The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed • Hacker News Board

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#941

Post by crazygringo » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 4:43 PM UTC

brokenmachine wrote: post #829

crazygringo wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your points are certainly common ones, but unfortunately they rely on three major misunderstandings. The first is that all the "cool shit" we built in the first half of the century was the low-hanging fruit of new scientific understandings and materials. It's not that we were smarter, it's nothing to do with toxicity, it's just that we exhausted most of what you can easily do with nuclear, steel, engines, etc…

>Being able to access Wikipedia or Google through speech recognition Terrible. Absolutely hopeless. Every few years I have another go at speech recognition, and it still sucks.

The glass is always half-empty I guess, right?

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#942

Post by goatinaboat » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

antattack wrote: post #311

evgen wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The F-35 program did not fail to foresee the rise of unmanned vehicles, they built and adapted the aircraft and avionics around this concept. The F-35 cockpit, avionics, and helmet are designed to allow an F-35 pilot to command a fleet of drones performing roles ranging from scouting and EW to SEAD and direct attack.

Human flying and directing drones to do some tasks is such a 20th century thinking. For one, human pilot in F-35 directing drones would be the weakest link. Why would you want to send a human pilot to face drone(s) that does not care for it's survival, can pull more Gs, calculate trajectory and make decisions faster?

Why would you want to send a human pilot to face drone(s)

Because an F35 can communicate over direct line-of-sight to its accompanying drones, so the whole package is very resistant to jamming or other interference.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#943

Post by greedo » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 5:19 PM UTC

xnyan wrote: post #933

greedo wrote: post #921

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing embarrassing about the F-22 was the decision to terminate production at 187 aircraft. The F-22 was and is an excellent aircraft, perhaps a bit ahead of its time in terms of need, but to call it an embarrassment doesn't have much accuracy.

> The F-22 was and is an excellent aircraft I love jets and the F-22 is both my favorite fighter and likely the best air superiority fighter in the world, so I get where you are coming from, but it is not an excellent aircraft for the current USAF mission when you look at it as a whole. Not only is the procurement cost of an F-22 extremely high, operationally it has been plagued by issues that hare only partially ele…

I look at the F-22 as an aircraft that was born too soon. The ATF program started in 1981, but nobody anticipated the fall of the Soviet Union. So it really never had a real need. Now its technology is outdated (in terms of electronics), and the stealth technology is expensive to maintain and support. It's still an incredible fighter, arguably the best in the world.

It's like some of the pocket battleships produced between WW1 and WW2. The technology was incredible, but expensive. And by the time war actually came, they were outdated. I think the F-22 will meet the same fate (and the B-2 as well). Silver bullets that were never really needed.

I also think many of your criticisms are due to the small amount actually produced. Spares were never produced in adequate volumes, and when a single accident reduces your aircraft inventory by almost 1% it makes you risk averse.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#944

Post by bumby » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 5:21 PM UTC

JamesBarney wrote: post #940

HelloMcFly wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is quite similar to one of my favorite saying that comes from my background in psychology: "When the mouse presses the lever, don't blame the mouse."

For the other side "No, it’s not The Incentives—it’s you" https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2018/10/02/no-its-not-the-in...

Interesting read, thank you.

There’s a distinction to be made between excusing bad behavior, but rather they explaining it. The article seems focused on the former, I’m more interested in the latter.

There are intrinsic and extrinsic incentives. I think the important part not touched upon is that for those actors extrinsically motivated (e.g., status, money, etc.) the system incentive will influence behavior much more than those more affected by intrinsic motivations.

The article is right that extrinsic motivations don’t excuse immoral behavior but when morals are lacking external controls are still needed. Developing the right extrinsic incentives provides guardrails for those who tend to lack intrinsic motivation that align. The article seems to think the solution is to “just act morally” which works at the individual level but that’s not really a policy at a system level (especially once we acknowledge everyone doesn’t share the same goals/motivations/morals)

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#945

Post by goatinaboat » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 5:22 PM UTC

Gustomaximus wrote: post #825

First, not an expert, just armchair critic so take what I say with a large pinch of salt, but... I think something US should take out of this is consider what Russia do with their monkey model strategy. Basically with something like tank/jet they do 2 models, one with all the bells and whistles and the other is a simple version. This has 2 main uses; 1) Export market so they can sell simpler/cheaper and not share all…

I think something US should take out of this is consider what Russia do with their monkey model strategy. Basically with something like tank/jet they do 2 models, one with all the bells and whistles and the other is a simple version.

You mean like they did with the F15 and the F16?

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#946

Post by jki275 » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 5:27 PM UTC

cameldrv wrote: post #281

GcVmvNhBsU wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious what your background is to make those statements. My experience from Red Flag and other exercises is that the 5th gens (22 & 35) have a much better K/D and survivability. When you expend all of your stand off weapons or need to get a B-2 deep into a contested airspace, including against SAMs, you need a 35 going in to do sanitization. No F-16 is fighting off both SAMs and a huge ass wave of J-10s or any J-20s…

Is this really realistic though? I'm curious about your professional perspective. My impression of the present/near future of air combat is a stealthy fighter with AMRAAMs in front, radar off, and a quarterback aircraft in back out of missile range, with the radar on. The front fighter fires and turns around, and the missile gets mid-course updates from the quarterback aircraft. When the AMRAAMs are depleted, you lea…

That's essentially loyal wingman.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#947

Post by callesgg » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 5:36 PM UTC

The us does not need new fighter jets. The current generation drones is enough. If the us needs something it is cheaper and better air to air missiles. Not that there is anyone to fight anyways. A drone with 2 guided missiles that can be lost with no human casualty is allot better than any human carrying fighter aircraft could every be. And it does not have to be fast cause 1. the missiles are fast 2. it does not matter if the drone is lost.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#948

Post by freeopinion » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 5:39 PM UTC

relaxing wrote: post #606

freeopinion wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grid infrastructure and rail lines jump to my mind often in these discussions. I am reminded how we got existing rail line through much of the U.S. 19th century land acquisition for private parties who built that infrastructure is easy to spin as a travesty. In many cases it was blatant corruption. And the legacy lasts to this day. All of that land and infrastructure is still privately owned. Fast forward to today. I…

Re: USPS, I’m still waiting to hear the interesting part. The USPS is legally obligated to deliver mail to every household, 6 days a week. The private carriers don’t come anywhere close to meeting that level of service. Most of the US is incredibly sparsely populated. There won’t be bicycle contractors lining up to deliver mail up the Adirondacks or across the Great Plains. How would a network of private interests ha…

The USPS does not deliver mail to every household. Nor do they deliver universally six days a week.

Where I live, USPS doesn't deliver to any household, but UPS and FedEx do.

But that is beside the point. Any party that contracted with the USPS would be obligated to meet the terms of the contract.

You might be surprised at who lines up to deliver mail up the Adirondacks. One of the virtues of a free market is the amazing ingenuity of entrepreneurs to meet market demand in the most efficient ways. The free market provides the motivation for such ingenuity whereas non-profit single-player monopolies often don't.

But still this misses my interest in this discussion. I think there is an optimum balance for publicly-owned infrastructure and privately-owned service providers. But that balance is not always obvious and usually not stable. I think there is great benefit in continuous discussion of the pros and cons to monitor and adjust how we leverage the strengths of both sides of the equation.

I like the idea of "build more rail lines." But it takes more that four words to make this happen. If you are just trying to replace the pork of military spending, then perhaps the details don't matter. Just trade one corruption for another. Let the power brokers beat each other up clamoring for the money.

But if you're making such radical changes to the redistribution of wealth, why not have some thoughtful discussion that people can reference for the next 100s of years. Who are the Lockes and Keynes of 2021? I know they exist. Let's bring them out in public discussion.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#949

Post by sokoloff » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 5:53 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #923

sokoloff wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flying cars marry terrible airplanes with terrible cars. I’m not sure what would cause that general rule to be broken, but the demands of crash safety for cars add a lot of weight and weight is the killer negative metric for aircraft.

If you're going to fly do you really need the car to be highway worthy? A flying car that goes up to 30 mph could be acceptable.

If you're going to license it as a low-speed vehicle (limited to 25 mph federally by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 500), you will be barred from many surface streets with speed limits of greater than 30 mph, depending on state law.

In trying to map out whether I could get from my house to my local airport exclusively on roads with 30 mph or lower speed limits, I had a hard time proving it. All of the obvious routes that I actually use had at least one segment with a speed limit of 35 mph or higher, which is barred by my state law (Massachusetts).

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#950

Post by Retric » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 6:05 PM UTC

greedo wrote: post #912

Retric wrote: post #832

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US doesn’t have any Block 60 or 70/72 so it’s a tricky comparison due to low production numbers. Looking at the US’s actual fleet the F16 was a much cheaper aircraft and likely would have stayed at roughly those numbers. Anyway, we already had the F22, the F35 was supposed to be the cheaper alternative and it mostly delivered on that. But now we have a very capable aircraft with far to many roles to excel at all…

Roles for the F-35: 1. Supersonic stealthy STOL for the USMC. Check 2. Supersonic stealthy replacement for A-7/F-18. Check 3. Supersonic stealthy replacement for F-16. Check Despite its detractors, the F-35 is an excellent aircraft that is doing quite well in squadron usage. The USMC loves their B model, operating off of their mini carriers. The USAF is getting enough on the line that sustainment costs are bending do…

To be clear I think the F35 is a very solid aircraft, but don’t gloss over the details.

The F35 is aiming to be both an air superiority and strike aircraft, and do electronic warfare and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, while being stealthy and cheaper than the F22.

Now add F18 missions like fighter escort and fleet air defense which add yet more demands.

You get less stealth, less speed, less range, less payload, and or fewer sensors etc than an aircraft dedicated to a smaller range of roles. Meanwhile you need to pay for all the capacity that aren’t particularly relevant when doing any specific mission.

Sure, generally being capable of Mach 2.2+ for example isn’t such a big deal. However, if you’re deep in enemy territory and low on munitions it’s quite valuable to quickly escape any reinforcements that show up. On the other hand when escorting a fleet all that extra engine is mostly wasted and costing you fuel.