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

331–340 of 347 posts

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

#331

Post by dragonwriter »

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #330
moocowduckquack wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 1940s battleships were designed for just enough shielding from chemical bombs and bullets. We can assume that future battleships will have comprehensive radiation shielding.

We would do better to assume that future battleships won't get built, and that future surface combatants for the foreseeable future will be all carriers and destroyers.

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

#332

Post by stcredzero »

bradleyjg wrote: post #268
stcredzero wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the F-15 Silent Eagle?

I don't mean this in a snarky way, but what about it? Are you saying it will be a good bomber or close air support plane?

I was thinking along the lines of an interceptor/air superiority platform. Is it really meant to be a bomb truck?

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

#333

Post by jessaustin »

rdtsc wrote: post #327
jacques_chester wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well if this tactical situation goes like others have recently, it will more probably be a weird, cheap-ass, out-of-the-box attack that will dominate AWACS like roadside IEDs dominated Hum-vees. I don't know what that will be, but some possibilities are: network or systems hacks, airborne debris dispersal, swarm of cheap drones released inside the fighter shell, etc. The concept of a fighter escort perimeter reminds me of the firewall on a network boundary. That's not defense-in-depth, and by itself it doesn't work too well anymore.

Sure the space-borne laser or railgun is fun, but it's probably not the first thing that the Taliban or their equivalent will attempt. Unless they can find a way to hijack one that we've conveniently installed for them.

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

#334

Post by jeltz »

marshray wrote: post #275
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…

Seems like a big place like Canada might prefer something with a larger combat radius than the Arrow (660 km). Maybe, say, an F-35 (1,080 km)? They could probably just build four times as many for less cost. I don't know what it would look like once you factored in readiness, basing, pilots, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35

Or they could opt for a plane like the Rafale or JAS 39 NG who both have longer ranges than F-35.

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

#335

Post by jeltz »

yxhuvud wrote: post #322
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?

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.

The NG will have longer range than the F-35 so I think Gripen would be an excellent choice for Canada.

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

#336

Post by rdtsc »

jessaustin wrote: post #333
rdtsc wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Well if this tactical situation goes like others have recently, it will more probably be a weird, cheap-ass, out-of-the-box attack that will dominate AWACS like roadside IEDs dominated Hum-vees. I don't know what that will be, but some possibilities are: network or systems hacks, airborne debris dispersal, swarm of cheap drones released inside the fighter shell, etc. The concept of a fighter escort perimeter reminds…

Good point.

Yeah it seems big defense is building for two opponents. Strategic opponents -- basically anyone who has nukes and is not an friend.

Then there is a need to build for guerrilla warfare, roadside bombs, urban combat, target assassinations.

Recently the later seem to matter more. But big and high tech projects will get funding and will do so. Now the system is broken and often the only reason these projects get funded is because there is some defense contractor extending its hand waiting for the next $200M to keep profits up and people employed.

Now it would be interesting to research how to combat or counteract drones? What can someone in a poor country oppressed by a more powerful enemy with drones do to defend against them. Can they be detected easily?

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

#337

Post by jloughry »

nknighthb wrote: post #269
bradleyjg wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to being a crappy fighter the F-35 is also a crappy bomber and close air support aircraft. Not that it's a surprise that a plane designated fighter (or 'strike' or 'fighter/attack') isn't good at these things. We've virtually abandoned A and B line planes because the testosterone blinded fighter mafia in the airforce would rather have fun toys than useful equipment, and the navy is right there with them b…

> the navy is right there with them because heavy planes can't take off from aircraft carriers This seems an inadequate and/or overly-simplified explanation. The F-14 was a beast, far heavier than the F-35 or, for that matter, the A-6. And that was 1960s technology. Surely now we could build a capable, carrier-launched ground-attack craft with weight comparable to an F-14?

We did. See the Navy's A-12 stealth bomber, a design that never flew [1].

[1] Stevenson, James P. The $5 Billion Misunderstanding. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 2001. ISBN 1-55750-777-5.

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

#338

Post by nknighthb »

TsiCClawOfLight wrote: post #299
nknighthb wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the navy is right there with them because heavy planes can't take off from aircraft carriers This seems an inadequate and/or overly-simplified explanation. The F-14 was a beast, far heavier than the F-35 or, for that matter, the A-6. And that was 1960s technology. Surely now we could build a capable, carrier-launched ground-attack craft with weight comparable to an F-14?

we did. The F14B ;)

I was thinking in terms of something designed from the start for ground-attack/bombing, but my point is that the Navy can't possibly think it needs the same lightweight fighters the Air Force wants just because they operate from carriers, since they spent >35 years running a big-ass plane off carriers.

(For that matter, there were the C-130 tests on a carrier, which was probably pushing the bounds of good sense, but it did work.)

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

#339

Post by PeterisP »

ImprovedSilence wrote: post #120
Nelson69 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has it not been realized? I think it has, there is a ton of drone stuff going on. The DoD hasn't rewritten the war fighting manual and strategy yet though so manned fighters and bombers are still part of the plans but I don't think UAVs haven't proven themselves. This is a titanically slow moving organization... lives and deaths are on the line with their decisions. One of the real lesson of the JSF is the amount of…

Drones are great, but their control systems are ridiculously easy to take down. What happens when you command links are taken down? (RF jamming, satellites destroyed, etc) You're gonna need a "human powered" "analog" fallback.

When command links are taken down, you're gonna need autonomous drones, not humans. The resistance for autonomous killers is political/ethical, not technical - so as soon as they're really needed (i.e., a single serious combat incident with command links failing), they'll get a chip upgrade to continue combat themselves in case of comms breakdown.

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

#340

Post by PeterisP »

greedo wrote: post #313
rdtsc wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Current visual systems are worse by Mark One eyeball - but they'll get better. At that point, a drone brain can do everything a pilot can, and more.
Post reply on HN