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

F-35 is built for the wrong war

warontherocks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 719 posts

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#431

Post by knodi123 »

santoshalper wrote: post #305
johnsmith1840 wrote: post #287

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?

Don't be silly. There's a third option, neither side gives up for a while.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#432

Post by nradov »

marcosdumay wrote: post #276
nradov wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The threat that President Bush issued in 2002 was due to Iran being a state sponsor of terrorist groups, which was true then and is still true today. Historians can argue over whether that threat was a good idea at the time but it's too late to retract it now. We have to deal with the actual situation as it obtains today. As for what Iran's leadership decided and when, we really have very little visibility into that…

That's bullshit. He denounced half of all developing countries for sponsoring terrorism. And forgot to denounce all the ones that sponsored the terrorists that had just attacked the US. > As for what Iran's leadership decided and when, we really have very little visibility into that so don't believe anything you hear. The had elections at the time, and voted in the candidate promising nuclear weapons at the next year…

Half? There were approximately 133 developing countries (depending on how you count) during the George W. Bush presidency so please to give us a list of 66 that he "denounced" for sponsoring terrorism.

Of course the reality is that going back to 2001 the US government has only ever designated seven countries as state sponsors of terrorism. Those were: Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, Libya, and Iraq.

Elections in Iran don't necessarily mean much in terms of nuclear weapons policy. It's not clear whether Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually had much power to impact weapons development one way or another. The real decision making authority appears to lie elsewhere.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#433

Post by jandrewrogers »

dinfinity wrote: post #399
jandrewrogers wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the navy they call long-range underwater drones a "torpedo". It has been assumed to be a primary threat against ships for a century. Modern navies have many systems purpose-built to deal with that threat.

That's like equating a cruise missile with an aerial drone (which is nonsensical). Now I'm not saying defense against UUVs is impossible, but plenty of defenses against torpedoes don't work against them. Note also that part of the approach of drone warfare is sheer quantity. Stopping 1 may be trivial, stopping 5 may be doable, but stopping 20 simultaneous ones might already be too hard to do consistently and repeated…

A drone of this type and a cruise missile are literally the same type of thing, they just occupy different points on the capability spectrum.

You assert "plenty of defenses against torpedoes don't work against [UUV]". Based on what? What is this hypothetical property of a UUV that is superior to a torpedo?

A UUV with sufficient range and warhead is going to be big and heavy. Long-range torpedos weigh 2 tons each for a good reason. Calling something a "drone" or "UUV" does not imbue it with magic physics. It still has to cross some long span of water with enough speed and a large enough warhead and a guidance package capable of finding the target.

What kind of vessel are you going to use to bring these UUV within range of the target? 20 torpedos would be almost the entire magazine depth of an attack submarine. Surface combat ships carry even fewer.

You seem to be ignoring all evidence from how modern naval systems actually work when discussing your hypothetical UUVs.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#434

Post by kshri24 »

hkpack wrote: post #308
gozucito wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what would you rather have? 2000 Shahed/Lucas drones or a single F35? Same cost for both. The saying "Quantity has a quality all of its own" is not obsolete in 2026.

2000 shaheds are just a regular week in Ukraine. 90% of that are destroyed far away from targets and the other 10% do cause some damage, but it is usually far from being devastating as the drone is far from being very precise. A single F35 which could penetrate air defense and go into the country would be a real problem. If Russia has 10 of them, I think it would significantly alter the current equation of power as i…

So where is the air superiority over Iran? This only proves Palmer Luckey right. Future of warfare has changed drastically and all countries are taking notes from this War.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#435

Post by anigbrowl »

rjsw wrote: post #180
expedition32 wrote: post #112

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?

Around 1900. They were held in very dubious regard in the early days of development.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1941/january/chap...

On British naval luminary compared submarine warfare to piracy, leading to the emergence a few years later of a tradition of Royal Navy submarine captains flying the Jolly Roger after completing successful missions.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#436

Post by kshri24 »

johnsmith1840 wrote: post #287

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…

The blockade is like a nuclear bomb detonated on all countries. 30% of World's oil supply is at risk. Not to mention critical elements needed for semiconductor production. Even the US is suffering passively because of this. Only saving grace for US is to restore navigation in the straits. Quicker it does it the quicker we can stop hell that'll be unleashed on the World. You really don't want to be responsible for 30% of Earth starving and dying of hunger because critical fertilizers never reached the masses for food production.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#438

Post by denkmoon »

dgroshev wrote: post #288
benoau wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's crazy is there's lots of videos of Ukranians shooting drones from open-cockpit propeller planes that barely cost more than the drones! I think in a serious drone war we would just have fleets of Cesnas flying around with a person hanging out the door with a shotgun lol.

In a serious war drone factories are getting bombed (by F-35s) and there is no need to handle a never-ending stream of drones. The war in Ukraine is special because neither side is capable of air supremacy. Note that the original article doesn't say anywhere that F-35-like capability is not needed.

In a serious war why would an adversary like China not put their drone factories deep underground, deep in the territorial interior?

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#439

Post by 8note »

hkpack wrote: post #308
gozucito wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what would you rather have? 2000 Shahed/Lucas drones or a single F35? Same cost for both. The saying "Quantity has a quality all of its own" is not obsolete in 2026.

2000 shaheds are just a regular week in Ukraine. 90% of that are destroyed far away from targets and the other 10% do cause some damage, but it is usually far from being devastating as the drone is far from being very precise. A single F35 which could penetrate air defense and go into the country would be a real problem. If Russia has 10 of them, I think it would significantly alter the current equation of power as i…

im not so sure. Ukraine is sending drones over very long distances now, ducking through air defense.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#440

Post by Thaxll »

johnsmith1840 wrote: post #398
Thaxll wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You completely oversell Iran capability, I guarantee you that f35 would go down in a war with a country with decent anti air such as Russia or China. Iran never invested in such technology, they put all their money in drones and ballistic missiles which were extremely effective, we are a month in and the strait is still close. Their strategy was never to try to sink us ships, it was disruption in the region to extend…

Pretty sure Iran didn't plan on being obliterated. Why did they have a navy if this was their only plan? Also blocking the straight is funny because the only people it hurts is everyone in the world but the US.

I'm sure Americans are finding it funny to pay for $3+ a gallon. The entire economy suffers from it.
Post reply on HN