3 ms·

If you look specifically at the Spandeau machine gun mentioned in the article, Is the US using the same damn process with the F-35 Strike Fighter? A plane that

• UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
  I don't find the comparison particularly compelling. The MG 42's issues were more logistical. It was designed for an idealised situation (e.g. shooting range). Not as the article describes it "total war" where you have to carry everything you need to the battlefield. That meant issues like weight, complexity (for field repair), and replacements became a real headache. Arguably the real issue could have been bad feedback/communications between lower ranks and engineers/designers (and something we still see today with field equipment failing e.g. see the M16's long history, and how long it took for some of the changes). The F-35 is more "too many chefs in the kitchen." The F-35 likely is over-engineered, but not because of too little feedback like the MG 42, but too much. Every major US military arm tacked on their own little requirements here and there, until the aircraft was so loaded down with toys and gadgets that it could barely fly. For example, the entire airframe is designed around a lift fan that the vast majority will never be fitted with.
  • hga 11y ago
    The MG 42's issues were more logistical. It was designed for an idealised situation (e.g. shooting range). Not as the article describes it "total war" where you have to carry everything you need to the battlefield. That meant issues like weight, complexity (for field repair), and replacements became a real headache. But the whole idea of the General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG), which I'll note everybody adapted after WWII, was to make a lightweight "heavy" machine gun. No water cooled barrel, no requirement for a heavy tripod, in the light machine gun use case it was fired from a bipod, and could be put into use quickly. Those extra, quick change barrels were a feature, not a bug, such a German infantry unit was organized around the GPMG, one guy would carry it, others would carry spare barrels and ammo, their job was in part to keep the machine gun running and protected from the enemy. Issues like the high rate of fire were a tactical choice the Germans made, shared by no others to my memory (I believe the theory is that you would seldom have a good target for long, so you had to make the best of it while it existed). E.g. I see in the Wikipedia page that the post-WWII Austrian version has a much heavier bolt to reduce the rate of fire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_42 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_42 And the Germans are still using it in the adapted for 7.62 NATO MG 3 variant. Accuracy is also a tradeoff, there are many modes of machine gun fire like plunging where you want a degree of dispersion. That said, yeah, feedback from the front is slow, can take a whole war to result in real changes. These things don't get put to the real test until real war; e.g. aside from the earliest M16s, none of these issues are a patch on the string of problems that initially crippled our Mark 14 torpedo used in WWII: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_14_torpedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_14_torpedo
• adventured 11y ago
  War is Boring has put out numerous hit pieces on the F35. Most of what they write is poorly researched, empty statements without any factual backing, or the equivalent of straw-man arguments. This is about as sophisticated as their arguments get: "Can the F-35 really engage, shoot and kill its enemy from long distances? There are reasons to believe it can’t." The argument attempt they make in that section isn't an argument at all, it's hollow. They say something as though it's factual, without ever backing it up. For example, that F35 dogfight outcome was with a very early F35, that was carrying a fraction of its final technology package. War is Boring intentionally ignores that completely because they're trying to defraud the reader and spin some propaganda. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/07/f-35-project-team-says-dogfight-report-does-not-tell-whole-story/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/07/f-35-p... From The Joint Program Office for the F-35: "The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual "dogfighting" situations. There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship of F-35s has engaged a four-ship of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios and the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology."
  • SCAQTony 11y ago
    You appear very knowledgeable about the plane but I counter the above with a pentagon report that summarily states (second paragraph) the F-35 circa July 2015 is falling short and it is not operationally effective for military combat. The following paragraphs thereafter contain a "shopping list" of mods the F-35 would need to have to be combat effective. http://www.pogoarchives.org/straus/2015-9-1-DoD-FOIA-ocr.pdf http://www.pogoarchives.org/straus/2015-9-1-DoD-FOIA-ocr.pdf The plane's 400-billion cost is too extravagant and to bring up a point that the 'War is Boring' article made when comparing the inexpensive, 4-speed, Sherman tank versus the Porsche-engine equipped Tiger tank in World War 2, the Tiger was outnumbered by a preponderance of force that was more manageable. An "outdated" F-18e (still in use) can defeat an F-35 in a dog fight and costs about half or $55-million each. (An F35 $100-million-plus) In my opinion the F-18 would be more valuable and effective in regional conflict than an F-35. YMMV