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

551–560 of 719 posts

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#551

Post by Voultapher »

pjmlp wrote: post #546
jjk166 wrote: 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…

And proudly written in C++! I like having C++ on my toolbox, but when Bjarne Stroustoup proudly talks about "F-35 Fighter Jet’s C++ Coding Standards" I am not sure it lands how he thinks it does, given how it turned out to be. Quite certain that it also contributed to all the software glichs F-35 suffers from.

The whole Coding Standards talk has always felt like an own goal. Don't get me wrong I have extensive C++ experience and wouldn't work on a project that doesn't have guidelines. But the fact that one _needs_ plain english and hard to check in an automated fashion guidelines when using the tool that is C++ implies something about the deeper culture and issues at play.

Sir you're holding the wrong handle.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#552

Post by paintbox »

johnsmith1840 wrote: post #532
throwaway302340 wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So none of them lost on ground in Iran. Do we really need to play these semantic games? An F-35 was confirmed successfully targeted and hit by Iranian Air Defenses. The pilot was confirmed (by the DoW) to have been injured. The plane in question seems to have been able to make its way back to friendly territory. Every other detail about this incident is cloaked in fog of war with Vietnam-era narrative stealth techn…

US lost more planes to friendly fire and accidents than the enemy. We've killed more senior leadership than total US deaths in the war. Iran has not killed a single pilot or sailor. That's a generational ass whooping.

> US lost more planes to friendly fire and accidents than the enemy

Truly a force to be reckoned with.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#553

Post by nerdsniper »

wredcoll wrote: post #422
nerdsniper wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is putting containerized missile launch tubes and drone launch systems on their container ships. If these get widely deployed at some point, there could come a time when there will be weapon systems already on-location in all of the major ports of China's adversaries. Most naval facilities have civilian ports nearby. Despite the nuclear reactor, aircraft carriers won't stay in the fight long if their supply lin…

> China is putting containerized missile launch tubes and drone launch systems on their container ships. If these get widely deployed at some point, there could come a time when there will be weapon systems already on-location in all of the major ports of China's adversaries. Most naval facilities have civilian ports nearby. Why not just put a nuke in their instead? Like, how is this supposed to work, china just has…

> How is this supposed to work, china just has a totally not suspicious container ship sitting in every major port not moving or carrying cargo or letting anyone inspect it and nobody notices that its full of weapons?

Actually, exactly like that. It looks completely normal. Container ships are super massive, and generally containers are only searched after they're offloaded, before leaving the port. So they don't get searched if they remain on the vehicle.

> you don't get to just sail your container ship next to a carrier

A lot of drones have surprisingly long range.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#554

Post by Zardoz84 »

cm2012 wrote: post #352
jjk166 wrote: 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…

A lot of big words, but also inaccurate. If you compare the F-35 to basically any plane worldwide with similar capabilities, it's very reasonably priced. You can see that in that it's very popular for export, with pre-sales already sold out until 2035. There are plenty of articles out there on this for those who want to Google it.

Was. Having a remote "power off" button, have the effect of chaning the mind of many potential buyers. Specially with Trump.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#555

Post by sofixa »

dralley wrote: post #484
jjk166 wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you compare the F-35 to basically any plane worldwide with similar capabilities, it's very reasonably priced. If you compare corvettes to other sports cars, you'll find they are very reasonably priced. That doesn't make a corvette a good economical option for day to day commuting. There are only 2 5th generation fighters available for export - the F-35 and the J-35. The F-35 is 40% more expensive than the J-35.…

The F-35 is cheaper than most of the 4th generation fighters on the market. Cheaper than Eurofighter, cheaper than Rafale, cheaper than Gripen.

Cheaper to buy. But with double the operational costs and only 50% availability, this is a miniature part of the story.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#556

Post by sofixa »

johnsmith1840 wrote: post #532
throwaway302340 wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So none of them lost on ground in Iran. Do we really need to play these semantic games? An F-35 was confirmed successfully targeted and hit by Iranian Air Defenses. The pilot was confirmed (by the DoW) to have been injured. The plane in question seems to have been able to make its way back to friendly territory. Every other detail about this incident is cloaked in fog of war with Vietnam-era narrative stealth techn…

US lost more planes to friendly fire and accidents than the enemy. We've killed more senior leadership than total US deaths in the war. Iran has not killed a single pilot or sailor. That's a generational ass whooping.

Funnily that's all utterly irrelevant.

Like Vietnam showed, it doesn't matter how much better numbers than the enemy you have, because kill counts don't win wars.

Iran is still the one closer to achieving its objectives (survival for the regime), because they don't need to do much for that to happen. Apply pressure to the Gulf states and global energy and fertiliser markets and at some point, the US will cave. The American public will not tolerate high gas and everything related prices for long, and especially with an election coming up, there will be significant pressure.

US/Israel's war goals are basically unachievable. They can't enforce regime change on a regime backed by millions of fanatical loyal men, with defence and terrain on their side. They can certainly try a land invasion, but that would take years and cost a lot in casualties.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#557

Post by smcin »

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.

Wouldn't that be the war crime of perfidy, similar to when the US used a secret plane painted as a civilian aircraft to sink one of the Venezuelan boats 9/2025?

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#559

Post by marcus_holmes »

usrnm wrote: post #542
marcus_holmes wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're suggesting that bombing civilian infrastructure will cause the Iranians to surrender (or to concede negotiating points in order to stop the bombing). My point is that this doesn't work - the British under The Blitz famously had "Blitz Spirit" that was all about enduring the bombing and showing the Germans that they couldn't be beaten like this. The Vietnamese did not try to stop the bombing by surrendering or…

Japan?

sure, if you think kicking off a nuclear war is a viable option ;)

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#560

Post by marcus_holmes »

tennysont wrote: post #521
marcus_holmes wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Kinda both, really.

Air supremacy (using your useful NATO definition) is not stopping Iran from flying drones and missiles. I don't know if that therefore contradicts the US/Israeli forces having Air Supremacy, or if Air Supremacy itself is an outdated term because it doesn't allow for the kind of drone bombardment we see now.

Either way, it's not "complete dominance" which is where we started from ;)

Post reply on HN