Is the F-35 officially a failure?(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Is the F-35 officially a failure?
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/sitrep-is-the-f-35-now-officially-a-failure/
88 comments
>Imagine where SpaceX would be if the government got in there making sure everyone was happy and all 50 states got a piece of the action.
The government landed men on the moon fifty years ago and SpaceX is still blowing up rockets regularly, I'm not sure your comparison is particularly flattering to SpaceX.
The government landed men on the moon fifty years ago and SpaceX is still blowing up rockets regularly, I'm not sure your comparison is particularly flattering to SpaceX.
I don't think it's fair to compare the budget (in real terms) NASA had with the one SpaceX has when you make that comparison.
Moreover, I fee like our government today would have a hard time pulling off that feat. In the early 60s we still had somewhat nimble areas of government. I don't think it's true today. We allow too many interests to have too much pull and negative influence causing some kind of paralysis as well and franken-projects that are impossibly encompassing.
Moreover, I fee like our government today would have a hard time pulling off that feat. In the early 60s we still had somewhat nimble areas of government. I don't think it's true today. We allow too many interests to have too much pull and negative influence causing some kind of paralysis as well and franken-projects that are impossibly encompassing.
Aren’t fighter jets made by private companies? They pitch designs to procurement…?
They are but built by govt committees and these projects have to provide pork to all senators before there’s a green light. So it’s not, “build us a fighter to take down MiG-35 or whatever. It’s we want it to work for NATO, the marines, navy and Air Force, and provide air cover and drop bombs and air superiority and... so they get a Frankenstein plane that does nothing exceptionally well.
> The government landed men on the moon fifty years ago
And cannot accomplish that task again today. And did it by investing massive quantities of money and resources in a project, which no business could possibly hope to match, unless they print their own cash flow, as the government does.
And cannot accomplish that task again today. And did it by investing massive quantities of money and resources in a project, which no business could possibly hope to match, unless they print their own cash flow, as the government does.
The simplest solution is don't buy or build things you don't need. Wait till we actually have an opponent where advanced fighter jets would help defeat them. America's founders tried to prevent a standing army for this reason and also because most militaries get used against their own citizens more frequently than getting used against foreign enemies.
"Alexa, order a fire extinguisher."
You mock, but in world war II America did not build its Navy, Air Force or Army until AFTER Pear Harbor was attacked. Then we built weapons that were customized to defeat the enemies we had.
This has never been the doctrine of the Navy, because of the enormous capital expenditures and specialization, even going back to the days of sailing ships.
It never worked out particularly well for the Army, either. Every war in US history before the establishment of a permanent standing army with NATO is a story of a hasty, disorganized clusterfuck for upwards of a year until a semi-professional organization was painfully established, and it's rarely until year two or three that a really effective force could ever be forged out of the tiny cadre of professionals and the mass influx of untrained volunteers or conscripts.
It never worked out particularly well for the Army, either. Every war in US history before the establishment of a permanent standing army with NATO is a story of a hasty, disorganized clusterfuck for upwards of a year until a semi-professional organization was painfully established, and it's rarely until year two or three that a really effective force could ever be forged out of the tiny cadre of professionals and the mass influx of untrained volunteers or conscripts.
> It never worked out particularly well for the Army, either.
Which is funny, because as the original comment points out that until after we'd been attacked during WWII, we didn't have a significant standing army. After we were attacked, we started a large buildup, and ended up on the winning side. Every war the US engaged in since then, we've both already had a standing army, and we've LOST. So statistically at least, having a large standing army is more likely to lose us a war.
To be fair, in all of those wars we've lost, there has been strategic ineptitude from the top down in each one. Vietnam was a bad idea, which is why the people of the US protested it so hard. Anything in the middle east has been a clusterf, and even the people choosing to go there knew it was stupid. I'll allow that Korea was somewhat sensible in terms of long-term defense, but even then it could've been handled better. But a standing army hasn't been winning us wars, that's for sure.
Which is funny, because as the original comment points out that until after we'd been attacked during WWII, we didn't have a significant standing army. After we were attacked, we started a large buildup, and ended up on the winning side. Every war the US engaged in since then, we've both already had a standing army, and we've LOST. So statistically at least, having a large standing army is more likely to lose us a war.
To be fair, in all of those wars we've lost, there has been strategic ineptitude from the top down in each one. Vietnam was a bad idea, which is why the people of the US protested it so hard. Anything in the middle east has been a clusterf, and even the people choosing to go there knew it was stupid. I'll allow that Korea was somewhat sensible in terms of long-term defense, but even then it could've been handled better. But a standing army hasn't been winning us wars, that's for sure.
That example no longer applies. Equipment is orders of magnitude more complex now. Entire supply chains have to be established which can take years regardless of how much funding you throw at the problem.
That's a really great point, I hadn't considered that.
Yes, wait until we have an opponent which requires advanced fighter jets, then order development to start. Only will take 2 decades to reach production. And hey, maybe we won't need them by the time it reaches production!
... take 20 years ....
Stealth is overrated. It's been over-rated since the Serbs shot down an F117 twenty years ago.
AI can be good. But a man is better AI than AI itself. And generally it's a whole lot lighter in weight.
The F-35 is too heavy, and has too little range to be useful.
WW2 planes were simple and spartan. They were light in weight and more manoeuvrable because they were simple and spartan.
America relies too much on advanced weaponry. (Vietnam, Afghanistan... cough, cough) The Germans in WW2 had the most advanced weaponry. But the Allies and Soviets swamped those advanced weapons with sheer numbers of 'good enough' weapons.
It's no good having a weapon with a 100:1 kill-ratio if the enemy can throw 101 of his weapons at it.
Stealth is overrated. It's been over-rated since the Serbs shot down an F117 twenty years ago.
AI can be good. But a man is better AI than AI itself. And generally it's a whole lot lighter in weight.
The F-35 is too heavy, and has too little range to be useful.
WW2 planes were simple and spartan. They were light in weight and more manoeuvrable because they were simple and spartan.
America relies too much on advanced weaponry. (Vietnam, Afghanistan... cough, cough) The Germans in WW2 had the most advanced weaponry. But the Allies and Soviets swamped those advanced weapons with sheer numbers of 'good enough' weapons.
It's no good having a weapon with a 100:1 kill-ratio if the enemy can throw 101 of his weapons at it.
That depends. If we manage to move on to a next generation aircraft without getting into a conflict where it's needed then it can be seen as a success. You were able to do a massive amount of R&D and push the state of the art without the consequences of not having gotten it quite right and apply those lessons learned to the next generation. If we get into a conflict where it's needed and fails to meet the operational requirements than it's a failure. Only time will tell.
The F-35 reminds me far too much of the misguided concept that was floated in the Windows 8 era of a unified experience across everything from phones to tablets to laptops to desktops to game consoles to AR whatever-Hololens-was-supposed-to-be.
That concept also produced a rather terrible jack-of-all-trades experience that we've slowly been working our way back from, after an enormous amount of collateral damage and opportunity costs.
That concept also produced a rather terrible jack-of-all-trades experience that we've slowly been working our way back from, after an enormous amount of collateral damage and opportunity costs.
I admit that I'm completly clueless when it comes to aircraft and I understand that the final price tag on F22/F35 is very upsetting but I don't understand why those programs cannot be salvaged. Couldn't those planes be simplified/optimized to lower their cost?
You’re getting dangerously close to a position whereby, if a process fails, what needs to be done is to add more processing.
[deleted]
I study warfare and am a pilot.
The doctrine of the US Air Force is that they will have the best airplanes at any cost to achieve air dominance. They literally don't care about price as long as they get the lethality and qty. they want.
Hence they will never look at low-cost fighters like the F-5, A-10 or A-29 for their own use, except as maybe trainers or Marine use.
The F-22 is no longer made. Around 189 were built and there's about 150 left. It's a great plane, but the low count is a great concern in case of war (with China.) You can lose 150 planes in a couple of days in a kinetic war.
The F-35 has numerous show-stopping problems, plus even more numerous irritating problems. The US needs about 1,000 operational ones, plus another 1,000 for our allies, to be an effective deterrent to China. (Since the US has 11 carriers, that's enough F-35s to populate them.)
The reason we need so many planes is that China has almost 18,000 ships, which can be used to blockade (defend) the S. China Sea (a tactic they accidently discovered in the last Taiwan Strait conflict.) So that leaves aerial/ICBM attacks.
The US MIC has prioritized pork instead of results, so we need to work on qty. The Biden administration is perceived as weak gobally, which is unacceptable for a superpower - that gets millions of people killed until the US demonstrates dominance again.
(WW2 in Europe started due to US isolationism. Both Germany and Japan thought of the US as country bumpkins in 1940. Today, the CCP thinks of us as decadent and divided, thanks to BLM and antifa.)
During a border dispute in 1969, Russia decided to nuke Beijing because they wouldn't take no for an answer, but the US foolishly told them not to. The CCP has already threatened in 2020 to use nukes against the US if the Three Gorges Dam is attacked.
The only reasons the CCP hasn't successfully invaded Taiwan yet are:
- the Taiwan Strait is about 80 miles wide at the narrrowest. Considering Germany couldn't invade Britain, which is only 20 or so miles from France, you can see how 80 miles is a very strong deterrent.
- Russia told the CCP to stop saber-rattling on previous attempts
- The US came to Taiwan's aid in the last two attempts, and has a policy of including Taiwan under its umbrella (like half the world's countries.)
So here we are, on the brink of war with a President who can't climb a flight of stairs on his own.
The doctrine of the US Air Force is that they will have the best airplanes at any cost to achieve air dominance. They literally don't care about price as long as they get the lethality and qty. they want.
Hence they will never look at low-cost fighters like the F-5, A-10 or A-29 for their own use, except as maybe trainers or Marine use.
The F-22 is no longer made. Around 189 were built and there's about 150 left. It's a great plane, but the low count is a great concern in case of war (with China.) You can lose 150 planes in a couple of days in a kinetic war.
The F-35 has numerous show-stopping problems, plus even more numerous irritating problems. The US needs about 1,000 operational ones, plus another 1,000 for our allies, to be an effective deterrent to China. (Since the US has 11 carriers, that's enough F-35s to populate them.)
The reason we need so many planes is that China has almost 18,000 ships, which can be used to blockade (defend) the S. China Sea (a tactic they accidently discovered in the last Taiwan Strait conflict.) So that leaves aerial/ICBM attacks.
The US MIC has prioritized pork instead of results, so we need to work on qty. The Biden administration is perceived as weak gobally, which is unacceptable for a superpower - that gets millions of people killed until the US demonstrates dominance again.
(WW2 in Europe started due to US isolationism. Both Germany and Japan thought of the US as country bumpkins in 1940. Today, the CCP thinks of us as decadent and divided, thanks to BLM and antifa.)
During a border dispute in 1969, Russia decided to nuke Beijing because they wouldn't take no for an answer, but the US foolishly told them not to. The CCP has already threatened in 2020 to use nukes against the US if the Three Gorges Dam is attacked.
The only reasons the CCP hasn't successfully invaded Taiwan yet are:
- the Taiwan Strait is about 80 miles wide at the narrrowest. Considering Germany couldn't invade Britain, which is only 20 or so miles from France, you can see how 80 miles is a very strong deterrent.
- Russia told the CCP to stop saber-rattling on previous attempts
- The US came to Taiwan's aid in the last two attempts, and has a policy of including Taiwan under its umbrella (like half the world's countries.)
So here we are, on the brink of war with a President who can't climb a flight of stairs on his own.
Goodness gracious. Your rhetoric is reminiscent of 2003 when the US portrayed Saddam and Iraq as being beyond reason, and that the West HAD to attack lest Western civilization be toppled.
>..nukes against the US if the Three Gorges Dam is attacked.
I'm not sure this statement paints the CCP as the villain you imagine it does. No country with options is going to stand by while the largest hydropower dam in the world is attacked, and possibly millions of their citizens are killed due to flooding and famine.
>..nukes against the US if the Three Gorges Dam is attacked.
I'm not sure this statement paints the CCP as the villain you imagine it does. No country with options is going to stand by while the largest hydropower dam in the world is attacked, and possibly millions of their citizens are killed due to flooding and famine.
> (WW2 in Europe started due to US isolationism. Both Germany and Japan thought of the US as country bumpkins in 1940. Today, the CCP thinks of us as decadent and divided, thanks to BLM and antifa.)
Surely protesting against racism is what is makes the US weak. Not income inequality or the almost complete lack of social security net or poor access to education.
</sarcasm>
Surely protesting against racism is what is makes the US weak. Not income inequality or the almost complete lack of social security net or poor access to education.
</sarcasm>
It is hypocritical for China or Russia to care about us inequality without considering their own.. Likewise, both countries stances on sexuality, identity, and race/heritage are quite a bit worse than domestic US policy.
It’s the trashed/smouldering streets, riots, CHAZ. Optics are very bad. For a country that went through what China did this sort of internal unrest is an indicator of massive weakness. I am not even sure they are wrong. If they had naval lift capacity they could probably land on Taiwan and US government would do nothing.
We will see what happens in US as weather warms up.
We will see what happens in US as weather warms up.
> It’s the trashed/smouldering streets, riots, [...] For a country that went through what China did this sort of internal unrest is an indicator of massive weakness.
Have we already forgotten Hong Kong?
Have we already forgotten Hong Kong?
[deleted]
> complete lack of social security net or poor access to education
I don't know what leads Americans to be consistently misinformed other than memetic doomsaying but the USA is 5th for education expenditure per capita, and 10th in per capita social welfare spending, both far ahead of OECD average and ahead of Japan, Switzerland, AUS, NL, UK, etc.
I don't know what leads Americans to be consistently misinformed other than memetic doomsaying but the USA is 5th for education expenditure per capita, and 10th in per capita social welfare spending, both far ahead of OECD average and ahead of Japan, Switzerland, AUS, NL, UK, etc.
Amount of money spent is a poor indicator of services received.
Can anyone go to University? Are down on luck individuals more likely to receive housing or being sent to prison? Can old folks live off of their pension or do they have to work as greeters?
Can anyone go to University? Are down on luck individuals more likely to receive housing or being sent to prison? Can old folks live off of their pension or do they have to work as greeters?
Lol, lets create expensive private healthcare that only the privileged 0.01% can afford, then claim we're better because the only metric we're measuring is per capita spending! Brilliant!
>Today, the CCP thinks of us as decadent and divided, thanks to BLM and antifa.
I seem to have a distant memory of a grotesque orange trust fund baby that I think could be described as decadent and divisive, is it possible that he had something to do with this?
I seem to have a distant memory of a grotesque orange trust fund baby that I think could be described as decadent and divisive, is it possible that he had something to do with this?
>So here we are, on the brink of war with a President who can't climb a flight of stairs on his own.
I seem to remember a major conflict in the last century where we had a POTUS that similarly couldn't climb a flight of stairs on his own and we seemed to do just fine...
But great to have some diversity of thought from MAGA facebook here on HN, it does get a bit echo-chamber-ish
I seem to remember a major conflict in the last century where we had a POTUS that similarly couldn't climb a flight of stairs on his own and we seemed to do just fine...
But great to have some diversity of thought from MAGA facebook here on HN, it does get a bit echo-chamber-ish
> During a border dispute in 1969, Russia decided to nuke Beijing because they wouldn't take no for an answer, but the US foolishly told them not to.
Are you trying to tell me that Leonid Brezhnev, in 1969, was going to let Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger dictate foreign policy to him?
> The CCP has already threatened in 2020 to use nukes against the US if the Three Gorges Dam is attacked.
At attack on Three Gorges would be a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions (Protocol I, 1977). The US has not ratified Protocol I, but the PRC has.
In the event of such an attack, what would you consider a reasonable level of retaliation?
Are you trying to tell me that Leonid Brezhnev, in 1969, was going to let Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger dictate foreign policy to him?
> The CCP has already threatened in 2020 to use nukes against the US if the Three Gorges Dam is attacked.
At attack on Three Gorges would be a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions (Protocol I, 1977). The US has not ratified Protocol I, but the PRC has.
In the event of such an attack, what would you consider a reasonable level of retaliation?
[deleted]
Today, the CCP thinks of us as decadent and divided, thanks to BLM and antifa.)
They're symptoms so obvious that even we can see them. I suspect that the CCP was well aware of the divisions without needing to have it pointed out to them by BLM and Antifa.
They're symptoms so obvious that even we can see them. I suspect that the CCP was well aware of the divisions without needing to have it pointed out to them by BLM and Antifa.
I've got a number of concerns with the accuracy of your historical analysis here, but I'll limit myself to a couple:
> (WW2 in Europe started due to US isolationism. Both Germany and Japan thought of the US as country bumpkins in 1940.
In 1940, Hitler's actual words, which presumably were not too different from the rest of the Nazi leadership, were "WHAT is America but beauty queens, millionaires, stupid records and Hollywood?" That doesn't sound much like bumpkinism to me. (Not to mention the Henry Ford connection, or the IBM one)
> Considering Germany couldn't invade Britain, which is only 20 or so miles from France, you can see how 80 miles is a very strong deterrent.
How do you explain June 6th 1944? The Nazis didn't do Operation Sealion because it was too far, they didn't do it because they didn't have air and naval superiority.
> (WW2 in Europe started due to US isolationism. Both Germany and Japan thought of the US as country bumpkins in 1940.
In 1940, Hitler's actual words, which presumably were not too different from the rest of the Nazi leadership, were "WHAT is America but beauty queens, millionaires, stupid records and Hollywood?" That doesn't sound much like bumpkinism to me. (Not to mention the Henry Ford connection, or the IBM one)
> Considering Germany couldn't invade Britain, which is only 20 or so miles from France, you can see how 80 miles is a very strong deterrent.
How do you explain June 6th 1944? The Nazis didn't do Operation Sealion because it was too far, they didn't do it because they didn't have air and naval superiority.
China does have a ton of sealift capability and for practical purposes can deny us access to the strait. On the flip side, their ships would be highly vulnerable to anti-ship missiles from ground-based, air-based, sea-based, sub-based, and potentially even space based systems.
Once there, Taiwan is fortified and ready to fight with a large army. China will be unable to establish air superiority due to Taiwanese 4th gen fighters plus air support from American and Japanese assets, along with the ANZACs if they have any gumption left in them.
Once there, Taiwan is fortified and ready to fight with a large army. China will be unable to establish air superiority due to Taiwanese 4th gen fighters plus air support from American and Japanese assets, along with the ANZACs if they have any gumption left in them.
> On the flip side, their ships would be highly vulnerable to anti-ship missiles
The PRC's been pushing hard on anti-ship missile capabilities and I don't know if I'd say they're any worse off than we are.
The PRC's been pushing hard on anti-ship missile capabilities and I don't know if I'd say they're any worse off than we are.
That is correct. I'm talking about Taiwan defending itself. US air would come from Okinawa, Guam, and aircraft carriers parked outside China's hypersonic missile defense range (which, BTW, can travel that far only if they have a firing solution, which at such distances will be difficult to establish).
Would not expansion of submarine fleet be a much safer alternative? Or sell some subs to Taiwan, I know US helped brocker sole deal to help them build indigenous boats with MHI help, but this might take too long
Historical quibbles aside (I agree, BTW), this is a very accurate take on the modern day situation.
> I study warfare
> WW2 in Europe started due to US isolationism
... you may want to start reading non-US-centric books
> WW2 in Europe started due to US isolationism
... you may want to start reading non-US-centric books
Thank you for such a detailed reply. Couldn't the show stoppers be resolved with some work on the current plane? It's not like they've found out that the airframe is no good and they have to literally start from scratch, right?
>The Biden administration is perceived as weak gobally, which is unacceptable for a superpower - that gets millions of people killed until the US demonstrates dominance again.
>Russia decided to nuke Beijing because they wouldn't take no for an answer, but the US foolishly told them not to.
>So here we are, on the brink of war
There seem to be some wildly conflicting points here? Are you advocating for the use of nukes and also complaining about warmongers?
>Russia decided to nuke Beijing because they wouldn't take no for an answer, but the US foolishly told them not to.
>So here we are, on the brink of war
There seem to be some wildly conflicting points here? Are you advocating for the use of nukes and also complaining about warmongers?
You made a bunch of good points, which you undermined with partisanship. As a result, everyone is missing the 70% truth into which you've mixed pro-Trump nuggets.
For example:
> Today, the CCP thinks of us as decadent and divided, thanks to BLM and antifa.
You're right that internal division is a major geopolitical liability, but you're missing half the story. Yes, when rival powers see BLM-themed looting they lick their chops, but they also do that when they see a QAnon-themed "capitol insurrection". It takes two or more to tango. If you had talked about division more generally it would have been better-received.
But yeah: Can you imagine the US having a draft? Very few people would get shot at to defend "America as an idea" any more. Pretty sure that millions of Angry Youth have more conviction in their cause than Americans have in theirs.
> The Biden administration is perceived as weak gobally [...]. [...] So here we are, on the brink of war with a President who can't climb a flight of stairs on his own.
First of all, I'm not convinced that Biden's administration is perceived as weak, relative to Trump. Yes, he's more conciliatory on the surface with China, just like Obama was -- but it was Obama/Biden who started the Pacific pivot. And Trump, while more "hard on China" on the surface, could well have been perceived as inexpert and flatterable/manipulable.
(And Biden's physical state is mostly irrelevant. FDR was in a wheelchair and Timur was lame. Whatever. Dude doesn't go out and punch geopolitical adversaries with his fists.)
But when you say
> [The US] is perceived as weak gobally, which is unacceptable for a superpower - that gets millions of people killed until the US demonstrates dominance again.
... you're right. You were also right with your first six paragraphs. And your observations about strategy and tactics were interesting. These are areas where you could educate HN, if you toned down the Trump/Biden stuff.
> During a border dispute in 1969, Russia decided to nuke Beijing because they wouldn't take no for an answer, but the US foolishly told them not to. The CCP has already threatened in 2020 to use nukes against the US if the Three Gorges Dam is attacked.
This is the most interesting tidbit. A quote from [1]:
> William Hyland, the author of this paper, was a Soviet analyst at CIA's Directorate of Intelligence before he was recruited for Kissinger's NSC staff. In this memorandum, Hyland critiqued an interagency study on Sino-Soviet relations that Kissinger has requested in National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 63. In the course of the analysis, which Kissinger characterized as "1st rate," Hyland acknowledged that a limited Sino-Soviet war was "by no means a disaster for the US." For example, implying that a war would involve Soviet strikes to destroy Chinese nuclear facilities, Hyland observed that it might be a "solution" to the China nuclear problem.
The relevant Wikipedia article is also interesting [2].
[1] https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB49/
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict
For example:
> Today, the CCP thinks of us as decadent and divided, thanks to BLM and antifa.
You're right that internal division is a major geopolitical liability, but you're missing half the story. Yes, when rival powers see BLM-themed looting they lick their chops, but they also do that when they see a QAnon-themed "capitol insurrection". It takes two or more to tango. If you had talked about division more generally it would have been better-received.
But yeah: Can you imagine the US having a draft? Very few people would get shot at to defend "America as an idea" any more. Pretty sure that millions of Angry Youth have more conviction in their cause than Americans have in theirs.
> The Biden administration is perceived as weak gobally [...]. [...] So here we are, on the brink of war with a President who can't climb a flight of stairs on his own.
First of all, I'm not convinced that Biden's administration is perceived as weak, relative to Trump. Yes, he's more conciliatory on the surface with China, just like Obama was -- but it was Obama/Biden who started the Pacific pivot. And Trump, while more "hard on China" on the surface, could well have been perceived as inexpert and flatterable/manipulable.
(And Biden's physical state is mostly irrelevant. FDR was in a wheelchair and Timur was lame. Whatever. Dude doesn't go out and punch geopolitical adversaries with his fists.)
But when you say
> [The US] is perceived as weak gobally, which is unacceptable for a superpower - that gets millions of people killed until the US demonstrates dominance again.
... you're right. You were also right with your first six paragraphs. And your observations about strategy and tactics were interesting. These are areas where you could educate HN, if you toned down the Trump/Biden stuff.
> During a border dispute in 1969, Russia decided to nuke Beijing because they wouldn't take no for an answer, but the US foolishly told them not to. The CCP has already threatened in 2020 to use nukes against the US if the Three Gorges Dam is attacked.
This is the most interesting tidbit. A quote from [1]:
> William Hyland, the author of this paper, was a Soviet analyst at CIA's Directorate of Intelligence before he was recruited for Kissinger's NSC staff. In this memorandum, Hyland critiqued an interagency study on Sino-Soviet relations that Kissinger has requested in National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 63. In the course of the analysis, which Kissinger characterized as "1st rate," Hyland acknowledged that a limited Sino-Soviet war was "by no means a disaster for the US." For example, implying that a war would involve Soviet strikes to destroy Chinese nuclear facilities, Hyland observed that it might be a "solution" to the China nuclear problem.
The relevant Wikipedia article is also interesting [2].
[1] https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB49/
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict
[deleted]
I think you'll find that the president who led America through WWII couldn't climb a flight of stairs on his own. Whether or not your assertion about Biden is true, it doesn't seem to matter one way or the other when it comes to leading a nation.
I mean given this person's American history seems to be pieced together from Prager University Youtube clips and OANN I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't know FDR was in a wheelchair.
Their comment sounds like it was generated by a right-wing AI.
[deleted]
The F-35 is not a failure, its procurement process is. In the future, the USAF absolutely wants to do this differently: cheaper, quicker, better. However, the F-35 is arguably the best multirole fighter in the world right now, especially when compared the the lack of uptime and supply of peer fifth-gen fighters.
Yes, the Trillion Dollar Turkey is officially a failure. Next question?
I don’t think its failure, its just obfuscation of reality. Make promise that you will be able put 3x (or more) different use-cases in to same plane. You have to make many tradeoffs to put into same design: carrier jet, conventional jet and jump jet.
Actually you have built 3x pretty “mediocre” jets (if we look from perspective) how it could be if there would be 3x separate designs. I can bet costs would be comparable
The F-111, which eventually (and accidentally) became useful in a role other than the several it was designed for and failed at, should have been a warning beacon here.
Eisenhower was right, though, and the military-industrial complex (which now pales in significance to the Social/Tech-Government complex)rammed through a monster one-size-fits-all plan that was farcical on its face, but successfully stole well over a trillion dollars from the taxpayers, and delivered a plane so unreliable it's unflyable 75% of the time, and in trying to do everything, winds up being good at nothing.
Really? The F-35 a replacement for the A-10 in its low-altitude, tight-turning, monster-gun close air support role?! AND a world-beating air superiority fighter (to rival or surpass the F-22, Su-57, and J-20), AND a top carrier-based fighter, AND a stealth fighter/bomber to replace the F-117,AND a supersonic VSTOL Harrier replacement? The very idea is completely ludicrous. The real-world F-35 is even worse than the old SNL commercial for Shimmer - It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping! (but with HappyFunBall's unpredictability...)
Anyone with the sense God gave geese can clearly see that one airplane could never do all this (again, especially after the F-111 debacle), but the corrupt Pentagon, Congressmen (but I repeat myself), and military-industrial complex took all of us for a ride on their trillion-dollar turkey.
The worst thing is that we've wasted decades worth of R&D and procurement money on a plane that does not and cannot work and be useful in the real world. We had better pray we never need this airplane in a fighting war, because it CANNOT be relied upon, and we can't afford enough of them anyway!
Eisenhower was right, though, and the military-industrial complex (which now pales in significance to the Social/Tech-Government complex)rammed through a monster one-size-fits-all plan that was farcical on its face, but successfully stole well over a trillion dollars from the taxpayers, and delivered a plane so unreliable it's unflyable 75% of the time, and in trying to do everything, winds up being good at nothing.
Really? The F-35 a replacement for the A-10 in its low-altitude, tight-turning, monster-gun close air support role?! AND a world-beating air superiority fighter (to rival or surpass the F-22, Su-57, and J-20), AND a top carrier-based fighter, AND a stealth fighter/bomber to replace the F-117,AND a supersonic VSTOL Harrier replacement? The very idea is completely ludicrous. The real-world F-35 is even worse than the old SNL commercial for Shimmer - It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping! (but with HappyFunBall's unpredictability...)
Anyone with the sense God gave geese can clearly see that one airplane could never do all this (again, especially after the F-111 debacle), but the corrupt Pentagon, Congressmen (but I repeat myself), and military-industrial complex took all of us for a ride on their trillion-dollar turkey.
The worst thing is that we've wasted decades worth of R&D and procurement money on a plane that does not and cannot work and be useful in the real world. We had better pray we never need this airplane in a fighting war, because it CANNOT be relied upon, and we can't afford enough of them anyway!
The F-111 was always useful in the role that the USAF wanted it for: light bomber. It's the USN role that it failed miserably at. And the experience gained from the F-111 directly fed into the F-14.
The F-35 program hasn't cost over a trillion dollars. It's supposed to cost over a trillion by the time they retire it, sometime 50 years from now. That is to say, over the 70 years that the program is expected to last, it'll have cost over a trillion.
The F-35 is a replacement for the A-10 for CAS, but it's conception of how to do CAS is different, because we expect enemies that aren't just guys with a rifle to have the ability to hit stuff at low altitude. So we don't want to have our new stuff operate at low altitude. Literally every aircraft in the USAF/USN/USMC tactical fleet can do CAS in the way the F-35 is supposed to: drop munition from medium altitude. The F-35 is just supposed to be generally better at it (better sensor fusion, etc). Hell, we even have B-1 bombers doing CAS, by dropping bombs from medium altitude.
The F-35 isn't supposed to rival or surpass the F-22. It's supposed to complement it.
The F-35 program hasn't cost over a trillion dollars. It's supposed to cost over a trillion by the time they retire it, sometime 50 years from now. That is to say, over the 70 years that the program is expected to last, it'll have cost over a trillion.
The F-35 is a replacement for the A-10 for CAS, but it's conception of how to do CAS is different, because we expect enemies that aren't just guys with a rifle to have the ability to hit stuff at low altitude. So we don't want to have our new stuff operate at low altitude. Literally every aircraft in the USAF/USN/USMC tactical fleet can do CAS in the way the F-35 is supposed to: drop munition from medium altitude. The F-35 is just supposed to be generally better at it (better sensor fusion, etc). Hell, we even have B-1 bombers doing CAS, by dropping bombs from medium altitude.
The F-35 isn't supposed to rival or surpass the F-22. It's supposed to complement it.
The situation isn't that dire but the F-35 program is still a screw-up. At a minimum, it still can perform its primary role - get into contested areas stealthily, gain and share firing solutions to well-equipped friendlies in the area, bugging out, and rinse/repeat.
Judging solely by Betteridge's law of Headlines, the answer should be "no", but maybe that's just referencing the "official" part.
But yes. It's a failure. Throw some more money at A-10s and F-22s (or upgraded versions).
But yes. It's a failure. Throw some more money at A-10s and F-22s (or upgraded versions).
A-10s don't do well in near peer competitions. They are only good for harassing people in the third world who don't have any kind of anti-air capabilities.
Is that due to radar cross-section, speed, or heat signature?
All of the above.
I'd say the first two, but not heat signature. However, it's also lacking in sensors. As in, it has to operate low and slow in the daylight, because the pilot can't see well enough to operate any other time. The officially supported way to get low light/IR vision on it is to startup a Maverick missile on the wing and use the sensor on that to see.
The government of my country have bought a pile of F35s using my tax money.
Can I get a piece of it? Perhaps a commemorial dial from the onboard watch?
Or they should put them out in a city center, next to the central well, next to the church, so the children can play inside on sunny Sundays.
Can I get a piece of it? Perhaps a commemorial dial from the onboard watch?
Or they should put them out in a city center, next to the central well, next to the church, so the children can play inside on sunny Sundays.
Just wait till one crashes, then go pick your piece. Bound to happen within a few years.
The F-22 is even more expensive than the F-35 and production of it has been shut down. So they can't throw more money at F-22s.
Interestingly, in a first-ever move (AFAIK), the Pentagon ordered the tooling for the F-22 destroyed when they shut the program down. In every other case I'm aware of (and I participated in both shutting down and bringing back things when I worked in the aerospace industry), tooling and documentation/artifacts are carefully stored and preserved for possible future use. If there's one thing the DoD does know how to do, it's configuration management and archival/storage.
That's not completely correct. The Air Force didn't destroy the tooling and documentation. They made an effort to preserve it. But even so it appears some was lost or is no longer usable.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-big-problem-a...
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-big-problem-a...
Isn't the A-10 an entirely different kind of fighter? I don't see how a close air support plane would replace the F-35.
> Isn't the A-10 an entirely different kind of fighter?
Doesn't matter. The A-10 is a fully functional aircraft, which puts it far, far ahead of the F-35.
> I don't see how a close air support plane would replace the F-35.
For some reason, they tried to design the F-35 to do everything. What the original comment is saying, I believe, is that the A-10 and F-22 were very successful and capable aircraft, and between them could handle most all of the situations the F-35 was supposed to be able to handle (but can't). If we spent even a fraction of the cost of the F-35 on updating their design, they could be even more capable.
Doesn't matter. The A-10 is a fully functional aircraft, which puts it far, far ahead of the F-35.
> I don't see how a close air support plane would replace the F-35.
For some reason, they tried to design the F-35 to do everything. What the original comment is saying, I believe, is that the A-10 and F-22 were very successful and capable aircraft, and between them could handle most all of the situations the F-35 was supposed to be able to handle (but can't). If we spent even a fraction of the cost of the F-35 on updating their design, they could be even more capable.
Not sure why this is getting downvoted. It’s pretty much a view held by some factions of the military. Except a lot of the talk is about upgrading F-15s and A10s. We really don’t have a replacement for the A10 which is an incredible workhorse and almost universally loved for its close air support capability.
Unless it’s getting downvoted because the two things aren’t at odds. It would cost orders if magnitude less to just upgrade the A10s and others.
Unless it’s getting downvoted because the two things aren’t at odds. It would cost orders if magnitude less to just upgrade the A10s and others.
HN doesn't like a realist, apparently. Also, another funny point to this discussion, my opinion on this subject comes directly from a number of Marine Corps pilots and senior decision makers, who I spent a decade working with. I was pretty excited about the F-35 program at first, but after hearing from those who actually had to fly them, and those that were involved in assessing their combat capabilities... Well, let's say that people whose lives depend on the F-35 do not trust them.
They wanted to replace the A-10s because they are very vulnerable to modern anti-air systems. A near peer would whack em out of the sky pretty quickly. The solution is not the F-35, we just need a low RCS A-10.
Ok, what does your low RCS (that'd be stealth) A-10 look like?
Let's put it at medium altitude so that we don't have to try to armor it against manpads.
Then we can probably make it single engine, so we can get a bit cheaper mx.
Let's skip the fuck off huge gun, because it's raison d'etre was killing tanks, but even when it was designed, it was only good against the rear or side of a tank, not the front, and that was 50 years ago. If we use a smaller gun, we can save the weight for more useful things, like guided bombs.
It's going to need much better sensors, since we want it at medium altitude, so let's make sure to integrate them.
If we make it supersonic capable, we can increase the radius it can work over when on station.
I think I'm back at a F-35 now.
Let's put it at medium altitude so that we don't have to try to armor it against manpads.
Then we can probably make it single engine, so we can get a bit cheaper mx.
Let's skip the fuck off huge gun, because it's raison d'etre was killing tanks, but even when it was designed, it was only good against the rear or side of a tank, not the front, and that was 50 years ago. If we use a smaller gun, we can save the weight for more useful things, like guided bombs.
It's going to need much better sensors, since we want it at medium altitude, so let's make sure to integrate them.
If we make it supersonic capable, we can increase the radius it can work over when on station.
I think I'm back at a F-35 now.
I'm not a professional airplane designer so bear with me. This is drawn from my reading of the textbook "Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach" by Daniel Raymer.
The challenge is you want something that can linger and pick at targets on the ground with ease. This necessitates a low stall speed, requiring the use of a straight wing. The aerodynamic characteristics of anything resembling supercruise demand a swept wing, which would destroy the "lingering" aspect. So you can't get a good CAS with an airframe that works well for a fighter role.
The gun on the A-10 is useful for strafing runs against infantry, not just concentrated fires against MBTs. To do that, you need a substantial round + LOTS of ammo. The F-35 just doesn't have enough internal storage capacity to service this need. So you've got to keep the gun. It also has barely any external mounting capability for bombs, rockets, and missiles.
So, I'd say it would be something that looks a whole lot like an A-10 but with CAD assisted fuselage shape changes to minimize RCS + new materials + new avionics.
I have no idea how to mitigate MANPADs as I'm unaware of what they use for targeting solutions. The distinct twin-tail on the A-10 was picked to provide a shroud for heat emissions from the engines (c.f. Raymer) to mitigate those types of attacks but I imagine that near peers have increased their capabilities.
The challenge is you want something that can linger and pick at targets on the ground with ease. This necessitates a low stall speed, requiring the use of a straight wing. The aerodynamic characteristics of anything resembling supercruise demand a swept wing, which would destroy the "lingering" aspect. So you can't get a good CAS with an airframe that works well for a fighter role.
The gun on the A-10 is useful for strafing runs against infantry, not just concentrated fires against MBTs. To do that, you need a substantial round + LOTS of ammo. The F-35 just doesn't have enough internal storage capacity to service this need. So you've got to keep the gun. It also has barely any external mounting capability for bombs, rockets, and missiles.
So, I'd say it would be something that looks a whole lot like an A-10 but with CAD assisted fuselage shape changes to minimize RCS + new materials + new avionics.
I have no idea how to mitigate MANPADs as I'm unaware of what they use for targeting solutions. The distinct twin-tail on the A-10 was picked to provide a shroud for heat emissions from the engines (c.f. Raymer) to mitigate those types of attacks but I imagine that near peers have increased their capabilities.
If you're moving at medium altitude, you're moving relatively slower (in angular change) for the same airspeed, so you don't need to fly as slow, and you don't need a low stall speed. You just need the ability to carry enough fuel to match your desired loiter time. Most CAS is performed by fighter aircraft at this time, indicating that your supposition that fighters can't do good CAS is false. Also, "supercruise" is a specific term indicating the ability to stay at supersonic speeds for a prolonged time. Most supersonic aircraft can't supercruise, as they don't have the fuel to do so.
The gun may be useful for strafing runs, but it's explicitly designed as an anti-armor weapon, and it fails at it for modern peer tanks. The JSF cannon is still a 25mm cannon, but it's much more optimized for explosive effect, which is more useful than the 30mm anti-armor cannon that the A-10 carries. There may be call for having more ammo (the A-10 carries ~6x more ammo than the F-35), but practically speaking, the A-10 has 9-18 bursts (1-2 second bursts), while the F-35 has 9-10 bursts (~20 round burst). But again, you're supposed to be doing CAS at medium altitude, which means your gun is more of an after thought.
Beyond that, the F-35 has more external mounting capability than an A-10. The F-35(A/C) has a listed external capacity of 15klbs on 6 external stations (5klbs on the inner stations, 2.5klbs on the middle stations, 300lbs on the outer), plus the 2 internal bomb stations (2.5klbs each), 18klbs total. The A-10 has 11 stations, but not all of them can be used at the same time. The outer stations are spec'd for the same as the F-35 (300lbs for AIM-9). But you can use either the side by side or the center station under the fuselage, and the wing stations aren't spec'd as high, for a total load of 16klbs, or 2000 lbs less than the F-35.
MANPADs are mostly IR, but newer ones are imaging IR sensors, and can attack from all aspects. The A-10's shrouding helps against older missiles, but not so much against new ones.
The gun may be useful for strafing runs, but it's explicitly designed as an anti-armor weapon, and it fails at it for modern peer tanks. The JSF cannon is still a 25mm cannon, but it's much more optimized for explosive effect, which is more useful than the 30mm anti-armor cannon that the A-10 carries. There may be call for having more ammo (the A-10 carries ~6x more ammo than the F-35), but practically speaking, the A-10 has 9-18 bursts (1-2 second bursts), while the F-35 has 9-10 bursts (~20 round burst). But again, you're supposed to be doing CAS at medium altitude, which means your gun is more of an after thought.
Beyond that, the F-35 has more external mounting capability than an A-10. The F-35(A/C) has a listed external capacity of 15klbs on 6 external stations (5klbs on the inner stations, 2.5klbs on the middle stations, 300lbs on the outer), plus the 2 internal bomb stations (2.5klbs each), 18klbs total. The A-10 has 11 stations, but not all of them can be used at the same time. The outer stations are spec'd for the same as the F-35 (300lbs for AIM-9). But you can use either the side by side or the center station under the fuselage, and the wing stations aren't spec'd as high, for a total load of 16klbs, or 2000 lbs less than the F-35.
MANPADs are mostly IR, but newer ones are imaging IR sensors, and can attack from all aspects. The A-10's shrouding helps against older missiles, but not so much against new ones.
Thanks for the detailed reply, that makes a lot of sense!
Of course it can't, but the F-35 was meant to replace the A-10, as well as a host of other fighters (F-16, F-15, F-18, Harrier, and probably more). But with stealth.
Some standardisation in fighter design doesn't sound like a bad idea at all, and you can certainly question why you'd need all three of the F-15, F-16 and F-18. But also the A-10 and the Harrier? Those are very different planes with very different roles. I think cramming those two requirements in there is what sunk the F-35. There's no way to make one fighter do all of that and do it well.
Some standardisation in fighter design doesn't sound like a bad idea at all, and you can certainly question why you'd need all three of the F-15, F-16 and F-18. But also the A-10 and the Harrier? Those are very different planes with very different roles. I think cramming those two requirements in there is what sunk the F-35. There's no way to make one fighter do all of that and do it well.
It's the other way around, the F-35 was supposed to not only replace the F-16, but also the A-10... and the F/A-18, and probably a couple other aircraft types in other NATO countries.
[deleted]
Imagine where SpaceX would be if the government got in there making sure everyone was happy and all 50 states got a piece of the action.