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

711–719 of 719 posts

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#711

Post by dgroshev »

maxglute wrote: post #708
wredcoll wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The usual constraints of hunting and finding in vast area So how are you hunting and finding the carriers in the first place? You can't have it both ways. > I thought the carriers were off Iran and staged well back? I can't see them being as far back as China myself, but perhaps you have some curious reason for wanting to spread them out some place far far away from the conflict. I have no knowledge of that, obviou…

It's 2026, PRC has GEOsync ISR (optic+SAR) with persistent coverage of Pacific and beyond. Combined with 500+ other ISR sats, they basically have full coverage in relevant theatres, with hand offs for tracking/queuing/targeting. There's really nowhere for surface combatants to evade/hide anymore vs PRC tier adversary. US doesn't have ASAT capabilities to shootdown beyond LEO. Without ranting too much, highend C4ISR i…

This is just nonsense. An unmanned platform that can stay on station for a significant time and strike at hundreds of miles and have enough payload to deal significant damage and be fast enough to arrive in meaningful time and somehow survive approaching a carrier group (those planes have guns, remember? it's not just SM-6 spam) cannot be cheap because of hard physical constraints like the energy required to stay in the air. There are no such "COTS" platforms, DJI quads don't cut it across multiple dimensions.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#712

Post by maxglute »

dgroshev wrote: post #711
maxglute wrote: post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 2026, PRC has GEOsync ISR (optic+SAR) with persistent coverage of Pacific and beyond. Combined with 500+ other ISR sats, they basically have full coverage in relevant theatres, with hand offs for tracking/queuing/targeting. There's really nowhere for surface combatants to evade/hide anymore vs PRC tier adversary. US doesn't have ASAT capabilities to shootdown beyond LEO. Without ranting too much, highend C4ISR i…

This is just nonsense. An unmanned platform that can stay on station for a significant time and strike at hundreds of miles and have enough payload to deal significant damage and be fast enough to arrive in meaningful time and somehow survive approaching a carrier group (those planes have guns, remember? it's not just SM-6 spam) cannot be cheap because of hard physical constraints like the energy required to stay in…

Clearly I'm not talking about hobbyist quads. We're talking shaheed tier loitering munitions, which is completely COTS (i.e. moped piston engines and for Iran sanctioned electronics stripped from washing machines). That's what PRC acquired 1M units of except with indigenous PRC supply chain which can also enhance Iran's D- execution, i.e. add resilient barrage EW proof mesh networking (all commoditized by now), more efficient hfe propulsion to extend ~2500km to ~4000km with some planform improvements. Synergize with high end orbital C4ISR = any carrier fleet within 3000km = swarm loitering no escape zone = as in carriers (must) bolt in opposite direction and drone will geometrically catchup. 3000km also basically max carrier sortie / stand off range with tanking, i.e. functionally A2D2 to push carriers to effectively 0 sortie range.

It's more or less simple VLS and CVW magazine math to figure out total carrier group saturation numbers. This also assuming prioritizing carrier survival... i.e. CVWs may not even be geometrically recoverable if carriers has to GTFO.

Napkin math hypothetical, if a stacked carrier group with 3DDGs quad packed antiair and CVWs where most tasking dedicated to shooting down drones... PRC needs to launch ~3000 enhanced shaheed136 tier moped munitions to fully deplete magazine and saturate. Considering PRC procurement likely getting them at fraction price of Iran (i.e. 10-20k, remember Iran has sanction tax), this probably actually cheaper than PRC hypersonic salvos. We're talking sub 100m swarms that effectively defeat carriers or at minimum draw billions in interceptors. VS 100m tier1 hypersonic ashm salvos that can do so in 1/20th time.

The TLDR is knowing where carriers are is theoretically a solved problem, and knowing where carriers are enables conemps/ops vs those who do not, i.e. if Iran can somehow launch 10000 drones, simply having shit C4ISR means they can't use same tactic.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#713

Post by dgroshev »

maxglute wrote: post #712
dgroshev wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just nonsense. An unmanned platform that can stay on station for a significant time and strike at hundreds of miles and have enough payload to deal significant damage and be fast enough to arrive in meaningful time and somehow survive approaching a carrier group (those planes have guns, remember? it's not just SM-6 spam) cannot be cheap because of hard physical constraints like the energy required to stay in…

Clearly I'm not talking about hobbyist quads. We're talking shaheed tier loitering munitions, which is completely COTS (i.e. moped piston engines and for Iran sanctioned electronics stripped from washing machines). That's what PRC acquired 1M units of except with indigenous PRC supply chain which can also enhance Iran's D- execution, i.e. add resilient barrage EW proof mesh networking (all commoditized by now), more…

You keep saying "loitering" and then use one way ranges. If "loitering", where does the time on station come from? Are the drones refuelled? Do they land or do they just crash when they run out of fuel? Or is "loitering" just as a buzzword devoid of meaning?

No, prop drones don't "geometrically catchup". Shahed's extreme range achieved by flying really slow, the top speed (which they don't sustain constantly to conserve fuel) is about 185kph, for the maximum flight time of about 13 hours. US carriers officially can sustain 60kph indefinitely, and in practice they can go faster. That means on a straight line a Shahed can only gain 1600km in the absolute best scenario. In reality it's much less, because launching takes time and the average speed is slower.

The capabilities that you're describing are a fantasy.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#714

Post by maxglute »

dgroshev wrote: post #713
maxglute wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly I'm not talking about hobbyist quads. We're talking shaheed tier loitering munitions, which is completely COTS (i.e. moped piston engines and for Iran sanctioned electronics stripped from washing machines). That's what PRC acquired 1M units of except with indigenous PRC supply chain which can also enhance Iran's D- execution, i.e. add resilient barrage EW proof mesh networking (all commoditized by now), more…

You keep saying "loitering" and then use one way ranges. If "loitering", where does the time on station come from? Are the drones refuelled? Do they land or do they just crash when they run out of fuel? Or is "loitering" just as a buzzword devoid of meaning? No, prop drones don't "geometrically catchup". Shahed's extreme range achieved by flying really slow, the top speed (which they don't sustain constantly to conse…

Loitering just means extended endurance, i.e. piston engine that can stay on station for 20+ hours / enhanced range of ~4500km, but can also function as attritable max range munitions. They're loitering because definitionally they can loiter, especially with datalink for midcourse corrections (again PRC specialty). It's basically value engineered TLAMs (which you know, loiters) on props instead of turbofan, where props trade speed advantage for range, but speed completely negated by massive A2D2 no escape zone because props still significantly faster than any surface fleet.

>geometrically catchup

A carrier at 3000km and GTFO sprint opposite direction at max speed, i.e. 30knots / 60km, will have prop drones closing speed/gap at 120km per hour. AKA intercept time distance around ~24 hours at 4500km. Hence why I said ENHANCED shaheeds, i.e. swap propulsion with 30% more efficient heavy fuel engines, increase aspect ratio and improved shaheed basically makes carriers operating within 3000kms unable to reach ~4500km endurance no escape zone. This within the platforms SWAP potential, technically can also just swap payload for fuel but HFE and planform improvements simply more efficient.

3000km also VASTLY optimistic scenario for carriers and limits of prop planform/SWAP potential, it's functionally carrier at 0 sortie scrap metal range. Realistically carriers max effective standoff is ~2200km, at which point effective sorties down to 20% (rest tanking/support). So no, mathematically, carriers cannot fastandfurious straight line out of this, and definitely not surface fleet escorts. The capabilities I'm describing is pedestrian for PRC. Unless one thinks PRC cannot build a better shaheed than Iran who literally built them in caves with box of scraps.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#715

Post by sofixa »

johnsmith1840 wrote: post #628
sofixa wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Am…

So, hypothetical. If US lost public support then destroyed all oil and major iranian infra then left what would happen? Think 20 years down the line what that would do.

The Iranian regime still has the millions of fanatically loyal men, so they'll still retain control, probably. Just over a much poorer country.

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#716

Post by space_fountain »

Schiendelman wrote: post #700
space_fountain wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? It's not exactly hard? The exact capabilities aren't public, but there are companies that provide daily synthetic radar captures for the whole globe and similarly companies that do this for imagery. It would take ages but I think you and I could both right an algorithm to classify if an image or high map has an aircraft carrier in it? Even if you can't get data for the whole globe taking a photo of a 10 mile…

I understand you don't think it's hard. It's hard. I'm trying to provide information to help people here understand why. What you're proposing doesn't work. Are you interested in understanding why it doesn't work?

Yes, I am interested in understanding why this is hard

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#717

Post by space_fountain »

wredcoll wrote: post #706
space_fountain wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? It's not exactly hard? The exact capabilities aren't public, but there are companies that provide daily synthetic radar captures for the whole globe and similarly companies that do this for imagery. It would take ages but I think you and I could both right an algorithm to classify if an image or high map has an aircraft carrier in it? Even if you can't get data for the whole globe taking a photo of a 10 mile…

> Aircraft carriers and tanks are both capable machines built and designed for a different environment than we have now. People have been saying this for approximately the last 50 years. Maybe it's true today, but the odds are against it.

I mean we haven't had major power conflict in 50 years and they haven't seemed very useful in Ukraine

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#718

Post by thephyber »

thephyber wrote: post #474
lesuorac wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's because it is a lumbering bureaucracy full of people who couldn't get better jobs elsewhere So, raise the amount of money paid to the military so the most qualified candidates apply?

The most qualified candidates for what? 100% of people in the military have passed the ASVAB. And the most capable people in the military are EXTREMELY intelligent. The problem is unlocking that brilliance in an organization which has LOTS of office politics, cross currents, uncoordinated long term goals, too many interests who get to requirements to every project, etc. And the biggest problem is that everything the…

> the A10 is *unkillable

Re: F-35 is built for the wrong war

#719

Post by Beijinger »

KylerAce wrote: post #682
Beijinger wrote: post #455

No plane is invisible. It is totally unclear if Russian or Chinese technology can detect them. I mean, there is one way to find out.... This being said, should the "invisibility" fail, it becomes a plane that can't dog fight, cant fly very high, can't fly very fast, can't carry a lot of load, needs an insane amount of maintenance (10h per 1h flight) and is expensive. Big bet! Superiority comes to mind: https://en.wik…

Dog fighting is not a serious concern in modern fighter combat because missiles have gotten so effective that the current strategy has been forced into beyond visual range combat. And stealth doesn't just "fail". In bvr the first side that sees the other is the side that gets to fire a salvo first, which is the primary advantage of stealth technology: so that the enemy doesn't see you from as far as you can see them.…

"Dog fighting is not a serious concern in modern fighter combat"

We heard this before and it was a disaster.

"And stealth doesn't just "fail"."

Nothing is invisible. It depends on your frequency that you use for detection and other technologies. You will find out if your are "invisible" for an able opponent (speak, China, Russia, not Iran) in battle. But then it may be too late.

Read the Sci Fi story "Superiority", formerly required reading at MIT engineering courses.

Post reply on HN