10 ms·

This is the loudest fighter plane in our inventory. You can hear this thing coming at least a minute before it gets near you and for several minutes after depen

This is the loudest fighter plane in our inventory. You can hear this thing coming at least a minute before it gets near you and for several minutes after depending on flight direction. I can tell from the sound which of our planes is passing near and this one, the first time I heard it, was clearly not one with which I was familiar. Beautiful plane but obviously a troubled build history. With all the problems noted over the last few years I'm surprised that anyone wants it. The F-22 has had its problems and production was cut at a very low number (I think I read that they wanted to shift gears and go with the F-35). The complexity of these two planes could make them more of a liability in a conflict. It makes more sense to me (as a taxpayer) to spend the defense dollar on things that can be built quickly and for minimal initial cost so that many can be built to replace those lost to attrition in conflict. They should also be purpose-built for specific missions just as we built planes in WW2. We have the technology and we don't need a fleet of flying super-computers that can't fight their way out of the battlespace. Planes are great support tools for infantry and armored units who actually win the wars by taking and holding territory from the enemy. They won't win wars by themselves. Sorry 'bout that, Air Force.

greedo 11y ago
Aircraft that "can be built quickly and for minimal initial cost" don't exist. Modern fighter aircraft are complex, expensive machines. The engines alone are a significant portion of the cost. And if you think the F-35 has supercomputers, you're sorely mistaken. Even the F-22 has old, decade old CPUs. The world has moved on since WW2, and the idea of cheap hordes of aircraft, or spinning up the Arsenal of Democracy to build them in wartime just won't fly. Ask the Syrians how well their simple Mig-21s and Mig-23s did in the Bekka Valley in 1982 when they ran up against the Israeli's flying F-15s and F-16s. Turkey shoot doesn't even begin to describe it. If you bring a biplane to a modern dogfight, you'll end up a splat mark on the ground.
- pippy 11y ago
  >Turkey shoot doesn't even begin to describe it. If you bring a biplane to a modern dogfight, you'll end up a splat mark on the ground. Kind of unfair example, the Israelis had a lot of time to prepare for that battle. On top of that the Syrians knew they didn't stand a chance given their resources. Given any situation you have to fit the resource to meet the need. The United States deploys the EMB 314 Super Tucano to great effect, which is a WW2 style fighter fitted with modern electronics. The F35 in the modern context simply doesn't make sense, as it's simply over engineered and doesn't fit current individual needs.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    The F35 is supposed to eventually have some amazing capabilities, but CAS isn't one of them. It can't do CAS, and it will never be able to.
  - greedo 11y ago
    How is it unfair? The Syrians had plenty of time to prepare for the battle, they had Soviet weapons and advisors, their SAMs were excellent, they just got waxed by better planes, better command and control, better pilots. The F-15 and F-16, combined with the E-2 were so far better than the Mig-21bis and Mig-23 that the Syrians were flying, that the outcome was almost pre-determined once the Syrians started moving SA-6 units into the valley. And the Super Tucano? WTH. The USAF accepted 20, temporarily, before transferring them to the Afghan AF. The USAF has no squadrons that utilize this airframe, and no intentions to. It has no survivability in a contested airspace at all.
    - smacktoward 11y ago
      > It has no survivability in a contested airspace at all. Seeing as how the last time the USAF operated in seriously contested airspace was forty years ago, this is perhaps not as big a problem as it would seem.
      - greedo 11y ago
        The military needs to plan for the worst case scenarios, not the best. Ask the Ukrainians how it feels to be on the short end of the stick. The Russians are doing a bang up job with ECM/ECCM and denying them any airspace to fly in. The US doesn't need to plan on fighting tribesman in the Hindu Kush. Almost any aircraft can do that. It needs to plan to fight peers.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  >And if you think the F-35 has supercomputers, you're sorely mistaken. People don't realize this. Your smartphone is vastly more powerful than pretty much any single CPU found in the avionics of a fighter. If you really dig around old press releases you can figure out some of what these aircraft use, but I'd rather not specify. But, think about when the F-35 systems were largely designed: the period from 2000 to 2005.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    The fighter avionics computer isn't running Java and 20 layers of poorly optimized cruft though.
    - jmnicolas 11y ago
      Reading the article you would think it's the case though ;-)
- mjewkes 11y ago
  (for those unfamiliar) With roughly even strength, Isreal destroyed 82 Syrian aircraft + 30 SAM batteries while suffering only 2 damaged aircraft (that flew home). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19#Battle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19#Batt...
- poof131 11y ago
  Yeah, but if I bring a fleet of trucks launching SA-20s [1] or a fleet of Mig-21s (and drones) with advanced upgrades [2] functioning as missile trucks, who knows. You’re really battling the missiles and BVR targeting capabilities. The plane is increasingly a delivery platform and missiles are far cheaper then jets. I agree with the parent in that a diversified set of aircraft focused on specific missions and more easily produced and upgraded with new tech is critical (no ones saying build bi-planes). And sure we can say 4th-gen beats 3rd-gen and now 5th-gen beats 4th-gen, unfortunately adversaries often don’t follow the script. F-35 seems to be more a danger to national security than a help. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile) [2] http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?121375-MiG-21-still-unpleasant-surprise-at-Cope-India-exercise-how-so http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?121375-MiG-21-...
  - greedo 11y ago
    S-300s can't target an F-35 according to unclassified reports. It might be able to target them if they're hanging ordnance on their external pylons, but not if they're using internal carriage. S-400? Sure, those might be able to eventually. Depends on if their search radars can maintain a lock. A fleet of Mig-21s, even upgraded, would be no match for F-35s. Even using Su-30s as a mini AWACs, the F-35s wouldn't be detected on radar. So the F-35s could wax the Sukhois, and then take on the blind Fishbeds with ease. It would be like what the F-22 pilots call it when they went up against 4th Gen fighters; clubbing baby seals. Fishbeds are decent jets in terms of speed and agility, but they're not dogfighters; they have horrible visibilty, they bleed energy in turns (delta wings), and they have limited weapons carriage.
    - poof131 11y ago
      F-22 pilots are definitely clubbing baby seals when fighting 4th gen. I've been the baby seal. But I also call BS on the full invisibility people selling these platforms are trying to claim. If they are wrong (which I believe they are) and next generation missiles can track, we are in a bad spot. I like the F-22 for Air-to-Air. I think the F-35 is probably okay, just not remotely worth the money. But I think our "all in" on a single do-it-all, super-expensive fighter-bomber is a huge risk and the wrong direction. We need a mix of assets. And unfortunately, the F-35 just eats up the whole budget so we can't afford anything else. It definitely shouldn't be doing CAS, and strike is probably best performed by other assets too. Trying to merge AF, Navy, and Marine planes into one super plane is bad for so many reasons. The whole plan seems incapable of taking on serious adversaries and incredible overkill for insurgency operations. A no man's land of happy defense contractors and bad military strategy.
- jfoutz 11y ago
  That would be a pretty interesting fight. It looks like the 400mph rc jet engines cost about $4000. decent drone packages are around $1000. let's be crazy and say $100,000 per drone. around $104,000,000 per F-35. i'm not sure how well an F-35 would stack up against 1040 400mph targets. the F-35 is much much quicker, but only has, what 200 bullets? something in that range. Or, take it up a notch. blow $10,000,000 per drone. give them an air to air missile or two. that puts it at a much more reasonable 1 v 10. I get 10 shots, you get 4. You're not wrong, but i think you're missing a classic military lesson, quantity has a quality all it's own.
  - outworlder 11y ago
    While I happen to share the sentiment(re. the numbers game), how wise would be to deploy a massive amount of remote-controlled weaponry against a developed nation?
    - jfoutz 11y ago
      Well... I'm assuming the drones would be deployed by a developed nation as well. I know a few defense contractors, and they're decent guys, but i don't think they make really top notch stuff. In greedo's example, he's talking about all out war. I kinda suspect we would get the best and brightest to build software, sorta like the healthcare.gov rescue. I do think a lot of low tech options are pretty viable, since we can only afford to make a few hundred F-35s. High wattage UV lasers shot at cockpits permanently blind pilots, high energy RF pointed at jets turn all those little wires into antennas, drones can just play tag because jets are so delicate. when the cost of loss is 100M, with equal resources (even fairly unequal!) you can try all sorts of crazy stuff, one win is a huge payoff. I dunno. Playing armchair general is fun. I'll never be in a position to test my theorys. I also played a lot of zurg back in the day, so my opinion is probably kinda silly.
      - nether 11y ago
        What is your point? No one should build expensive weapons because attacking them is so cheap? If anything, that strengthens the case for more expensive and sophisticated weapons. Canopy glass needs to block lasers, more RF shielding. Or you just think war is pointless, yay cool story bro.
- neurotech1 11y ago
  The "supercomputer" claim is based on the F-35 having a multi-processor avionics system. A good example of the "cheap" fighter is the Korean F/A-50. This jet has some of the Beyond Visual Range capability of the F-16, at 1/3 the cost. It doesn't have the range or the weapons capacity. A well trained T-38/F-5 aggressor pilot can nail an F-16 or F-22 in a dogfight, within visual range. The Stealth F-35 will have the ability to engage an enemy aircraft without ever being detected, and that "minor" detail justifies the cost. In previous conflicts, once the opposing aircraft locate each other on radar, the adversaries would be forced into the merge, or risk being shot down at long range.
grecy 11y ago
> With all the problems noted over the last few years I'm surprised that anyone wants it What makes you think anyone wants it? Buyers of things like this don't buy because they want to, they buy because they're told to. My friend at DMO (Defense Materials Organization) in Australia spent 2 years of his life on a huge team that recommended the Australian Defense Force don't buy any Abrams tanks for a whole bunch of very valid reasons. Australia bought a bunch of them anyway, in direct contradiction to the organization who's very purpose it is to make these kinds of purchasing decisions.
- caf 11y ago
  It was Defence Materiel Organisation. "Materiel" being a specific term for military supplies, distinct from "material".
- flashman 11y ago
  Australia's also committed to buying 72 - seventy two! - F35s, as part of the block buy program mentioned in the article. Sure, it arguably helps keep prices down, but the ongoing integration and support costs for foreign buyers pose a lot of challenges.
  - massemphasis 11y ago
    Yea, the suckers (or 'allies') in Asia and the Middle East that weren't even part of the "program" or development will buy these white elephants and subsidize the cost!
    - jrochkind1 11y ago
      Well, how much of the money they spend on them came in the form of U.S. foreign aid in the first place? Who are the suckers?
      - massemphasis 11y ago
        Japan for one. When it comes to national defense why would one let another country dictate the defensive posture? That is suicide. Atleast Japan is trying to actually have a viable solution: http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2016/01/28/japan-first-stealth-fighter-unveiled-x2-sdg-orig.cnn http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2016/01/28/japan-first-steal...
yareally 11y ago
> They should also be purpose-built for specific missions just as we built planes in WW2. Even in WW2, all the major nations had aircraft that were multipurpose. Even the famous P-51 was built to be multipurpose. The difference between then and now is process/planning to build those aircraft hasn't kept up with their complexity. Also there's a lot more consideration of pilot safety and environmental extremes than the typical propeller fighter/bomber of WW2.
lawnchair_larry 11y ago
It doesn't really matter how effective it is in combat. The project is a wealth transfer first, and a "job creator" second. The only foreign purchases will be either from countries that the US bullied into making some orders, or countries that receive "aid money" from the US, much of which is disbursed in the form of de facto gift cards for the military contractors who are too big to fail, and too friendly with well-connected people in the public sector. Edit: See grecy's comment for a perfect example. They're a vehicle to siphon taxpayer dollars, not a vehicle to fight wars.
- WalterBright 11y ago
  Reminds me of the super battleships built prior to WW2. Too expensive to risk in combat, and highly vulnerable to cheap stringbag airplanes.
- tim333 11y ago
  I think the Brits have a military need as they need as the Navy's aircraft carriers can only take short takeoff aircraft, the Harrier is no more and they need something to stop the Argie's taking the Malvinas next time they're in the mood.
- jrochkind1 11y ago
  Most people don't realize that the bulk of U.S. foreign military aid is in the form of required purchases from U.S. defense industry companies. We don't give them money for military goods to spend how they like, we give them... F-35's, maybe. (Although Israel, one of the very largest recipients of U.S. military aid, actually has an exemption to this rule, we actually give them cash they're allowed to spend on their own local military industry. I bet they don't buy any F-35s)
  - greedo 11y ago
    Partially correct, and partially wrong. Israel is allowed to spend around 27% of FMS on their equipment they manufacture; the remainder is to be spent of US equipment. Oh, and the IAF has already contracted to buy the F-35...
kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
These sort of war machines aren't designed for economic parsimony. Their sole purpose is to dump tons of money into the MIC. Partly to line the pockets of the higher ups and partly to maintain the massive jobs program it has become. Defense superiority is really secondary or tertiary. The gold plated requirements list forces the sort of complexity that keeps the contract gravy train running. The real trick of managing a defense program like this is finding how much you can go over budget without getting cancelled.
Gustomaximus 11y ago
The Russian model is more like this in that they build an advanced model and then a 'monkey model' that is simpler and easy to mass produce quickly. The rationale being wars are either over very quickly or grind out over the long term. If the latter occurs they should theoretically be able to scale up faster then their opponent who is still producing their most advance machinery. I read this in a great PDF doc a while back written by I think an ex Russian officer who talked about this and other strategies like their officer heavy army to allow quick expansion through bringing in civilians. I've not been able to find it again if anyone is familiar.
- pwc 11y ago
  Sounds like the book might have been Inside the Soviet Army: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_the_Soviet_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_the_Soviet_Army http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/index.html http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/index.html
  - smacktoward 11y ago
    Yep, that is almost certainly the book in question. I have a hardback copy I bought through a used bookseller ages ago. It's a must-read if you're interested in these types of things.
  - Gustomaximus 11y ago
    That's the one. Thanks.
- WalterBright 11y ago
  The F-35 is so expensive too few can be built and none will be risked in combat, and if they were lost in combat, they could not be replaced. I have no idea what the next major conflict might look like, and nobody else does, either. (WW1 and WW2 both showed large swings in fortunes with even minor technological improvements.) But it's hard to see how the F-35 could play a role in it.
  - 11y ago
partiallypro 11y ago
Believe it or not, the F-35 is built to save costs in the long term. It has a huge upfront cost because what they are trying to do hasn't really been done in a modern airforce. Parts standardization to kill off massive maintenance costs of fleets (which are astronomical) and making a JSF will different variants for different branches is also much cheaper. The F-35 is buggy, because its unprecedented, I honestly don't think it gets a fair shake, and I wish people would look at the long term cost savings vs the short term boondoggle (and it is certainly that.) Fleet maintenance is astronomical, the F-35 is build to address that; if you spread costs out of 30 years, the plane doesn't look quite as expensive. Since the government doesn't use GAAP accounting, all costs are realized up front instead of being depreciated out. I really don't buy your story about being able to hear the jet a minute before it hits you. By the time you hear a jet flying directly to your position you are either already dead, or the plane is just about to pass over you. In your instance it sounds like the plane was no zeroing in on your position, but was just incidentally passing by...which is entirely different.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  >Believe it or not, the F-35 is built to save costs in the long term. I don't believe it. Sure, that's how they sold it, and I understand the supply chain problems they want to avoid, but I don't believe a word of it. Most anyone who heard an F35 and is posting publicly about it must have heard the plane in transit over land where they aren't permitted to cause sonic booms, and could have even been traveling very slowly.
- na85 11y ago
  >Believe it or not, the F-35 is built to save costs in the long term. Any cost savings have been annihilated by hideous budget overruns. The F-35 will be a money-loser without exception. All this is aside from the fact that saving money on something that doesn't fucking work is pretty asinine. Can they fire the gun yet without crashing the system? Can the pilots actually use the VR helmet without getting motion sickness? Has a smaller helmet been made so that the pilot doesn't get stuck against the inside of the canopy trying to look over his/her shoulder?
- massemphasis 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
paulddraper 11y ago
"They won't win wars by themselves. Sorry 'bout that, Air Force." Aircraft (and aircraft carriers) were devastatingly effective in the WWII Pacific theatre. (Okay, this wasn't the Air Force, but I'm focusing on the aircraft part.) It's true for both sides. Japan nearly destroyed the US's ability to contend at all in that theatre. The US turned the tide at Midway. You're right they don't win wars "by themselves", but I think you're undervaluing their strategic value in wars fought on certain geographies.
jacquesm 11y ago
In WWII pilot lives were cheap and planes were relatively simple to fly. To fly an F35 the investment in the pilot is huge. Add to that the fact that deaths on 'your own side' are no longer as acceptable as they were in the past during conflicts mean that many can't be built to replace those lost to attrition. The more war goes 'remote control' the more this will cease to be an issue, and this is a dangerous trend precisely because it removes one of the last impediments to scaling up the export of war. As soon as the losses to own troops drop to near zero because all of it is done through robotic means all bets are off, and it does not even require a 'skynet' in order to achieve it. All it takes is some more telepresence and that's pretty much a solved problem at this stage. The difference is that in the air we now have this and for other branches it is still being worked on but within a decade or two we should see robotic infantry.
- greedo 11y ago
  Telepresence works fine in the civilian world, where you don't have someone jamming your GPS and comm links. It fails dramatically when you're fighting someone with decent technology. Definitely not a "solved problem." Look at how the Iranians managed to capture an RQ-170... If the US tries to fight a near-peer opponent like China or Russia, GPS will be jammed, satellites will be either blinded or destroyed, and both UHF and VHF comms will be either jammed or severely degraded. Just recently a US Army General was bitching about how advanced the Russians were with their ECM/ECCM in Ukraine. The Russians are extremely good at this.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    > If the US tries to fight a near-peer opponent like China or Russia If that would happen it would most likely be by proxy.
massemphasis 11y ago
Its engine is relatively tiny for its required power output. Being a turbofan, that thing has to be seriously noisy. Forget radar stealth if you can just use acoustic radars and sensors.
theoh 11y ago
"Planes are great support tools for infantry and armored units who actually win the wars by taking and holding territory from the enemy" That's a pretty loaded perspective on the nature of war. Occupation of territory isn't necessarily the objective and it's a crude sort of "victory" which is not appropriate for many current conflicts.

greedo 11y ago

Aircraft that "can be built quickly and for minimal initial cost" don't exist. Modern fighter aircraft are complex, expensive machines. The engines alone are a significant portion of the cost. And if you think the F-35 has supercomputers, you're sorely mistaken. Even the F-22 has old, decade old CPUs. The world has moved on since WW2, and the idea of cheap hordes of aircraft, or spinning up the Arsenal of Democracy to build them in wartime just won't fly. Ask the Syrians how well their simple Mig-21s and Mig-23s did in the Bekka Valley in 1982 when they ran up against the Israeli's flying F-15s and F-16s. Turkey shoot doesn't even begin to describe it. If you bring a biplane to a modern dogfight, you'll end up a splat mark on the ground.

pippy 11y ago
>Turkey shoot doesn't even begin to describe it. If you bring a biplane to a modern dogfight, you'll end up a splat mark on the ground. Kind of unfair example, the Israelis had a lot of time to prepare for that battle. On top of that the Syrians knew they didn't stand a chance given their resources. Given any situation you have to fit the resource to meet the need. The United States deploys the EMB 314 Super Tucano to great effect, which is a WW2 style fighter fitted with modern electronics. The F35 in the modern context simply doesn't make sense, as it's simply over engineered and doesn't fit current individual needs.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  The F35 is supposed to eventually have some amazing capabilities, but CAS isn't one of them. It can't do CAS, and it will never be able to.
- greedo 11y ago
  How is it unfair? The Syrians had plenty of time to prepare for the battle, they had Soviet weapons and advisors, their SAMs were excellent, they just got waxed by better planes, better command and control, better pilots. The F-15 and F-16, combined with the E-2 were so far better than the Mig-21bis and Mig-23 that the Syrians were flying, that the outcome was almost pre-determined once the Syrians started moving SA-6 units into the valley. And the Super Tucano? WTH. The USAF accepted 20, temporarily, before transferring them to the Afghan AF. The USAF has no squadrons that utilize this airframe, and no intentions to. It has no survivability in a contested airspace at all.
  - smacktoward 11y ago
    > It has no survivability in a contested airspace at all. Seeing as how the last time the USAF operated in seriously contested airspace was forty years ago, this is perhaps not as big a problem as it would seem.
    - greedo 11y ago
      The military needs to plan for the worst case scenarios, not the best. Ask the Ukrainians how it feels to be on the short end of the stick. The Russians are doing a bang up job with ECM/ECCM and denying them any airspace to fly in. The US doesn't need to plan on fighting tribesman in the Hindu Kush. Almost any aircraft can do that. It needs to plan to fight peers.
engi_nerd 11y ago
>And if you think the F-35 has supercomputers, you're sorely mistaken. People don't realize this. Your smartphone is vastly more powerful than pretty much any single CPU found in the avionics of a fighter. If you really dig around old press releases you can figure out some of what these aircraft use, but I'd rather not specify. But, think about when the F-35 systems were largely designed: the period from 2000 to 2005.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  The fighter avionics computer isn't running Java and 20 layers of poorly optimized cruft though.
  - jmnicolas 11y ago
    Reading the article you would think it's the case though ;-)
mjewkes 11y ago
(for those unfamiliar) With roughly even strength, Isreal destroyed 82 Syrian aircraft + 30 SAM batteries while suffering only 2 damaged aircraft (that flew home). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19#Battle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19#Batt...
poof131 11y ago
Yeah, but if I bring a fleet of trucks launching SA-20s [1] or a fleet of Mig-21s (and drones) with advanced upgrades [2] functioning as missile trucks, who knows. You’re really battling the missiles and BVR targeting capabilities. The plane is increasingly a delivery platform and missiles are far cheaper then jets. I agree with the parent in that a diversified set of aircraft focused on specific missions and more easily produced and upgraded with new tech is critical (no ones saying build bi-planes). And sure we can say 4th-gen beats 3rd-gen and now 5th-gen beats 4th-gen, unfortunately adversaries often don’t follow the script. F-35 seems to be more a danger to national security than a help. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile) [2] http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?121375-MiG-21-still-unpleasant-surprise-at-Cope-India-exercise-how-so http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?121375-MiG-21-...
- greedo 11y ago
  S-300s can't target an F-35 according to unclassified reports. It might be able to target them if they're hanging ordnance on their external pylons, but not if they're using internal carriage. S-400? Sure, those might be able to eventually. Depends on if their search radars can maintain a lock. A fleet of Mig-21s, even upgraded, would be no match for F-35s. Even using Su-30s as a mini AWACs, the F-35s wouldn't be detected on radar. So the F-35s could wax the Sukhois, and then take on the blind Fishbeds with ease. It would be like what the F-22 pilots call it when they went up against 4th Gen fighters; clubbing baby seals. Fishbeds are decent jets in terms of speed and agility, but they're not dogfighters; they have horrible visibilty, they bleed energy in turns (delta wings), and they have limited weapons carriage.
  - poof131 11y ago
    F-22 pilots are definitely clubbing baby seals when fighting 4th gen. I've been the baby seal. But I also call BS on the full invisibility people selling these platforms are trying to claim. If they are wrong (which I believe they are) and next generation missiles can track, we are in a bad spot. I like the F-22 for Air-to-Air. I think the F-35 is probably okay, just not remotely worth the money. But I think our "all in" on a single do-it-all, super-expensive fighter-bomber is a huge risk and the wrong direction. We need a mix of assets. And unfortunately, the F-35 just eats up the whole budget so we can't afford anything else. It definitely shouldn't be doing CAS, and strike is probably best performed by other assets too. Trying to merge AF, Navy, and Marine planes into one super plane is bad for so many reasons. The whole plan seems incapable of taking on serious adversaries and incredible overkill for insurgency operations. A no man's land of happy defense contractors and bad military strategy.
jfoutz 11y ago
That would be a pretty interesting fight. It looks like the 400mph rc jet engines cost about $4000. decent drone packages are around $1000. let's be crazy and say $100,000 per drone. around $104,000,000 per F-35. i'm not sure how well an F-35 would stack up against 1040 400mph targets. the F-35 is much much quicker, but only has, what 200 bullets? something in that range. Or, take it up a notch. blow $10,000,000 per drone. give them an air to air missile or two. that puts it at a much more reasonable 1 v 10. I get 10 shots, you get 4. You're not wrong, but i think you're missing a classic military lesson, quantity has a quality all it's own.
- outworlder 11y ago
  While I happen to share the sentiment(re. the numbers game), how wise would be to deploy a massive amount of remote-controlled weaponry against a developed nation?
  - jfoutz 11y ago
    Well... I'm assuming the drones would be deployed by a developed nation as well. I know a few defense contractors, and they're decent guys, but i don't think they make really top notch stuff. In greedo's example, he's talking about all out war. I kinda suspect we would get the best and brightest to build software, sorta like the healthcare.gov rescue. I do think a lot of low tech options are pretty viable, since we can only afford to make a few hundred F-35s. High wattage UV lasers shot at cockpits permanently blind pilots, high energy RF pointed at jets turn all those little wires into antennas, drones can just play tag because jets are so delicate. when the cost of loss is 100M, with equal resources (even fairly unequal!) you can try all sorts of crazy stuff, one win is a huge payoff. I dunno. Playing armchair general is fun. I'll never be in a position to test my theorys. I also played a lot of zurg back in the day, so my opinion is probably kinda silly.
    - nether 11y ago
      What is your point? No one should build expensive weapons because attacking them is so cheap? If anything, that strengthens the case for more expensive and sophisticated weapons. Canopy glass needs to block lasers, more RF shielding. Or you just think war is pointless, yay cool story bro.
neurotech1 11y ago
The "supercomputer" claim is based on the F-35 having a multi-processor avionics system. A good example of the "cheap" fighter is the Korean F/A-50. This jet has some of the Beyond Visual Range capability of the F-16, at 1/3 the cost. It doesn't have the range or the weapons capacity. A well trained T-38/F-5 aggressor pilot can nail an F-16 or F-22 in a dogfight, within visual range. The Stealth F-35 will have the ability to engage an enemy aircraft without ever being detected, and that "minor" detail justifies the cost. In previous conflicts, once the opposing aircraft locate each other on radar, the adversaries would be forced into the merge, or risk being shot down at long range.

grecy 11y ago

> With all the problems noted over the last few years I'm surprised that anyone wants it What makes you think anyone wants it? Buyers of things like this don't buy because they want to, they buy because they're told to. My friend at DMO (Defense Materials Organization) in Australia spent 2 years of his life on a huge team that recommended the Australian Defense Force don't buy any Abrams tanks for a whole bunch of very valid reasons. Australia bought a bunch of them anyway, in direct contradiction to the organization who's very purpose it is to make these kinds of purchasing decisions.

caf 11y ago
It was Defence Materiel Organisation. "Materiel" being a specific term for military supplies, distinct from "material".
flashman 11y ago
Australia's also committed to buying 72 - seventy two! - F35s, as part of the block buy program mentioned in the article. Sure, it arguably helps keep prices down, but the ongoing integration and support costs for foreign buyers pose a lot of challenges.
- massemphasis 11y ago
  Yea, the suckers (or 'allies') in Asia and the Middle East that weren't even part of the "program" or development will buy these white elephants and subsidize the cost!
  - jrochkind1 11y ago
    Well, how much of the money they spend on them came in the form of U.S. foreign aid in the first place? Who are the suckers?
    - massemphasis 11y ago
      Japan for one. When it comes to national defense why would one let another country dictate the defensive posture? That is suicide. Atleast Japan is trying to actually have a viable solution: http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2016/01/28/japan-first-stealth-fighter-unveiled-x2-sdg-orig.cnn http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2016/01/28/japan-first-steal...

yareally 11y ago

> They should also be purpose-built for specific missions just as we built planes in WW2. Even in WW2, all the major nations had aircraft that were multipurpose. Even the famous P-51 was built to be multipurpose. The difference between then and now is process/planning to build those aircraft hasn't kept up with their complexity. Also there's a lot more consideration of pilot safety and environmental extremes than the typical propeller fighter/bomber of WW2.

lawnchair_larry 11y ago

It doesn't really matter how effective it is in combat. The project is a wealth transfer first, and a "job creator" second. The only foreign purchases will be either from countries that the US bullied into making some orders, or countries that receive "aid money" from the US, much of which is disbursed in the form of de facto gift cards for the military contractors who are too big to fail, and too friendly with well-connected people in the public sector. Edit: See grecy's comment for a perfect example. They're a vehicle to siphon taxpayer dollars, not a vehicle to fight wars.

WalterBright 11y ago
Reminds me of the super battleships built prior to WW2. Too expensive to risk in combat, and highly vulnerable to cheap stringbag airplanes.
tim333 11y ago
I think the Brits have a military need as they need as the Navy's aircraft carriers can only take short takeoff aircraft, the Harrier is no more and they need something to stop the Argie's taking the Malvinas next time they're in the mood.
jrochkind1 11y ago
Most people don't realize that the bulk of U.S. foreign military aid is in the form of required purchases from U.S. defense industry companies. We don't give them money for military goods to spend how they like, we give them... F-35's, maybe. (Although Israel, one of the very largest recipients of U.S. military aid, actually has an exemption to this rule, we actually give them cash they're allowed to spend on their own local military industry. I bet they don't buy any F-35s)
- greedo 11y ago
  Partially correct, and partially wrong. Israel is allowed to spend around 27% of FMS on their equipment they manufacture; the remainder is to be spent of US equipment. Oh, and the IAF has already contracted to buy the F-35...

kevin_thibedeau 11y ago

These sort of war machines aren't designed for economic parsimony. Their sole purpose is to dump tons of money into the MIC. Partly to line the pockets of the higher ups and partly to maintain the massive jobs program it has become. Defense superiority is really secondary or tertiary. The gold plated requirements list forces the sort of complexity that keeps the contract gravy train running. The real trick of managing a defense program like this is finding how much you can go over budget without getting cancelled.

Gustomaximus 11y ago

The Russian model is more like this in that they build an advanced model and then a 'monkey model' that is simpler and easy to mass produce quickly. The rationale being wars are either over very quickly or grind out over the long term. If the latter occurs they should theoretically be able to scale up faster then their opponent who is still producing their most advance machinery. I read this in a great PDF doc a while back written by I think an ex Russian officer who talked about this and other strategies like their officer heavy army to allow quick expansion through bringing in civilians. I've not been able to find it again if anyone is familiar.

pwc 11y ago
Sounds like the book might have been Inside the Soviet Army: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_the_Soviet_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_the_Soviet_Army http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/index.html http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/index.html
- smacktoward 11y ago
  Yep, that is almost certainly the book in question. I have a hardback copy I bought through a used bookseller ages ago. It's a must-read if you're interested in these types of things.
- Gustomaximus 11y ago
  That's the one. Thanks.
WalterBright 11y ago
The F-35 is so expensive too few can be built and none will be risked in combat, and if they were lost in combat, they could not be replaced. I have no idea what the next major conflict might look like, and nobody else does, either. (WW1 and WW2 both showed large swings in fortunes with even minor technological improvements.) But it's hard to see how the F-35 could play a role in it.
- 11y ago

partiallypro 11y ago

Believe it or not, the F-35 is built to save costs in the long term. It has a huge upfront cost because what they are trying to do hasn't really been done in a modern airforce. Parts standardization to kill off massive maintenance costs of fleets (which are astronomical) and making a JSF will different variants for different branches is also much cheaper. The F-35 is buggy, because its unprecedented, I honestly don't think it gets a fair shake, and I wish people would look at the long term cost savings vs the short term boondoggle (and it is certainly that.) Fleet maintenance is astronomical, the F-35 is build to address that; if you spread costs out of 30 years, the plane doesn't look quite as expensive. Since the government doesn't use GAAP accounting, all costs are realized up front instead of being depreciated out. I really don't buy your story about being able to hear the jet a minute before it hits you. By the time you hear a jet flying directly to your position you are either already dead, or the plane is just about to pass over you. In your instance it sounds like the plane was no zeroing in on your position, but was just incidentally passing by...which is entirely different.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
>Believe it or not, the F-35 is built to save costs in the long term. I don't believe it. Sure, that's how they sold it, and I understand the supply chain problems they want to avoid, but I don't believe a word of it. Most anyone who heard an F35 and is posting publicly about it must have heard the plane in transit over land where they aren't permitted to cause sonic booms, and could have even been traveling very slowly.
na85 11y ago
>Believe it or not, the F-35 is built to save costs in the long term. Any cost savings have been annihilated by hideous budget overruns. The F-35 will be a money-loser without exception. All this is aside from the fact that saving money on something that doesn't fucking work is pretty asinine. Can they fire the gun yet without crashing the system? Can the pilots actually use the VR helmet without getting motion sickness? Has a smaller helmet been made so that the pilot doesn't get stuck against the inside of the canopy trying to look over his/her shoulder?
massemphasis 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

paulddraper 11y ago

"They won't win wars by themselves. Sorry 'bout that, Air Force." Aircraft (and aircraft carriers) were devastatingly effective in the WWII Pacific theatre. (Okay, this wasn't the Air Force, but I'm focusing on the aircraft part.) It's true for both sides. Japan nearly destroyed the US's ability to contend at all in that theatre. The US turned the tide at Midway. You're right they don't win wars "by themselves", but I think you're undervaluing their strategic value in wars fought on certain geographies.

jacquesm 11y ago

In WWII pilot lives were cheap and planes were relatively simple to fly. To fly an F35 the investment in the pilot is huge. Add to that the fact that deaths on 'your own side' are no longer as acceptable as they were in the past during conflicts mean that many can't be built to replace those lost to attrition. The more war goes 'remote control' the more this will cease to be an issue, and this is a dangerous trend precisely because it removes one of the last impediments to scaling up the export of war. As soon as the losses to own troops drop to near zero because all of it is done through robotic means all bets are off, and it does not even require a 'skynet' in order to achieve it. All it takes is some more telepresence and that's pretty much a solved problem at this stage. The difference is that in the air we now have this and for other branches it is still being worked on but within a decade or two we should see robotic infantry.

greedo 11y ago
Telepresence works fine in the civilian world, where you don't have someone jamming your GPS and comm links. It fails dramatically when you're fighting someone with decent technology. Definitely not a "solved problem." Look at how the Iranians managed to capture an RQ-170... If the US tries to fight a near-peer opponent like China or Russia, GPS will be jammed, satellites will be either blinded or destroyed, and both UHF and VHF comms will be either jammed or severely degraded. Just recently a US Army General was bitching about how advanced the Russians were with their ECM/ECCM in Ukraine. The Russians are extremely good at this.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > If the US tries to fight a near-peer opponent like China or Russia If that would happen it would most likely be by proxy.

massemphasis 11y ago

Its engine is relatively tiny for its required power output. Being a turbofan, that thing has to be seriously noisy. Forget radar stealth if you can just use acoustic radars and sensors.

theoh 11y ago

"Planes are great support tools for infantry and armored units who actually win the wars by taking and holding territory from the enemy" That's a pretty loaded perspective on the nature of war. Occupation of territory isn't necessarily the objective and it's a crude sort of "victory" which is not appropriate for many current conflicts.