of terrain and how to manipulate a flight controls to make the aircraft go a certain way. Presumably all those things can be done by technology, terrain following, and autopilot systems are not new. If jamming detected it can return back to destination. I am sure it can be done for less than $1TN

Return to base automatically didn't work so well for the drone the Iranians managed to capture.

Drones seem sexy and safe, but I'd be very surprised if we didn't keep pilots in the plane for a long time.

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

#326

Post by ansible »

dools wrote: post #212

If the VSTOL capabilities are only required to launch the aircraft in a really narrow set of circumstances (ie. from a ship with a helipad rather than a landing strip) why don't they have a detachable booster model? I'm imagining something that sits on top of the aircraft and provides the vertical thrust during take-off then detaches as the plane blasts off horizontally, leaving the booster free to lower itself onto…

Hmmm... A possible (and possibly crazy) design would be to design a STOL fighter. And then if you really want vertical take-off, just strap some rockets to it. Blast it straight up, and give it time to build up horizontal speed before the rockets (probably one-shot solids) run out.

With appropriately sized rockets, it would allow you to take off with a full load of fuel and armaments. You'd still need at least a short landing field, but that is easier to manage if you are light on fuel and have dropped all your bombs. Depending on the landing gear and other needed design elements (air intake protection for example), you could maybe land on grass.

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

#327

Post by rdtsc »

jacques_chester wrote: post #281
rdtsc wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about disabling it from space. Load a cruise missile onto a satellite and launch?

Why not railguns? Or laser beams? The point is to deal with what exists currently and what is likely to exist in the service life of a military system. You're right though. Space will eventually and inevitably be much more militarised.

> Why not railguns? Or laser beams?

But at the price of $1T they better be thinking of the future and think about opponents who are also willing to spend around that order of magnitude on defense.

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

#328

Post by cdash »

jacques_chester wrote: post #31
gilgoomesh wrote: post #10

Ultimately, this article has one point but makes it about ten times. The point is that the F-35 led to the U.S. losing the 2008 war game. All of the quotes (particularly from Australian military officials) are about the failed 2008 war game. It might seem like a valid point except that the war game deliberately crippled all the F-22s (the U.S. air superiority fighters) and instead pitched the F-35s (the U.S. jack-of-…

It's less academic for those of us in Australia, and that's why Australians are mentioned in the article. Australia is replacing its entire air superiority and assault capability with F35s and is contributing billions to the development program. We've already given up our bombers -- we were the last operators of F-111s. We can't buy F22s. I'm pretty sure we would (and so would the UK, Japan, Saudi Arabia and a number…

This is stupid because you don't even know why the engagement was lost. It wasn't because the f-35 was outmatched but because they ran out of missiles in the fight which meant they could not defend their tankers and so they ran out of fuel. Numbers matter, you can't expect to send up an f-35 with a limited amount of missiles against a force much larger than yours because thats exactly what is going to happen. You will eventually run out of missiles.

On the other hand, you can buy cheaper fighters and more of them, but are your cheaper fighters better than the other teams cheaper fighters. I don't know, one thing I do know is Australia is not going to ever have an air force comparable to China in the future.

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

#329

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

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…

Yeah, it's also hard to do an apples to apples comparison. Should the F-35 be compared to competitors that are in operation now, or ones that will be available for purchase at the same time the JSF is? This gets even more difficult with the SU jets, because they've shifted to a very aggressive continuous upgrade program. So in particular with the radars and the EW stuff it's not clear what gear a given model will actually have.

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

#330

Post by Daniel_Newby »

moocowduckquack wrote: post #267
Daniel_Newby wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Battleships can survive close hits by airburst nukes. To defend against this, the opponent must either use massive overkill, or use underwater bursts near their own coasts. Either approach has dreadful economic costs. War is the art of making the opponent's costs exceed their resources. One way to create costs is to make weapons that are unreasonably durable—the battleship is the extreme end of the spectrum.

There was an airburst test that battleships survived, but the nuke was way off target, even well shielded animals onboard died so if it was crewed it would have been a floating coffin and the nuke was a 20 kiloton device. One single Trident missile holds up to twelve 500 kiloton bombs.

1940s battleships were designed for just enough shielding from chemical bombs and bullets. We can assume that future battleships will have comprehensive radiation shielding. Of course, building a fleet to soften up the Chinese coast is more an exercise in science fiction than military planning.
Post reply on HN