Pentagon Puts F-35 Full-Rate Production Decision on Hold(thedrive.com)
thedrive.com
Pentagon Puts F-35 Full-Rate Production Decision on Hold
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38507/its-official-pentagon-puts-f-35-full-rate-production-decision-on-hold
266 comments
> what the Joint Simulation Environment is really supposed to do
It's for formal verification and validation (V&V).
> why the development of a simulation should hold up the full production
Why shouldn't it hold up production? The program has requirements for formal V&V that they haven't met yet. In theory, you could start production by accepting the risk that you might need to do some rework, but I don't know if that was even an option.
> step through iterations with very quickly
The argument for doing a simulation is to get higher fidelity. It doesn't really make the process any faster on its own. The simulations themselves take a trivial amount of time compared to the preparation and analysis.
> nothing like this has been done before
There's a lot of simulation in aerospace and defense. I don't know exactly how JSE compares in terms of extent and reliance on it, but it's not a completely new idea.
It's for formal verification and validation (V&V).
> why the development of a simulation should hold up the full production
Why shouldn't it hold up production? The program has requirements for formal V&V that they haven't met yet. In theory, you could start production by accepting the risk that you might need to do some rework, but I don't know if that was even an option.
> step through iterations with very quickly
The argument for doing a simulation is to get higher fidelity. It doesn't really make the process any faster on its own. The simulations themselves take a trivial amount of time compared to the preparation and analysis.
> nothing like this has been done before
There's a lot of simulation in aerospace and defense. I don't know exactly how JSE compares in terms of extent and reliance on it, but it's not a completely new idea.
The DoD has done a lot of simulations (some for the purposes of higher fidelity, but that's definitely not the only reason), but this is the first time it's truly tried to fold a simulation into the formal acceptance of an air vehicle, and committed this hard to high fidelity at scale.
After seeing what happened in Armenia & Azerbaijan, I'm wondering if the US's customers are pushing for these cheaper drone options instead of the F35. The F35 has been in development so long, that it's seeing its own combat role supplanted
The F-35 is the Capacitance Electronic Disc (CED) player of war machines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnpX8d8zRIA
Perfect for the era development started in, but useless for the era when it was finally shippable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnpX8d8zRIA
Perfect for the era development started in, but useless for the era when it was finally shippable.
We've seen this argument many times, but is this true? Where's the data? Etc.
I'm not saying it's a bad argument, but since the hypothesis space is vast (what kind of future conflicts the US/NATO will engage in, what intensity, what kind of economics, what kind of arms race will those bring, etc), and data is sparse, it seems like HN/pundits are not great at really reducing the uncertainty.
Sure, it's still a fuckload of money, and probably it could be better spent on providing new skill training to unemployed/at-risk-workers in those states where the F35 money goes right now, but that's a hard sell, and doesn't really move the needle with regards to air-force capacity.
I'm not saying it's a bad argument, but since the hypothesis space is vast (what kind of future conflicts the US/NATO will engage in, what intensity, what kind of economics, what kind of arms race will those bring, etc), and data is sparse, it seems like HN/pundits are not great at really reducing the uncertainty.
Sure, it's still a fuckload of money, and probably it could be better spent on providing new skill training to unemployed/at-risk-workers in those states where the F35 money goes right now, but that's a hard sell, and doesn't really move the needle with regards to air-force capacity.
> Perfect for the era development started in, but useless for the era when it was finally shippable.
Are you any good at lottery numbers?
Traditional fighters will probably lull in use in between the proliferation of drones, and the proliferation of countermeasures to those drones.
Are you any good at lottery numbers?
Traditional fighters will probably lull in use in between the proliferation of drones, and the proliferation of countermeasures to those drones.
The F-35 was never about actual combat
I do not believe for a second the F-35 was ever designed to be an actual combat jet, I think is was all just a giant smoke screen to serve several political goals on both the domestic and Foreign fronts.
It is simultaneously a prime example of a Jet designed by committee, a 1 Trillion + dollar program that will never serve the purpose it was sold to the taxpayers for...
I do not believe for a second the F-35 was ever designed to be an actual combat jet, I think is was all just a giant smoke screen to serve several political goals on both the domestic and Foreign fronts.
It is simultaneously a prime example of a Jet designed by committee, a 1 Trillion + dollar program that will never serve the purpose it was sold to the taxpayers for...
...And yet it has served in actual combat with the US, UK, and Israel.
Do you really think that an aircraft not meant to do something would be fielded by those nations and used to do that very thing?
And of course the program has political goals, every defense acquisition program does, to pretend otherwise would be silly.
Do you really think that an aircraft not meant to do something would be fielded by those nations and used to do that very thing?
And of course the program has political goals, every defense acquisition program does, to pretend otherwise would be silly.
No where in my comment did I say it was not capable of combat at all, but it certainly has not lived up to the billed goal of the program nor will be be effective in its billed role of "Fighter jet to replace all Fighter Jets"
It is mediocre in all roles for which was designed to replace. It is not as good at dog-fighting as its counter parts, it is not as good at close air support as its counter parts, it does not have as good of stealth has it counter parts.
It is a 1 Trillion+ Dollar "ok" fighter jet, which is not what we were sold
It is mediocre in all roles for which was designed to replace. It is not as good at dog-fighting as its counter parts, it is not as good at close air support as its counter parts, it does not have as good of stealth has it counter parts.
It is a 1 Trillion+ Dollar "ok" fighter jet, which is not what we were sold
Not sure who bills it as "fighter jet to replace all fighter jets" but that's certainly not what the Operational Requirements Document for F-35 says.
Not in those words no, but yes the operational requirement of the F-35 was soo vast is was to be the Joint Strike Fighter to fill all the roles for all the branches of military
It was to replace almost all of the jetfighter platforms from the A-10 to the F15 and to replace some of the bomber platforms
It was to replace almost all of the jetfighter platforms from the A-10 to the F15 and to replace some of the bomber platforms
The F-35 is to replace some F-15Cs, the legacy Hornet (F-18 A/B/C/D) and the A-10.
The F-15Cs are all pushing 40, Hornets are 30+ and because they're used by the Navy they're used hard, the A-10 is totally obsolete, and no bomber is being replaced by the F-35.
The F-15Cs are all pushing 40, Hornets are 30+ and because they're used by the Navy they're used hard, the A-10 is totally obsolete, and no bomber is being replaced by the F-35.
The F35's competition isn't a comparable enemy aircraft or a drone swarm. It's political corruption and hostile Facebook/Twitter troll farms.
As a close follower of F-35 development, and of the A&A conflict, I am not exactly sure what you mean. The F-35 would have been very useful to either side willing to use it for the SEAD/wild weasel role.
In a land of infinite wealth I would want an army of 10,000 F-35's. In a poor backwater just outside of Turkey, I would want an army of 10,000 suicide drones
Iran had only a few dozen F-14s and it shifted the balance of power significantly in the Iran-Iraq war, even in the presence of the powerful Iraqi air defense, which the F-35 being stealthy doesn't need to worry about. Don't underestimate what a powerful modern fighter can do.
Eh, if we're honest in that conflict it's airstrip would have been bombed instantly and persistently.
[deleted]
Bingo. The F-35 as a bomb delivery platform might be already obsolete, as drones are far cheaper.
You still need air defense/air superiority fighter though.
The F-35/s future role is as a sensor platform and networking hub for a group of lighter-weight, cheaper, and more expendable drones. Eventually the F-35 will also be unmanned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kratos_XQ-58_Valkyrie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kratos_XQ-58_Valkyrie
That thing should be called Valkryie II. The Valkyrie was a much more impressive aircraft, an almost legend that is too often forgotten.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie
The Valkyrie was a legend. Looks like it inspired the concord.
Isn’t a Global Hawk, Triton, or similar with high altitude loiter capabilities and StarLink support not a more pragmatic option for such a role? They’re also unmanned. If carrier support is required, there’s the X-47B/X-47C vehicle.
Platforms should go high and slow (but faster when necessary, when in range of bad times). Ordinance should go fast, very fast, with no people onboard.
Platforms should go high and slow (but faster when necessary, when in range of bad times). Ordinance should go fast, very fast, with no people onboard.
UAVs like the Global Hawk or Triton aren't large enough to be fast enough to be useful against enemy fighters. As for StarLink, all relevant LEO satellites are coming down in the early stages of any open combat between the US and a near-peer adversary. To contest air superiority requires a platform that goes very fast and can see very far. To fight enemy fighters or to strike ground targets in places without air superiority a stealth fighter large enough to be fast and to carry a long-range sensing and jamming suite is needed.
My point is that fighters are obsolete. Sensor platforms get you the target, long range ordinance kills the target. Dog fights are dead like the SR71, which was obsoleted by orbital surveillance. See from afar, kill from afar, and stop trying to put a human onboard.
That's what Lockheed-Martin has been saying, but I'm pretty sure the F-35 is still deployed along-side an AWACS. And with more and better satellite imagery & communication. I just don't see why we need this extremely capable and expensive flying network router.
AWACS can be shot down by near-peer adversaries. And satellites travel in known orbits and have no capacity to evade. It's well known at this point that nations that can make current-generation fighter jets can also shoot down satellites.
Making a fighter jet is way harder than hitting a satellite with a few grams worth of kinetic projectile (or, more accurately, letting the satellite run into a field them).
I wouldn't bet on any nation not being able to pull that off. In fact I can think of some teams of university students who could probably hit a Starlink satellite if you gave them some funding.
I wouldn't bet on any nation not being able to pull that off. In fact I can think of some teams of university students who could probably hit a Starlink satellite if you gave them some funding.
Any nuclear armed adversary could knock out a whole hemisphere of starlinks with a single missile.
The AWACS for an F-35 in terms of providing an air picture is less necessary. They are still command and control and provide services which may not be radar related. They have lots of people that can process data and taskings. So don't let the idea that they are being used with an AWACS mean they require an AWACS.
And for the space discussion, nothing is as real time as a fighter's sensors airborne, it's pretty bad how long some data can take to reach a platform that can use that data. The military has a problem right now with distributing data real time, they are working to solve that problem. You can find a lot of articles on the ABMS. https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2336618/adva...
And for the space discussion, nothing is as real time as a fighter's sensors airborne, it's pretty bad how long some data can take to reach a platform that can use that data. The military has a problem right now with distributing data real time, they are working to solve that problem. You can find a lot of articles on the ABMS. https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2336618/adva...
And the f-35 is neither. It is the complement to the f-22, not its replacement. There are more effective air superiority fighters out there for far less money.
Except we stopped F-22 production to focus on replacing it with the F-35
Not true. This topic is more complex then simply replacing the F-22 with F-35 as most government decisions on multi-million dollar projects with state interests in mind are.
The F-22 was cancelled because the military thought that they didn't needed to spend the money on air superiority fighters and wanted to use the money elsewhere (drones and bombers). I don't think the F-35 was in the discussion that much... they fired the top leaders of the Air Force at this time.
Robert Gates killed the F-22 and fired the chief of staff of the Air Force Moseley and secretary Wynne. Since then we knew it was a mistake and tried to restart the F-22 line. It didn't make sense for cost.
Gates has his own book Duty which references this quite a bit and is a great political read https://www.amazon.com/Duty-Memoirs-Secretary-at-War/dp/0307...
And there is another book that argues it was a bad idea. https://www.amazon.com/Air-Power-Abandoned-Betrayal-Americas...
Also:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20472/retired-general-...
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/05/10...
This one is funny because they talk about the increased costs of the B-2 due to cutting it early..... as they cut the F-22.
https://www.airforcemag.com/schwartz-in-memoir-says-f-22-was...
The F-22 was cancelled because the military thought that they didn't needed to spend the money on air superiority fighters and wanted to use the money elsewhere (drones and bombers). I don't think the F-35 was in the discussion that much... they fired the top leaders of the Air Force at this time.
Robert Gates killed the F-22 and fired the chief of staff of the Air Force Moseley and secretary Wynne. Since then we knew it was a mistake and tried to restart the F-22 line. It didn't make sense for cost.
Gates has his own book Duty which references this quite a bit and is a great political read https://www.amazon.com/Duty-Memoirs-Secretary-at-War/dp/0307...
And there is another book that argues it was a bad idea. https://www.amazon.com/Air-Power-Abandoned-Betrayal-Americas...
Also:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20472/retired-general-...
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/05/10...
This one is funny because they talk about the increased costs of the B-2 due to cutting it early..... as they cut the F-22.
https://www.airforcemag.com/schwartz-in-memoir-says-f-22-was...
F-35 combat range is "only" 1000km, and will get smaller with heavier munitions.
Say, you get 500km range if you want to drop 20t of bombs, have 8 planes, and want to have safety margins.
500km is easily within the range of even the most primitive tactical missile like Oka, and retaliatory airstrikes.
On other hand, you will have a very busy forward airfield, with tiny airstrip, with a lot of very expensive planes, and long times to sortie, and very close to the enemy.
Say, you get 500km range if you want to drop 20t of bombs, have 8 planes, and want to have safety margins.
500km is easily within the range of even the most primitive tactical missile like Oka, and retaliatory airstrikes.
On other hand, you will have a very busy forward airfield, with tiny airstrip, with a lot of very expensive planes, and long times to sortie, and very close to the enemy.
Drones should be inherently better anyway since they don’t have to carry 80KG of meat that needs to be kept alive.
The F-35 is intended to be in service for decades longer than the Air Force is expecting to have human pilots in combat roles. One of the reasons the F-35 has had such a complex production history is that it's designed to be both the last fighter platform flown by humans and the first flown by AI.
> The F-35 is intended to be in service for decades longer than the Air Force is expecting to have human pilots in combat roles. One of the reasons the F-35 has had such a complex production history is that it's designed to be both the last fighter platform flown by humans and the first flown by AI.
One of many, many ways that the F-35s cost and development timeline has been blown up by trying to do too many different and incompatible, or at least non-complementary, things with one platform.
As lots of critics were pointing out as a problem with the project from the beginning.
One of many, many ways that the F-35s cost and development timeline has been blown up by trying to do too many different and incompatible, or at least non-complementary, things with one platform.
As lots of critics were pointing out as a problem with the project from the beginning.
Lookup the QF-4 and QF-16. US knows how to convert fighter jets into drones just fine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_A_rEZoXSg
Sure, however it must be liberating to not have the "carry a human and keep it alive" constraints when when building the thing in the first place. Sizes can shrink, payloads can increase, mission objectives can omit parts like "come back to the base in one piece", manoeuvre limits can be stretched to the structural limits of the device, things like shaking might have greater margin for acceptance.
This comment implies pilots could magically be replaced by tech, and yet, that tech has never been used in any real scenario - ever. Wonder why? Because the kind of control offered by said tech just isn't remotely suitable for real missions.
Of course, a 'major directive' to convert f35s into drones would look like something else entirely and may possibly work, but it's all fiction for now.
Of course, a 'major directive' to convert f35s into drones would look like something else entirely and may possibly work, but it's all fiction for now.
clearly that depends on what you define as better?
Ethically there is a reason that war should cost lives on both sides, if we get to the point where War is one sided or worse the only lives lost are civilian non-combatants "collateral" damage that does not seem like it would be "inherently better" for the world.
Past US presidents have already played Judge, Jury and Executioner with the US Drone program, nothing stopping future US Presidents from using fully automated US War machine to commit massive acts of war in the world as there would be no risk to "US Lives"
I do not see such a condition as inherently better
Ethically there is a reason that war should cost lives on both sides, if we get to the point where War is one sided or worse the only lives lost are civilian non-combatants "collateral" damage that does not seem like it would be "inherently better" for the world.
Past US presidents have already played Judge, Jury and Executioner with the US Drone program, nothing stopping future US Presidents from using fully automated US War machine to commit massive acts of war in the world as there would be no risk to "US Lives"
I do not see such a condition as inherently better
Actually around 30% of the aircraft weight is for keeping the wetware alive.
And a lot of the flight envelope limitations are just to not squish it too hard.
And a lot of the flight envelope limitations are just to not squish it too hard.
That 30% is very much on the high side, and would only be true on something like a single-engine fighter.
Initial flight envelope requirements are often drafted to be the maximum a pilot can take, but there are other considerations. Designing an airframe that can handle a 20G turn will actually make it less maneuverable overall, as it requires a heavier structure. Fighter design is a delicate balancing act.
Initial flight envelope requirements are often drafted to be the maximum a pilot can take, but there are other considerations. Designing an airframe that can handle a 20G turn will actually make it less maneuverable overall, as it requires a heavier structure. Fighter design is a delicate balancing act.
>That 30% is very much on the high side, and would only be true on something like a single-engine fighter.
...like the F-35? I mean, I don't have any idea at all what the exact percentage is, but that is the apropos isn't it?
>but there are other considerations. Designing an airframe that can handle a 20G turn will actually make it less maneuverable overall, as it requires a heavier structure.
Sure, but 30% heavier? Because if not seems like it would indeed be a win. I don't disagree at all that fighter design is a balancing act, that comes up in quite a few industries that push the edge particularly in aerospace. But fundamentally at least from other industries I am more familiar with there can often be disruptive gains when some single factor changes in a major way since changes so often are compounding. We seem to be on the verge of a big example of that in space with SpaceX and Starship. Far more mass and cadence for radically less money changes design considerations up and down the stack. When every single gram is expensive, it makes sense to use the most expensive materials and components, and as the overall price goes up it makes sense to try to pack in more and more functionality etc etc. When that changes all those effects go into reverse.
We're seeing that directly in fact with Starship development itself. They've got more margin to work with, so they could switch to steel, which is far cheaper and easier to work with, which helps with rapid cadence, which helps with mass manufacturing which further brings down costs, which all helps develop faster and better without bad decisions baked in, which further will help with cadence and ultimate cost, and on and on. The resulting contrast with the SLS program is just staggering. Costs and gains compound on either side for literal orders of magnitude divergence.
I don't know if drones will do the same thing for air superiority, but the potential shouldn't be ignored. And probably won't be indefinitely, because the specter of actual competitive level hostile forces seems likely to focus minds despite lobbying by incumbents. Real world results that grow big enough ultimately can't be papered over.
...like the F-35? I mean, I don't have any idea at all what the exact percentage is, but that is the apropos isn't it?
>but there are other considerations. Designing an airframe that can handle a 20G turn will actually make it less maneuverable overall, as it requires a heavier structure.
Sure, but 30% heavier? Because if not seems like it would indeed be a win. I don't disagree at all that fighter design is a balancing act, that comes up in quite a few industries that push the edge particularly in aerospace. But fundamentally at least from other industries I am more familiar with there can often be disruptive gains when some single factor changes in a major way since changes so often are compounding. We seem to be on the verge of a big example of that in space with SpaceX and Starship. Far more mass and cadence for radically less money changes design considerations up and down the stack. When every single gram is expensive, it makes sense to use the most expensive materials and components, and as the overall price goes up it makes sense to try to pack in more and more functionality etc etc. When that changes all those effects go into reverse.
We're seeing that directly in fact with Starship development itself. They've got more margin to work with, so they could switch to steel, which is far cheaper and easier to work with, which helps with rapid cadence, which helps with mass manufacturing which further brings down costs, which all helps develop faster and better without bad decisions baked in, which further will help with cadence and ultimate cost, and on and on. The resulting contrast with the SLS program is just staggering. Costs and gains compound on either side for literal orders of magnitude divergence.
I don't know if drones will do the same thing for air superiority, but the potential shouldn't be ignored. And probably won't be indefinitely, because the specter of actual competitive level hostile forces seems likely to focus minds despite lobbying by incumbents. Real world results that grow big enough ultimately can't be papered over.
Not exactly. There are penty of aerodynamic limitations outside of the pilot. Aircraft might be able to pull a few more gs in some very contrived circumstances, but a pilotless fighter would not be an aerodynamic superman. for instance: Stall/flow separation speeds at paticular wing loadings are often well below the pilot's physical G limitations.
How much of that is because engineers designed with those limitations in mind?
Nobody has attempted to push what is possible with material science and aerodynamics because there is no point if the pilot wouldn't be able to handle the forces involved. With automation, those limitations no longer apply.
For an example of what I'm thinking of, look at air to air missiles. Sidewinder air-to-air missiles achieve an acceleration of 20g, far more than a human pilot can withstand. Drones in the air superiority role could likewise be designed more like larger, more advanced missiles than traditional aircraft.
I suspect that if engineers design combat aircraft to be pilotless, you'll soon see them executing maneuvers that would be far too punishing if the craft had to support a human pilot.
Nobody has attempted to push what is possible with material science and aerodynamics because there is no point if the pilot wouldn't be able to handle the forces involved. With automation, those limitations no longer apply.
For an example of what I'm thinking of, look at air to air missiles. Sidewinder air-to-air missiles achieve an acceleration of 20g, far more than a human pilot can withstand. Drones in the air superiority role could likewise be designed more like larger, more advanced missiles than traditional aircraft.
I suspect that if engineers design combat aircraft to be pilotless, you'll soon see them executing maneuvers that would be far too punishing if the craft had to support a human pilot.
I mean to say that such limits exist without regard to the pilot, that there is no way around them. Pulling 9+ Gs, trying to sustain that for more than a second or two, isnt really possible in the vast majority of situations. The air is only so thick at a given altitude. The wings can only be so big before structural issues dominate.
And remember too that the whole dogfighting concept, the getting behind the other guy for a tail shot, means less and less in a world of all-aspect missiles that can fire in almost any direction.
And remember too that the whole dogfighting concept, the getting behind the other guy for a tail shot, means less and less in a world of all-aspect missiles that can fire in almost any direction.
ITT: people who put way too much faith in how planes fly in movies.
High-G maneuvers just are not a wildly important part of aircraft operations. Despite what you see in movies, high-G maneuvers aren’t what defeat radar-guided missiles and they’re not the bread and butter of dogfights either (which are all but a thing of the past).
They sure do look good at airshows though.
At the end of the day, if you’re a bomb or missile truck, you’re simply not going to outmaneuver a solitary missile that can perform 20G turns. You’re vastly better off minimizing your radar signature and taking out enemy radar sources using SEAD, at which point you can fly with impunity.
High-G maneuvers just are not a wildly important part of aircraft operations. Despite what you see in movies, high-G maneuvers aren’t what defeat radar-guided missiles and they’re not the bread and butter of dogfights either (which are all but a thing of the past).
They sure do look good at airshows though.
At the end of the day, if you’re a bomb or missile truck, you’re simply not going to outmaneuver a solitary missile that can perform 20G turns. You’re vastly better off minimizing your radar signature and taking out enemy radar sources using SEAD, at which point you can fly with impunity.
No, it's because the engineers have to balance structure weight versus everything else. F-15As are G limited to 7.3G. The Cs are limited to that same amount at altitude. F-18s were limited to 7.5G as well. And both of those are with "clean" aircraft. Start putting munitions and external fuel on, and that limit starts going down, because they wings have more weight to withstand.
Nonsense. The compressor will stall.
They are not comparable.
Drones are 'slow moving sitting ducks' that can be easily destroyed by an enemy with basic capabilities.
You need 'some degree of air superiority' to use drones.
That could mean extensive electronic warfare or whatever.
But drones, in the way they are used as we see them today ... are easy targets for anyone with capability.
So they are different things.
Now, that said, it still may make more sense for country ABC to buy drones in a lot of cases.
"Shooting down an MQ-1 Predator or an MQ-9 Reaper, the propeller-driven drones most commonly used to kill terrorists in Pakistan, would be child’s play for a Pakistani Air Force pilot. They’re easy to detect on radar, and they fly at about 100 mph—about the speed of a World War I-era bomber. (The Dassault Mirage 5, one of the most common jets in Pakistan’s military fleet, cruises at just under 600 mph and tops out at nearly 1,500 mph.) They don’t normally carry any weapons that could be used in a dogfight, and their lack of maneuverability makes them vulnerable to missiles fired from the ground. " [1]
[1] https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/06/cia-drone-progra...
Drones are 'slow moving sitting ducks' that can be easily destroyed by an enemy with basic capabilities.
You need 'some degree of air superiority' to use drones.
That could mean extensive electronic warfare or whatever.
But drones, in the way they are used as we see them today ... are easy targets for anyone with capability.
So they are different things.
Now, that said, it still may make more sense for country ABC to buy drones in a lot of cases.
"Shooting down an MQ-1 Predator or an MQ-9 Reaper, the propeller-driven drones most commonly used to kill terrorists in Pakistan, would be child’s play for a Pakistani Air Force pilot. They’re easy to detect on radar, and they fly at about 100 mph—about the speed of a World War I-era bomber. (The Dassault Mirage 5, one of the most common jets in Pakistan’s military fleet, cruises at just under 600 mph and tops out at nearly 1,500 mph.) They don’t normally carry any weapons that could be used in a dogfight, and their lack of maneuverability makes them vulnerable to missiles fired from the ground. " [1]
[1] https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/06/cia-drone-progra...
> slow moving sitting ducks
I don’t think this needs to be the case. Jets don’t fly fast because they have human inside.
I don’t think this needs to be the case. Jets don’t fly fast because they have human inside.
But it is the case though.
Jets today fly much faster than drones, even as you point out - they don't have the 'pilot limitation'.
There are many reasons for that obviously, not just 'G Force'.
Air Superiority Drones are an entirely different kind of entity, and they don't materially exist today. Also for a variety of reasons. Though they likely will in the future.
Jets today fly much faster than drones, even as you point out - they don't have the 'pilot limitation'.
There are many reasons for that obviously, not just 'G Force'.
Air Superiority Drones are an entirely different kind of entity, and they don't materially exist today. Also for a variety of reasons. Though they likely will in the future.
> Jets today fly much faster than drones
Then make drones which are jets, like Boeing and the Royal Australian Air Force are doing:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33271/everything-we-le...
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35806/australias-loyal...
Then make drones which are jets, like Boeing and the Royal Australian Air Force are doing:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33271/everything-we-le...
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35806/australias-loyal...
Yes. 'Prototype'. And they were 'prototyping' F35's 25 years ago.
Since they could have made those 25 years ago - and chose not to - you have to contemplate why.
Drones are mostly used for surveillance, tactical strikes, close air support - so they don't need speed, they want to be slower in fact, and have longer loiter times.
One day, over the next generation, those 'fast drones' will be a threat, but they are nowhere near that just yet.
Until then, drones are lumbering fat targets that stick out on radar and have 'shoot me' signs on their backs.
Since they could have made those 25 years ago - and chose not to - you have to contemplate why.
Drones are mostly used for surveillance, tactical strikes, close air support - so they don't need speed, they want to be slower in fact, and have longer loiter times.
One day, over the next generation, those 'fast drones' will be a threat, but they are nowhere near that just yet.
Until then, drones are lumbering fat targets that stick out on radar and have 'shoot me' signs on their backs.
> Since they could have made those 25 years ago - and chose not to - you have to contemplate why.
The political role of piloting in the Air Force and the way that replacing that function for a top of the line combat platform would disrupt that.
Or, at least, that was what critics of the decisions made 25+ years ago regarding direction attributed it to, IIRC.
The political role of piloting in the Air Force and the way that replacing that function for a top of the line combat platform would disrupt that.
Or, at least, that was what critics of the decisions made 25+ years ago regarding direction attributed it to, IIRC.
So that's a valid point actually (and probably still valid today), however the more obvious reason is that 25 years there was no evidence drones had any real material capability - especially given at that time, the US had no idea they'd be involved in long, low-grade engagements.
And of course, the internet upon which our drones depend, didn't even exist as we know it now.
Drones were 'new tech' and not until they started being used, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq 2, did it start to become very obvious how valuable they were especially in those kinds of conflicts.
Nobody predicted how incredibly 'useful' they would be.
Put all those pieces together, and you see that drones are what they are today.
And doubling down: completely useless in a conventional situation without support, cover, protection and basically superiority. A squadron of 5th gen. fighters with their great radar and support will take out any number of drones over time. As would ground based systems. With impunity. Predator style will never even come close to being 'in range' of the F35's let alone be able to target them with anything.
Drones light up on the dumbest, easiest radar, they fly relatively slowly, they have no defensive capabilities.
It's like comparing Apaches to trucks with a 50-cal + maybe a guy inside with a crappy shoulder mounted MANPAD out in the desert, with nowhere to hide.
All this talk of 'drones vs. F35s' literally when a drone has never even shot down another aircraft. We literally, just in 2018 were able to test fire some A2A munitions. We know fighters can easily clear out drones ... but the inverse is still purely speculative.
As for F35s: they are the only choice, their deployment is inevitable because there's nothing else on the horizon for a very long time. The development timeframe of new gear is growing quite a lot, surely due to bloat, but also to to complexity - an F35 is not an 'aircraft with a few missiles' - it's a 'weapons platform that happens to fly'.
A long time ago, I visited a distant family member's home in Texas, and his uncle was a senior leader on the F22 project, they were doing trials, it was very exciting! But took another 15 years (!) for that thing to reach maturity.
Surely the Americans have some things up their sleeves we don't know about, but how well deployed and useful can something be if it's a total secret? The old F117 Nighthawk was kept quiet until Iraq 1, but that was before the internet.
We're going to see F35s and upgraded 4th Gen Fighters in the mix for a long time. Canada is using it's F18's something like 3x longer than planned.
And of course, the internet upon which our drones depend, didn't even exist as we know it now.
Drones were 'new tech' and not until they started being used, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq 2, did it start to become very obvious how valuable they were especially in those kinds of conflicts.
Nobody predicted how incredibly 'useful' they would be.
Put all those pieces together, and you see that drones are what they are today.
And doubling down: completely useless in a conventional situation without support, cover, protection and basically superiority. A squadron of 5th gen. fighters with their great radar and support will take out any number of drones over time. As would ground based systems. With impunity. Predator style will never even come close to being 'in range' of the F35's let alone be able to target them with anything.
Drones light up on the dumbest, easiest radar, they fly relatively slowly, they have no defensive capabilities.
It's like comparing Apaches to trucks with a 50-cal + maybe a guy inside with a crappy shoulder mounted MANPAD out in the desert, with nowhere to hide.
All this talk of 'drones vs. F35s' literally when a drone has never even shot down another aircraft. We literally, just in 2018 were able to test fire some A2A munitions. We know fighters can easily clear out drones ... but the inverse is still purely speculative.
As for F35s: they are the only choice, their deployment is inevitable because there's nothing else on the horizon for a very long time. The development timeframe of new gear is growing quite a lot, surely due to bloat, but also to to complexity - an F35 is not an 'aircraft with a few missiles' - it's a 'weapons platform that happens to fly'.
A long time ago, I visited a distant family member's home in Texas, and his uncle was a senior leader on the F22 project, they were doing trials, it was very exciting! But took another 15 years (!) for that thing to reach maturity.
Surely the Americans have some things up their sleeves we don't know about, but how well deployed and useful can something be if it's a total secret? The old F117 Nighthawk was kept quiet until Iraq 1, but that was before the internet.
We're going to see F35s and upgraded 4th Gen Fighters in the mix for a long time. Canada is using it's F18's something like 3x longer than planned.
A very valid observation, undeservedly downvoted.
But, a counter argument to that is that your adversary can simply launch a wall of 20 drones with one A2A missile for every of your F-35, and 20 more to bomb its airfield, and still win attrition-wise.
If prices for drones will continue to drop at the current pace, soon they will become near disposable by standards of military hardware.
But, a counter argument to that is that your adversary can simply launch a wall of 20 drones with one A2A missile for every of your F-35, and 20 more to bomb its airfield, and still win attrition-wise.
If prices for drones will continue to drop at the current pace, soon they will become near disposable by standards of military hardware.
They would need advanced radar and other integrated systems, which they don't have today.
Today, an F35 would clear out a squadron of drones way beyond the horizon, before the drones were aware of the F35.
So yes 'a lot of drones' would be a problem initially, but they would still be cleared out within hours of being airborne.
Basically organized actors have the ability to down drones with impunity, they stand out on radar, and they require extensive networking.
Momar Gaddaffi was not very prepared, but Iran for example, is.
Today, an F35 would clear out a squadron of drones way beyond the horizon, before the drones were aware of the F35.
So yes 'a lot of drones' would be a problem initially, but they would still be cleared out within hours of being airborne.
Basically organized actors have the ability to down drones with impunity, they stand out on radar, and they require extensive networking.
Momar Gaddaffi was not very prepared, but Iran for example, is.
You need 10 F-35 to down 40 drones in an ideal scenario of 1 missile per drone.
In real conflict, I doubt anybody with a $120m plane would even think of trading it, and a pilot for a drone.
Even a minimal attrition rates like 1 in 40, mean an attrition loss.
In real conflict, I doubt anybody with a $120m plane would even think of trading it, and a pilot for a drone.
Even a minimal attrition rates like 1 in 40, mean an attrition loss.
Ok, but nobody can actually field that many drones (remember it's not just the craft, it's pilot, tech ground support, comms, rads, networks, etc.) especially in a scenario they are not suited for, and, it's not as though the F35's wouldn't also be supported by drones and other support.
We know the 1st wave will be done-on-drone for sure ...
... but the idea Russia is going to be able to man and send up 400 drones (!) for even a single opposing squadron is just far fetched.
40 drones out over the Black Sea? Maybe. But again, as they are 'slow lumbering targets' they will be mopped up pretty quick by a single squadron of F35 and whatever other ground/naval forces are in the region.
Every drone in the air facing a capable enemy is basically on a suicide mission.
We know the 1st wave will be done-on-drone for sure ...
... but the idea Russia is going to be able to man and send up 400 drones (!) for even a single opposing squadron is just far fetched.
40 drones out over the Black Sea? Maybe. But again, as they are 'slow lumbering targets' they will be mopped up pretty quick by a single squadron of F35 and whatever other ground/naval forces are in the region.
Every drone in the air facing a capable enemy is basically on a suicide mission.
This can be fixed with new, smaller anti drone AA missiles. One doesn't need a full Sidewinder missile to blow up a drone. Even purely kinetic missiles without an explosive charge are usable on smaller drones.
There are already many ground based anti drone platforms such as Rafael Systems' Drone Done which can be installed on a pickup truck. If Armenia had any of those, they woulld have had an advantage in the recent war with Azerbaidjan.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/air-and-missile-war-nagorno-ka...
There are already many ground based anti drone platforms such as Rafael Systems' Drone Done which can be installed on a pickup truck. If Armenia had any of those, they woulld have had an advantage in the recent war with Azerbaidjan.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/air-and-missile-war-nagorno-ka...
> After seeing what happened in Armenia & Azerbaijan
I don't think I was the only one to miss how that conflict related to the F35. Do tell?
I don't think I was the only one to miss how that conflict related to the F35. Do tell?
> I don't think I was the only one to miss how that conflict related to the F35. Do tell?
Turkey had a lot of success in its Syria incursion using lots of relatively inexpensive drones. Syria's Russian-equipped air defence systems struggled to stop them. And then Turkey-equipped Azerbaijan used the same drones to great success in the recent war against Armenia.
The message is that the future of warfare is drones that cost $5 million each not fighter jets that cost $100 million each (which is the ballpark the F-35 is in). You can buy 20 of the former for the cost of one of the later. And the question is, what military benefit does that one fighter jet give you compared to the twenty drones you could spend the same money on?
Turkey had a lot of success in its Syria incursion using lots of relatively inexpensive drones. Syria's Russian-equipped air defence systems struggled to stop them. And then Turkey-equipped Azerbaijan used the same drones to great success in the recent war against Armenia.
The message is that the future of warfare is drones that cost $5 million each not fighter jets that cost $100 million each (which is the ballpark the F-35 is in). You can buy 20 of the former for the cost of one of the later. And the question is, what military benefit does that one fighter jet give you compared to the twenty drones you could spend the same money on?
That's not quite the message.
The message is, in low-grade conflicts, with varying situations, 'very small cheap drones' have a role.
Turkey's drones are small, cheap, often used for reconnaissance - not exactly the role of a fighter.
It means we're going to see a lot more drone use for close ground support, but that was inevitable.
But again - a capable enemy has defences against those drones, and generally speaking those drones are not going to be doing deep into territory doing tactical strikes, again those types of drones are easily defended against.
Drones are also not carrying payloads of 500lb and 1000lb bombs and other larger munitions.
The role of drones in Azerbaijan and Libya is quite somewhat different from the what role of the F35 would be.
Edit: I should add - obviously not just in low-grade situations, smaller drones especially will be fairly ubiquitous.
The message is, in low-grade conflicts, with varying situations, 'very small cheap drones' have a role.
Turkey's drones are small, cheap, often used for reconnaissance - not exactly the role of a fighter.
It means we're going to see a lot more drone use for close ground support, but that was inevitable.
But again - a capable enemy has defences against those drones, and generally speaking those drones are not going to be doing deep into territory doing tactical strikes, again those types of drones are easily defended against.
Drones are also not carrying payloads of 500lb and 1000lb bombs and other larger munitions.
The role of drones in Azerbaijan and Libya is quite somewhat different from the what role of the F35 would be.
Edit: I should add - obviously not just in low-grade situations, smaller drones especially will be fairly ubiquitous.
I think the rest of the sentence answers that
> I'm wondering if the US's customers are pushing for these cheaper drone options
> I'm wondering if the US's customers are pushing for these cheaper drone options
Right, but I kinda wanted a bit more.
Whoever claims that drones are better than F35 forgets that the US military has the most and best drones, and more are coming. The US military is investing in both manned and unmanned aircraft, not in one at the expense of the other.
If the US military itself concedes that drones are superior, then other countries would presumably want to purchase drones which are likely far cheaper and easier to operate than expensive F-35s.
They are used for different things, by different countries that have different needs, situations, budgets, different support capabilities.
Neither party had modern fighter jets.
If Armenia had a dozen F-35s with a good stock of LGBs, I am sure they would have gotten the edge on azerbaijan regardless of how many drones the other party uses.
If Armenia had a dozen F-35s with a good stock of LGBs, I am sure they would have gotten the edge on azerbaijan regardless of how many drones the other party uses.
They had!
They were just terribly afraid to lose them when the battlefield was so tiny, air was full of near disposable targets, and capable air defence had a field day.
They were just terribly afraid to lose them when the battlefield was so tiny, air was full of near disposable targets, and capable air defence had a field day.
One of the main points of the F-35 is not having to worry about air defense because of its Stealth capabilities, and the LGBs it can carry.
Do you have an idea what kind of air force either party had? Was there anything post 1980s non-upgraded Soviet era jets in Armenia?
Wikipedia is showing only four Su-30SMs and 13 Su-25Ks (both are the older non-modernized variants). That's their entire fighter force according to Wikipedia!
Do you have an idea what kind of air force either party had? Was there anything post 1980s non-upgraded Soviet era jets in Armenia?
Wikipedia is showing only four Su-30SMs and 13 Su-25Ks (both are the older non-modernized variants). That's their entire fighter force according to Wikipedia!
Both sides had post nineties upgrades for Su 30, and Mig 29, and they could've risked using them, but chose not to.
Both sides didn't even bomb each other's airfields for real.
Most drones were launched, and operated in the field.
Both sides didn't even bomb each other's airfields for real.
Most drones were launched, and operated in the field.
There were always far cheaper options than what they chose to build. They didn't seem to care.
They seem to care more about delays and possible unreliability than squandering billions of dollars.
They seem to care more about delays and possible unreliability than squandering billions of dollars.
[deleted]
Weird theory of mine: The DoD ultimately picks these winning planes based on which one “looks cooler” or basically has better aesthetics.
I think the F-35 has better aesthetics than the Boeing X-32, just like the F-22 has better aesthetics than the YF-23. You could say I’m used to seeing the winning designs as “normal”, but I distinctly remember having this reaction before the JSF competition was over.
I think the F-35 has better aesthetics than the Boeing X-32, just like the F-22 has better aesthetics than the YF-23. You could say I’m used to seeing the winning designs as “normal”, but I distinctly remember having this reaction before the JSF competition was over.
Damen shipyards is on record for stating that they regularly tweak warship designs to "look sleeker and meaner" because it both makes the admirals happy and also reaffirms the beliefs of the public of how warships are "supposed" to look. I'd be very surprised if military aircraft designers did not do something similar.
In any case it's also good military thinking. Sun Tzu already said that the pinnacle of warfare is to gain victory without fighting, and one of the ways to do so is to look so menacing that your opponent does not want to engage. Sleek, powerful looking military hardware has that effect much more than bloated and clunky stuff.
In any case it's also good military thinking. Sun Tzu already said that the pinnacle of warfare is to gain victory without fighting, and one of the ways to do so is to look so menacing that your opponent does not want to engage. Sleek, powerful looking military hardware has that effect much more than bloated and clunky stuff.
That was an issue with US guided missile cruisers when vertical launch came in. The launchers just show as little hatches in the deck. There's usually a modest gun turret, the only visible weapon. There are some Close In Weapons System units, but they just look like machine guns.
The USSR built ships with much more visible armament on deck, facing outward. Partly because it looked fierce, and partly because they didn't quite trust their missiles not to launch straight up and come back down on the ship.
The USSR built ships with much more visible armament on deck, facing outward. Partly because it looked fierce, and partly because they didn't quite trust their missiles not to launch straight up and come back down on the ship.
> they didn't quite trust their missiles not to launch straight up and come back down on the ship.
This sounds like some ridiculous cold war propaganda, source?
This sounds like some ridiculous cold war propaganda, source?
It's an artifact of the technology they use. US launchers are hot launch: the motor ignites in the cell, and then leaps out under its own power. This has some disadvantages with having hot exhaust inside the ship.
Soviet launchers used a cold launcher. They pushed the missile out first, then ignited the motor after it was out of the cell. This is good for reducing exhaust impingement. But you can end up with a live missile not actually going up if the motor igniter fails. Angling the launcher ensures your live missile lands in the water, instead of on deck.
I've seen video of this, but having no luck searching for it.
Soviet launchers used a cold launcher. They pushed the missile out first, then ignited the motor after it was out of the cell. This is good for reducing exhaust impingement. But you can end up with a live missile not actually going up if the motor igniter fails. Angling the launcher ensures your live missile lands in the water, instead of on deck.
I've seen video of this, but having no luck searching for it.
Fun fact, due to the same design choices US-designed missiles are vulnerable to a failure mode called a "hang fire" (see for example https://www.navaltoday.com/2018/06/25/sm-2-missile-fails-to-... ) where the rocket engine has ignited but the missile is stuck inside the ship for some reason.
The VLS designers had to massively overengineer the bottom part of the VLS "plenum" (the bottom part) to be able to withstand the largest missile that will fit inside a VLS to fully burn out inside it without melting through the bottom and endangering the structural integrity of the ship it is in.
The VLS designers had to massively overengineer the bottom part of the VLS "plenum" (the bottom part) to be able to withstand the largest missile that will fit inside a VLS to fully burn out inside it without melting through the bottom and endangering the structural integrity of the ship it is in.
You'd have more luck searching for videos of FGM-148 launches. It's smaller and ground-based but works similarly.
I think there is a few factors at play here.
Firstly its a misconception that that VLS has anything to do with this. VLS has only really been mounted on ships from the 80s onwards. The first US ship with VLS was the Ticonderoga class cruiser launched first in 1980, however the VLS was only used for anti aircraft missiles and the Harpoon anti ship missiles were positioned in quad launchers at the rear of the ship. The Soviets did in fact deploy VLS earlier than NATO on the Azov class cruiser, but kept external anti ship / submarine missiles on many designs. Indeed throughout NATO it was common to mount anti ship weapons externally just as the Soviets did right up until the mid 80s. If you think about it, anti ship missiles want to go sideways rather than upwards so it makes sense to point them at where the enemy will be.
Given that the majority of anti ship missiles were external on both sides I suspect the difference in prominence and perception comes from two linked points.
1: The majority of NATO ships were not designed as surface combatants, rather as escorts for carriers
2: Soviet anti ship missiles tended to be bigger with higher speeds and larger warheads.
On the first point the main priority of the US navy is power projection. As such it is generally reliant on carriers to provide strike capability through sorties. This is suplemented by submarines for anti shipping capbilities. THe majority of NATO surface combatants are geared towards allowing those carriers to be deployed unimpeded, as such they have a lot of anti air and anti missile capbility which by nature fires upwards.
The Soviet navy was more focused on area denial as they did not develop a significant carrier force. As strike capbility was not provided by naval aircraft (at least to the same extent) a greater emphasis was put on sinking enemny combatants. As such their ships were designed for surface to surface roles to contest the baltic and black sea. This required them to be able to sink NATO carrier groups themselves which in turn required more powerful missiles with higher speeds and bigger warheads. These therefore which appear far more prominently on their ships. I'd also note that the Soviets tended to put large missiles on smaller ships such as corvettes which made them appear even more prominent.
Russian missile systems were during the cold war (and perhaps still are) superior in many ways to NATO counterparts. The USSR had no problem devloping reliable rocket motors and had some pretty fearsome weapons. I think the idea that they put their missiles on the side to prevent self damage is a little far fetched.
Firstly its a misconception that that VLS has anything to do with this. VLS has only really been mounted on ships from the 80s onwards. The first US ship with VLS was the Ticonderoga class cruiser launched first in 1980, however the VLS was only used for anti aircraft missiles and the Harpoon anti ship missiles were positioned in quad launchers at the rear of the ship. The Soviets did in fact deploy VLS earlier than NATO on the Azov class cruiser, but kept external anti ship / submarine missiles on many designs. Indeed throughout NATO it was common to mount anti ship weapons externally just as the Soviets did right up until the mid 80s. If you think about it, anti ship missiles want to go sideways rather than upwards so it makes sense to point them at where the enemy will be.
Given that the majority of anti ship missiles were external on both sides I suspect the difference in prominence and perception comes from two linked points.
1: The majority of NATO ships were not designed as surface combatants, rather as escorts for carriers
2: Soviet anti ship missiles tended to be bigger with higher speeds and larger warheads.
On the first point the main priority of the US navy is power projection. As such it is generally reliant on carriers to provide strike capability through sorties. This is suplemented by submarines for anti shipping capbilities. THe majority of NATO surface combatants are geared towards allowing those carriers to be deployed unimpeded, as such they have a lot of anti air and anti missile capbility which by nature fires upwards.
The Soviet navy was more focused on area denial as they did not develop a significant carrier force. As strike capbility was not provided by naval aircraft (at least to the same extent) a greater emphasis was put on sinking enemny combatants. As such their ships were designed for surface to surface roles to contest the baltic and black sea. This required them to be able to sink NATO carrier groups themselves which in turn required more powerful missiles with higher speeds and bigger warheads. These therefore which appear far more prominently on their ships. I'd also note that the Soviets tended to put large missiles on smaller ships such as corvettes which made them appear even more prominent.
Russian missile systems were during the cold war (and perhaps still are) superior in many ways to NATO counterparts. The USSR had no problem devloping reliable rocket motors and had some pretty fearsome weapons. I think the idea that they put their missiles on the side to prevent self damage is a little far fetched.
Completely agree with all of this. When you're looking at firing missiles like the P270 and P-700 AShMs that have a mass close to a small fighter aircraft, there's nothing to be gained by vertical launch here.
> I think the idea that they put their missiles on the side to prevent self damage is a little far fetched.
All Union's VLS are designed slanted exactly to prevent that.
All Union's VLS are designed slanted exactly to prevent that.
Very interesting, thank you!
Wikipedia has that, but it's uncited.
The USSR and Russia were late getting into vertical launch from surface ships. When they did, it was with larger missiles than the US used, but fewer of them. There were some interesting designs, such as a missile that carried a torpedo, a ramjet-powered missile, and a missile which operated in a group of other missiles with one of them in charge. The USSR built some giant nuclear-powered battlecruisers to carry all those large weapons, and put large vertical launch tubes on some aircraft carriers.
Now, like everybody else, Russia mostly uses vertical launch in new systems.
The USSR and Russia were late getting into vertical launch from surface ships. When they did, it was with larger missiles than the US used, but fewer of them. There were some interesting designs, such as a missile that carried a torpedo, a ramjet-powered missile, and a missile which operated in a group of other missiles with one of them in charge. The USSR built some giant nuclear-powered battlecruisers to carry all those large weapons, and put large vertical launch tubes on some aircraft carriers.
Now, like everybody else, Russia mostly uses vertical launch in new systems.
It happens:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9-LjeoOpeM
That said, I think it's more propaganda than a rule. Especially since plenty of Russian vessels utilize vertical launch systems. I believe the necessity of the angled launch systems like what you'd find on the Kirov, Slava, and Kara classes were more due to the immense size of those missiles. Look at the U.S. Talos and UK "Sea Slug" missiles for western examples. As missile technology became better and more miniaturized, you start seeing more vertical launch systems where it makes sense.
The one area I've seen consistent arguments for horizontal launch are in places where a missile failure (see above) would be much more dangerous, such as on a carrier deck. This is why I believe you still see Sea Sparrow and SeaRAM systems placed on the wings and below the deckline, so that a failed launch won't land back on a deck full of fuel and ordinance. The ranges that point defense systems are working at can't allow for a missile body to "tip over" and still hit the target at range.
That said, I think it's more propaganda than a rule. Especially since plenty of Russian vessels utilize vertical launch systems. I believe the necessity of the angled launch systems like what you'd find on the Kirov, Slava, and Kara classes were more due to the immense size of those missiles. Look at the U.S. Talos and UK "Sea Slug" missiles for western examples. As missile technology became better and more miniaturized, you start seeing more vertical launch systems where it makes sense.
The one area I've seen consistent arguments for horizontal launch are in places where a missile failure (see above) would be much more dangerous, such as on a carrier deck. This is why I believe you still see Sea Sparrow and SeaRAM systems placed on the wings and below the deckline, so that a failed launch won't land back on a deck full of fuel and ordinance. The ranges that point defense systems are working at can't allow for a missile body to "tip over" and still hit the target at range.
I'm under the impression the Kirov-class battlecruisers have vertical launch tubes. On the other hand, the concern seems somewhat warranted:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=V88sUJKgOsk
Sun Tzu didnt have stealth aircraft. In many ways, if they see enough of you to be intimidated then they can see enough of you to kill you. The f-35 wants to make the kill before the target even realizes it is in danger, let alone sees the aircraft comming. I doubt Sun Tzu would have encouraged his spies or saboteurs to stand out from the crowd.
The enemies of America are presumably meant to see American stealth aircraft in movies and TV shows, not over their capitols.
However, I think these airplanes are indeed designed foremost for function. The similar appearances of the B-1 and Tu-160 suggest that when two planes are designed using similar technology with similar mission requirements, they tend to have a lot of similarities. (In the years since they were initially designed, the way these aircraft are used has changed. But they were initially designed to meet similar requirements.)
However, I think these airplanes are indeed designed foremost for function. The similar appearances of the B-1 and Tu-160 suggest that when two planes are designed using similar technology with similar mission requirements, they tend to have a lot of similarities. (In the years since they were initially designed, the way these aircraft are used has changed. But they were initially designed to meet similar requirements.)
How many decades will it be before we see an F35 used in film?
> How many decades will it be before we see an F35 used in film?
Rounded to the closest whole decade, -1; the first movie to use actual, not CGI/model/etc., F-35s on film was Man of Steel (2013).
Rounded to the closest whole decade, -1; the first movie to use actual, not CGI/model/etc., F-35s on film was Man of Steel (2013).
I’m pretty sure there was also a couple of B’s in Die Hard 4
There was (bad) CGI of an X-35B in that movie.
Real F-35Bs don't have an internal gun, and if they did, the guns wouldn't fire from the intakes, and if the aircraft took a large chunk of concrete directly into the LiftFan it wouldn't shudder and slowly fall out of the sky, it would be a catastrophic and near instantaneous loss of aircraft and likely aircrew life.
Real F-35Bs don't have an internal gun, and if they did, the guns wouldn't fire from the intakes, and if the aircraft took a large chunk of concrete directly into the LiftFan it wouldn't shudder and slowly fall out of the sky, it would be a catastrophic and near instantaneous loss of aircraft and likely aircrew life.
You can see the same error in The Avengers: F-35B hovering and firing guns from the intakes.
I think it's a bad job of converting from a AV-8, which does have internal guns, located under each intake.
I think it's a bad job of converting from a AV-8, which does have internal guns, located under each intake.
> There was (bad) CGI of an X-35B in that movie.
Models (both miniature and full size) were used.
Models (both miniature and full size) were used.
Ah, my mistake. Shame to put that much effort into putting something on film and have it look so awful that you think it must be CGI
F-35's have been depicted in numerous Hollywood movies already, though it seems not always in the most positive light. To get an actual F-35 filmed for a movie would probably require the cooperation of the US military though, so probably the next time a sufficiently aggrandizing American war movie calls for one? The US military has helped out Hollywood like this many times before, if they think the movie shows them in a good light.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2011-aug-21-la-ca-mi...
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-f-35-stealth-figh...
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2011-aug-21-la-ca-mi...
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-f-35-stealth-figh...
On the other hand, the foreign government may see pictures of the plane and go “that’s scary” and not start the fight which the less-scary-more-stealthy alternative can win better.
Not in the skies, in Jane's Defense Weekly.
Used to be done with uniforms. Hence the Pope's guards with Michelangelo uniforms, and the Nazis with Hugo Boss.
I could be wrong, but IIRC Hugo Boss was one of the companies that made Nazi uniforms, but did not design those uniforms.
> In any case it's also good military thinking.
Or more likely enemies see it as posturing and strike full force, thinking they can pierce the superficial veil of technological supremacy.
Come on, security theater is bullshit. How many people actually think the TSA does anything useful? If anything it lulls people into a false sense of safety, making us weaker.
If our enemies are so easily deterred that our appearance matters more than our capability, then they are not enemies worth taking seriously.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/the-tsa...
https://www.heritage.org/transportation/commentary/heres-how...
Or more likely enemies see it as posturing and strike full force, thinking they can pierce the superficial veil of technological supremacy.
Come on, security theater is bullshit. How many people actually think the TSA does anything useful? If anything it lulls people into a false sense of safety, making us weaker.
If our enemies are so easily deterred that our appearance matters more than our capability, then they are not enemies worth taking seriously.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/the-tsa...
https://www.heritage.org/transportation/commentary/heres-how...
Hijackings were extremely common prior to flight security. TSA was another level, that was extremely frustrating throughout the 2000s, but at a minimum it prevents wildly unstable people from boarding with weapons
Check out this list https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings
Check out this list https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings
> at a minimum it prevents wildly unstable people from boarding with weapons
The TSA reliably fails penetration tests; they miss between 70% and 95% of them. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2017/11/09/tsa...
What's likely caused hijackings to fall off a cliff is a) reinforced cockpit doors and b) the knowledge of crew and passengers that the hijackers might be homicidal.
Pre-9/11, advice was to cooperate, get the plane on the ground, and negotiate/assault, with pretty good overall results for the passengers. That is... not the advice today.
The TSA reliably fails penetration tests; they miss between 70% and 95% of them. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2017/11/09/tsa...
What's likely caused hijackings to fall off a cliff is a) reinforced cockpit doors and b) the knowledge of crew and passengers that the hijackers might be homicidal.
Pre-9/11, advice was to cooperate, get the plane on the ground, and negotiate/assault, with pretty good overall results for the passengers. That is... not the advice today.
Reinforced cockpit doors were not implemented on planes until around 2002. Meanwhile, hijackings fell dramatically after only basic fight security that was implemented nearly 20 years before that.
I don't think people realize just how common hijackings were in the early 1970s, with sometimes two hijackings on the same day. (Between 1968 and 1972 there were over 130 US hijackings.)
But after a hijacker threatened to crash a plane into a nuclear reactor in 1972, the FAA introduced passenger screening and metal detectors. Before that, there was basically no security.
An interesting article: https://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11326472/hijacking-airplanes-e...
But after a hijacker threatened to crash a plane into a nuclear reactor in 1972, the FAA introduced passenger screening and metal detectors. Before that, there was basically no security.
An interesting article: https://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11326472/hijacking-airplanes-e...
There are more-plausible theories of why hijackings are now rare. One of the most plausible is that armored cockpit doors and the policy that they should never be opened during a hijacking has put hijackers out of business.
TSA security checkpoints are a gift to the business models for autonomous vehicles. If you can have your car do the driving for you, an overnight car trip will be a good alternative to flights under 500 miles ad possibly all short-haul flights in the US.
TSA security checkpoints are a gift to the business models for autonomous vehicles. If you can have your car do the driving for you, an overnight car trip will be a good alternative to flights under 500 miles ad possibly all short-haul flights in the US.
I wrote a rebuttal with sources but on second thought, I think you make a good point. I should look at the data more and revisit my stance.
Common-er, yes; “extremely” seems a bit excessive. It’s not like there was a hijack a day. And as others said, what stopped the trend is more likely to be the fact that passengers’ cooperation is now impossible.
One angle you're missing is the effect appearances have on your own soldiers, not the enemy.
Battles and wars can be lost because of poor morale. Maintaining high morale and combat readiness in your very-human fighting force is critical to achieving victory.
If soldiers feel happier and more ready to fight with cool looking equipment rather than shoddy looking gear, then it's easily a good investment.
Battles and wars can be lost because of poor morale. Maintaining high morale and combat readiness in your very-human fighting force is critical to achieving victory.
If soldiers feel happier and more ready to fight with cool looking equipment rather than shoddy looking gear, then it's easily a good investment.
It's not complete bullshit. Against other sophisticated actors, yeah, it's bullshit. But posturing and intimidation is important to keep less sophisticated actors in check.
Who are the less sophisticated actors willing to attack a military based solely on appearance of 'not looking intimidating?'
We're talking about a fighter jet, not a security guard.
We're talking about a fighter jet, not a security guard.
I'd see it as more about PR.
If poor desperate people regularly see these kinds of badass weapons that a foreign power has, it's just going to be that much harder to recruit for organizations that violently resist oppression, because the individuals you need are fearful and demoralized.
Then you need crazy things like religious indoctrination that promises rewards in heaven for fighting such an unassailable power.
If poor desperate people regularly see these kinds of badass weapons that a foreign power has, it's just going to be that much harder to recruit for organizations that violently resist oppression, because the individuals you need are fearful and demoralized.
Then you need crazy things like religious indoctrination that promises rewards in heaven for fighting such an unassailable power.
I guess you could make the argument the PR is effective against idiots.
My point is letting the PR call the shots objectively makes us weaker (the F-35 program is a clusterfuck), so it's harming us against enemies that aren't idiots. I'm pretty sure China loves the F-35 program because they know it's an enormous weakness in the US military.
But yeah, you have a point. Idiots can be harmful too, and they should also be considered as potential threats.
My point is letting the PR call the shots objectively makes us weaker (the F-35 program is a clusterfuck), so it's harming us against enemies that aren't idiots. I'm pretty sure China loves the F-35 program because they know it's an enormous weakness in the US military.
But yeah, you have a point. Idiots can be harmful too, and they should also be considered as potential threats.
Human factors are real.
The Boeing was not just ugly, it failed to do both stovl and supersonic in one fighter, which was a requirement
‘ Due to the heavy delta wing design of the X-32, Boeing demonstrated STOVL and supersonic flight in separate configurations, with the STOVL configuration requiring that some parts be removed from the fighter. The company promised that their conventional tail design for production models would not require separate configurations. By contrast, the Lockheed Martin X-35 concept demonstrator aircraft were capable of transitioning between their STOVL and supersonic configurations in mid-flight.[4]
‘ Due to the heavy delta wing design of the X-32, Boeing demonstrated STOVL and supersonic flight in separate configurations, with the STOVL configuration requiring that some parts be removed from the fighter. The company promised that their conventional tail design for production models would not require separate configurations. By contrast, the Lockheed Martin X-35 concept demonstrator aircraft were capable of transitioning between their STOVL and supersonic configurations in mid-flight.[4]
The F-35 also has a better (lower) radar cross section than the X-32 which had exposed turbine blades. And crucially, the prototype X-32 failed to demonstrate simultaneous VTOL and supersonic flight, while the X-35 did. Seeing as this was the main characteristic the military wanted, this is a pretty significant shortcoming.
It's true that more conservative designs have historically prevailed over technically more impressive exotic designs. I think this is not about looking cooler (the YF-23 looked cooler than the F-22 IMO), and more about risk aversion when billions of dollars and people's lives are on the line. And there are still exceptions to this like the B-2. Although it drew on experience from the XB-35.
It's true that more conservative designs have historically prevailed over technically more impressive exotic designs. I think this is not about looking cooler (the YF-23 looked cooler than the F-22 IMO), and more about risk aversion when billions of dollars and people's lives are on the line. And there are still exceptions to this like the B-2. Although it drew on experience from the XB-35.
The production version of the X-32 was supposed to have a radar blocker fitted over the front of the turbine to hide the blades. Probably not quite as effective as the serpentine duct seen on the F-22 and F-35, but it would significantly reduce returns.
This is not your weird theory. There is some truth to it. Look up Kelly Johnson’s account on several books about military airplanes.
In case if anyone doesn’t know he is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Johnson_(engineer)
Basically his philosophy, at some corner of his brains was "If it cools beautiful, it will fly well." The way I think of it is - streamlined shapes are generally more pleasing to human vision system. Not sure why, some innate biological/evolutionary trait. So, Kelly designed a lot of beautiful planes with his gut instinct when there is no data/objectivity, but only some instincts to rely on. Legendary engineer!
In case if anyone doesn’t know he is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Johnson_(engineer)
Basically his philosophy, at some corner of his brains was "If it cools beautiful, it will fly well." The way I think of it is - streamlined shapes are generally more pleasing to human vision system. Not sure why, some innate biological/evolutionary trait. So, Kelly designed a lot of beautiful planes with his gut instinct when there is no data/objectivity, but only some instincts to rely on. Legendary engineer!
Ben Rich , Kelly’s successor, also though the military gave out contracts to less good aircraft/companies due to how much other work they had. For example Lockheed got the F-117 but didn’t get the order for the follow up large bomber. That went to their competitor because they hadn’t had a contract in years and might be going out of business.
See Lockheed’s SENIOR PEG here https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/lockheeds-senior-peg-the-f...
Interesting idea to have a larger force of cheaper planes rather than the small group of super expensive B-2s that the US got.
See Lockheed’s SENIOR PEG here https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/lockheeds-senior-peg-the-f...
Interesting idea to have a larger force of cheaper planes rather than the small group of super expensive B-2s that the US got.
Kelly absolutely hated the design of the stealth fighter, which I believe was the first plane the skunkworks built after he retired.
I don't think the F-22 has better aesthetics than the YF-23. The YF-23 looks super awesome with its diamond-shaped wing.
The Boeing X-32's frog-mouthed appearance is a bit ugly though.
The Boeing X-32's frog-mouthed appearance is a bit ugly though.
YF-23 looks like what the non-human enemy would have used.
It’s cool but it doesn’t look like “ours”. I guess that the “If we are the goodies why the weapons look alien” question comes to mind since people would always think that they are the good ones and the foreigners are the ones that we should be suspicious of.
It’s cool but it doesn’t look like “ours”. I guess that the “If we are the goodies why the weapons look alien” question comes to mind since people would always think that they are the good ones and the foreigners are the ones that we should be suspicious of.
YF-23 is 30 years old and still looks futuristic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Bird_of_Prey
That makes this positively alien then
That makes this positively alien then
Have you seen the F-35 in VTOL mode? [1] All those covers open and nozzles stick out so the thing can exert thrust downward. It's amazing that it works. It's not surprising how expensive it was to make it work.
The Harrier was kind of elegant, just some pivoting nozzles.
[1] https://youtu.be/zW28Mb1YvwY
The Harrier was kind of elegant, just some pivoting nozzles.
[1] https://youtu.be/zW28Mb1YvwY
The direct lift system of the Harrier is simple but not robust. Turbines hate ingesting hot gas, and a Harrier in a descending hover is descending straight into its own hot exhaust. This can and did cause "pop stalls" which led to an abrupt loss of thrust just when you want consistent thrust, near the ground in a hover.
The LiftFan of the F-35B serves to shield the front intakes of the engine from ingesting hot gas, plus there is an auxiliary air inlet on the top of the plane that opens up and allows cold air from above to get sucked straight into the front face of the engine.
The 3 Bearing Swivel Nozzle (main engine nozzle pivoting down and somewhat steerable) combined with roll posts in the wings that can give translational thrust/roll control, and a Variable Aperture Vane Box Nozzle (VAVBN) under the lift fan all combine to give high control authority in the hover, and the flight control system has special modes to make controlling the F-35B simpler. Harriers required constant adjustment in the hover to keep from losing control. In the F-35B, once the altitude and attitude in the hover are set, the jet will maintain that as long as there's fuel remaining, without corrective pilot inputs required.
The LiftFan of the F-35B serves to shield the front intakes of the engine from ingesting hot gas, plus there is an auxiliary air inlet on the top of the plane that opens up and allows cold air from above to get sucked straight into the front face of the engine.
The 3 Bearing Swivel Nozzle (main engine nozzle pivoting down and somewhat steerable) combined with roll posts in the wings that can give translational thrust/roll control, and a Variable Aperture Vane Box Nozzle (VAVBN) under the lift fan all combine to give high control authority in the hover, and the flight control system has special modes to make controlling the F-35B simpler. Harriers required constant adjustment in the hover to keep from losing control. In the F-35B, once the altitude and attitude in the hover are set, the jet will maintain that as long as there's fuel remaining, without corrective pilot inputs required.
I'd be shocked if the military doesn't include aesthetics when considering which new equipment to use.
You'd want to look badass and cool to the people you serve and hellish and terrifying to those you attack. The psychological impact in both directions almost certainly has important, real world consequences.
You'd want to look badass and cool to the people you serve and hellish and terrifying to those you attack. The psychological impact in both directions almost certainly has important, real world consequences.
I think to an extent the public will decide ugly planes look badass if the planes are presented that way in media. The F-117 was a really bizarre plane, but became so iconic gamers today still buy computer mice that look like it.
This said, I think there are limits. I don't think the F-35 will ever achieve the same level of coolness that the F-22 has; the F-22 look very sleek while the F-35 looks like it ate too many hamburgers.
This said, I think there are limits. I don't think the F-35 will ever achieve the same level of coolness that the F-22 has; the F-22 look very sleek while the F-35 looks like it ate too many hamburgers.
It could be a moving or cyclical target.
Once the collective subconscious comes to consensus that a particular design is what looks 'cool', then it opens up a niche for someone to come in and do something 'ugly' as a demonstration of power. It's like saying, "this is so much better that we don't even care what you think about its appearance."
I think the Cybertruck is attempting to do exactly this to wedge itself into the 'badass' American pickup truck market. "Oh that's a cute little F-150 with all it's smooth curves. Does the paint job match your nail polish?"
Those without power will always look for new niches and edges to leverage their way into power. That often comes from just mentally reframing what you decide is valuable, because the market for traditionally valuable things is already too crowded.
Note; I'm not really giving a moral judgement or approval of this kind of machismo mentality. Just doing some armchair psychology.
Once the collective subconscious comes to consensus that a particular design is what looks 'cool', then it opens up a niche for someone to come in and do something 'ugly' as a demonstration of power. It's like saying, "this is so much better that we don't even care what you think about its appearance."
I think the Cybertruck is attempting to do exactly this to wedge itself into the 'badass' American pickup truck market. "Oh that's a cute little F-150 with all it's smooth curves. Does the paint job match your nail polish?"
Those without power will always look for new niches and edges to leverage their way into power. That often comes from just mentally reframing what you decide is valuable, because the market for traditionally valuable things is already too crowded.
Note; I'm not really giving a moral judgement or approval of this kind of machismo mentality. Just doing some armchair psychology.
The F-35 definitely looks nicer than the Boeing X-32 did, but F-22 vs YF-23 is more of a tossup, "eye-of-the-beholder" thing. Back during that competition I actually liked the looks of the YF-23 better, but the F-22 won because it was just a better air superiority fighter (YF-23 had no thrust vectoring, not as maneuverable). F-22 has since grown on me aesthetically.
Oh boy I couldn't disagree more, the F-22 is doubtlessly cool, but it has nothing on the YF-23. And the X-32 was positively adorable (which isn't cool I guess, but I still love it.) I think the F-35 is downright fugly though, it's too bloated and bumpy looking.
That's why the F-35's nickname is "Fat Amy".
In case someone reads this comment and wonders what the actual names of this aircraft are:
The official name is the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. It comes in three variants:
* F-35A (Conventional TakeOff/Landing - CTOL)
* F-35B (Short TakeOff/Vertical Landing - STOVL)
* F-35C (Carrier Variant - CV)
While an unofficial nickname hasn't solidly grabbed on, I think, given that USAF Fighter Weapons School calls it the "Panther", that will probably be what holds at least in the US.
The official name is the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. It comes in three variants:
* F-35A (Conventional TakeOff/Landing - CTOL)
* F-35B (Short TakeOff/Vertical Landing - STOVL)
* F-35C (Carrier Variant - CV)
While an unofficial nickname hasn't solidly grabbed on, I think, given that USAF Fighter Weapons School calls it the "Panther", that will probably be what holds at least in the US.
Panther, as in "60% of the time it works every time"?
To give a serious answer, as in a stealthy animal that stalks its prey unseen until the final, decisive moment and then can exit the situation with haste.
That sounds crazy, but multiple times I've been party to multi million dollar software contracts being clinched with a few lines of css to fit the clients corporate theme.
I think a lot of weight is placed on the strength of which senate district the plane will be made in. HN tends to argue in a political vacuum but it's hard to ignore that 2 very popular and vocal senators are home to the LM plant in Fort Worth where these planes are constructed.
Their influences on DoD budgets/plans in not insignificant.
Their influences on DoD budgets/plans in not insignificant.
No, the X-32 lost the competition because it didn't perform as well on several objective measures as the X-35. To the point that very late in the game Boeing tried to switch to a four post tail design and dramatically redesign the wings. But the redesign came too late to be incorporated into their demonstrator aircraft.
PBS Nova showed a good summary of the selection process. Regardless of aesthetics, the F-35 was objectively superior based on the rating criteria.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/
Oh this is far from a weird theory. I've spoken to people who worked on the program during the fly-off in 2000/2001 and every single one of them say something like "We would never have chosen the Boeing entry because just look at it"
I think this is much more common and crucial for success than we admit. Aesthetics have a very real impact on customers and observers, but we like to pretend it’s not that important.
But when something looks cooler, a lot of times, they also put more efforts in other areas of the design.
[deleted]
The Drive back again with another one of its anti-F35 articles. It would seem that this administration is just punting to the next one, which is probably a good idea.
I would take anything they post about the plane with a grain of salt. They take any setback as if it's the first time a large technical project has ever experienced issues.
I would take anything they post about the plane with a grain of salt. They take any setback as if it's the first time a large technical project has ever experienced issues.
The F-35 has been plagued with near-continuous setbacks for its entire life, and reporting on them is notable because it puts a spotlight on our colossal failure to execute on something we consider important (defense technology). It's not just The Drive.
So just like any real engineering project? Or am I to really believe that the software engineers here are of some other worldly caliber who build flawless products? The "near-continuous setbacks" are reminiscent of same exact comments on the F-16[1] and the F-18[2] during their development and acquisition cycles. Building things is hard.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkrtxDdaWuM [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xJBvKJht78
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkrtxDdaWuM [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xJBvKJht78
I'd say the same thing about a software project that had been in development for 30 years like this. My opinion of GNU Hurd would be considerably more negative if it cost half a trillion dollars to develop.
Don't take it from me though, the Wiki article has an extensive section on the problems with the F-35's performance and its cost overruns and delays: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning.... Or try Kelsey D. Atherton talking about the pitfalls of using it as a humorous unit of cost and explaining how it was used as a jobs program in addition to a defense program: https://twitter.com/AthertonKD/status/1331294614209392640?s=...
Don't take it from me though, the Wiki article has an extensive section on the problems with the F-35's performance and its cost overruns and delays: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning.... Or try Kelsey D. Atherton talking about the pitfalls of using it as a humorous unit of cost and explaining how it was used as a jobs program in addition to a defense program: https://twitter.com/AthertonKD/status/1331294614209392640?s=...
The F-35 program is more like the F-111 than the F-16 or F/A-18, except in the case of the F-35 the DoD doubled down instead cutting their losses early.
Reading through the Wikipedia article detailing serious issues with the avionics software's development[0], I can't help but think of the choice to use C++ as the standard language for development on most of the JSF's systems. I recall reading a document written by the (then-current) lead dev on the project outlining the criteria used to assess C++'s suitability for the project. He conceded that Ada was the superior choice in most every aspect except for the ease of finding developers. Unfortunately I can't find that document now. If anyone knows the document I'm referring to and could point me to it, I'd appreciate it. I thought I had it saved.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
Has there ever been a study done of the costs of retraining an X programmer as a Y programmer? Talent availability is a huge factor for any development project; but if the software program clearly showed that Ada was superior, one wonders at the cost of taking all those experienced C++ coders and retraining them on Ada.
Ideally, such a study would show a matrix of the dominant language a coder uses, and the costs/time to get them comparably efficient in another language.
Ideally, such a study would show a matrix of the dominant language a coder uses, and the costs/time to get them comparably efficient in another language.
Here is the document I was referring to: https://web.archive.org/web/20111219004314/http://journal.th...
I work in defense and I'm conflicted on this. On one hand the easiest way to defeat this jet is to convince Congress to cancel it. On the other hand, any program that takes this goddamn long should be cancelled. The future moves too fast.
As I read this latest update on the F-35 I can't stop thinking about the $741 billion the US Congress just approved. Bipartisan. And overrode a POTUS veto.
In the 2016 State of the Union Obama said, "We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined." The budget then was significantly less. And the F-35 is just now finally being snuffed?
In the 2016 State of the Union Obama said, "We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined." The budget then was significantly less. And the F-35 is just now finally being snuffed?
>"We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined."
I'll translate this to defense speak: We get ripped off more than the next eight nations combined.
I'll translate this to defense speak: We get ripped off more than the next eight nations combined.
Well it might be the next 20, 25 or even 30 at this point.
I work in defense and it just makes me laugh when people cite money spent as putting us somehow ahead. We spend $10 for $1 of work. My scrum master has never heard of Git. I am in hell
We like our aircraft "Made in USA" for obvious reasons. An aircraft "Made in China" is a great way to save money, and it works fine for China.
It probably doesn't help that practically every congressional district gets to make a piece of the aircraft.
It probably doesn't help that practically every congressional district gets to make a piece of the aircraft.
I have only read about the F35 and seen a few videos. Can someone check my understanding?
The F35 has the same or even better air superiority capabilities than the F22.
It will have electronic command and control capabilities that will remove the need for AWACS or JSTARS. The vision is that the F35 will defeat any enemy aircraft, enemy air defenses, and provide the sensor coverage that will enable fleets of drones to operate.
(The videos I saw had to do with the cockpit main display panel. I was very impressed by it. It really looked like a video game with its touch inputs and ability for the pilot to configure it any way he likes. I am also amazed at how minimalistic the cockpit is. Reminds me of the Tesla but with much more intuitive UI.)
The F35 has the same or even better air superiority capabilities than the F22.
It will have electronic command and control capabilities that will remove the need for AWACS or JSTARS. The vision is that the F35 will defeat any enemy aircraft, enemy air defenses, and provide the sensor coverage that will enable fleets of drones to operate.
(The videos I saw had to do with the cockpit main display panel. I was very impressed by it. It really looked like a video game with its touch inputs and ability for the pilot to configure it any way he likes. I am also amazed at how minimalistic the cockpit is. Reminds me of the Tesla but with much more intuitive UI.)
No, the F22 has much better capabilities than the F35, and many of them are kept secret.
The F22 is designed to be the 'Uber Alpha' of the Skies and to have no peer. It's made in the USA and is not sold to allies.
The F35 is a 'secondary 5th gen fighter. Cheaper, a little less stealthy, sometimes a little more purpose fit, designed to be exported to allies.
The packages on these planes are getting more and more powerful, and to some extent, they are mattering more and more to the point where the plane itself is less of what matters.
The need for supporting electronic warfare will only increase, even as the capability of individual units increases.
FYI - it's really hard to tell how much more powerful the F22 is because it's much more secret than F35, results are not always published, and they are full of assumptions about pretend scenarios.
For example, the stealth aspects are nebulous, small factors make a big difference, and radar systems are always improving.
Edit: missed the obvious and that is F22 is very specifically an early stage A2A focus role, not so much ground attack, whereas F35 will probably spend most of it's life in those kinds of roles. F22 is 'own the skies' F35 is then 'use the sky'.
The F22 is designed to be the 'Uber Alpha' of the Skies and to have no peer. It's made in the USA and is not sold to allies.
The F35 is a 'secondary 5th gen fighter. Cheaper, a little less stealthy, sometimes a little more purpose fit, designed to be exported to allies.
The packages on these planes are getting more and more powerful, and to some extent, they are mattering more and more to the point where the plane itself is less of what matters.
The need for supporting electronic warfare will only increase, even as the capability of individual units increases.
FYI - it's really hard to tell how much more powerful the F22 is because it's much more secret than F35, results are not always published, and they are full of assumptions about pretend scenarios.
For example, the stealth aspects are nebulous, small factors make a big difference, and radar systems are always improving.
Edit: missed the obvious and that is F22 is very specifically an early stage A2A focus role, not so much ground attack, whereas F35 will probably spend most of it's life in those kinds of roles. F22 is 'own the skies' F35 is then 'use the sky'.
Thank you.
What does "full-rate production" mean?
I searched and find a few military/defense related articles, but none of them really explain it in average Joe's terms.
I searched and find a few military/defense related articles, but none of them really explain it in average Joe's terms.
In a US defense program, there are two production milestones. The first is low rate initial production, which the F35 passed some time ago. That milestone can be passed even if there is still operational testing that is not completed, but it only allows a limited number of units to be produced, and, as the name implies, the rate of production is slower to allow for changes based on results from testing. The second milestone is full rate production, which can't be passed until all operational testing is completed. Once that is passed the full number of units can be produced.
Thank you!
I think it's a contract checkpoint that signals a major $$$ release to the vendor.
Basically, "will we make the several thousand we originally planned to make?"
For example, the B-2 was planned with over a hundred aircraft, but we wound up making only about 20.
For example, the B-2 was planned with over a hundred aircraft, but we wound up making only about 20.
600 have already been delivered. Covid caused a disruption in final certification, that's it. The F35 isn't being cancelled, although I predict most comments here will devolve into a debate of the plane's merits. The US and many allies are committed, the US will eventually own thousands.
If you didn't know, you've been hell-banned (silently hidden from the HN that almost everyone else sees) for two years. That's why you get so few replies to your comments.
I see their comments like normal, is there something that controls this?
His stuff starts off "dead" and has to be "vouched" by someone with karma to be expanded/seen by default. Look at his post history.
If someone like me chooses to reply they become visible. Otherwise they're talking into the void.
This kind of policy is so hostile to it's users that I cannot believe that people like HN moderation patterns.
Sometimes I consider writing a bot to automatically upvote ALL downvoted comments because maybe half of downvoted comments are incorrectly downvoted by people who got emotionally upset rather than downvoting because the content is of low quality.
Hopefully, I could also write a system to automatically vouch for flagged comments that are from hell banned accounts. Truly a terrible system and I'd leave this place tomorrow if there was any community with as much good content as HN to replace HN with (and no, slashdot does not count)
Sometimes I consider writing a bot to automatically upvote ALL downvoted comments because maybe half of downvoted comments are incorrectly downvoted by people who got emotionally upset rather than downvoting because the content is of low quality.
Hopefully, I could also write a system to automatically vouch for flagged comments that are from hell banned accounts. Truly a terrible system and I'd leave this place tomorrow if there was any community with as much good content as HN to replace HN with (and no, slashdot does not count)
The user is not really 'shadow banned' since they've had their warnings, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18500226
Deciding to ignore them is 'forum hostile'
Deciding to ignore them is 'forum hostile'
How can we assess any of this stuff without an actual world war?
The disassociated current generations look bored enough to send the kids to a real war in 20 years, and then we’ll see the truth behind all of the war tech and what future war really is.
The disassociated current generations look bored enough to send the kids to a real war in 20 years, and then we’ll see the truth behind all of the war tech and what future war really is.
I feel like there's an orchestrated PR campaign around making these F-35s sound like a success. I wonder what exists for objective reporting & analysis in this space.
I mean, there's real life, like Israel taking out advanced Chinese radars: https://defence-blog.com/news/source-israeli-f-35-destroyed-...
Which China claimed could detect the F-22: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a23846/chi...
Which China claimed could detect the F-22: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a23846/chi...
Damascus is less than 40 miles from the Israeli border, so it's entirely possible that they detected the F-35s just fine; you can hit quite a few targets in Syria without ever actually violating Syrian airspace.
Flying from Japan to China might be a little different.
Flying from Japan to China might be a little different.
The two aren't exclusive at all. It's possible that the F-35 was detected by the radar and that the radar was destroyed, if it wasn't possible at the time to guide a weapon onto target.
It's also possible that the radar wasn't actually destroyed, or that it wasn't destroyed using an F-35, or that it was destroyed using some kind of munition such as a cruise missile or loitering munition where stealth is immaterial.
Also, VHF radars aren't intended to guide missiles onto their targets, they are only detection radars for now. They would need dual tracking at the very least.
But as of now, the mission profile of these radars is to provide advance warning and tracking and sensor fusion to, for example, a wing of J-20s which would enable them to intercept and kill F-35s. For example, a group of stealth interceptors could fly towards the detected planes with their radars off and RWRs on, fire off missiles when they are close to engagement distance to the F35s datalinked to the radar to aprroach, and once they are close enough, the missiles and planes turn on their radars all together using sensor fusion, guiding the missiles already very close their targets and destroying the F35s before they have a chance to counterattack.
There are a few other ways VHF counterstealth radar can be effectively used to neutralize stealth aircraft, but none of them are within the reach of Syria, so this isn't surprising if it happened.
It's also possible that the radar wasn't actually destroyed, or that it wasn't destroyed using an F-35, or that it was destroyed using some kind of munition such as a cruise missile or loitering munition where stealth is immaterial.
Also, VHF radars aren't intended to guide missiles onto their targets, they are only detection radars for now. They would need dual tracking at the very least.
But as of now, the mission profile of these radars is to provide advance warning and tracking and sensor fusion to, for example, a wing of J-20s which would enable them to intercept and kill F-35s. For example, a group of stealth interceptors could fly towards the detected planes with their radars off and RWRs on, fire off missiles when they are close to engagement distance to the F35s datalinked to the radar to aprroach, and once they are close enough, the missiles and planes turn on their radars all together using sensor fusion, guiding the missiles already very close their targets and destroying the F35s before they have a chance to counterattack.
There are a few other ways VHF counterstealth radar can be effectively used to neutralize stealth aircraft, but none of them are within the reach of Syria, so this isn't surprising if it happened.
with drop tanks attached
Yet for some weird reason this plane is still one of the 4 plains in the running to replace the old FA-18 in the Swiss air force.
Which plane, exactly, is superior to the F-35?
Arguably nothing at the moment, at least for the role the F-35 is designed for.
Realistically for Switzerland these aircraft are basically 9/11 prevention and national penis-enlargers, so any modern jet would do the trick (subject to politics i.e. no Sukhois).
Realistically for Switzerland these aircraft are basically 9/11 prevention and national penis-enlargers, so any modern jet would do the trick (subject to politics i.e. no Sukhois).
An unmanned combat aerial vehicle would probably win in a dogfight, but that's irrelevant given the anti-access/area denial strategy evolving in e.g. Crimea and the South China Sea.
> An unmanned combat aerial vehicle would probably win in a dogfight
If by "unmanned combat aerial vehicle" you mean a missile, maybe. Up to a point fighter planes get faster as they get larger. Any "drone" that could go toe-to-toe with the F-35 is going to be around the same size and look roughly the same. But more significantly, the F-35 is a stealth fighter that serves primarily as a sensor platform for long-range weaponry. The premise that it would find itself in a dogfight is not realistic.
If by "unmanned combat aerial vehicle" you mean a missile, maybe. Up to a point fighter planes get faster as they get larger. Any "drone" that could go toe-to-toe with the F-35 is going to be around the same size and look roughly the same. But more significantly, the F-35 is a stealth fighter that serves primarily as a sensor platform for long-range weaponry. The premise that it would find itself in a dogfight is not realistic.
I'm referring to a specific class of drone, e.g.:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kratos_XQ-58_Valkyrie
I agree that dogfighting is irrelevant and unrealistic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kratos_XQ-58_Valkyrie
I agree that dogfighting is irrelevant and unrealistic.
Almost all (if not all) UCAVs are for "strike", at this point in time. Which is to say, they drop bombs or missiles on ground targets. The control loop has too much latency for air to air combat right now. Closest that is likely in the near future is robot wingmen, where the UCAV is under the control of a nearby stealthy fighter.
Isn't the Sukhoi Su-57 pretty evenly matched with the F-35? Idk if it can hover but it looks pretty awesome.
It's seriously inferior in most ways.
Like what? Not knowledgeable at all, so just curious to hear in what ways!
Almost certainly weaker stealth, weaker radar, in some categories weaker weapons, and weaker avionics in general.
That said, it's kinematically and aerodynamically superior, but that's not very important nowadays.
That said, it's kinematically and aerodynamically superior, but that's not very important nowadays.
I think the cost is one of the deciding factors...
They'll just keep upgrading the F-18 design, new avionics, better engines, airframe tweaks. Way cheaper than the F-35.
The B-52's are still in service after 60+ years, with pretty much everything upgraded several times over.
The B-52's are still in service after 60+ years, with pretty much everything upgraded several times over.
You can't make the F-18 a stealth fighter. But those planes will still be used for a long time. The F-15 may even be making a small comeback: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a26413900...
No, but probably 95% of air combat operations don't need stealth (well, as long as you have air superiority).
Pretty much anything from the last generation. Embarrassingly the F-16 beat it in combat, for example.
For close air support the A-10 is vastly superior.
The F-35 is an employment program like the TSA.
For close air support the A-10 is vastly superior.
The F-35 is an employment program like the TSA.
Interesting how you heard about that one dogfight, but not its record since then. Again, places like The Drive have been pushing bad F-35 news because it draws lots of clicks.
The F-35's k/d ratio since that dogfight in 2015, when pilots were just figuring the plane out:
15-1
https://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-once-beaten-by-f-16s-sh...
> Since then, the F-35 has mopped up in simulated dogfights with a 15-1 kill ratio. According to retired Lt. Col. David Berke, who commanded a squadron of F-35s and flew an F-22 — the US's most agile, best dogfighter — the jet has undergone somewhat of a revolution.
The F-35's k/d ratio since that dogfight in 2015, when pilots were just figuring the plane out:
15-1
https://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-once-beaten-by-f-16s-sh...
> Since then, the F-35 has mopped up in simulated dogfights with a 15-1 kill ratio. According to retired Lt. Col. David Berke, who commanded a squadron of F-35s and flew an F-22 — the US's most agile, best dogfighter — the jet has undergone somewhat of a revolution.
I can't speak to what we should expect from a competition between planes with 30+ years of technology that cost 5x as much, but this sounds a lot like a demo for foreign buyers.
It could easily be something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002#Exer... where the contest was tweaked until the correct outcome happened.
It could easily be something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002#Exer... where the contest was tweaked until the correct outcome happened.
If you just read the wiki article, you get a distorted view of the exercise. Gen Van Riper was more interested in "winning" than he was in following the requirements to actually have the exercise result in usable data.
Examples: the wiki article mentions small boats. As in about the size of your average fishing boat. No, not your commercial fishing boat, your weekend fisherman fishing boat (Boston Whaler). And it would be carrying a conventional Soviet era anti-ship missile, weighing some 3 tons. This is not only enough to swamp the boat, but launching the missile would result in the boat turning into shrapnel. Or it mentions motorcycle couriers. But the sim wasn't setup to include the latency they involved, so he got effectively instant, unjammable comms.
There were simulation issues, like the Blue Force navy showed up teleported into being next to the coast, due to model limitations. Due to the fact that the real life location of this was in fact a very busy set of air and sea lanes, Blue Force navy also started with no defensive capabilities.
And of course, the whole point isn't for the red team to sink the blue force, but to see how the blue force can adapt to the red team during an amphibious/airborne invasion. It doesn't do much good to have tens of thousands of guys sitting around doing nothing because their ship got "blown up" or their landing zone got covered in "chemical weapons". MC2002 wasn't just a couple guys in a room doing a war game. It involved real ships, real people, real aircraft, and real money.
https://www.navalgazing.net/Millennium-Challenge-2002 https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/4qfoiw/mil...
Examples: the wiki article mentions small boats. As in about the size of your average fishing boat. No, not your commercial fishing boat, your weekend fisherman fishing boat (Boston Whaler). And it would be carrying a conventional Soviet era anti-ship missile, weighing some 3 tons. This is not only enough to swamp the boat, but launching the missile would result in the boat turning into shrapnel. Or it mentions motorcycle couriers. But the sim wasn't setup to include the latency they involved, so he got effectively instant, unjammable comms.
There were simulation issues, like the Blue Force navy showed up teleported into being next to the coast, due to model limitations. Due to the fact that the real life location of this was in fact a very busy set of air and sea lanes, Blue Force navy also started with no defensive capabilities.
And of course, the whole point isn't for the red team to sink the blue force, but to see how the blue force can adapt to the red team during an amphibious/airborne invasion. It doesn't do much good to have tens of thousands of guys sitting around doing nothing because their ship got "blown up" or their landing zone got covered in "chemical weapons". MC2002 wasn't just a couple guys in a room doing a war game. It involved real ships, real people, real aircraft, and real money.
https://www.navalgazing.net/Millennium-Challenge-2002 https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/4qfoiw/mil...
> For close air support the A-10 is vastly superior.
Vastly superior for providing CAS in uncontested airspace against enemies that struggle to acquire MANPADS, let alone a modern air defense network or their own air force, perhaps.
But the argument is that the US military should be designed for fighting the biggest plausible enemy, and that's Russia or China, not goat herders in Afghanistan. A major inefficiency in counterinsurgent air support is expensive and survivable, using A-10s against a major threat isn't.
Vastly superior for providing CAS in uncontested airspace against enemies that struggle to acquire MANPADS, let alone a modern air defense network or their own air force, perhaps.
But the argument is that the US military should be designed for fighting the biggest plausible enemy, and that's Russia or China, not goat herders in Afghanistan. A major inefficiency in counterinsurgent air support is expensive and survivable, using A-10s against a major threat isn't.
MANPADS are not the end of the A-10. The A-10 was designed with them in mind. Note how the strange tail wraps around the engine exhaust. That is a tiny bit of stealth, blocking the IR seekers from seeing the engines from most angles.
Other factors also reduce vulnerability. MANPADS are essentially never radar-seeking for reasons of physics; they do not have a large enough diameter to carry a proper forward-looking antenna at radio frequencies. The A-10 has some redundancy and armor, and the MANPADS have very small payloads, so hitting a single engine isn't going to doom the aircraft. The A-10 is normally flown in a way that avoids dangerous exposure, with complicated undulating movement that would break an IR seeker lock. (now you see the engines... and now you don't) The A-10 doesn't have to fly alone against an enemy. Pairing it with the EA-18G Growler would be a decent idea.
Once you consider the enemy to be an advanced country, the standards for acceptable losses change. You're speaking of World War III. Look back to the bomber pilots of World War II to see what is accepted. At times, typical survival for a pilot was a month. In war with an advanced country, 1:1 loss ratios are to be expected.
Other factors also reduce vulnerability. MANPADS are essentially never radar-seeking for reasons of physics; they do not have a large enough diameter to carry a proper forward-looking antenna at radio frequencies. The A-10 has some redundancy and armor, and the MANPADS have very small payloads, so hitting a single engine isn't going to doom the aircraft. The A-10 is normally flown in a way that avoids dangerous exposure, with complicated undulating movement that would break an IR seeker lock. (now you see the engines... and now you don't) The A-10 doesn't have to fly alone against an enemy. Pairing it with the EA-18G Growler would be a decent idea.
Once you consider the enemy to be an advanced country, the standards for acceptable losses change. You're speaking of World War III. Look back to the bomber pilots of World War II to see what is accepted. At times, typical survival for a pilot was a month. In war with an advanced country, 1:1 loss ratios are to be expected.
I said "Vastly superior for providing CAS in uncontested airspace against enemies that struggle to acquire MANPADS", which I thought implied "enemies that have MANPADS in limited quantities". Yes, the A-10 does "fine" in that situation.
It does not do anything approaching "fine" against modern air-defense emplacements. Or against air-to-air missiles, whether radar guided or infrared. (those engine-hiding undulations won't do much against an all-aspect missile from the front)
And while accepting 1:1 losses against a peer state in a war might be the reality, I'm pretty sure the A-10 wouldn't manage such a record in hostile airspace. (That's if you count "tanks" or "infantry" on the opposite side of the ledger, of course - purely air to air the A-10 would lose to the average 3rd gen fighter as far as I'm aware)
It does not do anything approaching "fine" against modern air-defense emplacements. Or against air-to-air missiles, whether radar guided or infrared. (those engine-hiding undulations won't do much against an all-aspect missile from the front)
And while accepting 1:1 losses against a peer state in a war might be the reality, I'm pretty sure the A-10 wouldn't manage such a record in hostile airspace. (That's if you count "tanks" or "infantry" on the opposite side of the ledger, of course - purely air to air the A-10 would lose to the average 3rd gen fighter as far as I'm aware)
There is no need for the A-10, or any other weapon system, to be used all by itself.
In hostile airspace, the EA-18G Growler brings the AGM-88 HARM, assuming those modern air-defense emplacements haven't already been hit by cruise missiles.
Plans for war get ruined upon contact with the enemy. Pessimists will assume that friendly plans get ruined, while optimists will assume that enemy plans get ruined. Asset diversity helps everything except logistics. Success or failure of a reasonable weapon system (the A-10, not knights on horseback) is far from certain. All sorts of unexpected factors come into play.
In hostile airspace, the EA-18G Growler brings the AGM-88 HARM, assuming those modern air-defense emplacements haven't already been hit by cruise missiles.
Plans for war get ruined upon contact with the enemy. Pessimists will assume that friendly plans get ruined, while optimists will assume that enemy plans get ruined. Asset diversity helps everything except logistics. Success or failure of a reasonable weapon system (the A-10, not knights on horseback) is far from certain. All sorts of unexpected factors come into play.
In a conventional war, "this weapons system works perfectly after we completely dismantle their air defenses" sounds pretty similar to "this works perfectly after we win", IMO. And, theoretically, the F-35 can be used for operations before that happens, which is part of why they're being put into service.
Not to mention "this plane works fine if we get the Navy to do the hard part first" is going to go over well with a rather limited subset of Air Force personel. (The Air Force has wild weasels too - generally F-16s though I believe the F-35 is planned for that role in the future)
Not to mention "this plane works fine if we get the Navy to do the hard part first" is going to go over well with a rather limited subset of Air Force personel. (The Air Force has wild weasels too - generally F-16s though I believe the F-35 is planned for that role in the future)
> Embarrassingly the F-16 beat it in combat, for example.
What kind of combat?
If an F-35 actually makes it to a merge somethings gone wrong, and reports vary wildly https://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-vs-f-16-15-18-lost-beat...
Ultimately a lot of F-35 hysteria seems to derive from it being the first US aircraft developed entirely post-internet where news travels quickly - i.e. If your projects early tests and teething problems were being reported on publicly by everyone you'd probably look fairly bad too.
That's not to say the F-35 is flawless in any way, but these conversations usually end up in a reductive cycle of arguments we can't know the answer too without security clearance.
What kind of combat?
If an F-35 actually makes it to a merge somethings gone wrong, and reports vary wildly https://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-vs-f-16-15-18-lost-beat...
Ultimately a lot of F-35 hysteria seems to derive from it being the first US aircraft developed entirely post-internet where news travels quickly - i.e. If your projects early tests and teething problems were being reported on publicly by everyone you'd probably look fairly bad too.
That's not to say the F-35 is flawless in any way, but these conversations usually end up in a reductive cycle of arguments we can't know the answer too without security clearance.
Who are these people, both smart enough and dumb enough, to build the high tech death machines anyway?
I imagine the prospect of being able to play with genuinely unbelievably good equipment has to help when recruiting - e.g. think of the amount of physics, signal processing, aerodynamics, mechanical engineering, materials science etc. used to blow up a plane 50 miles away in a modern active radar guided missile.
I could easily flip the question around:
Who are these people both smart enough and dumb enough to work at FAANG companies?
Who are these people both smart enough and dumb enough to work at FAANG companies?
The individual components are well engineered, it's the integration that is completely flawed.
I would love to work on such things.
It's really baffling that the US isn't looking more heavily at cheaper, easier to field aircraft like the A-29 Super Tucano for counter-insurgency operations like Iraq and Afghanistan.
the a-29 is really intended for US COIN partner nations (read: not first world militaries). the aircraft is much less survivable than an a-10 (which is already more vulnerable than people tend to think), making it inappropriate for most direct applications by US forces.
edit: to be clear, the US is looking at the a-29; they just don't want to risk their own pilots in it.
edit: to be clear, the US is looking at the a-29; they just don't want to risk their own pilots in it.
The A-29 is functionally not all that different than armed drones like the predator or reaper. Except the latter have an even longer loiter time, and take pilot losses out of the equation.
I'm all for having Super Tucanos available for cheap counterinsurgency operations, but let's be real — they are not a strategic deterrent to Russia or China, and that matters.
Certainly we should not be blowing up pickup trucks with F-35s and F-22s, but we absolutely do need stealthy fast smart planes available in a pinch.
Certainly we should not be blowing up pickup trucks with F-35s and F-22s, but we absolutely do need stealthy fast smart planes available in a pinch.
> we absolutely do need stealthy fast smart planes available in a pinch...
Sure!
The point is more that maybe we don't need 2,456 of them, and that dropping that to, say, 2,000 might get us a couple thousand much cheaper planes for more day-to-day usage in the conflicts we're regularly engaging in too.
Sure!
The point is more that maybe we don't need 2,456 of them, and that dropping that to, say, 2,000 might get us a couple thousand much cheaper planes for more day-to-day usage in the conflicts we're regularly engaging in too.
A-29 was being looked into and the US even had a couple (I saw one up close once) but a diplomatic tiff with Brazil (home of the Tucano's manufacturer) about a decade ago meant that the whole effort was CANX
The A-29 isn't that cheap compared to an F-35 (i.e. 1:4), especially when you consider that if you buy an F-35 (at the expense of maintenance costs) you avoid having to buy an F-35 anyway because you have a modern BVR platform
The A-29 costs $430–500/hour to run. Lockheed "hopes" to get the F-35 down to $25k/hour by 2025.
Doesn’t the US have many combat aircraft that can fit that service role?
[deleted]
Can someone more knowledgeable than me in this matter explain why fighter jets still require human pilots? Why aren't they completely replaced by drones?
1. Technology isn't there yet - the recent AI vs. F-16 thing was a publicity stunt: The performance of the AI was impressive, but it was both cheating and competing in an environment where the pilot wasn't really comfortable (IIRC Simulators are almost never used to practice combat tactics, so they might as well've got a competitive DCS player in)
2. A pilot isn't just a sack of meat that uses monkey-instincts to steer the plane forward, they are a cog in a very large machine both making decisions and following and interpreting orders as the situation changes around them.
Drone jets have existed for decades, they're called cruise missiles.
2. A pilot isn't just a sack of meat that uses monkey-instincts to steer the plane forward, they are a cog in a very large machine both making decisions and following and interpreting orders as the situation changes around them.
Drone jets have existed for decades, they're called cruise missiles.
Simulators are used quite regularly to practice combat tactics! In fact, that's one of the intended uses of the Joint Simulation Environment that the article discusses.
DCS's missile simulation models are so far from the real thing that DCS is what simulation engineers refer to as "negative training". That is, if you train to fight using DCS, you're training to fight within DCS, not training in a way that's going to carry over to the real world. DCS is fine for what it is -- a simulation that reflects as much of the pilot/vehicle interface of various aircraft as is possible. But when it comes to sensors and weapons, it's very far from reality.
The Alpha Dogfight trials were a PR stunt but they were also a part of a larger program to see how AI technology can assist human pilots. Alpha Dogfight is akin to things like Deep Blue/Alpha Go in that it has opened up a whole domain to further research and deployment of AI systems to assist humans.
DCS's missile simulation models are so far from the real thing that DCS is what simulation engineers refer to as "negative training". That is, if you train to fight using DCS, you're training to fight within DCS, not training in a way that's going to carry over to the real world. DCS is fine for what it is -- a simulation that reflects as much of the pilot/vehicle interface of various aircraft as is possible. But when it comes to sensors and weapons, it's very far from reality.
The Alpha Dogfight trials were a PR stunt but they were also a part of a larger program to see how AI technology can assist human pilots. Alpha Dogfight is akin to things like Deep Blue/Alpha Go in that it has opened up a whole domain to further research and deployment of AI systems to assist humans.
They didn't have missiles hence why the DCS pilot may have done better as they said at the time the pilot was not practiced on the simulator.
Yes, I'm aware, I followed the Alpha Dogfight trials closely.
If anyone else is wondering, they used a 3000 foot cone with point at the nose of the simulated aircraft, any time the enemy got within 3000 feet and 1 degree of the boresight of the plane, a certain number of hits per simulated frame were counted as hitting. Get X number of hits, that's a kill. For the livestreams they wonderfully represented this as a health bar.
If anyone else is wondering, they used a 3000 foot cone with point at the nose of the simulated aircraft, any time the enemy got within 3000 feet and 1 degree of the boresight of the plane, a certain number of hits per simulated frame were counted as hitting. Get X number of hits, that's a kill. For the livestreams they wonderfully represented this as a health bar.
Drones are dependent on an active satellite link to function. What happens if the enemy jams the satellite?
Wouldn’t jamming the satellite affect F-35, too?
Yes and no. The whole thesis of the F-35 is apparently an airborne sensor fusion and electronic warfare platform as well as a modern BVR jet - it's going to be harder to jam because of both redundancy and the amount of hardware real estate the designers can play with to counter said jamming.
On the subject of electronic warfare - I assume it's still very classified but given that the current teen series aircraft apparently have some serious EW magic in them (I don't have any citations for exactly what they can do other than I read some comments by IIRC an Australian ground radar operator and apparently they were completely outgunned - i.e. fake formations rather than mere jamming) I think we will be reading about exactly they can do at great length on the hackernews's of the future.
On the subject of electronic warfare - I assume it's still very classified but given that the current teen series aircraft apparently have some serious EW magic in them (I don't have any citations for exactly what they can do other than I read some comments by IIRC an Australian ground radar operator and apparently they were completely outgunned - i.e. fake formations rather than mere jamming) I think we will be reading about exactly they can do at great length on the hackernews's of the future.
Radar jamming and other magic aside, I’m just wondering to what extent the equipment in a modern jet like F-35 depends on satellite link. So to what extent putting a human in the machine actually changes its capability as opposed to a drone with an autonomous mode.
> I’m just wondering to what extent the equipment in a modern jet like F-35 depends on satellite link.
Not very much, the datalink is sort of peer-to-peer - the F-35 is one of the first aircarft to have a satellite datalink.
Not very much, the datalink is sort of peer-to-peer - the F-35 is one of the first aircarft to have a satellite datalink.
Sure but a human doesn't have issue still executing their mission, making decisions based on changing circumstances, and successfully return to base.
If you jam a drone it is just a machine gun volley away from destruction. A human pilot can avoid anti air or even do the first strike against the enemy.
Peace at last.
[deleted]
Good. The whole thing should be shut down.
It is not good. Like it or not, this is the only alternative NATO has for the forceable future. The British Tempest and the French/German stealth fighter won’t be operational until 2035-2040
The only alternative are modernizes 4gen fighters which are very vulnerable to modern air defenses.
A ‘buggy’ F-35 might still be a better alternative.
Also the British are counting for the F-35 to equip its carriers.
The only alternative are modernizes 4gen fighters which are very vulnerable to modern air defenses.
A ‘buggy’ F-35 might still be a better alternative.
Also the British are counting for the F-35 to equip its carriers.
I keep hearing concerns that modern radars may be able to defeat the F-35's stealth, or will be able to defeat it in the near future. I can't help but think that it will be hard to keep a plane flying at mach 1 hidden in the face of fast scanning and networked phased array radars with modern deep learning based detection algorithms.
My understanding is that if you take away the stealth aspect the F-35 is a sluggish fighter bomber that would be outperformed by most 4th gens. Considering an F-35 is nearly the price of 10 4th gen fighters the choice to "upgrade" becomes pretty suspect for a lot of Nato partners.
My understanding is that if you take away the stealth aspect the F-35 is a sluggish fighter bomber that would be outperformed by most 4th gens. Considering an F-35 is nearly the price of 10 4th gen fighters the choice to "upgrade" becomes pretty suspect for a lot of Nato partners.
>I can't help but think that it will be hard to keep a plane flying at mach 1 hidden in the face of fast scanning and networked phased array radars with modern deep learning based detection algorithms.
Yes a sophisticated network of radars, sensors, and computers could potentially detect lower RCS aircraft from further away. But that problem would exist for larger RCS aircraft as well. Such a system is a prime target for first hour strike by cruise missiles as the radars required are very large and power intensive. It's not just about detection, but also being able to acquire a firing solution. A lower RCS plane is harder to track, easier to hide with jamming, and ultimately much more of a headache than a higher RCS plane.
>My understanding is that if you take away the stealth aspect the F-35 is a sluggish fighter bomber that would be outperformed by most 4th gens.
F35's performance is superior to the planes it replaces while providing both greater range and payload. It's got very high AoA capabilities which only the F-22 can surpass. Even more impressively it is able to do maneuvers which other plans cannot do without thrust vectoring.[0]
>Considering an F-35 is nearly the price of 10 4th gen fighters the choice to "upgrade" becomes pretty suspect for a lot of Nato partners.
Wrong. Lot 14 F-35A's cost $78M.[1] That's less than new Eurofighters and Dassault Rafale.
The F35 is the best thing currently in production. That's not to say it's perfect. The F-35's biggest flaws are not that of maneuverability or insufficient stealth. But of range. Despite improving on the airframes which it is replacing in range, it is not enough given the realities of Chinese A2/AD capabilities. The USAF needs a new fighter which is capable of significantly greater ranges as to not over stretch it's tanker network. The NGAD program hopes to address this.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-APFmIGo1k [1]: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/10/29/in-newly-inked-de...
Yes a sophisticated network of radars, sensors, and computers could potentially detect lower RCS aircraft from further away. But that problem would exist for larger RCS aircraft as well. Such a system is a prime target for first hour strike by cruise missiles as the radars required are very large and power intensive. It's not just about detection, but also being able to acquire a firing solution. A lower RCS plane is harder to track, easier to hide with jamming, and ultimately much more of a headache than a higher RCS plane.
>My understanding is that if you take away the stealth aspect the F-35 is a sluggish fighter bomber that would be outperformed by most 4th gens.
F35's performance is superior to the planes it replaces while providing both greater range and payload. It's got very high AoA capabilities which only the F-22 can surpass. Even more impressively it is able to do maneuvers which other plans cannot do without thrust vectoring.[0]
>Considering an F-35 is nearly the price of 10 4th gen fighters the choice to "upgrade" becomes pretty suspect for a lot of Nato partners.
Wrong. Lot 14 F-35A's cost $78M.[1] That's less than new Eurofighters and Dassault Rafale.
The F35 is the best thing currently in production. That's not to say it's perfect. The F-35's biggest flaws are not that of maneuverability or insufficient stealth. But of range. Despite improving on the airframes which it is replacing in range, it is not enough given the realities of Chinese A2/AD capabilities. The USAF needs a new fighter which is capable of significantly greater ranges as to not over stretch it's tanker network. The NGAD program hopes to address this.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-APFmIGo1k [1]: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/10/29/in-newly-inked-de...
> My understanding is that if you take away the stealth aspect the F-35 is a sluggish fighter bomber that would be outperformed by most 4th gens. Considering an F-35 is nearly the price of 10 4th gen fighters the choice to "upgrade" becomes pretty suspect for a lot of Nato partners.
First, "4th generation" can mean anything from an F-16A from 1978 to an F-16V of today. An F-16V is actually more expensive than an F-35A.
Second, if you take away the stealth of the F-35 it still has:
* A highly capable APG-81 radar with features like low-probability of intercept transmission modes, electronic attack (jamming) capability, multi-target track, ground moving target indication/track, synthetic aperture radar mapping, and passive (receive only) track capability
* Integrated electro-optical targeting pod with laser designator and range finder.
* Integrated software defined radio that can handle communications on UHF, VHF, Link-16, and inter-flight MADL
* 4 pi steradian awareness Distributed Aperture System that's a mid-wave IRST and missile launch/missile warning system
* Integrated Electronic Support Measures suite that provides Band 4/Band 5 detection and single ship rangefinding of incoming RF
F-16V has most of this same stuff or functional equivalents, but you pay tens of millions more to get it.
First, "4th generation" can mean anything from an F-16A from 1978 to an F-16V of today. An F-16V is actually more expensive than an F-35A.
Second, if you take away the stealth of the F-35 it still has:
* A highly capable APG-81 radar with features like low-probability of intercept transmission modes, electronic attack (jamming) capability, multi-target track, ground moving target indication/track, synthetic aperture radar mapping, and passive (receive only) track capability
* Integrated electro-optical targeting pod with laser designator and range finder.
* Integrated software defined radio that can handle communications on UHF, VHF, Link-16, and inter-flight MADL
* 4 pi steradian awareness Distributed Aperture System that's a mid-wave IRST and missile launch/missile warning system
* Integrated Electronic Support Measures suite that provides Band 4/Band 5 detection and single ship rangefinding of incoming RF
F-16V has most of this same stuff or functional equivalents, but you pay tens of millions more to get it.
The solution to that problem is to have conventional non stealth aircraft or cruise missiles in your fleet. Detecting the F-35 might be possible with enough attention but if you detect a conventional fleet you are going to focus your attention on the low hanging fruit first.
There's speculation that the cutting edge radars fielded by China and Russia can detect stealth aircraft, so the advantage may be moot now.
I was going to correct you and say maybe you meant the Typhoon, not Tempest, but indeed there is a proposed UK aircraft program called Tempest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Tempest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Tempest
£2Bn seems like a hilariously British amount of money to develop a modern fighter for.
Buggy? It barely works. Short flight time. Crap wing loading. Not good at any of it's multi-roles.
We could build 5-10 F-16s for each F-35, and many more A-10s, and they'd be better despite being ancient designs.
They're so expensive we can't even do proper flight training in them, it'd cost too much if we break one.
We could build 5-10 F-16s for each F-35, and many more A-10s, and they'd be better despite being ancient designs.
They're so expensive we can't even do proper flight training in them, it'd cost too much if we break one.
> 5-10 F-16s
The new F-16V costs as near as makes no difference the cost of an F-35
The new F-16V costs as near as makes no difference the cost of an F-35
The Israeli's seem to be happy with it, use it in combat and are buying more.
They don't pay for them. It's where all the "aid" money goes.
They do, even if it's partially done via aid money. And again they could buy multiple F-16's for the price of a single F-35 through the same aid program.
> "Crap wing loading"
Yes, why does this super stealthy plane not have support for lots of reflecting metal things hanging from its wings?
Yes, why does this super stealthy plane not have support for lots of reflecting metal things hanging from its wings?
'Wing loading' is the ratio of overall weight to lifting area, which directly affects the aircrafts ability to turn.
It has nothing to do with hanging stuff from the wings.
It has nothing to do with hanging stuff from the wings.
You're exactly right. Not sure why you're downvoted. Not only is the F-35 a giant lemon, but US defense spending should be cut considerably.
The world is changing, air combat is changing, and the F-35 addresses none of those changes. The F-35 is nothing more than an expensive boondoggle. It's purpose, like most DoD spending, is to transfer money from public coffers into the hands of well connected private companies.
The world is changing, air combat is changing, and the F-35 addresses none of those changes. The F-35 is nothing more than an expensive boondoggle. It's purpose, like most DoD spending, is to transfer money from public coffers into the hands of well connected private companies.
Not only is the King Edward VII a giant lemon, but UK defense spending should be cut considerably.
The world is changing, naval combat is changing, and the King Edward VII addresses none of those changes. The King Edward VII is nothing more than an expensive boondoggle. It's purpose, like most Royal Navy spending, is to transfer money from public coffers into the hands of well connected private companies.
</1904 naval commentator>
The Jeune Ecole never lasts. Combat changes, but it never changes as much as the detractors of the old school believe. It never stays as constant as the proponents of the old school believe either.
The world is changing, naval combat is changing, and the King Edward VII addresses none of those changes. The King Edward VII is nothing more than an expensive boondoggle. It's purpose, like most Royal Navy spending, is to transfer money from public coffers into the hands of well connected private companies.
</1904 naval commentator>
The Jeune Ecole never lasts. Combat changes, but it never changes as much as the detractors of the old school believe. It never stays as constant as the proponents of the old school believe either.
JSE is really interesting, it's meant to be a high-fidelity electronic warfare simulation with actual aircraft software in the simulation loop. The F-35 that's present in the JSE is the same code that is running on a real jet, with sensor models specifically developed by all the sensor vendors. All this is fed with the latest intelligence data on threat aircraft and emitters. The point of all this is, the US should be able to better develop the aircraft -- and other aircraft types -- in the future if it has a high tech digital testing ground that it can step through iterations with very quickly.
As far as I can tell nothing like this has been done before so it's no wonder that it's taking a while.
Here's a US Navy PDF briefing on the JSE: https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2018/te...