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

Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 101 posts

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#71

Post by euler_angles »

ossobuco wrote: post #67
KoftaBob wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US isn't the only NATO member that produces fighter jets. EU members of NATO make the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Dassault Rafale, and the Saab JAS 39 Gripen.

There are no F-35 equivalents beside the Russian Su-57 and Chinese J-20, afaik

Those are not really F-35 equivalents; they aimed for different points in the design space.

Both Russia and China cannot match the US on very low observable technologies, so they have tried to make the most low observable platform they could and then attempt the air combat problem with different technologies that they ARE good at. The J-20 has doubled down on having very long range, capable air to air missiles, as well as being highly datalinked with other Chinese platforms.

The Russians don't have nearly as good AAMs so they're just trying to be as maneuverable as possible.

I have a much higher opinion of the J-20 than I do the SU-57.

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#72

Post by euler_angles »

zcw100 wrote: post #68
euler_angles wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked with quite a few people who were part of the AI effort, and my current boss was the architect for ACE a few years ago. All of those people were painfully aware of the gap you describe here and were actively working to bridge it.

I'm sure you and your team were very aware. That was a very cool project and I'd be interested in hearing about your experience. My comment was more directed towards the armchair tech generals out there.

I didn't work on this effort, I am just in the same circles with a lot of people who did and still do.

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#73

Post by euler_angles »

orwin wrote: post #48
lm28469 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a bunch of microphones and binoculars would defeat stealth fighters (or any kind of jets) don't you think someone in the US, Chinese or Russian army would have thought about it ? Just as a reminder the thing is coming at mach 1.5-2 and as soon as it can it'll send a little present coming your way at mach 2-4 > therefore it must be possible to create devices that can detect it. What's the probability some over work…

I highly doubt f35 will use supersonic speed for anything else than repositioning/travel. In combat theaters i doubt it speed will go higher than Mach 0.8. And anyway, if you want CAS, to stop an army, A-10 will probably be a dozen time better suited than any multirole, and especially the f35 with its ridiculously low availability rate, or even better in that particular case, an AC-130 (that is probably able to direc…

The default for an F-35 is to be at something like M=0.9 and altitudes of 20-25kft.

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#74

Post by oefrha »

mrtksn wrote: post #43
oefrha wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's not invisible despite calling it that. It's visible in the visible spectrum and hearable in the human hearing range, which means that you can build detection and tracking systems in those wavelengths instead of pretending that its invisible because its hard to detect at radar wavelengths. That’s not a gotcha you seem to believe it is, it’s like the first thing you learn about stealth technology and has been ap…

Wow really? Someone else already noticed that invisible to radar isn’t invisible to eyesight and event teaching it? lots of smart people out there. I’m happy that you’re feeling smart and superior but that’s not the point, the point is signal collection and processing came a long way, and maybe low radar cross-section isn’t that big of a deal anymore. At least enough to justify spending huge sums on a plane that keep…

Your target is long gone by the time you can detect short wavelength visible spectrum. Jets don’t need to get physical with you to do damage, it’s not WW2 anymore. That’s not to say countermeasures aren’t a focal point of research.

There are lots of “smart people” out there shitting on very serious work after reading some tweets from captain obvious. There are lots of even smarter people who don’t think everyone else’s an idiot and therefore think long and hard before shitting on work they don’t understand.

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#75

Post by fmajid »

compass_copium wrote: post #52
mrtksn wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow really? Someone else already noticed that invisible to radar isn’t invisible to eyesight and event teaching it? lots of smart people out there. I’m happy that you’re feeling smart and superior but that’s not the point, the point is signal collection and processing came a long way, and maybe low radar cross-section isn’t that big of a deal anymore. At least enough to justify spending huge sums on a plane that keep…

>maybe low radar cross-section isn’t that big of a deal anymore That's simply not true. There is not a peer or near-peer country that is not developing a variety of low-RCS aircraft.

It’s not as if stealth is foolproof even to radar:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#76

Post by Albatross9237 »

orwin wrote: post #48
lm28469 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a bunch of microphones and binoculars would defeat stealth fighters (or any kind of jets) don't you think someone in the US, Chinese or Russian army would have thought about it ? Just as a reminder the thing is coming at mach 1.5-2 and as soon as it can it'll send a little present coming your way at mach 2-4 > therefore it must be possible to create devices that can detect it. What's the probability some over work…

I highly doubt f35 will use supersonic speed for anything else than repositioning/travel. In combat theaters i doubt it speed will go higher than Mach 0.8. And anyway, if you want CAS, to stop an army, A-10 will probably be a dozen time better suited than any multirole, and especially the f35 with its ridiculously low availability rate, or even better in that particular case, an AC-130 (that is probably able to direc…

Supersonic speeds would certainly be used for beyond visual range (BVR) engagements. Higher speeds mean you and your missiles have more energy and maneuverability. Since the F-35 needs to use it's afterburners to reach supersonic speeds, it likely wouldn't use the extra fuel just for transport.

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#77

Post by maxglute »

lm28469 wrote: post #34
mrtksn wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk can be many bad things, but he is also right in some things. Flying high might make it invisible for human observers but the idea is that it’s not invisible in that wavelength, therefore it must be possible to create devices that can detect it. Also, this is a brand new machine that is still not ready. Just write it off, liquidate any useful work that might have been done on it and go all in drones. What’s the p…

If a bunch of microphones and binoculars would defeat stealth fighters (or any kind of jets) don't you think someone in the US, Chinese or Russian army would have thought about it ? Just as a reminder the thing is coming at mach 1.5-2 and as soon as it can it'll send a little present coming your way at mach 2-4 > therefore it must be possible to create devices that can detect it. What's the probability some over work…

>would have thought about it

IIRC in 2000s there was talk by USAF that stealth is a 10-20 year advantage. Not something undefeatable. The actual degree to which stealth can be / is defeated, we wouldn't know until shooting starts. It's ancient technology at this point.

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#78

Post by dotancohen »

euler_angles wrote: post #66
dotancohen wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Gripen is not a dual-capable aircraft I did not realize that, thank you. I simply assumed that with the bomber role came the ability to carry a small (<500 pound) tactical nuke. Is this more of a certification issue or an actual hardware issue?

It's mostly a certification issue. There are some hardware changes and integration work that has to be done, but the biggest obstacle is that the certification work is done in and by the US. So there's a diplomatic element.

Thank you.

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#79

Post by Reubachi »

fmajid wrote: post #75
compass_copium wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>maybe low radar cross-section isn’t that big of a deal anymore That's simply not true. There is not a peer or near-peer country that is not developing a variety of low-RCS aircraft.

It’s not as if stealth is foolproof even to radar: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown

This incident happened precisely because the human controller activated radar twice to get a read on ground AA targets.

This is an operational/user fatigue error rather than a fault of the plane. It was completely blind to any and all AA until it turned on it's radar.

Which is to say, f35 Stealth characteristics are worth their weight until exactly the moment a human turns off "lane keep assist" because "they can do it better."

Re: Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

#80

Post by Reubachi »

hunglee2 wrote: post #4

Yet despite these problems, the F-35 remains the most commercially successful airframe in the world, with over 670 sold, and 2,500 on order from US-allied countries all over the world. What could explain this sales pipeline, if the F-35 was the boondoggle this article implies it to be?

A totally incorrect statement.

Super Hornet and Viper both dwarf this number by 10x and in every operational theatre in the world are exactly as competent as JSF. They currently are selling far more in every market than F35b, which is the most sold f35 to everyone's suprise.

No market is seeking out f35 specifically for nato congruence/stealth. (Though, The SVTOL variant is a pleasant market-friendly surprise for Lockheed. Turns out, many nations operate sub-fleet carriers that can handle harriers, ospreys, f35b.)

Recall that the JSF was drafted in the 90s, and an operational prototype existed in 2002.

The JFS program can be both impressive and way too expensive at the same time. It doesn't need to be setting records to justify it's existance.

Post reply on HN