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

521–530 of 719 posts

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#521

Post by tennysont »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #500
bpodgursky wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, "air dominance" is a well recognized term, it means you can fly your planes basically anywhere you want, to take out whatever target you want, without risk from AA. They are using it exactly how anyone familiar with warfare terminology would understand it.

I think the accepted term is "air supremacy" which is a completely different set of words (and meaning) from "complete dominance"

"Air supremacy" would be dominance of the air such that enemy cannot effectively interfere. "Air superiority" is the lesser level (enemy interference is not prohibitive).

At least in NATO lingo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_supremacy

I can't tell if this comment chain is a factual disagreement (ability to interference) or a linguistic one (supremacy vs superiority).

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#522

Post by krige »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #506
kalleboo wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can see that in that it's very popular for export It's very popular for export since the US has been forcing their allies to buy them over any alternatives, this was shown in the WikiLeaks cables.

Nothing else is remotely as capable in the modern threat environment that most countries can actually buy. That's the cold truth. They can't buy anything else that compares and the best isn't for sale.

They have already lost two in the first real conflict. Doesn't seem like it's all that capable.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#523

Post by dh2022 »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #290
eek2121 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to the folks on the front lines, along with folks on both sides, military or not, who have had to deal with it. Russia would never nuke Ukraine to begin with. They know that by doing so, most of the world would unite against them, and many, including Putin, would be on the chopping block.

> most of the world would unite against them Seriously doubt any country on Earth is going to attack Russia and risk global thermonuclear annihilation over anything other than a direct attack on their own lands.

I think if Russia drops a nuke on Ukraine then even China will desert them.

India for sure will stop trading with Russia, lest it be seen to condone such insanity (India has a nuclear armed rival next door-India will not want Pakistan get any ideas).

I think this is the only reason Russia did not nuke Ukraine.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#524

Post by krige »

rasz wrote: post #467
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 drone war a neutral cargo ship off your coast will open hidden flaps and unleash 10K drones all at once erasing couple bases before they even know whats up.

Enough with the ace combat fanfics. In a serious drone war a neutral cargo ship would not be allowed to hang around with potentially a shitload of drones in its containers.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#525

Post by gherkinnn »

greedo wrote: post #356
gherkinnn wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ideas that I as a civilian was sold over the past decades don't appear to hold up any longer. As someone a while back put it, Russia lost several Bundeswehrs worth of equipment and keeps on grinding. Neither side is able to mass large forces, in a large part due to drones. And Iran can punish the US despite being comically outgunned. Modern equivalents of Sherman and T-34 tanks over burdensome Tigers and a popula…

While Iran has faired better than I expected, it's a reach to say they've punished the US. The US losses are comically small. Of course wars aren't won solely based on battles...

The US' immediate material losses are peanuts, of course. And Iran's are massive.

Weeks after declaring victory, it remains a strategic blunder with no obvious way out.

The Hormuz quagmire was expected and the vile Iranian regime has a long history of murdering and sacrificing its population for political gains.

Since we're discussing a WoR article:

https://warontherocks.com/tactical-success-strategic-failure...

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#526

Post by defrost »

dwd wrote: post #520

I'm just happy the Australian Government invested in the MQ-28 Ghost Bat program. Unit cost is currently estimated to be USD$8-10m according to Boeing and we get a "loyal wingman" platform to force-multiply our small fleet of F-35s and F/A-18 Supers. It can also be remotely directed from the E-7 Wedgetail.

At a cost of $2.3 billion (AU(?)) to date so far and with costs set to increase going forward, are the flagship UAV Ghost Bat and Ghost Shark programs really bang for the buck "good investments" or examples of the ongoing Australian Defence habit of going all in for bespoke capability acquisition projects while ignoring the purchasing of “Military Off The Shelf” (MOTS) systems ?

I have a gut feeling more use (if and when required) would come from the parallel program of spending of $2.3 billion on a multitude of broadly spread smaller drone programs than from flagship drones .. or submarines when and if the US can spare one or get back in the building enough subs to sell extras game.

Related, for general interest:

* Yet another blunder at Defence, where ‘off the shelf’ is ignored for expensive bespoke solutions - https://www.crikey.com.au/2026/03/31/defence-procurement-mil...

* Australia banks on Ghost Bat and Ghost Shark in drone warfare shift - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-04-18/australia-military-dr...

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#527

Post by gherkinnn »

loglog wrote: post #199
gherkinnn wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ideas that I as a civilian was sold over the past decades don't appear to hold up any longer. As someone a while back put it, Russia lost several Bundeswehrs worth of equipment and keeps on grinding. Neither side is able to mass large forces, in a large part due to drones. And Iran can punish the US despite being comically outgunned. Modern equivalents of Sherman and T-34 tanks over burdensome Tigers and a popula…

A Bundeswehr worth of equipment is so little nowadays that Bundeswehr itself lost several Bundeswehrs worth of equipment while being at peace for the last few decades.

Can't argue with that. The context of that quote was Europe defending itself and the reality that most European states are simply not ready for such a high level of attrition.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#528

Post by matheusmoreira »

dh2022 wrote: post #523
matheusmoreira wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most of the world would unite against them Seriously doubt any country on Earth is going to attack Russia and risk global thermonuclear annihilation over anything other than a direct attack on their own lands.

I think if Russia drops a nuke on Ukraine then even China will desert them. India for sure will stop trading with Russia, lest it be seen to condone such insanity (India has a nuclear armed rival next door-India will not want Pakistan get any ideas). I think this is the only reason Russia did not nuke Ukraine.

Well, yes. Stop trading with them? I can believe that.

I don't believe for a second that even a single country will openly declare war on Russia over it or attempt to nuke Russia in return.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#529

Post by dinfinity »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #515
dinfinity wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 have a "this type" in your mind. I do not. Even then you're wrong. A drone can loiter and is thus not "literally the same type of thing" as a cruise missile or torpedo. > What is this hypothetical property of a UUV that is superior to a torpedo? [...] It still has to cros…

Are you oblivious to the fact that cruise missiles can loiter? You are making a distinction without a difference. All of this reads like you are not familiar with modern military capabilities. Longer ranger UUVs is equivalent to "even bigger torpedoes". Do you not understand the subject matter? There is a lot of evidence in this post that you do not. You are making up magical scenarios where your UUVs have properties…

> Are you oblivious to the fact that cruise missiles can loiter?

At which point we more commonly call them drones or loitering munition. Even using a broad definition, 95% of what technically could fall under cruise missiles is of the traditional non-loitering kind. Same goes for torpedoes.

> Longer ranger UUVs is equivalent to "even bigger torpedoes".

The term UUV covers an enormously diverse set of devices, from fullblown autonomous nuclear subs to tiny industrial inspection drones.

Narrow-mindedly handwaving new technology into bins you're already familiar with and approaching them as such is exactly the type of cognitive failure that lies at the basis of the phrase "generals are always fighting the last war".

Since you are being willfully ignorant, haven't properly addressed the answers I gave you and are throwing out ad hominems I will not spend any more time on you.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#530

Post by dinfinity »

wredcoll wrote: post #424
dinfinity wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And what platform do you imagine is launching these dozens of torp-- drones? This is the thing everyone fails to understand about carrier warfare: anything you can use to attack the carrier can be outranged by the carrier because it can just employ the same weapons but from airplanes that fly closer to you.

Bigger UUVs, also called LUUV and XLUUVs.
Post reply on HN