The F-35 still has a long way to go(warisboring.com)
warisboring.com
The F-35 still has a long way to go
https://warisboring.com/the-f-35-is-a-terrible-fighter-bomber-and-attacker-and-unfit-for-aircraft-carriers/
244 comments
[deleted]
[deleted]
Especially if John Carmack was working on the skunkworks team.
Not remotely required, the solution is known but the system specs are locked in and won't be changed.
I agree, but the bigger problems with the DAS arise from it being built by several companies, who argue whose fault it is, rather than how to make it work. So no one is responsible and also capable of fixing it.
Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor for the DAS. Who are its subs?
I know they have research groups like ARPA back in the day that gave us the internet we know and love from ARPAnet. But they really do need a startup like mentality with smaller teams inside to come up with competing ideas.
Defense contractors probably have something like this internally and that may be why they won out over bureaucracy, but that then leads to companies blaming one another for changes/scope/spec problems. Prototypes probably aren't focused on enough to shake out issues early on and throughout.
Or maybe do more x-prize type events for skunkworks starting and recruiting. Self-driving cars really came from this with the DARPA Grand Challenge.
With DARPA like challenges, as a side benefit, ideas can both be military and commercially available and it helps people understand that military funds aren't just for blowing things up but lots of great tech come from it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge
Defense contractors probably have something like this internally and that may be why they won out over bureaucracy, but that then leads to companies blaming one another for changes/scope/spec problems. Prototypes probably aren't focused on enough to shake out issues early on and throughout.
Or maybe do more x-prize type events for skunkworks starting and recruiting. Self-driving cars really came from this with the DARPA Grand Challenge.
With DARPA like challenges, as a side benefit, ideas can both be military and commercially available and it helps people understand that military funds aren't just for blowing things up but lots of great tech come from it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge
The fundamental problem for me is the cognitive dissonance of needing to put a pilot into a machine where everything is mediated by a computer that doesn't need a pilot. The digital helmet projects what the pilot often sees from cameras, so the pilot isn't really looking through a window, but seeing through a digital camera. Targets are discovered by network interface to other planes. Geographic features are pre-loaded into the plan as a data file. The control inputs from the pilot have no predictable linear feedback, Instead they constantly adjust for various factors like wing slip or aerodynamic drag from the cannon being open.
So the pilot isn't using his senses to decide what to do or his reflexes to control the plane. Why is the pilot in the plane?
So the pilot isn't using his senses to decide what to do or his reflexes to control the plane. Why is the pilot in the plane?
Largely because of what we now call the Fighter Mafia.
At the time they were the antidote to the "Bomber Mafia." However as time went on the ethos of the pilot and "airmanship" as the most important aspect of the Air Force continued to dominate.
That said, there is an argument to be made for pink and squishy still in the cockpit - though too long to argue here and I'm not the right person to do it. However if anything, the amount that the AF has dedicated to UAV/RPA/UCAS operations over the last decade has really shown that if it works, the AF will do it regardless of where the flight control monkeys (derisive term for pilots) physically sit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_Mafia
At the time they were the antidote to the "Bomber Mafia." However as time went on the ethos of the pilot and "airmanship" as the most important aspect of the Air Force continued to dominate.
That said, there is an argument to be made for pink and squishy still in the cockpit - though too long to argue here and I'm not the right person to do it. However if anything, the amount that the AF has dedicated to UAV/RPA/UCAS operations over the last decade has really shown that if it works, the AF will do it regardless of where the flight control monkeys (derisive term for pilots) physically sit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_Mafia
[deleted]
Note that this is also an excellent argument against human space flight.
It's certainly an argument for minimising human space flight (e.g. don't use manned flights for routine events / keep a minimal crew by placing the craft under computer control), but not eliminating it entirely:
* Manned space flight, e.g. putting a man on Mars, is going to catch the public's attention more than unmanned flight, and IMO anything which helps popularise the sciences is generally a good thing.
* Human space flight is a goal in itself. People have been exploring the Earth for centuries despite the risks, so exploring space (in person) is just an extension of that. There also may come a time where living off-planet may be necessary, or at least desirable, so having the knowledge to do so may be useful.
* Manned space flight, e.g. putting a man on Mars, is going to catch the public's attention more than unmanned flight, and IMO anything which helps popularise the sciences is generally a good thing.
* Human space flight is a goal in itself. People have been exploring the Earth for centuries despite the risks, so exploring space (in person) is just an extension of that. There also may come a time where living off-planet may be necessary, or at least desirable, so having the knowledge to do so may be useful.
To your first point, I think we've seen that robotic probes get people very excited about science, particularly when they can return high-quality photos and video.
The best-case scenario for manned space flight in our lifetime is that we go to Mars. Robot probes, on the other hand, can go to some wild places in the solar system, including places that would be lethal to a human crew. And they do so at 1% of the cost of manned missions.
I'd wager the excitement per dollar spent is higher for robot probes.
The best-case scenario for manned space flight in our lifetime is that we go to Mars. Robot probes, on the other hand, can go to some wild places in the solar system, including places that would be lethal to a human crew. And they do so at 1% of the cost of manned missions.
I'd wager the excitement per dollar spent is higher for robot probes.
It is higher for you, perhaps, and for techies. The average person does not care at all about autonomous landing on an asteroid, despite the scientific and engineering feat it is.
People cheered for the man landing on the moon, all over the world, even in the communist block, despite loosing the space race with that very event. Why? Because it was about people! Because the even the ordinary people could relate to the event.
People cheered for the man landing on the moon, all over the world, even in the communist block, despite loosing the space race with that very event. Why? Because it was about people! Because the even the ordinary people could relate to the event.
Exactly. Unless people are actually going into space, there is no point in it at all, well beyond satellites anyway.
Think about here on Earth. You can get high definition photo and video from anywhere on the planet. But people still love to travel. Because it's no substitute for the real thing.
Think about here on Earth. You can get high definition photo and video from anywhere on the planet. But people still love to travel. Because it's no substitute for the real thing.
Its funny, because the very same idea popped into my mind a few minutes ago, while I was eating bacon and fresh vegetables. Not eating algae and looking at a photo of bacon ;). Simply that is how people work.
[deleted]
I doubt that most gravely. Even if true, it would be so only because the cost was so absurdly high to send satellite mechanics up to LEO in the world's second-biggest boondoggle of a spacegoing contractor's van that we used. (World's biggest boondoggle being, of course, the subject of this thread.)
The reason why the post-Apollo space program has been so uninspiring is that the only part of Dr. von Braun's vision we actually brought to fruition was the least inspiring part that still went outside the atmosphere - and that only because the Air Force signed on, needing spy satellite mechanics and finding it cheaper to chip in on someone else's otherwise doomed program than to fund a novel one of their own.
Of course, now they can use a robot in that role, and do. No reason to spend any more money on a boondoggle of a space truck, so now our best hope of resuming manned spaceflight rests with a couple of creepy, etiolated billionaires. For someone raised in the vision of Dr. von Braun, to describe this state of affairs as merely dispiriting is to beggar language.
By now we might have been living in orbit and on the moon - we might have been sending men and women to Mars, and preparing to establish our first colonies there. Instead, we fill our sky with robots tending robots and send robots as proxies to mail us their snapshots of the solar system's wonders, while we stay at home - because to do otherwise would cost too much, and besides, someone might get hurt.
If you can manage to find that inspiring, you're welcome - and also quite rare.
The reason why the post-Apollo space program has been so uninspiring is that the only part of Dr. von Braun's vision we actually brought to fruition was the least inspiring part that still went outside the atmosphere - and that only because the Air Force signed on, needing spy satellite mechanics and finding it cheaper to chip in on someone else's otherwise doomed program than to fund a novel one of their own.
Of course, now they can use a robot in that role, and do. No reason to spend any more money on a boondoggle of a space truck, so now our best hope of resuming manned spaceflight rests with a couple of creepy, etiolated billionaires. For someone raised in the vision of Dr. von Braun, to describe this state of affairs as merely dispiriting is to beggar language.
By now we might have been living in orbit and on the moon - we might have been sending men and women to Mars, and preparing to establish our first colonies there. Instead, we fill our sky with robots tending robots and send robots as proxies to mail us their snapshots of the solar system's wonders, while we stay at home - because to do otherwise would cost too much, and besides, someone might get hurt.
If you can manage to find that inspiring, you're welcome - and also quite rare.
Well said!
Against human piloted space flight. There's no argument here against human passengers going off to explore.
It depends if they are there to pilot or they are there to go outside and build things.
Most construction in space at this point is one off, robots probably aren't quite at the point where they can have robots perform any generalized construction required. Of course I don't think we should be placing humans in the loop unless they are required.
Also a lot of the ISS work is experiments, each with their own setup and criteria.
Obviously at some point this will be solved, but there is still the point of having humans in more places than just the Earth.
Also a lot of the ISS work is experiments, each with their own setup and criteria.
Obviously at some point this will be solved, but there is still the point of having humans in more places than just the Earth.
You make a good point about construction in space. As far as ISS work experiments, I wonder if they are as automated as they could be.
One of the odder requirements for experiments in the Shuttle was that they had to require human interaction. NASA didn't want to send a spaceship full of astronauts up to babysit fully automated experiments.
One of the odder requirements for experiments in the Shuttle was that they had to require human interaction. NASA didn't want to send a spaceship full of astronauts up to babysit fully automated experiments.
Not really (or at least, it depends on the situation). Space missions are often subject to all sorts of latency issues. Debugging a probe or rover that's multiple light-minutes away is no small feat, whereas debugging one that's a few light-seconds at most is much easier.
NASA and JPL have an admirable track record of remote debugging at this point.
Indeed they do. Certainly not an ideal situation, though.
Well, article mentions computer not being able to properly identify same target by merging different sensor data (it shows two targets instead).
I'd say that reason alone warrants a pilot.
I'd say that reason alone warrants a pilot.
Sure, but the question wasn't "why is there a pilot?", it was "why is the pilot in the plane?" Making a judgment about sensor data could just as easily be done from elsewhere.
Because networks are unreliable.
Because of latency. I have read several articles about drone pilots. The latency is a really big issue, the biggest of all.
Because of limited bandwidth.
Because of jamming.
Because pilots care better for the multimillion$ equipment if their life is also at stake. (This being the least important)
Because while human life is at stake military and political leaders think twice before starting a war and sending in the fighters/bombers.
Because of latency. I have read several articles about drone pilots. The latency is a really big issue, the biggest of all.
Because of limited bandwidth.
Because of jamming.
Because pilots care better for the multimillion$ equipment if their life is also at stake. (This being the least important)
Because while human life is at stake military and political leaders think twice before starting a war and sending in the fighters/bombers.
For a modern opponent, disrupting remote control is much easier than disabling in-plane controls...
> "The digital helmet projects what the pilot often sees from cameras, so the pilot isn't really looking through a window, but seeing through a digital camera."
Right, but what part of the airplane figures out which things on the screen are friendly or hostile?
Hint: it's squishy, on average less than two meters tall, and riding in the cockpit.
Now granted, that can technically be done from outside the airplane, but if contact with the plane is lost for any reason, you lose that bit of wetware seated at the helm.
Hint: it's squishy, on average less than two meters tall, and riding in the cockpit.
Now granted, that can technically be done from outside the airplane, but if contact with the plane is lost for any reason, you lose that bit of wetware seated at the helm.
If this were a traditional (before 5th generation) aircraft, you'd be correct. But in the F-35, the pilot isn't the sensor fusion engine. The aircraft software has this responsibility in the F-35. The Fusion engine in the F-35 takes in information from the Radar, DAS, EOTS, Electronic Warfare, Comm and Navigation system, and data link information from other aircraft, and tries to figure out what that information means (is that an aircraft, what kind is it, is it friendly, etc).
> but if contact with the plane is lost for any reason, you lose that bit of wetware seated at the helm.
I agree with this, but this wasn't your original point.
I agree with this, but this wasn't your original point.
Network latency and reliability are much worse between the plane and pilot when they're separated by a few hundred miles or more...
There's already a lot of suggestion that Adir (the Israeli F-35) has seen combat over Syria in January. At a minimum French intelligence [1] and Israeli media [2] claim the attack was carried out using F-35s. They reportedly went on to perform a flyby of Assad's palace.
Adir has special kit which may replace some of the problem components in the stock American version, but the air frame itself isn't a "long way" from being combat-ready.
[1] http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/2017/03/07/have-israels-new-... [2] https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/video-footage-israeli-j...
Adir has special kit which may replace some of the problem components in the stock American version, but the air frame itself isn't a "long way" from being combat-ready.
[1] http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/2017/03/07/have-israels-new-... [2] https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/video-footage-israeli-j...
It's not believable that the Israelis would risk an expensive new plane only days into testing on missions. The only "source" is a French journalists, and numerous other experts have expressed substantial doubt about his story.
> It's not believable that the Israelis would risk an expensive new plane only days into testing on missions.
Why? Is Israel paying now?
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/12/israels-free-ride/
Also worth noting that the 2nd link above says Israeli media reported it too. Are there any credible denials which suggest which aircraft was actually used? Everything I can find only says it's "unlikely" but won't go further. Who are the numerous experts? Why would they use aircraft which aren't stealthy while Russia has an ever-increasing presence in Syria?
Why? Is Israel paying now?
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/12/israels-free-ride/
Also worth noting that the 2nd link above says Israeli media reported it too. Are there any credible denials which suggest which aircraft was actually used? Everything I can find only says it's "unlikely" but won't go further. Who are the numerous experts? Why would they use aircraft which aren't stealthy while Russia has an ever-increasing presence in Syria?
The israelis are the reason the world knows about stuxnet because of their hubris and 'fuck-you' attitude. Of course is is believable that they would use the f-35 early to show how big their swinging dick can be with america as their funding bitch... so yeah... I totally believe the israelis could have done this.
The other option is the US did it with the plausible deniability that israel would be blamed in order to test the f-35.
I mean, if it were you, wouldnt you want to test the damn thing in an operation after all the spending and PR the plane has received. Even behind closed doors you'd want to be able to say "See! It works"
The other option is the US did it with the plausible deniability that israel would be blamed in order to test the f-35.
I mean, if it were you, wouldnt you want to test the damn thing in an operation after all the spending and PR the plane has received. Even behind closed doors you'd want to be able to say "See! It works"
Combat with who? Did it go up against anything which would challenge an F16?
Planes don't toe-to-toe with other planes anymore.
As it says in the article... then why does it have a gun?
One of its primary purposes is air-to-air. Don't take my word for it: https://www.f35.com/about/capabilities
One of its primary purposes is air-to-air. Don't take my word for it: https://www.f35.com/about/capabilities
It has a gun because pilots don't feel comfortable without a gun. It makes no sense, but fifty years ago the USAF jumped the gun a little bit on air-to-air missiles, and whenever someone points out the gun is a stupid thing to include on a modern strike fighter people bring up this fifty year old problem.
The A version of the F-35 has three seconds worth of gun ammo. It would only be two seconds, but there's some lag between the trigger pull and the gun being fully spun up.
The A version of the F-35 has three seconds worth of gun ammo. It would only be two seconds, but there's some lag between the trigger pull and the gun being fully spun up.
The gun is also for close air support, if I understand the article.
For CAS these planes are simply not good for. For that role A-10 or Super Tucano like cheaper planes are needed, because those planes are more efficient for that role.
They do in simulations and exercises.
Then what was its role? Did it do anything existing planes struggle with?
Its role is to transfer US tax money to the military industrial complex, and its suceeding magnificently!
That also pretty much seems to be the main reason behind US wars these days.
+1
This is why Dick Cheney exists!
This is why he went from sec defense, setting policy for contractors, to heading haliburton, to VP underling of GHW and starting a new war - the longest, most expensive war the US has ever known.
Now lets bolt on a new defense project to funnel even more money...
Why do you think Tom Ridge left DHS to join the board of Lockheed??? MIC revolving door.
This is why Dick Cheney exists!
This is why he went from sec defense, setting policy for contractors, to heading haliburton, to VP underling of GHW and starting a new war - the longest, most expensive war the US has ever known.
Now lets bolt on a new defense project to funnel even more money...
Why do you think Tom Ridge left DHS to join the board of Lockheed??? MIC revolving door.
It'll eat up the next gen fighters coming out of China and Russia. The F-16 would struggle with that.
Of course, the F-22 would eat them up as well, but it's a stealth air superiority fighter while the F-35 is a stealth multi-purpose strike fighter.
Of course, the F-22 would eat them up as well, but it's a stealth air superiority fighter while the F-35 is a stealth multi-purpose strike fighter.
The F-35 is a great plane until it runs out of missiles.
...until it runs out of its two missiles.
That wasn't the question, though.
Thought you were more broadly asking what its role in general was.
If you're asking what its role was in that specific strike: Israel doesn't have any other stealth capabilities. So its role would be to fly over troubled territory rather freely, given the capabilities in the region. The F-15s and F-16s they have can't do that.
If you're asking what its role was in that specific strike: Israel doesn't have any other stealth capabilities. So its role would be to fly over troubled territory rather freely, given the capabilities in the region. The F-15s and F-16s they have can't do that.
The drones they have can do that far more cheaply.
It's confusing to call that combat as a rebuttal to the flaws highlighted in this report.
My father was an aerospace historian, and predicted back in the 1970s that eventually the entire defense budget would be used to purchase one fighter.
For a history of fighter costs:
http://generalatomic.com/jetmakers/chapter11.html
For a history of fighter costs:
http://generalatomic.com/jetmakers/chapter11.html
Heck, if that one fighter can win a world war alone, it's worth it!
E.g. One WW2 battleship could defeat every ship on Earth combined as of ~1830. (and it probably cost more than all of them too).
But, this is an amusing observation.
E.g. One WW2 battleship could defeat every ship on Earth combined as of ~1830. (and it probably cost more than all of them too).
But, this is an amusing observation.
No single WW2 battleship could destroy every older ship, as the planer is huge, and that battleship is being a single one.
This also stands for a single class of ship, as BBs are expensive, and provide only limited power projection capabilities. As it turned out not superweapons, but decent stuff in insane amounts won the war.
This also stands for a single class of ship, as BBs are expensive, and provide only limited power projection capabilities. As it turned out not superweapons, but decent stuff in insane amounts won the war.
The problem with those kind of scenario's is that they depend on the enemy being utterly stupid and giving you your dream scenario and then just surrendering in defeat something that history shows don't actually happens in the real world.
What would actually happen if you sent a US battleship against a age of sail fleet commanded by competent people would be that the battleship would spend all of it's fuel trying to find something to shoot at while civilian shipping kept getting sunk, and then end up destroyed by saboteurs when returning to port for refueling. And that's the dream scenario in the real world you never see that kind of a technology gap persist for long.
What would actually happen if you sent a US battleship against a age of sail fleet commanded by competent people would be that the battleship would spend all of it's fuel trying to find something to shoot at while civilian shipping kept getting sunk, and then end up destroyed by saboteurs when returning to port for refueling. And that's the dream scenario in the real world you never see that kind of a technology gap persist for long.
It'd run out of ammunition before they ran out of ships. Then it'd get swarmed by tens of thousands of angry sailors.
probably it would steam at cruising speed and ram through the wooden ships for days while conserving it's main guns.. I'm pretty sure a cannon ball wouldn't penetrate the armor of a battleship
It's got finite amounts of oil. The cannon balls might not be able to crack the citadel, the core armor, but they could sure destroy just about every other element of the ship. I'm not sure it'd work that well with the funnels caved in from repeated bombardment, the engines would just choke. Anything weakly armored is going to get pounded to hell.
It would take a lot of ships, but it could be defeated.
It would take a lot of ships, but it could be defeated.
The trouble comes when the machine is too expensive to risk in combat, and cannot be replaced if it is lost. We saw this with battleships in WW2.
And almost all of Germany v England in WWI
The US Navy constantly risked their battleships (the ones that survived Pearl Harbor) in combat during WW2. They were right in the thick of every part of the Pacific campaign.
The US Navy risked its battleships and carriers because they were confident they could be replaced, via production and switching ships from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The German navy, in both wars, tended not to because they knew they couldn't replace them. The Bismarck was the exception that proved the rule. The Japanese did not really risk their best battleships until things were pretty desperate.
The Bismarck and the Yamato in particular come to mind.
If you are looking for a WWII battleship that was too expensive to risk the Tirpitz is probably the best example. I think they let it out once.
Tirpitz did get used a few times, but it was mostly useful as a way to tie up a big chunk of the Royal Navy. Eventually, Tirpitz was sunk by aircraft.
The US's four Iowa-class battleships were quite useful, mostly for shore bombardment. They required a huge crew, 2,700 for WWII, Korea), and, after some modernization, 1,800 in the 1980s and 1990s. It's the crew size that led to their retirement. Each turret needed 90-110 people.
There was naval interest in building some "bombardment ships" intended for shore bombardment of countries that didn't have a significant capability for shooting back. But that went nowhere, since most of the US's enemies in recent decades have been too far inland.
The US's four Iowa-class battleships were quite useful, mostly for shore bombardment. They required a huge crew, 2,700 for WWII, Korea), and, after some modernization, 1,800 in the 1980s and 1990s. It's the crew size that led to their retirement. Each turret needed 90-110 people.
There was naval interest in building some "bombardment ships" intended for shore bombardment of countries that didn't have a significant capability for shooting back. But that went nowhere, since most of the US's enemies in recent decades have been too far inland.
The battleships proved incredibly vulnerable to aircraft. The Bismarck was disabled by a biplane, of all things.
The Tirpitz and also the major portion of the Italian fleet were able to exert disproportionate influence so long as they remained a potential threat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being#World_War_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being#World_War_II
The Bismarck was sunk moving to its theater of operations. The Germans were very much planning to use it as a commerce raider, and it would have been a big problem for the allies in that role.
The Japanese government was afraid to send the Yamato into battle, but that had nothing to do with money (after all, its sister ship was deployed at the 2nd battle of Leyte Gulf). The problem was they'd used it as a centerpiece in their war propaganda, and they thought losing it would be a PR disaster that outweighed any possible utility in battle.
The Japanese government was afraid to send the Yamato into battle, but that had nothing to do with money (after all, its sister ship was deployed at the 2nd battle of Leyte Gulf). The problem was they'd used it as a centerpiece in their war propaganda, and they thought losing it would be a PR disaster that outweighed any possible utility in battle.
A few airplanes sunk the Yamato. It would have been far more effective if the Japanese had sunk (!) that money into better aircraft and better pilot training.
They had great pilots and great aircraft at the start of the war, but by the time Yamato was sunk it was all gone. They didn't even have enough fuel for a round trip - they were going to ground her and use her as a fixed gun emplacement.
> They had great pilots and great aircraft at the start of the war
A handful. Nowhere near enough. The Battle of Midway wiped out the bulk of them. The Zero rapidly became obsolete, too.
A handful. Nowhere near enough. The Battle of Midway wiped out the bulk of them. The Zero rapidly became obsolete, too.
WW2 battleships were also utterly useless in actual combat results. Attack submarines and to some extent aerial attacks are what dominated marine warfare during that period. Put everything at the hands of one fighter model and what you get is a single point of failure.
What you need in a big war against a worthy adversary is the ability to quickly innovate and iterate on designs, and having a single design that try to do everything is about the worst option available for that.
In a war against an adversary that isn't worthy, you can use whatever and you will still win.
What you need in a big war against a worthy adversary is the ability to quickly innovate and iterate on designs, and having a single design that try to do everything is about the worst option available for that.
In a war against an adversary that isn't worthy, you can use whatever and you will still win.
> What you need in a big war against a worthy adversary is the ability to quickly innovate and iterate on designs, and having a single design that try to do everything is about the worst option available for that.
That's what you might think with a certain naive look at WWII. All indications are that in any modern conflict between countries with the capability to manufacture this kind of hardware, it'll be all over before there's time to design or build anything. You win with what you have when the war breaks out, or you lose. Assuming you're lucky enough for it to not go nuclear, since any country like that can also build lots of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and they pretty much all have already.
That's what you might think with a certain naive look at WWII. All indications are that in any modern conflict between countries with the capability to manufacture this kind of hardware, it'll be all over before there's time to design or build anything. You win with what you have when the war breaks out, or you lose. Assuming you're lucky enough for it to not go nuclear, since any country like that can also build lots of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and they pretty much all have already.
That's not true. Battleships were effective in several Pacific surface battles against the Japanese Navy, in shore bombardment during amphibious assaults, and as air-defense escorts for carriers.
The point wasn't that they couldn't attack ones enemy, it was that they had become vulnerable to attack. The reason they could be used for bombardment was that air superiority had been claimed by carrier based aircraft. I don't recall ever reading of battleships being used for air defence. Have you a source? Smaller ships certainly were but big, slow firing guns that can't point upwards seems like a pointless and wasteful accessory on a huge target.
What kind of source are you looking for? It's right there in any history of WW2 in the Pacific. US battleships were stuffed full of smaller caliber cannons that were very effective for air defense, especially after proximity fuses were introduced.
Most ww2 era battleships had a plethora of smaller guns many of which were antiaircraft. The exception was the Japanese battleships which were relatively light on the smaller guns - which they even attempted to mitigate using shotgun like shells.
Sure, but unguided antiaircraft fire tops out pretty low in effectiveness, and aircraft are dangerous to battleships out of all proportion to their size, quantity, and cost - even if you shoot down ninety-eight out of every hundred, the two you miss can still achieve a mission-kill, if they don't sink you outright. And you'll never shoot down anything close to that proportion.
Battleships sided aircraft carriers for two reasons: one was to thicken their inner defense ring a little, and the other was because battleships alone, without a friendly air wing to keep the other side's strike aircraft away, were doomed.
Battleships sided aircraft carriers for two reasons: one was to thicken their inner defense ring a little, and the other was because battleships alone, without a friendly air wing to keep the other side's strike aircraft away, were doomed.
The problem with military white elephants like battleships or F-35's is not that they aren't effective in their dream engagement it's that they eat so much of the budget that the forces wielding them loose the ability to engage in more dispersed real world engagement against an enemy willing to adopt their strategies.
20% better at 3x the cost is usually a bad bargain in a battlefield increasingly dominated by dispersion strategies and that was what eventually killed the Battleships, they were to expensive for convoy duty and too slow and vulnerable to torpedo and air attacks for the line of battle fighting that actually happened doing WWII.
20% better at 3x the cost is usually a bad bargain in a battlefield increasingly dominated by dispersion strategies and that was what eventually killed the Battleships, they were to expensive for convoy duty and too slow and vulnerable to torpedo and air attacks for the line of battle fighting that actually happened doing WWII.
> Battleships were effective in several Pacific surface battles against the Japanese Navy...
Only because neither the US nor the Japanese had carriers in those engagements. The writing was on the wall when the Brits crippled the Italian gunship fleet with a single obsolete aircraft carrier in 1940.
Only because neither the US nor the Japanese had carriers in those engagements. The writing was on the wall when the Brits crippled the Italian gunship fleet with a single obsolete aircraft carrier in 1940.
The point is that subs and carriers were far, far more effective than battleships.
That's not so clear, at least in the Atlantic theatre. How would you sink the Bismarck with just subs and carriers? As it happens, the lucky torpedo strike from Ark Royal played a pivotal role in its sinking, but submarines couldn't go fast enough to catch it, and an unescorted carrier would have been extremely vulnerable.
It's hard to say for sure, but in a way it seems that the Hood and the Prince of Wales actually stood a much better chance of causing serious damage to the Bismarck than the Ark Royal did, even if that's not how events happened to play out. (And in fact damage from the Prince of Wales's guns did help to slow the Bismarck down and force it to attempt to go to port to refuel.)
It's hard to say for sure, but in a way it seems that the Hood and the Prince of Wales actually stood a much better chance of causing serious damage to the Bismarck than the Ark Royal did, even if that's not how events happened to play out. (And in fact damage from the Prince of Wales's guns did help to slow the Bismarck down and force it to attempt to go to port to refuel.)
WW2 battleships were also utterly useless in actual combat results.
WW2 battleships proved their worth as late as the 1990s when nothing else could deliver the shore bombardment capability.
WW2 battleships proved their worth as late as the 1990s when nothing else could deliver the shore bombardment capability.
But that only works when you can be sure no one's able to go after the battleship with torpedoes or bombs. In any environment contested by a remotely modern opponent, battleships aren't survivable enough to matter.
Sure, but the modern battlegroup concept with have a Destroyer or two for air and submarine defence. The carrier USS Carl Vinson is in the South China Sea right now with 8 Destroyers as escort.
Meanwhile, any opponent we're likely to encounter there has supersonic anti-shipping missiles, against which only CIWS point-defense cannons are likely to be useful. CSG-1 mounts only sixteen such weapons, and each only has magazine space for, at best, 20 seconds' sustained fire before requiring downtime for a manual reload.
While the Phalanx CIWS is inarguably impressive in specification and testing, the thing about the US military is that, whenever we get into a fight, we're always 150% ready - for the last war. It takes us a while to figure out what we're doing in the current one, and it costs us. I see no reason to imagine this pattern shouldn't hold in a new war against an opponent equipped with Moskits.
While the Phalanx CIWS is inarguably impressive in specification and testing, the thing about the US military is that, whenever we get into a fight, we're always 150% ready - for the last war. It takes us a while to figure out what we're doing in the current one, and it costs us. I see no reason to imagine this pattern shouldn't hold in a new war against an opponent equipped with Moskits.
I thought that the Phalanx was in the process of being phased out in favor of some short range missile system (RAM?)? Phalanx is awesome for taking out subsonic missiles flying a straight trajectory. A mach 3 monster doing evasive maneuvers, not so much..
Think of the problem:
- At Mach 3, the missile is flying at roughly the same speed as the unguided bullets the thing is firing. If it's additionally doing evasive maneuvers it's going to be pretty hard to hit.. (though I guess at Mach 3 it's not going to do very much acrobatics, but perhaps even a little bit is enough to make the CIWS miss?)
- Mach 3 is close to a km per second, and I guess the realistic range for a 20 mm cannon isn't that much, lets say 4 km for the sake of argument. And below, say, 1 km it probably doesn't matter if you keep firing at it or not, it's likely to hit you out of sheer inertia even if you hit it. So that gives you around 3s time to fire and adjust the aim. Not very much..
Think of the problem:
- At Mach 3, the missile is flying at roughly the same speed as the unguided bullets the thing is firing. If it's additionally doing evasive maneuvers it's going to be pretty hard to hit.. (though I guess at Mach 3 it's not going to do very much acrobatics, but perhaps even a little bit is enough to make the CIWS miss?)
- Mach 3 is close to a km per second, and I guess the realistic range for a 20 mm cannon isn't that much, lets say 4 km for the sake of argument. And below, say, 1 km it probably doesn't matter if you keep firing at it or not, it's likely to hit you out of sheer inertia even if you hit it. So that gives you around 3s time to fire and adjust the aim. Not very much..
Sources I found suggest a speed more like Mach 2 when near the surface, and that evasion ends a few kilometers out from the target, well outside the Phalanx's firing range. I'm willing to credit CSG-1's existing CIWS with being able to knock down a Moskit or two - but not twenty, or thirty, or fifty, or a hundred, coming in all at once and, given their range and wide launcher compatibility, quite possibly on more than one axis. That's how we lose a carrier group.
I have seen some mentions of a move toward missile-based defense, which would probably be a more effective option, but most of the same considerations apply - each missile might be much more likely than an individual CIWS round to score a kill, but many fewer missiles can be carried, and the launchers still need time to reload once they exhaust their magazines.
This is also, incidentally, the real reason why DEWs and hypervelocity kinetic weapons - lasers and railguns - are such a matter of interest in the naval research establishment at the moment. They're justified as being a more cost-effective means of dealing with low-level threats, but this is America - the last time our military services had reasonably to worry about being short of funds was no more recent than the mid-1930s, and nobody since has given any meaningful fraction of a damn about the cost per shot of naval weapons - and frugality would militate against the very considerable R&D cost of new systems without new capabilities, in any case.
A much more plausible reason why these new systems receive such interest is because they might eventually offer a solution to the currently insoluble problem of how to defend against a mass attack with supersonic AShMs. You don't see that discussed much in public, because no one with a stake wants to suggest that our enormously expensive carriers no longer offer the power and prestige that merits the cost of keeping them active, but nothing else makes as much sense.
I have seen some mentions of a move toward missile-based defense, which would probably be a more effective option, but most of the same considerations apply - each missile might be much more likely than an individual CIWS round to score a kill, but many fewer missiles can be carried, and the launchers still need time to reload once they exhaust their magazines.
This is also, incidentally, the real reason why DEWs and hypervelocity kinetic weapons - lasers and railguns - are such a matter of interest in the naval research establishment at the moment. They're justified as being a more cost-effective means of dealing with low-level threats, but this is America - the last time our military services had reasonably to worry about being short of funds was no more recent than the mid-1930s, and nobody since has given any meaningful fraction of a damn about the cost per shot of naval weapons - and frugality would militate against the very considerable R&D cost of new systems without new capabilities, in any case.
A much more plausible reason why these new systems receive such interest is because they might eventually offer a solution to the currently insoluble problem of how to defend against a mass attack with supersonic AShMs. You don't see that discussed much in public, because no one with a stake wants to suggest that our enormously expensive carriers no longer offer the power and prestige that merits the cost of keeping them active, but nothing else makes as much sense.
I wonder who doesn't regret cancelling the F-22. At least that airplane has the advantage of raw performance even if you take away its more high-tech features. An air force general once warned that "without the f-22 the f-35 will be irrelevant".
The F35 is keeping far more people employed. That is its main purpose and it has been a resounding success. Its entire procurement process was designed to make it resistant to cancellation by farming everything out to a broad base of constituencies. It is now safely past that hurdle and can do its job as a money machine.
This explanation comes up in every thread about the F-35. While it has good explanatory power, it doesn't explain why the US couldn't have a non-dysfunctional procurement process that actually delivered effective planes.
My best guess would be that the people in charge of the juggernaut realize if you equip it with a steering wheel, if you create a way to fix it with regard to quality of output, that same steering wheel could also be used to fix it with regard to cost. In other words, the dysfunctional planes are just collateral damage of the corporate welfare program.
The people controlling the purse strings like the dysfunctional system as it is. Nobody has the power to stop it. There was zero reason for Trump to end the sequester except to funnel more money into the MIC.
The truly interesting question would be: How will countries without a broken procurement process compete? Will China be able to spend 0.1% on their new planes and get 1000% ROI?
To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, it's difficult to change a process when the salaries of the people who could change it depend upon the status quo.
Companies are run by businessmen and not people who want to build extraordinary aircraft.
That's awfully cynical, but maybe correct, though I have to believe that even the CEO of a giant defense contractor firm is proud of what they do.
Planes? For 1.5 trillion dollars and counting I expect nothing less than a working fusion generator, or a moon base, or a proper rotating space station with AT&T videophones.
For reference, 1.5 trillion is more than double the Apollo and Space Shuttle programs, combined.
For reference, 1.5 trillion is more than double the Apollo and Space Shuttle programs, combined.
[deleted]
Have you considered a disinformation side to the equation. How did the Cold War bankrupt ussr ? Was it the Star Wars disinformation;)
I'm not terribly well-versed in defense contracts, but why don't these kind of massive things (that always go way over time) not have a clausul 'if you, as a developer, go X amount over time or X amount over budget, you foot the rest of the cost until delivery'. Would seem like a very prudent thing to do as a government, and there's still so much money in it I can't imagine defense contractors not going for it.
Sure some defense contacts are firm fixed price with the vendor eating any cost overruns. But no rational defense contractor would ever agree to take on that level of risk for a program as complex as the F-35.
Look what happened to the Airbus A400M. They agreed to a fixed price, and then when the program ran away over budget they blackmailed the EU defense ministers into renegotiating by threatening to cancel the program, close factories, or even go bankrupt. It's just politically impossible to hold the line on these deals.
Look what happened to the Airbus A400M. They agreed to a fixed price, and then when the program ran away over budget they blackmailed the EU defense ministers into renegotiating by threatening to cancel the program, close factories, or even go bankrupt. It's just politically impossible to hold the line on these deals.
I would guess that it's not the contractors fault as much as the clients. Maybe this is my bias from doing contract work and having horrible clients.
They tried that in the '90s. A few contractors got into a bind, threw up their hands, and went bankrupt. From a budgetary standpoint that's fine, but when you're limping along with a platform you wanted to retire a decade ago or more (the marines have been stripping museum pieces for parts to keep Harriers in the air), you can't afford another twenty year development cycle.
IMO the F-35 is fine from a capability standpoint. It's just far too expensive.
IMO the F-35 is fine from a capability standpoint. It's just far too expensive.
I've worked for government agencies who've done stuff like that... albeit at a much smaller scale.
Big .gov orgs have a lot of leverage, because they can make or break the sales force.
The end result is that the vendor prices in the risk and overhead. Depending on the political situation and project, it may be worth paying that premium to displace the blame to the vendor. But for something like the F35, the cost is astronomical.
Big .gov orgs have a lot of leverage, because they can make or break the sales force.
The end result is that the vendor prices in the risk and overhead. Depending on the political situation and project, it may be worth paying that premium to displace the blame to the vendor. But for something like the F35, the cost is astronomical.
Then you couldn't change requirements. Or companies wouldn't bid. Or companies would go bankrupt.
But there have been some contracts (NASA commercial cargo to the space station) that have had fixed milestones for releasing money to contractor.
But there have been some contracts (NASA commercial cargo to the space station) that have had fixed milestones for releasing money to contractor.
Would you sign a contract that looked like that?
I would find it very reasonable if entity X asks me to develop a fighter jet, X knows from experience that these programs always overrun, X asks me to make a realistic roadmap with some leeway built in, and then X says 'well, if you overshoot milestone 3 by more than one year you'll have to foot the rest of the cost until the next milestone'.
so you agree, then tell X you ran out of money and are closing down the program. faced with choosing to lose a decade plus of progress or letting you out of that clause is no choice at all
Why not? You can't shutter the program because you're contractually obliged for X to deliver. At that point you either eat the cost and deliver or your company is destroyed by fines and/or bankruptcy.
And again: sure, those types of contracts would be harsher than the current situation, but they're still so juicy I can't imagine companies not going for them. Currently it seems to just be a huge money tap for whatever contractor gets them, without any amount of oversight or accountability/liability.
A bankruptcy would be costly to the bureaucrats just as much as to the companies and set you back to square 1 with time & money spent and little to show for it...
[deleted]
whether or not its an effective use of money, i've always believed that it was a strategic interest to have all of these people at the ready.
frankly i'm sure that if it came to it, your average clip on tie beltway bandit employee would be more useless than 5 year old in time of war, but i think thats the thinking
frankly i'm sure that if it came to it, your average clip on tie beltway bandit employee would be more useless than 5 year old in time of war, but i think thats the thinking
I'm sure some Russia hawks regret the DOD decision to cancel the F22, but the F35 was not intended to replace the F22, so this is a bit irrelevant. The two aircraft a developed for different uses. The F22 was designed for air to air superiority, while the F35 is a ground attack fighter. The F22 was cancelled because of bulging operating and production costs, and because air to air superiority is not something the military really needs given its current and foreseeable engagements.
This is revisionist BS. It was meant to do everything, yet it does everything poorly. Lousy fighter, lousy bomber, lousy ground attack plane. It's only good at being a standoff weapon, and far too expensive for that when drones can do it all better and far cheaper.
Also, I'm not defending the plane. Obviously it has many problems, I'm merely pointing out that its use profile is different than the F22, and the notion that the F35 was ever intended to replace the F22 is an oversimplification of the DOD air dominance strategy. The F35 was meant to be a multirole fighter, but especially good at ground attack. The F22 RFP was sent out in 1986, when the country was still in the midst of the Cold War. The F22 was originally designed a response to the development new soviet fighters, which could out maneuver and out-hide F15s. The F35 was designed to replace aging fleets of multirole and ground attack fighters.
This isn't "revisionist BS." If you actually go back you'll find that the two planes were designed for different uses. The DOD may have dug themselves a hole while trying to sell the plane to taxpayers by saying it will do everything better than any other jet. That was not the original intent.
This isn't "revisionist BS." If you actually go back you'll find that the two planes were designed for different uses. The DOD may have dug themselves a hole while trying to sell the plane to taxpayers by saying it will do everything better than any other jet. That was not the original intent.
Hard to say that the F35 was built for air to air dominance when it was designed to carry only two amraam air to air superiority missiles. The F22 can carry six.
14 years ago it sounded very much like the Joint Strike Fighter was going to replace the F22 (and the Harrier, etc.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7-LQDueYlk&t=11m20s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7-LQDueYlk&t=11m20s
I'll just refer you to the first few sentences of the wiki pages for each fighter :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
Considering now the Air Force is going to have to budget money to fix the F-15C/D if they want it to keep flying.
http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/center-fuselage-rebuild-co...
http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/center-fuselage-rebuild-co...
The F35 is such a political football now that it's hard to even get solid information on whether it's good or bad. I never saw so much press on how great the F35 is as when Trump tweeted about maybe cancelling the program.
If you don't like it, what exactly should be done with the program? Should it be cancelled? Do you still think it should be cancelled if that means maybe agreeing with Trump?
If you don't like it, what exactly should be done with the program? Should it be cancelled? Do you still think it should be cancelled if that means maybe agreeing with Trump?
> Do you still think it should be cancelled if that means maybe agreeing with Trump?
This kind of argument is what's wrong with people voting the party line instead of voting with reason. Who the hell cares if Trump is right? Do what's right because you think it's right, not because of some petty political squabble.
I do not pretend to understand how complicated such an expensive program is and what all the effects of cancelling it would be, but based on what little I know it seems like it would be a good idea to cancel the program and put the funds into something more productive.
This kind of argument is what's wrong with people voting the party line instead of voting with reason. Who the hell cares if Trump is right? Do what's right because you think it's right, not because of some petty political squabble.
I do not pretend to understand how complicated such an expensive program is and what all the effects of cancelling it would be, but based on what little I know it seems like it would be a good idea to cancel the program and put the funds into something more productive.
I agree that things have gotten much too politicized along party lines. I'm rather bemused at how many people and organizations seem to be willing to switch sides on issues depending on which party or candidate is pushing which position. I don't think we're going to solve the problems we face by being completely for or against any party or politician.
Like I said in a cousin comment, I'd be concerned about what the future would be for aircraft if we did cancel this program. I'd hope to see a plan for what we're going to do for the aircraft we need to buy and replace over the next 30 years before they moved forward with cancelling it.
Like I said in a cousin comment, I'd be concerned about what the future would be for aircraft if we did cancel this program. I'd hope to see a plan for what we're going to do for the aircraft we need to buy and replace over the next 30 years before they moved forward with cancelling it.
I liked https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n07/daniel-soar/the-most-expensive... for its explanation of the political situation the F-35 is being built in, and the multinational ties that make it extremely difficult to cancel.
TL;DR: The scope of this project (intentionally) means there are customers in 10s of countries, with most of them also contributing portions of the plans and so invested in the sales of the others. Just in the US alone contractors account for more people than the Coal industry we're hearing so much about right now.
I have not got nearly enough information to say if it's a good or bad plane. But I find it extremely interesting to think that to a large degree, it doesn't matter.
TL;DR: The scope of this project (intentionally) means there are customers in 10s of countries, with most of them also contributing portions of the plans and so invested in the sales of the others. Just in the US alone contractors account for more people than the Coal industry we're hearing so much about right now.
I have not got nearly enough information to say if it's a good or bad plane. But I find it extremely interesting to think that to a large degree, it doesn't matter.
I actually read that article from a link here a few days ago or so. It does seem to be the case that even without the political situation, it would be tough to cancel in that we need a new generation of fighter and it would take too long to start a new program from scratch now. I guess we have to make the best of what we have with the F-35.
These jobs aren't a benefit of the program, they are its cost. Kill it and spend the money on more cost effective and dangerous weapons such as drones. Let the allies figure it out for themselves, if they didn't skimp so much on military spending they wouldn't be so dependent on us.
Or better yet, move some of that money over to NASA so that I can have my Enceladus colony already.
> what exactly should be done with the program?
While the US is already committed to the F-35, discussion of the plane's shortcomings is important for NATO and other allies who haven't yet signed up to buy the plane (e.g. Canada). Maybe the plane will mature into an effective platform, or maybe it will never be anything more than an expensive turkey. Right now it seems like the right thing to do is hold off making a purchase.
While the US is already committed to the F-35, discussion of the plane's shortcomings is important for NATO and other allies who haven't yet signed up to buy the plane (e.g. Canada). Maybe the plane will mature into an effective platform, or maybe it will never be anything more than an expensive turkey. Right now it seems like the right thing to do is hold off making a purchase.
I wonder how much the Trump administration's insistence that NATO allies spend the full 2% of GDP on defense is so that these planes are within budget?
For the US, I'd bet the primary utility of this plane is the health of the defense complex because it is probably the last traditional major fighter program. They'll switch to fleats of networked AI "manned" drones and that will be the real prize. (Prize because it means force projection without political risk.) But one require a healthy defence industry to make these significant investments. And one requires significant expertise in a workforce in place. But the technology probably isn't there for another ten or twenty years or so for complex/flexible missions.
For the US, I'd bet the primary utility of this plane is the health of the defense complex because it is probably the last traditional major fighter program. They'll switch to fleats of networked AI "manned" drones and that will be the real prize. (Prize because it means force projection without political risk.) But one require a healthy defence industry to make these significant investments. And one requires significant expertise in a workforce in place. But the technology probably isn't there for another ten or twenty years or so for complex/flexible missions.
Prize because it means force projection without political risk
This is clearly the way that things are going. Within our lifetimes the Western way of making war will be a fleet of drones endlessly circling above "enemy" territory, firing a Hellfire missile at anyone a Facebook-trained face recognition algorithm deems to be a threat.
By "enemy" I mean "the entire rest of the world" of course.
This is clearly the way that things are going. Within our lifetimes the Western way of making war will be a fleet of drones endlessly circling above "enemy" territory, firing a Hellfire missile at anyone a Facebook-trained face recognition algorithm deems to be a threat.
By "enemy" I mean "the entire rest of the world" of course.
Meh, it's popular to crap on the F-35 Program (and with good reason, it's been horribly mismanaged), but it's best to remember that at the end of the day this is one case where public opinion on its capabilities does not matter and is almost certainly inaccurate. Unless someone on the F-35 team pulls a Snowden, the decisions will be made by people with security clearances who have access to more data than we could ever hope to Google.
You doubt the credibility of the report? I wouldn't exactly call it mere public opinion... The author seems well-positioned to know how the project is going, and goes into great detail about its flaws.
This wouldn't be the first time a bunch of guys with clearances higher than yours got the entire philosophy of future war wrong because they were suffering from some form of sunk cost fallacy.
To me this is more of a pride thing. It's too much to lose. My theory is certain people want to hold on to that power (budget and control over the development program).
Nope, it's shortcomings are publicly documented. It can't dogfight, maneuver, has terrible visibility, bad systems, not enough ammo in a gun it won't be able to use for years, and can't carry the most useful bombs yet. It's not even going to be fully usable for 7 more years. It's a piece of junk being kept alive by lobbyists and fighter mafia when drones are 10x more cost effective.
"Nope, it's shortcomings are publicly documented. It can't dogfight, maneuver, has terrible visibility, bad systems,"
None of that is actually true, especially the "terrible visibility" part. In fact, it's the only aircraft flying with literally 2 pi steradian (the full sphere around it) visibility.
The author of the linked article has a vendetta against the F-35. There are legitimate criticisms, and he outlines some of them - they don't mean it won't be an effective system within a few more years.
Could the procurement have been done more effectively? Of course, and I hope future procurements learn a lot from the problems of the F-35 effort. In particular, there has to be a realistic plan to incorporate technology improvements during the development process! I'm also dismayed that computer modeling didn't predict issues like the weak wingtips of the F-35C.
All that said, how about a little balance from people who've actually flown the plane in simulated combat...?
This pilot flew the F-35B against F-16s and F-18s:
"Mo: I was leading a four ship of F-35s on a strike against 4th Gen adversaries, F-16s and F/A-18s.
We fought our way in, we mapped the target, found the target, dropped JDAMs on the target and turned around and fought our way out.
All the targets got hit, nobody got detected, and all the adversaries died. I thought, yes, this works, very, very, very well.
Never detected, nobody had any idea we were out there."
You can read many more complimentary words at the link:
http://www.sldinfo.com/the-moment-pilots-first-realized-the-...
"not enough ammo in a gun it won't be able to use for years, and can't carry the most useful bombs yet."
The gun will almost never be a combat factor. As to the "most useful bombs", there is always something new isn't there...? The baseline SDB-1s are plenty useful in their own right, along with the various JDAMs and other munitions available.
None of that is actually true, especially the "terrible visibility" part. In fact, it's the only aircraft flying with literally 2 pi steradian (the full sphere around it) visibility.
The author of the linked article has a vendetta against the F-35. There are legitimate criticisms, and he outlines some of them - they don't mean it won't be an effective system within a few more years.
Could the procurement have been done more effectively? Of course, and I hope future procurements learn a lot from the problems of the F-35 effort. In particular, there has to be a realistic plan to incorporate technology improvements during the development process! I'm also dismayed that computer modeling didn't predict issues like the weak wingtips of the F-35C.
All that said, how about a little balance from people who've actually flown the plane in simulated combat...?
This pilot flew the F-35B against F-16s and F-18s:
"Mo: I was leading a four ship of F-35s on a strike against 4th Gen adversaries, F-16s and F/A-18s.
We fought our way in, we mapped the target, found the target, dropped JDAMs on the target and turned around and fought our way out.
All the targets got hit, nobody got detected, and all the adversaries died. I thought, yes, this works, very, very, very well.
Never detected, nobody had any idea we were out there."
You can read many more complimentary words at the link:
http://www.sldinfo.com/the-moment-pilots-first-realized-the-...
"not enough ammo in a gun it won't be able to use for years, and can't carry the most useful bombs yet."
The gun will almost never be a combat factor. As to the "most useful bombs", there is always something new isn't there...? The baseline SDB-1s are plenty useful in their own right, along with the various JDAMs and other munitions available.
There are 10 other countries in-the-loop about the F-35. Including Turkey for example who recently found out their airforce is not loyal to the government. If there were any secrets about the F-35 capabilities it's safe bet they have been leaked everywhere by now.
If you haven't I'd highly recommend watching Battle of the X-Planes.
A documentary by NOVA about the JSF competition between Lockheed Martin X-35 (which became F-35) and Boeing X-32. Official PBS link [0].
Here is the official site [1] with full transcript and behind the scenes about the making of the documentary (quite insightful).
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kNszWU7hTw
[1]: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/
A documentary by NOVA about the JSF competition between Lockheed Martin X-35 (which became F-35) and Boeing X-32. Official PBS link [0].
Here is the official site [1] with full transcript and behind the scenes about the making of the documentary (quite insightful).
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kNszWU7hTw
[1]: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/
I know they're just designators, but it makes me wonder which would have won if Boeing had named their plane the X-37.
Can someone explain this to me? I've been fascinated by fighter planes since I was a kid and never understood the designations. Why do the F104 and F117 come before the F35?
Thanks! Most relevant quote, in case anyone else is interested:
> The rule, although often violated, is that normal aircraft are to be designated in a strict numerical series according to their basic mission. The easiest examples are found in the Fighter class of US airplanes: F-14, then the F-15, F-16 and so on. But, there are exceptions. For example, the X-35, which was a research plane, was later redesignated the F-35 when it became fighter capable, even though the next number in the Fighter sequence was F-24.
> The rule, although often violated, is that normal aircraft are to be designated in a strict numerical series according to their basic mission. The easiest examples are found in the Fighter class of US airplanes: F-14, then the F-15, F-16 and so on. But, there are exceptions. For example, the X-35, which was a research plane, was later redesignated the F-35 when it became fighter capable, even though the next number in the Fighter sequence was F-24.
It wasn't even really about the aircraft. Lockheed won over Boeing because lockheed showed better dev skills. They spotted and avoided problems that Boeing didn't (ie the issues with the test equipment mounted so close to the refuelling probe). When you are looking at such a long-term development contract people matter as much or more than the current state of the product.
Random question, but how did you have the link for this unlisted Youtube video?
Given the neglect the military is inflicting on the A-10 warthog, I fully expect the next war to involve the desperate recruitment of the only community of machinists nimble enough to pick up the A-10's blueprints and start rebuilding them.
Which happens to be the Suame Magazine workshop district in Ghana.
Ghana may wind up deciding the outcome of the next major war.
Which happens to be the Suame Magazine workshop district in Ghana.
Ghana may wind up deciding the outcome of the next major war.
For all the a10s greatness, building new ones would be a waste. Improvements can be made. New material and design mean the airframe is now less than ideal. Improvements in ffars (the ones made in canada now fly straiter then bullets and nearly as fast) make even the iconic gun, around which the airframe is wrapped, less than ideal. Google the texco scorpion for what a modern a10 might look like.
s/texco/textron/, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion
Ya, that's the one I meant. It looks very different but operationally is very similar to the a-10. Two turbofans rather than jets, relatively strait winged, significant loiter time, cheap to run, and plenty of extra capacities. Dump the second seat, add some steel protection here and there, and you've got a new warthog.
A low-wing / high-engine version would be closer to the a-10, but that is almost style over function imho.
A low-wing / high-engine version would be closer to the a-10, but that is almost style over function imho.
Low-wing / high-engine makes it somewhat harder for IR MANPADS to correctly seek on a A-10, especially on approach. The horizontal stabilizers help shield the IR signature as well. It also protects the engines from direct hits from AA guns. And last, it lets maintenance crews refuel and rearm an A-10 on the ground without waiting for the engines to spool down (and spool back up afterward), which can take some time. Faster rearm and refuel means faster mission turn-around.
Low-mounted wings also give the A-10 a very low stall speed, improving its ability to loiter over a battlefield.
Low-mounted wings also give the A-10 a very low stall speed, improving its ability to loiter over a battlefield.
But high wings give better clearance on approach/takeoff, allowing for greater crosswind and rough runway ability. Depending on where the hatches are, a high wing can mean not having to climb over the wing to reach things. The higher wing allows for more sweep without the tips hitting the ground on landing (high aoa) and a little sweep means better ground sightlines, over the shoulder, for the pilot.
It's all about tradeoffs.
It's all about tradeoffs.
Aren't pretty much all modern military aircraft turbofans?
[edit]
From wikipedia:
F/A 18-D 2 × General Electric F404-GE-402 turbofans
F-15 2 × Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100 or −220 afterburning turbofans
F-22 2 × Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofans with thrust vectoring in pitch-axis
F-35A 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
[edit]
From wikipedia:
F/A 18-D 2 × General Electric F404-GE-402 turbofans
F-15 2 × Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100 or −220 afterburning turbofans
F-22 2 × Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofans with thrust vectoring in pitch-axis
F-35A 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
Technically yes but the ratio between the air going through the jet (the hot part) and the fan (the cold part) draws some lines. The A10, like modern airline engines, is more fan than jet. This makes them efficient but limits top performance. It boils down to the shape of the engine. Wider engines with bigger fans/intakes become a liability above mach1. But a wider fan means better low-speed power, more surface area to "grip" on the slower air, allowing for better acceleration and shorter take-off. The f22 might technically have a fan, but it is extremely small in comparison to the jet that powers it.
The strange thing is that at extreme speeds the SR71 engines were high-bypass, with most air bypassing the blades altogether to be burnt in the afterburner as a ramjet.
The strange thing is that at extreme speeds the SR71 engines were high-bypass, with most air bypassing the blades altogether to be burnt in the afterburner as a ramjet.
I am constantly amazed with the engineering success of the SR-71, and the SR-71 and A-10 are my favorite planes ever.
But jesus, the fact that lockheed made the SR in the 60 just freaking astounds me.
I can only imagine what they have been making these days for the breakaway civilization!
But jesus, the fact that lockheed made the SR in the 60 just freaking astounds me.
I can only imagine what they have been making these days for the breakaway civilization!
There was an article on HN a couple months ago about how the DoD is considering replacing the A-10 with a turboprop-based plane.
A-10 has turbofan engines.
Thats what i meant. I was listing similarities. Turbofans are rare on small combat aircraft. See the soviet/russian Frogfoot, the supersonic take on the a10, that doesnt have fans.
During the Vietnam War the Air Force was forced to bring back into service a lot of retired piston engine aircraft, and rehire retired piston engine mechanics to keep them running well.
Vietnam sucked - but it was the last 'conventional' war. Everything since has been CIA nefariousness and technologically weird.
The B-52s got revived again for the Iraq war :-)
Turns out the B-52 is hopelessly obsolete for its original design purpose, but as a cheap truck for delivering huge quantities of bombs on target it has found a lot of utility.
Turns out the B-52 is hopelessly obsolete for its original design purpose, but as a cheap truck for delivering huge quantities of bombs on target it has found a lot of utility.
The Air Force controls almost all fixed wing aircraft, and thus the A-10's fate. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-sca...
The other funny side note is that when the Army/Air Force simulated it, attack helicopters kill a lot more fighter jets than vice versa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-CATCH
> [...] the only community of machinists nimble enough [...] Which happens to be the Suame Magazine workshop district in Ghana.
Could you please expand on this statement? Why do you think this that only this community could rebuild them?
Could you please expand on this statement? Why do you think this that only this community could rebuild them?
The workshops there are famous for building entire diesel trucks from scrap.
That takes really nimble hands at the lathe and milling machine.
That takes really nimble hands at the lathe and milling machine.
I don't think that's particularly special.
Every machinist / fitter and turner I've worked with in the metal fabrication industry could do that if they felt like it. The small machine shop across the road from where I work now has the tools necessary to build a low-tech diesel or gasoline engine from solid-stock and hollow-bar, or if necessary whatever was laying around.
Truck bodies are trivial to knock together from scrap because they can have very simple suspension, and limited scope for handling characteristics.
Every machinist / fitter and turner I've worked with in the metal fabrication industry could do that if they felt like it. The small machine shop across the road from where I work now has the tools necessary to build a low-tech diesel or gasoline engine from solid-stock and hollow-bar, or if necessary whatever was laying around.
Truck bodies are trivial to knock together from scrap because they can have very simple suspension, and limited scope for handling characteristics.
Or more likely we will return to prop-planes like the A-29B* or for faster hit and run strikes a modified jet trainer which is what most 3rd rate air forces actually fly for domestic anti insurgency operations today.
The A-29B is in US inventory and being actively procured mostly for the purpose of assisting 3rd world allies like Afghanistan, and the British version of the navy's T-45* jet trainer have seen combat in the far east.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Hawk
The A-29B is in US inventory and being actively procured mostly for the purpose of assisting 3rd world allies like Afghanistan, and the British version of the navy's T-45* jet trainer have seen combat in the far east.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Hawk
Original source: "F-35 Continues to Stumble"
http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2017/f35-continues...
http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2017/f35-continues...
> When Lockheed Martin first won the contract 17 years ago, the F-35 was expected to begin operational testing in 2008. Once they failed to meet that, 2017 was supposed to be the big year for the start of the combat testing process. We now know that this process will almost certainly be delayed until 2019…and possibly 2020.
Wow. I did not realize it had been in development for so long.
> The scale of the challenge yet remaining with the F-35 is easily quantified in this year’s DOT&E analysis. According to the report, the F-35 still has 276 “Critical to Correct” deficiencies—these must be fixed before the development process ends because they could “lead to operational mission failures during IOT&E or combat.” Of the 276, 72 were listed as “priority 1,” which are service-critical flaws that would prevent the services from fielding the jets until they are fixed.
I'm not an expert on designing fighter jets, but that sounds bad.
> The problem is bad enough that Lt. Gen. Bogdan has admitted the F-35C will need an entirely redesigned outer wing.
Will someone more knowledgeable tell me just how bad this is? I do know a bit about defense contractors and missiles (I worked at a defense contractor for a hot minute as an engineer), but this just sounds like a clusterfuck of epic proportions. The cynic in me believes the congressional-military-industrial complex has run wild in order to maintain cash flow.
Wow. I did not realize it had been in development for so long.
> The scale of the challenge yet remaining with the F-35 is easily quantified in this year’s DOT&E analysis. According to the report, the F-35 still has 276 “Critical to Correct” deficiencies—these must be fixed before the development process ends because they could “lead to operational mission failures during IOT&E or combat.” Of the 276, 72 were listed as “priority 1,” which are service-critical flaws that would prevent the services from fielding the jets until they are fixed.
I'm not an expert on designing fighter jets, but that sounds bad.
> The problem is bad enough that Lt. Gen. Bogdan has admitted the F-35C will need an entirely redesigned outer wing.
Will someone more knowledgeable tell me just how bad this is? I do know a bit about defense contractors and missiles (I worked at a defense contractor for a hot minute as an engineer), but this just sounds like a clusterfuck of epic proportions. The cynic in me believes the congressional-military-industrial complex has run wild in order to maintain cash flow.
I haven't kept up on the F-35 lately. But this is a jet made of compromises. The Pentagon knew they couldn't get funding for multiple new jets. The F-35 is trying to do to much by being a jet for the Air Force, Navy and Marines. So they combined all the requirements for the specification. Combining the requirements of the Air Force and Navy probably isn't so bad. The Marines requirement of the F-35 being VTOL capable is holding the design back. I accept that VTOL is a key requirement for the Marines, but the F-35 has made a lot of trade offs for that feature. While I don't know how successful the F-35 would be without VTOL, it has to be better then what is being delivered.
Most of what you wrote is wrong. There are three versions, the F-35A, F-35B and F-35C for the AF, Marines and Navy respectively. The three split a long time ago, so no version is holding any other back.
Where things aren't so good is that the three versions were originally supposed to have over 80% parts commonality. That is now down to something like 20%. That is bad in terms of economies of scale.
All that said, in principle there is absolutely nothing preventing a single, mostly common, design from filling those three roles. Whether the F-35 team has done an exemplary job of doing that is certainly a question.
In terms of sheer engineering, it can be argued that the F-35B is the most impressive of the three versions. It's the first supersonic VTOL fighter ever.
Where things aren't so good is that the three versions were originally supposed to have over 80% parts commonality. That is now down to something like 20%. That is bad in terms of economies of scale.
All that said, in principle there is absolutely nothing preventing a single, mostly common, design from filling those three roles. Whether the F-35 team has done an exemplary job of doing that is certainly a question.
In terms of sheer engineering, it can be argued that the F-35B is the most impressive of the three versions. It's the first supersonic VTOL fighter ever.
From a Bloomberg article* yesterday:
"The lift fan made the common fuselage bulkier than it otherwise would have been. That, in turn, increased drag and decreased fuel efficiency and range."
This quote from the article reinforces my view that the VTOL requirement does effect the other version of the F-35.
* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-04-04/is-the-f-...
This quote from the article reinforces my view that the VTOL requirement does effect the other version of the F-35.
* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-04-04/is-the-f-...
There was a 2 hour NOVA about the Boeing vs Lockheed competition back in 2002/2003, looks like it's on YouTube
https://youtu.be/B7-LQDueYlk
https://youtu.be/B7-LQDueYlk
Official video instead of a repost: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14014954
I remember reading about the F-35's catastrophic problems and cost over runs on slashdot when I was in highschool. I'm nearly 30 years old now. It seemed like an unsalvageable boondoggle back then. Glad the government appears to have pulled it out and made it a success!
I have to say I am suspecting that the f35 problems are disinformation. It just doesn't make sense otherwise, so many countries so much money so much dependency and it's really a broken plane ! And the problems can't be fixed? Right. I suspect it disinformation to deter china and Russia from putting money into similar generation plane. Or even friendly countries from going their own way aka Typhoon / rafale replacements
Is it disinformation that Canada cancelled their F35 order and bought F18s instead?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
Have they cancelled or talking about it? Even if 1 country canceling proves nothing at all. If 80% or 70% cancel then it may mean something
Thank God we did.
The F-35 is right wing welfare.
I'm in your boat, and i propose a more flat-rate thesis than your comment does.
It goes like this:
Without the spending of federal money into the M.I.C., USA would be bankrupt within a few months. Not only bankrupt, but broke on a general level. Broken, so to say.
Feeding the warmachine on and on will blow back sometime, there is an end to all wastefullness.
We need a movement to compel the .gov to spend just ONE years worth of MIC spending on social endeavors. And see what would be possible....
We have the ability to defend ourself, we have the most powerful military and navy in the world many times over. Lets just see what the heck we could accomplish in one year alone with respect to social and economic services.
We have the ability to defend ourself, we have the most powerful military and navy in the world many times over. Lets just see what the heck we could accomplish in one year alone with respect to social and economic services.
You have to wonder to what degree the design of the Boeing X-32 impacted its ultimate rejection. There's got to be some general that was thinking "I don't care how good that plane is, we're going to be the literal laughingstock of the entire world".
[deleted]
Maybe the DOD should go watch the movie Moneyball.
Norway dismissed buying Gripen from neighbouring Sweden to buy the non-working F35, claiming Gripen failed the technical evaluation of what a capable fighter needed to be able to.
In hindsight it seems obvious that they were less concentrated with actually getting a capable fighter anytime soon and a lot more concerned with, well, paying money to the US.
This has caused a rift between the two countries that is still lasting.
(Side-note: as a new HN user I really, really hate this throttling. I think I actually managed to submit this on the 9th try, waiting about ten minutes between each attempt. I kept seeing "You're submitting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks."
I really, really don't think is good for conversion stats.)
In hindsight it seems obvious that they were less concentrated with actually getting a capable fighter anytime soon and a lot more concerned with, well, paying money to the US.
This has caused a rift between the two countries that is still lasting.
(Side-note: as a new HN user I really, really hate this throttling. I think I actually managed to submit this on the 9th try, waiting about ten minutes between each attempt. I kept seeing "You're submitting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks."
I really, really don't think is good for conversion stats.)
The diplomatic cable leaks proved that the purchase was politically motivated under heavy pressure from the US https://www.thelocal.se/20101203/30584
If we had bought the Gripen we would also get access to the software that drives it and not be beholden forever to the manufacturer.
Someone should apply to YC with an air-to-ground fighter startup. They've funded a Concord startup, and an electric 737 startup. Why not an "F35 that works" startup?
Sorry to be a party pooper but the problem I think is there might be restrictions on who we can sell such a thing to (given we can create something that is as good as the 35, which isn't a given either). I mean outside of NATO and Israel, I can't imagine who I'd be comfortable selling to...
Maybe Japan and South Korea?
I don't like the idea of being dependent on a few large customers. Not saying you should listen to me. I have a horrible track record in speculation. I was clearly overly skeptical of the Y Combinator darling, Dropbox. I bet Y Combinator is glad they didn't listen to people like me.
It just makes me feel uneasy.
Maybe Japan and South Korea?
I don't like the idea of being dependent on a few large customers. Not saying you should listen to me. I have a horrible track record in speculation. I was clearly overly skeptical of the Y Combinator darling, Dropbox. I bet Y Combinator is glad they didn't listen to people like me.
It just makes me feel uneasy.
No one is going to buy this piece of junk if they don't have a finger in the manufacturing pie. And at $100M per, nor should they. We sell the F16 ($18.8M) to a ton of countries who'd never buy an F35.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users.html
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users.html
Maybe not exactly an F-35 replacement but there are quite a few things to disrupt in defense. Especially, given the recent shift into electronic warfare and autonomous systems.
Well, I could certainly do that - I've already blown $40MM trying it once several years ago :) - actually it was for an aircraft with a different focus, but still ...
Making predictions is hard, especially about the future.
Building a complex system is rife with complex risks. There's the initial sticker shock, and that's even if costs can be reasonably estimated years in advance for technology which is not only unproven, but undemonstrated. Then there's the quite significant nonrecurring engineering costs. Want to divide those costs over 200 aircraft instead of 300 - bam - 50% cost increase, thank you madam taxpayer. Still need those 200 aircraft by a given date - discover it costs more because manufacturing facilities come in "chunks" of price-to-capability - under-build and miss the target - over-build and per-unit is higher. Discover your estimates of deliverability, even if made with honest efforts, are off by a few years, and the price only goes in one direction. Try to keep certain components really (relatively) inexpensive to meet price requirements, and discover, like every aircraft manufacturer in history, that adding lightness is difficult after you had to add strengthening material in certain problematic areas, like, oh, the wings. And of course, politicians change their minds - keeping 10,000 engineers engaged during a lean period so that you can re-engage them when political winds change is a nontrivial task too.
And with all that, to be a successful long term project, there's some future events that have to be estimated - tell me what the threat will be in 20 years? What will the political will to engage those threats be? What munitions will there be? What survivability is desired? What's the desired lifetime? Will AI be good enough to dump pilots entirely?
As much as I'd love to build the next generation manned fighter-bomber, it's not a palatable risk for anyone not ready to lose their entire investment. Even Paul Allen has got to feel a little sensitive at the billion dollars he lost with his effort at Eclipse (during the time I was losing far less).
I recently went through (most of) a technical incubator in the area I live in. There were several investors involved that were quite knowledgeable about aviation. I couldn't get any of them interested enough to engage in my autonomous air ambulance idea (the Marine's have said in advance they want such a thing - but it has to be good, fast, and cheap) - and the translation to a future civilian capability is pretty obvious.
That's one reason I'm cheering for the effort by Boom to build a new civilian supersonic aircraft. Yeah, it's going to be hard to meet price targets, and it's refreshing to see someone willing to take a $30MM chance on a complex project, and that's just to get a demo built and flown.
Building a future capable fighter is a whole other ballgame.
Making predictions is hard, especially about the future.
Building a complex system is rife with complex risks. There's the initial sticker shock, and that's even if costs can be reasonably estimated years in advance for technology which is not only unproven, but undemonstrated. Then there's the quite significant nonrecurring engineering costs. Want to divide those costs over 200 aircraft instead of 300 - bam - 50% cost increase, thank you madam taxpayer. Still need those 200 aircraft by a given date - discover it costs more because manufacturing facilities come in "chunks" of price-to-capability - under-build and miss the target - over-build and per-unit is higher. Discover your estimates of deliverability, even if made with honest efforts, are off by a few years, and the price only goes in one direction. Try to keep certain components really (relatively) inexpensive to meet price requirements, and discover, like every aircraft manufacturer in history, that adding lightness is difficult after you had to add strengthening material in certain problematic areas, like, oh, the wings. And of course, politicians change their minds - keeping 10,000 engineers engaged during a lean period so that you can re-engage them when political winds change is a nontrivial task too.
And with all that, to be a successful long term project, there's some future events that have to be estimated - tell me what the threat will be in 20 years? What will the political will to engage those threats be? What munitions will there be? What survivability is desired? What's the desired lifetime? Will AI be good enough to dump pilots entirely?
As much as I'd love to build the next generation manned fighter-bomber, it's not a palatable risk for anyone not ready to lose their entire investment. Even Paul Allen has got to feel a little sensitive at the billion dollars he lost with his effort at Eclipse (during the time I was losing far less).
I recently went through (most of) a technical incubator in the area I live in. There were several investors involved that were quite knowledgeable about aviation. I couldn't get any of them interested enough to engage in my autonomous air ambulance idea (the Marine's have said in advance they want such a thing - but it has to be good, fast, and cheap) - and the translation to a future civilian capability is pretty obvious.
That's one reason I'm cheering for the effort by Boom to build a new civilian supersonic aircraft. Yeah, it's going to be hard to meet price targets, and it's refreshing to see someone willing to take a $30MM chance on a complex project, and that's just to get a demo built and flown.
Building a future capable fighter is a whole other ballgame.
It's almost unfathomable how much good such an amount could accomplish, if it weren't being spend on building underperforming and unnecessary weapons systems.
Indeed.
I want the federal government to declare "war" on Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati and other poverty stricken areas. Maybe then these impoverished areas might get some infrastructure improvements which will generate jobs in the short term and help attract businesses in the medium-long term.
Why did it take almost a whole year to get $170m (or just one F-35) to the people of Flint? Why is a military toy built to fight a fictional war against nobody more important than actual people who are suffering?
The US will happily declare war on Iraq and spend $1.7 trillion, but just the thought of spending a dime within the country turns everyone's stomachs! We need to declare war on poverty, we need to declare war on collapsing infrastructure, we need to declare war on lack of public transport, and we need to declare war on shitty internet stifling the country's competitiveness.
This is all GDP generating. Every dollar we spend on infrastructure provides almost twice that in GDP. What is the F-35's rate of return?
I want the federal government to declare "war" on Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati and other poverty stricken areas. Maybe then these impoverished areas might get some infrastructure improvements which will generate jobs in the short term and help attract businesses in the medium-long term.
Why did it take almost a whole year to get $170m (or just one F-35) to the people of Flint? Why is a military toy built to fight a fictional war against nobody more important than actual people who are suffering?
The US will happily declare war on Iraq and spend $1.7 trillion, but just the thought of spending a dime within the country turns everyone's stomachs! We need to declare war on poverty, we need to declare war on collapsing infrastructure, we need to declare war on lack of public transport, and we need to declare war on shitty internet stifling the country's competitiveness.
This is all GDP generating. Every dollar we spend on infrastructure provides almost twice that in GDP. What is the F-35's rate of return?
your GDP math is off..Military spending and infrastructure spending has the same GDP effects..just different political sleeping partners
Most infrastructure has long term value, 90% of military spending does not. The Big dig will probably be useful in 100 years the F-35 is already useless today.
This ignores multipliers.. building a military plane employs people, and they go on to spend their incomes but that's essentially the end of it. Building a bridge employs people who spend the money, but then the bridge makes an entire region more productive for decades, leading to much more (and longer lasting) growth -- as long as it's not a bridge to nowhere...
What is the GDP impact of an effective military though? Maybe the spending on the A10 etc deterred Soviet ambitions in Europe. We are certainly seeing a loss of US influence in Europe and Asia due to Trump devaluing NATO.
Right but surely we're well past the point of diminishing returns.. what's the incremental value of the 750th A-10 or the 400th C130, or the 1,000th F16 to pick on the air force a bit?
It's a classic OA or logistics problem: how many units of X do you need to meet need Y? C-130s to supply the force, F-16s to provide air cover or strike, pilots and aircrew to fly and maintain them, training required to maintain strength and readiness.
Everyone does that assessment on the opposing force, to get an estimate of how credible they are. For the US that goal is two wars at the same time, anywhere. Right now they USAF has the problem of being 'hollow': not being able to meet their readiness requirements due to lack of people, operating airframes, or building technical debt through over-using equipment and people.
So they have the 750th A-10 because they did the math. It's not about heroes, it's about being organised. The force is more than the individuals or the gadgets.
Everyone does that assessment on the opposing force, to get an estimate of how credible they are. For the US that goal is two wars at the same time, anywhere. Right now they USAF has the problem of being 'hollow': not being able to meet their readiness requirements due to lack of people, operating airframes, or building technical debt through over-using equipment and people.
So they have the 750th A-10 because they did the math. It's not about heroes, it's about being organised. The force is more than the individuals or the gadgets.
> What is the F-35's rate of return?
Reelection of politicians in areas with military industry, of course.
That's also the reason why the Airbus plane parts are built, shipped around all over Europe before final assembly - in order to provide funding to EADS/Airbus, European politicians wanted to secure jobs for their specific countries, even if this adds significant logistic and cost challenges.
Even science suffers from this "localism"... just look at ITER.
Summarized: No one will dare to cancel or significantly reduce any major weapons/science/collaborative project, because any politician who votes for "shut down a program that employs people in my voter area" will face the consequence of not being reelected.
Reelection of politicians in areas with military industry, of course.
That's also the reason why the Airbus plane parts are built, shipped around all over Europe before final assembly - in order to provide funding to EADS/Airbus, European politicians wanted to secure jobs for their specific countries, even if this adds significant logistic and cost challenges.
Even science suffers from this "localism"... just look at ITER.
Summarized: No one will dare to cancel or significantly reduce any major weapons/science/collaborative project, because any politician who votes for "shut down a program that employs people in my voter area" will face the consequence of not being reelected.
We had a federal war on poverty, starting with the Johnson administration and ending when Bill Clinton gutted the federal welfare program in 1996. Hell it even has a wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty). Slim chance of that ever happening again given the current political climate...
Had we taken the money we spent on the war on poverty and just given it out to the poor, with a inexpensive financial literacy and education program to go along with it, we could have actually solved most poverty.
Most poor people just need a little bit of a leg up to get them out of the hole, and then are able to crawl the rest of the way out and better themselves without much additional help, often within the same generation.
Instead we formed an endless number of programs, targeted at specific regions, minorities and groups, with an seemingly endless number of bureaucrats to run them, and we end up only one or two pegs ahead of where we started. I just try to imagine how far we would be had we instituted a minimum income in 1975.
The current political climate is because of perceived government overreach (real or imagined) - where the overreach comes from however depends on your political stripe (the right blames environmental and regulatory issues, the left, the national security circus/military-industrial complex) in the end the people are tired, and the attitude of the country has seemingly shifted (if even only perhaps temporarily), people want a return to normalcy, so I fear for a generation or so more, the chance may be lost.
Most poor people just need a little bit of a leg up to get them out of the hole, and then are able to crawl the rest of the way out and better themselves without much additional help, often within the same generation.
Instead we formed an endless number of programs, targeted at specific regions, minorities and groups, with an seemingly endless number of bureaucrats to run them, and we end up only one or two pegs ahead of where we started. I just try to imagine how far we would be had we instituted a minimum income in 1975.
The current political climate is because of perceived government overreach (real or imagined) - where the overreach comes from however depends on your political stripe (the right blames environmental and regulatory issues, the left, the national security circus/military-industrial complex) in the end the people are tired, and the attitude of the country has seemingly shifted (if even only perhaps temporarily), people want a return to normalcy, so I fear for a generation or so more, the chance may be lost.
Not defending the details for the F-35 program, but military spending in general:
Every dollar you spend on weapons also increases GDP. Because GDP is not a measure of economic good, only of economic activity.
In fact, wars create huge jumps in GDP. That doesn't mean they're economically good.
And anyway, you can't measure military deterrents by "rate of return". The F-35's rate of return is "we don't have to fight another world war", because potential adversaries will understand they don't have a chance of winning and thus won't start a conflict.
Every dollar you spend on weapons also increases GDP. Because GDP is not a measure of economic good, only of economic activity.
In fact, wars create huge jumps in GDP. That doesn't mean they're economically good.
And anyway, you can't measure military deterrents by "rate of return". The F-35's rate of return is "we don't have to fight another world war", because potential adversaries will understand they don't have a chance of winning and thus won't start a conflict.
> wars create huge jumps in GDP
Huge jumps for all the wrong reasons.
> The F-35's rate of return is "we don't have to fight another world war"
The F-35 budget overran due to mismanagement, not because it just costs trillions to create the technology. I can see China working with Russia being able to afford their own competitive machines. There doesn't seem to be a clear "we don't have to fight another world war" end game.
Huge jumps for all the wrong reasons.
> The F-35's rate of return is "we don't have to fight another world war"
The F-35 budget overran due to mismanagement, not because it just costs trillions to create the technology. I can see China working with Russia being able to afford their own competitive machines. There doesn't seem to be a clear "we don't have to fight another world war" end game.
> The F-35's rate of return is "we don't have to fight another world war", because potential adversaries will understand they don't have a chance of winning and thus won't start a conflict.
Meanwhile, the F35 barely goes toe to toe with the Rafale F3, which is cheaper to produce and maintain.
But I guess you can reuse it elsewhere. Whooo.
Meanwhile, the F35 barely goes toe to toe with the Rafale F3, which is cheaper to produce and maintain.
But I guess you can reuse it elsewhere. Whooo.
War doesn't increase GDP, that's called "inflation". Jobs are the cost of the military, both a benefit. And We won't fight another world war because of nuclear weapons.
Flint's not a great example of alternate ways for how F-35 monies could be spent. Political and administrative ineptitude led to unsafe water conditions in Flint and now federal taxpayers are bailing them out to the tune of $170M. That's wasteful all around as the situation was entirely avoidable.
Unfortunately indicting the people responsible doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.
Ah, nice. That definitely didn't get anywhere near as much play nationally as the disaster did.
Very true. While the advancement in the specific technology related to aviation this brings is significant, research in this area does not get disseminated to other areas in the same way that money going to funding other types of research would.
Like cryptography research -- almost every public advance in that area is the second time, the first time while "classified" by the NSA.
Indeed, it could've been spent on much better weapon systems, but I get a feeling it is not something most people here would approve of. Based on the replies to on your comment, most people would disapprove of this even if was the best weapon system, since they seem to disapprove of national defense.
>disapprove of national defense.
it these programs where actually used for DEFENSE, then I believe most people would not dissapprove of them, but the US has not been on the defensive for a number of decades now.
Of course you can make the claim that programs like this are the reason, however I think would could spend the same amount of every nation on the planet complained and still provide a proper defense, unlike today where we spend 2x or 3x more than every other nation combined.
Money Pits like the F35 are jobs programs not defense programs
it these programs where actually used for DEFENSE, then I believe most people would not dissapprove of them, but the US has not been on the defensive for a number of decades now.
Of course you can make the claim that programs like this are the reason, however I think would could spend the same amount of every nation on the planet complained and still provide a proper defense, unlike today where we spend 2x or 3x more than every other nation combined.
Money Pits like the F35 are jobs programs not defense programs
At $100M per for a plane that doesn't work and is 7+ years behind schedule, the purpose of the F-35 is not national defense. It is to spend money on the right people. The F-35 is right wing welfare.
At this rate human- controlled fighters will be uncompetitive before the F35 is combat-ready.
If they can't get the software right for this crewed fighter, how will they get it right for the uncrewed ones?
>The report says the problem is bad enough that F-35 pilots may need to fly in so close to acquire the target that they would have to maneuver away to gain the distance needed for a guided weapon shot. Thus, the system’s limitations can force an attacking F-35 to compromise surprise, allowing the enemy to maneuver to a first-shot opportunity.
This sounds catastrophic.
This sounds catastrophic.
F-35 100 billions, ITER 20 billions... If I had to choose...
[deleted]
There is no such thing as too long to fail?
It seems that Israel recently used it in combat, so it's ready.
http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/2017/03/07/have-israels-new-...
http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/2017/03/07/have-israels-new-...
Nope, that's a rumour from a French journalist that's very unlikely to be true. And note it's not ready, cause the gun doesnt work, in 4 years when it's supposed to work it won't carry enough ammo, it can't carry its planned bomb types, the helmet doesn't work and might be dangerous, and it gets dusted in any dogfight by 40 year old fighters.
This is an article that has lots of little details wrong but the overall message isn't wrong at all.
Based on the contents of this article, it sounds like many of the problems facing the F35 are rooted in sheer technical incompetence. There is no valid technical reason for many of the software limitations described in the article.
I remember learning my job (working on training system for Comanche) was cut on the 6 o-clock news... And that was a lot less in the whole than this thing.
[deleted]
This reminds me so much the excellent movie "The Pentagon Wars" which I highly recommend.
Why? Well, to get user facing software working properly, you need a tight, low friction OODA loop (ironically in context, a concept perhaps most notably studied in air combat). Develop a prototype, put it in front of domain experts, prospective users, get feedback, develop an improved prototype, rinse, repeat.
But that's exactly what's very hard to do in a huge project with massively rigid bureaucracy. Conclusion: those capabilities should first have been developed in a skunkworks project, an X-plane, before committing to them for the do-everything plane that half the world is supposed to end up using for the next half century.
General cross-domain conclusion (at least for domains where the ostensible product is the real goal of the project, which in this case it arguably isn't, as previously discussed): if the big expensive thing you want to build, wants a radical new capability, see if you can develop the radical new capability in a skunkworks project before committing to it in the big expensive project.