25 ms·

The F-35 Is a $1.4 Trillion National Disaster

92 points by ahmadss 8y ago

dingaling 8y ago
$1.4 trillion is a scary number to throw around but it's a lifetime cost. Add up the total life cost of all the F-16s and F/A-18s that it will be replacing for comparison. I'm no fan of the F-35 but it is what we've got for the next 50 years so let's stop sniping and start fixing.
- riazrizvi 8y ago
  And most of the complaints boil down to unfinished software and systems. So it’s not that the F35 is ineffective but that there is still more work to do. Happens almost every time a massive new engineering project is undertaken.
  - colordrops 8y ago
    I guess that makes an unnecessary 1.4 trillion in spending OK?
    - WJW 8y ago
      Imagine how much more you could save if you stopped spending on the military altogether!
  - thebooktocome 8y ago
    > So it’s not that the F35 is ineffective but that there is still more work to do. A full third of the article is about how the F-35 is inferior to the A-10 for the specific application of close air support. The last part of the article is about how the F-35C is poorly designed for maintenance on aircraft carriers. I don't see how either situation can be resolved with new software.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - slededit 8y ago
      The A-10 is useless against countries that pose an existential threat. The US military has to plan for combat with peer nations if it wants to serve its purported role as a national defense force. Just because we've spent the last 20 years killing people in poor countries with inferior weapons doesn't mean we won't ever combat a developed nation.
    - forapurpose 8y ago
      > the F-35 is inferior to the A-10 for the specific application of close air support The A-10 is defenseless against modern air defense systems; it wouldn't get within 100 miles of the battlefield against a sophisticated enemy; it would be merely a flying coffin for the pilot. Against unsophisticated enemies, such as ISIL, a drone could do the job, based on what I understand. The F-35 could too, though it's an expensive option.
      - Latteland 8y ago
        And of course it turns out we use A10s frequently right now, so it's fantastic that we have them. We need more. They are cheap. We need a variety of different airplanes for different scenarios.
        forapurpose 8y ago
        > we use A10s frequently right now, so it's fantastic that we have them We use them because we have them. Lots of people use high-carbon emissions cars and planes, and Facebook, but I'm not sure it's fantastic that we have them.
      - SFjulie1 8y ago
        You must have missed the part where a 50k$ Czech passive radar is defeating the F35 stealth capability. Problem of EM sensors is most often then not, are active (especially radars and IFF), they broadcast or ping signals thus leaving quite a huge EM signature that can be pinpointed precisely with 3 antennas.
  - dev_dull 8y ago
    There’s also, unfortunately, physical limitations such as thrust-to-weight ratios that affect its dogfighting capabilities. AFAIK these can’t be overcome with software updates but better pilot training can improve survivability.
    - GordonS 8y ago
      Serious question: is dogfighting still a thing these days? When I think of military aircraft now, I tend to imagine them taking off from a carrier, bombing a military target (or equally likely, a house, school, hospital, wedding etc), then flying back.
      - forapurpose 8y ago
        > Serious question: is dogfighting still a thing these days? It's not and that is part of the basis of the F-35, if I understand it correctly, to fight future battles not past ones. A very common problem in military history is people who fought the last war, leading to things like cavalry charges against machine guns. Here are three ways to think about the F-35 and the change in technology that I've read elsewhere (I'm not a practitioner or expert): First, someone thought to do empirical research into what actually wins in air-to-air encounters, rather than relying on theories. In Vietnam (the last time the US had more than a few air-to-air encounters), 80% of battles were over before the losers knew they had begun.[0] Contrary to the Hollywood image of mano-a-mano dogfights, the loser was basically shot in the back without warning.[1] Situational awareness is the key, according to the research. The F-35 is built around situational awareness: Sensors, stealth (counter-measure against enemy sensors), integration with other sensor systems (the plane's display shows not only its own sensor output, but also the output from all the other F-35s, as well as from ground and satellite - it's all networked in), and think of the high-tech helmet that uses cameras and AR to let the pilot see 'through' the plane. Second, the plane is more a node on a network than an independent platform. Think of those integrated sensors: Using them, a commander can deploy any other asset on the network against an enemy, alone or in combination - missiles from the ground or and electronic jamming from another plane, for example - it's not just the fight of the plane that happened to carry the sensor that detected the target. It's the difference between a standalone computer and a networked one. Third, think of effect of range in naval technology: Ships used to pull up alongside each other and sailors would fight hand-to-hand. Then sufficiently effective cannon were developed and ships fought each other from miles away; anyone still using boarding parties was sunk before they could get close enough; cannon maxed out at maybe a couple of dozen miles on battleships. Then naval air power was developed, aircraft carriers and planes, and their range was several hundred miles; ships relying on cannon never even saw their foes, they were just targets for the planes and coffins for their personnel (this famously happened at the Battle of Midway). The same thing is happening with fighter planes: Nobody will get close enough for dogfights; they usually won't even see the other plane. Evaluating modern planes based on dogfighting is, in this sense, like evaluating aircraft carriers based on boarding parties or cannon. [0] http://csbaonline.org/publications/2007/03/six-decades-of-guided-munitions-and-battle-networks-progress-and-prospects/ http://csbaonline.org/publications/2007/03/six-decades-of-gu... [1] People sometimes are shocked by this idea, but that is the goal of combat: To massacre your enemy before they know you are there. It's not a sporting event; you absolutely don't want a fair fight.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  The next 50 years? I give it maybe 30, starting from its first flight many years ago. Its replacement(s) are already being discussed. The f-35 is far from "new".
  - brandonmenc 8y ago
    > Its replacement(s) are already being discussed. You realize this is how combat jet design works? The F-14, F-15, and F-16 all had first flights within two years of each other. F-18 flew four years after the F-16.
    - sandworm101 8y ago
      And do you realize that the 15/16/17/18 are so related that they were essentially all one procurement? Google "fighter mafia" for the story.
- ahmadss 8y ago
  Therein lies the issue, the assumption a) that we're stuck with JSF program for the next 50 years and therefore b) we need to fix the fighter... because we're stuck with it. Classic sunk cost fallacy. Yes, the $1.4 Trillion is an all-in capitalized cost for the cost of the program, but the click-baity article gets to the heart of the issue pretty quickly: that building a product for 3 different users / businesses that each have their own unique needs and requirements is a failure of a product development strategy. You can either throw money at the problem and attempt to fix the product, or come to the conclusion that it's unfixable, admit that you were wrong, come up with a better product strategy and roadmap, and start all over again.
  - nradov 8y ago
    The sunk cost fallacy is irrelevant at this point. It's too late to start over. The existing fleet of legacy aircraft is literally falling apart and will have to be replaced with something. Building more fourth-generation aircraft would be a waste because they're simply to longer survivable. So they're stuck with making the F-35 work as the only remaining option.
    - hluska 8y ago
      > Building more fourth-generation aircraft would be a waste because they're simply to longer survivable. I don't agree. The Su-27, which is regarded as a genuine threat to 5th generation planes has been in service since the late 1970s. Modern F-16s have little in common with the first ones that saw service. Boeing has been putting money into F-15s and F/A-18s with stealth capability. Fourth generation aircraft are still survivable and they're still being developed on the field. There's even a school of thought that suggests that when your enemy is a bunch of dudes with death wishes and pick up trucks, lower tech is an advantage. In this kind of combat, the F-35 is at a particular disadvantage. Its cannon may not be able to achieve the accuracy needed for close air support, the helmets' signal clutter is such that an F-35 is actually a danger, and even more fun, not one model of the F-35 can carry more than 220 rounds of ammunition. In comparison, the A-10 carries about 1,100 rounds. In practice, this means that whereas an A-10 could make 10-20 attack passes, an F-35 will top out at 2-4... Point being, it might not be a very good remaining option and fourth gen aircraft are better in important ways. With some luck, the testing process will solve all of these problems, though some seem incurable.
- toddh 8y ago
  Isn't a tool for the last generation's war? Won't the future will be cheap as dirt drone swarms?
  - nradov 8y ago
    Sure that will be the future. But not today. They need something now that can actually fly and fight while those drones are being developed. This isn't software. Lifecycles are measured in decades.
    - toddh 8y ago
      Who are we fighting today that our current inventory of fighters can't manage? Seems like there's sufficient grace period. It's like running cable instead of just developing 5g.
      - nradov 8y ago
        Simulations indicate that legacy 4th-generation fighters are very vulnerable to the latest anti-aircraft missile systems that Russia has started selling all over the world. This is happening right now, there's no grace period.
        toddh 8y ago
        You're putting a lot of faith that handful of F-35s can survive ever advancing anti-aircraft technologies. Not a good strategy IMHO.
farseer 8y ago
1.4 trillion has not been spent yet! Only a fraction so far. Unless we fall for the sunk cost fallacy, there is still plenty of time to cut our losses.
- dev_dull 8y ago
  And do what? Create a new $1T bungled project?
  - SllX 8y ago
    Reviving F-22 production for air superiority (and export to key allies like Japan) and starting a new program for a modern close-air support fighter might be a good start. I don't think the F-35 is a bad plane and does what it was designed to do very well, but it isn't the best tool for all the roles it is expected to fill.
- colordrops 8y ago
  Any sources on how much has been spent so far? I'm curious.
  - adventured 8y ago
    We're between $100 and $200 billion into the program in total so far, including 20 years of R&D and the cost of manufactured planes. They've built 300+ planes so far. The total acquisition cost over 40 years is set at $406 billion for 2,456 F35s as of the latest estimate. $345 billion is the cost of just the planes. $162m per plane. You'll routinely see the media get just about every financial fact about the F35 wrong that they possibly can. For example, you'll see claims that they've already spent $400 billion on the program (with links to the GAO figures), when in fact the $400b is the planned total acquisition cost across its lifetime.
- joering2 8y ago
  That number makes sense. Even if much less was spent.. enough was spent that too many politicians, generals, lobbyist dip their fingers and they don't want to look incompetent. Don't count on them pulling the plug on this project; it has to come from Congress so that those I mentioned can blame lack of founds. Otherwise they will continue party with lights on as long as they can (on taxpayers dime, of course)
gesman 8y ago
>> The F-35 is being sold to the American people ... Can we get a refund?
bmiranda 8y ago
Although there are teething issues, for US allies the unit the F-35 is attractive due to a unit cost which is lower than any of its competitors (such as the Eurofighter Typhoon). For domestic use, the F-35B STOVL jet used by the Marines is a dramatic improvement in range and capabilities over the Harrier. The F-35A/C are less of an improvement, but I would by no means call them a failure. It's easy to criticize a program due to cost overruns and mismanagement, but that doesn't mean the end result is bad. At the very least it's a sunk cost now, so we'll just have to deal with it.
- colordrops 8y ago
  I don't even know how to respond to your comment without sounding flippant. 10 billion dollars for a questionable program would upset me, let alone 1.4 trillion. It's blindingly obvious that this is a result of graft. No one has made a clear case that the US is in any sort of danger if we don't upgrade our planes. Imagine if that 1.4 trillion went towards fighting global warming, cancer, or lack of health care. It's sick.
  - bitL 8y ago
    As much as it sucks, military dominance matters a lot - it's likely better for the US to have the greatest conventional weapons than Russia/China/EU having them.
    - Pamar 8y ago
      EU citizen here: I sincerely doubt you (or anyone else) should worry about EU military supremacy now and for the foreseeable future.
      - bitL 8y ago
        Given the ongoing split between US and EU it's no longer inconceivable that in 20-50 years trans-atlantic relationship deteriorates to the point of open warfare, sadly. Unfortunately, the brightest (or at least prudent) people aren't ruling either continent any longer.
SteveNuts 8y ago
In theory, a unified platform for all three air support roles is a good idea, but I think it's becoming apparent that airframes are too complex of systems to make universal. I really hope they can overcome the issues because overall it should help with logistics and cost over the long term.
- alkonaut 8y ago
  Yes excellent idea to have a carrier and land based shared airframe, like the hornet did. But sharing it also with STOVL?? At what point did they pause to think “wow this will either make it 2/3 almost completely separate planes, or give it a lot of compromises in efficiency for the other roles, or add billions to the cost, or all of the above”?
- jdietrich 8y ago
  >I really hope they can overcome the issues because overall it should help with logistics and cost over the long term. That ship has already sailed. According to the program manager for the F-35, there is only 20-25% commonality between the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps variants. The F-35 has all of the downsides of a compromise design, but with almost none of the benefit. http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2016/March%202016/March%2014%202016/All-For-One-and-All-for-All.aspx http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2016/March%202016...
trophycase 8y ago
1.4 trillion is an absolute joke. Invest that in infrastructure or energy security and I am absolutely certain that you would obtain an order of magnitude better ROI than whatever sort of benefit (protective, preemptive, deterrent, or otherwise) you are getting from these planes. This is truly an unfathomable amount of money that I feel it's hard to understate. Edit: I'll admit the helmet cam seemed pretty cool but 600k feels like a lot.
- colordrops 8y ago
  s/understate/overstate/
wpdev_63 8y ago
Hilariously we spent all that money on R&D and then the chinese hacked the pentagon to stole the designs and made their copy plane for the fraction of the price. It says alot about the military industrial complex. We'll be at war with them soon enough so hopefully these will perform when the time comes.
- jerkstate 8y ago
  If they don't, we have the F-22 which is better anyways and nobody else has.
- eljimmy 8y ago
  > We'll be at war with them soon enough Ehh? War with China won't happen in this day and age. In bizzaro universe where you think it will, it's not going to be fought with F-35s...
- doikor 8y ago
  > We'll be at war with them soon enough Actual real live shooting war between China and USA is going to be a nuclear war so the performance of the planes in that scenario will be kinda useless. China has ballistic missiles with the range to hit any location of their choosing on main land USA and the tech to fit nuclear war heads onto those missiles.
knuththetruth 8y ago
It’s good to remember these kinds of corrupt disasters whenever someone says we can’t afford to pay for things like universal healthcare and free public universities in the US.
- adventured 8y ago
  Universal healthcare would cost approximately $4 trillion per year at today's per capita spending figures. You might get that down to $3.5 trillion if you hammer down costs in the system big time and ration care as all socialized systems do. The F35 will cost $20-$25 billion per year averaged. Several of the most liberal states in the US - including California, New York and Vermont - have all looked at doing universal healthcare. They all run away immediately when the cost estimates come back.
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    I wonder what an investment of $20 billion a year in training additional doctors (and NPs and so on) would do to medical costs.
    - salawat 8y ago
      Not much. You're at the mercy of a capped number of practitioners getting sanctioned into practice a year. This creates artificial scarcity. Also, you still have the blatant consolidation of the medical industry into a gigantic monolithic hybrid of pharma, hospital, insurer, and artificially scarce doctor. The solution is not to pump more doctors into a system geared to extract multiple industries worth of profit. Instead, it should be investing in increasing the capability of individuals to provide and manage their own medical care. This means more accessible diagnostics tools, fewer barriers to entry in getting access to good medical literature. Investing in teaching people how to do research, and make medically relevant observations, or to at least be able to tell when "First Aid" stops, and more advanced facilities are needed. When "First Aid" can encompass using a small, affordable X-ray device cheap and easy enough to safely use in a residential home, THEN you start seeing healthcare costs plummet. Same goes with Pharma. We have an exceedingly low capability to create environments conducive to productive research per capita. The brain power that can crank on these types of things are artificially limited by the inability of many who may have the interest and time to get access to facilities to make meaningful observations and potential discoveries. Come up with acceptable test analogs. Document, enumerate, and simulate as much as possible so someone can pick up a protein, shove it into a tissue and see what interactions may happen. Make the information accessible, and start working on boiling it down into learnable paths where a person can get the 80%, but still drill down into the more specialized. Cheaper, more prolific research and education is the key. NOT letting the market sit on top the misery of the hurt and dying and demanding the toll be paid. Empower first. Optimize last.
Jerry2 8y ago
After reading this, I came across this article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17479508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17479508 I was genuinely shocked when I read some of these points. I still have hard time believing things like survivability after the ejection and the need to repaint after every flight.
- joering2 8y ago
  I actually did the same and upvote both articles. Here is THAT line: OVER A TRILLION DOLLARS. If the plane tries to TURN, it can crash.
  - WJW 8y ago
    This is true of all planes.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  All fighters have ridiculous maintenance hours. Good ones are like 10 or 15 hours of maintenance per hour of flight. Using paint that needs to be reapplied all the time probably isn't a good idea, but it can also just be a choice to pay to hit the bleeding edge of capability (say a stickier paint gives the plane a higher signature). I'd also probably take that article with some salt. There's nothing preposterous about deciding to manage fuel temperature, something that article misconstrues a bit (I think by not understanding what they are doing).
bitL 8y ago
Maybe it's a disaster in the sense of Windows Vista being a disaster - without it there wouldn't have been Windows 7? So even if the current version is underwhelming, the production chain is set up and the next version will have all quirks ironed out...
rgbrenner 8y ago
The cost is incredibly high... but as I'm reading the article, it sounds like most of these issues would apply to any fighter we build _with these capabilities_. How much of this is just the cost of building these new capabilities? The capabilities described sound useful. And some of what we learn from it can be applied in the future to new planes. So is it a good idea to simply back off from the advanced software, and build a dumber plane just to save money? The f16 is 40 years old.. we're going to have these new planes around for a long time.
- ChuckMcM 8y ago
  That is correct, the article is written to support the narrative of 'National Disaster' rather than 'Stretch goals, slowly being reached by continued development.' What is left unspoken is that while the JSF is behind schedule and over budget, it has design specs that are currently unavailable to the "enemy" forces. So when the US builds and fields a new fighter (like the F-22 before it) it forces opposing forces to build a counter to it or some way to defeat it. In a "cold war" situation where nobody is actually shooting at each other and are just running simulations to see who would win if they did start shooting, it allows a larger economic nation to defeat the weaker economic nation by driving their economy into dirt. It also means that as long as a country is far enough ahead in that calculus it can make threats (implied or overt) that people who don't want to lose power will respect. The first F-35 squadron has reached operational status[1] and that means that war planners have to include the F-35's capabilities in their simulations. And if in those plans they find their own aircraft are now obsolete[2] then they will have to back down rather than "poke the bear" as the vernacular goes in order to avoid a conflict that would see them removed. The F-35 is an expensive weapons program. People want to "kill it" for different reasons. That is has encountered issues during its development are not good reasons, nor were they good reasons when they were used against the F-22 either. But the F-35 is not a 'disaster'. [1] https://www.f35.com/news/detail/first-operational-f-35a-squadron-receives-final-aircraft https://www.f35.com/news/detail/first-operational-f-35a-squa... [2] Obsolete means that in a fight all or most of their aircraft would be defeated when faced with an aircraft with the F-35's design capabilities.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  Yeah, a big part of the problem is that the military has blended R&D into their procurement programs. It's a recipe for every ambitious, failed research idea to look like a clusterfuck boondoggle.
flanker 8y ago
One size does not fit all, it would be a silver bullet, whenever F35 replaces legacy fighters. Maybe by that time the who theatre of war would change with swarms of drones.
everyone 8y ago
Alternatively, it could be viewed as one of the most successful US military projects ever. It has funneled X* amount of tax money to the military-industrial complex. Siphoning that money seems to have been the US militaries primary function for several decades. *Some giant number
- everyone 8y ago
  Actually, building a ridiculous plane is a much better way of achieving this than bombing innocent people.
  - s3m4j 8y ago
    Why do you reduce the choices between "building useless piece of hardware" and "bombing innocent people" ? There are lots of choices here. Just a sample : less tax or invest more in health and education.
    - MBCook 8y ago
      But that wouldn’t help the military or military contractors.
    - everyone 8y ago
      The military industrial complex in the US is a self-perpetuating system that just so happens to have the influence and lobbying power to get the funding. It would have been great if some harmless or even beneficial industry had developed in this way, but that is not the case unfortunately. The US also has a burgeoning prison-industrial complex which also, unfortunately, results in bad consequences for innocent people. You can see these self-perpetuating systems all over the place in modern civilization. The mechanism by which they grow is the same one which causes management in large corporations to grow exponentially. The bureaucracy will grow to fill the resources available. In the case of these self-perpetuating systems, they can grow in lobbying power and influence and increase their available resources, which allows them to expand and gain even more lobbying power and influence, and so on. The core business could be military, or making fake vomit, it doesnt matter. ps. 'self-perpetuating system' is just a term I use to talk about these things. Maybe theres a widely accepted term I dont know. Also all this is just a product of my own reading and ruminations.
anovikov 8y ago
Thing is, any replacement will take 20-25 years to develop if started today, so better just build more of these and hope to win by numbers.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  Could order and receive Advanced Super Hornet a lot faster than that. Might not deserve the label "replacement", but it provides at least some of the same capabilities.
  - anovikov 8y ago
    U.S. has a shitload of 4gen planes, more than needed. They aren't an answer to anything.
trocadero 8y ago
The article waves away the stealth benefits but that's the number one issue. If a low radar signature is important then everything else is irrelevant. And I think it is. It doesn't matter if a F-16 can out dog fight a F-35 because that's not how the engagement will play out. The F-35 will shoot down an F-16 before the F-16 knows it's there.
neom 8y ago
The problem I have with the article is that it doesn't actually ever talk about if the ideas are good or not. It points out that the MVP of the ideas need a lot of work, and talks at length of why they don't work. For example, he spends a lot of time talking about how maintenance on the F35 isn't the same as the F18, so people who maintain the engines will have to change how they work, and new types of people will have to be added. Most interesting part of the article for me was learning about passive detecting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VERA_passive_sensor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VERA_passive_sensor
- digi_owl 8y ago
  Interesting, though i believe the doctrine is that stealth aircrafts rely on a data link from a AWACS to guild them to the target, and only turn on their own radar when within weapon range, then only for as long as is required to confirm target and launch the missile (who invariably has its own radar these days). Not to say that there are a myriad of assumptions that go into making an stealth aircraft, as was demonstrated when apparently an F-117 was downed by a modified SAM site.
badrabbit 8y ago
The "elephant in the room" is the grand bet western nations (led by the US) are making by investing in advanced and sophisticated weapons. Historically, you did need good weapons and vehicles/horses/planes but there has always been a balancing effect caused by how much of them you have, how many troops can operate them and how well defended they are. Aircraft carriers are a good example,they compliment existing capability by acting as floating military bases that can take the battle to the enemy's homeland. But that's the thing,they compliment,they don't replace. Even if the F35 delivered as promised,is it better to have 10 F35 , 50 F18 or even better -- 1000+ armed drones? They're making Navy boats smarter and more powerful as well,requiring fewer sailors. I am not against smarter technology and advanced capabilities. But it just doesn't seem wise to replace man count and existing capabilities when the new tech hasn't been battle tested against a worthy adversary. I wouldn't want to rely on a few powerful counter measures,but rather a large number of "good enough" defensive and offensive technology. But that's why I called it "the elephant in the room",this could work and actually counter-act other future super powers. Or history would repeat itself and the opponents will win with sheer troop count and "good enough" weaponry. The US spends 20% of gdp on the military,yet it is quite obvious the greatest threat is internal strife and divisions typically exasperated by economical divisions. Not to mention, severe lack of physhical fitness for military-age men and women. Military leaders already consider this a national security threat. I have a feeling this might be one of the reasons they're relying on technology so much. They don't think they can mobilize and train enough soldiers in the event of yet another world war. It would be much easier to have them operate drones and wear head gear with HUD (just like in the games) that costs a fortune. They might just be playing to the nation's strength. But still,maybe if they spent 10% instead of 20% in defense (even russia and china don't spend close to 10%) ,and use that 10% for internal socio-economic stability and just maybe enact mandatory military service,that might be wiser than relying fully on technology that hasn't been battle tested against the intended scenario and adversary. Will economic strength and advanced weaponry be enough? Maybe,but many empires with all that and more have fallen for various reasons. Economy aside,the cancerous defense-contractor industry that is the cause behind why so much of the GDP goes into defense is one of chief internal security threats. The whole industry is structured around politics so that politicians in specific districts approve spending in exchange for jobs+economy in their district. Many articles and blogs on that specific issue(e.g.: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-tra...)
_bxg1 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Loss_aversion_and_th...
dang 8y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16869679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16869679
Waterluvian 8y ago
I'm thinking about the Eisenhower interstate system and maybe Americans just have to figure out how to make crumbling infrastructure a national security terror. There's clearly money. Let the military complex have it to build bridges instead of bombers. I'm also reminded by the amazing technology in the US carriers. They're floating disaster response bases. Again, find ways to funnel military money into repurposable technologies. It's palatable and it has value beyond killing power.
stillsut 8y ago
The F-35 is a weapons system designed to continue the US's ability to easily win a conventional war against a high 2nd tier state power in their own territory. What this might look like is the total rout in 1991 of Iraq, which had the fifth largest army in the world, and advanced surface-to-air defenses, defeated in large part by stealth technology. This fighter is basically stating to these threats: you are not going to be able to defeat or stalemate us at our own game. I know this isn't a popular sentiment around here but consider the difference in outcome between the 1990 invasion of Kuwait vs the 2013 invasion of Crimea: only in the one where we had absolute military superiority did the US - or "the UN" if you prefer - actually get a say in how it turned out. Who does this entail today? The big two are clearly North Korea and Iran. Stretching it, I'd add Taiwan, Ukraine and the Eastern bloc, India on the China border, Philippines, and Venezuela becoming some type of Cuba situation. Then there are proxy wars between major powers like Syria, which will likely continue to occur in the middle east and Africa for several decades. Even if we don't enter these fights, we'll be able to give our allies this plane. (Or maybe they'll turn down the most advanced plane ever built because the pilot helmet has issues in high humidity situations /sarc.) This isn't going to neutralize the other two main powers, it will continue to be an imperfect - maybe even useless - weapon against their anti-ship and surface-to-air capabilities. It can't defeat the 3rd world and it can't defeat a superpower. The question is: is the price worth what it can do (which is defeat 2nd tier powers / proxy adversaries for the next ~25 years)? Or is there something which can do that better?

92 points by ahmadss 8y ago

$1.4 trillion is a scary number to throw around but it's a lifetime cost. Add up the total life cost of all the F-16s and F/A-18s that it will be replacing for comparison. I'm no fan of the F-35 but it is what we've got for the next 50 years so let's stop sniping and start fixing.

riazrizvi 8y ago
And most of the complaints boil down to unfinished software and systems. So it’s not that the F35 is ineffective but that there is still more work to do. Happens almost every time a massive new engineering project is undertaken.
- colordrops 8y ago
  I guess that makes an unnecessary 1.4 trillion in spending OK?
  - WJW 8y ago
    Imagine how much more you could save if you stopped spending on the military altogether!
- thebooktocome 8y ago
  > So it’s not that the F35 is ineffective but that there is still more work to do. A full third of the article is about how the F-35 is inferior to the A-10 for the specific application of close air support. The last part of the article is about how the F-35C is poorly designed for maintenance on aircraft carriers. I don't see how either situation can be resolved with new software.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - slededit 8y ago
    The A-10 is useless against countries that pose an existential threat. The US military has to plan for combat with peer nations if it wants to serve its purported role as a national defense force. Just because we've spent the last 20 years killing people in poor countries with inferior weapons doesn't mean we won't ever combat a developed nation.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > the F-35 is inferior to the A-10 for the specific application of close air support The A-10 is defenseless against modern air defense systems; it wouldn't get within 100 miles of the battlefield against a sophisticated enemy; it would be merely a flying coffin for the pilot. Against unsophisticated enemies, such as ISIL, a drone could do the job, based on what I understand. The F-35 could too, though it's an expensive option.
    - Latteland 8y ago
      And of course it turns out we use A10s frequently right now, so it's fantastic that we have them. We need more. They are cheap. We need a variety of different airplanes for different scenarios.
      - forapurpose 8y ago
        > we use A10s frequently right now, so it's fantastic that we have them We use them because we have them. Lots of people use high-carbon emissions cars and planes, and Facebook, but I'm not sure it's fantastic that we have them.
    - SFjulie1 8y ago
      You must have missed the part where a 50k$ Czech passive radar is defeating the F35 stealth capability. Problem of EM sensors is most often then not, are active (especially radars and IFF), they broadcast or ping signals thus leaving quite a huge EM signature that can be pinpointed precisely with 3 antennas.
- dev_dull 8y ago
  There’s also, unfortunately, physical limitations such as thrust-to-weight ratios that affect its dogfighting capabilities. AFAIK these can’t be overcome with software updates but better pilot training can improve survivability.
  - GordonS 8y ago
    Serious question: is dogfighting still a thing these days? When I think of military aircraft now, I tend to imagine them taking off from a carrier, bombing a military target (or equally likely, a house, school, hospital, wedding etc), then flying back.
    - forapurpose 8y ago
      > Serious question: is dogfighting still a thing these days? It's not and that is part of the basis of the F-35, if I understand it correctly, to fight future battles not past ones. A very common problem in military history is people who fought the last war, leading to things like cavalry charges against machine guns. Here are three ways to think about the F-35 and the change in technology that I've read elsewhere (I'm not a practitioner or expert): First, someone thought to do empirical research into what actually wins in air-to-air encounters, rather than relying on theories. In Vietnam (the last time the US had more than a few air-to-air encounters), 80% of battles were over before the losers knew they had begun.[0] Contrary to the Hollywood image of mano-a-mano dogfights, the loser was basically shot in the back without warning.[1] Situational awareness is the key, according to the research. The F-35 is built around situational awareness: Sensors, stealth (counter-measure against enemy sensors), integration with other sensor systems (the plane's display shows not only its own sensor output, but also the output from all the other F-35s, as well as from ground and satellite - it's all networked in), and think of the high-tech helmet that uses cameras and AR to let the pilot see 'through' the plane. Second, the plane is more a node on a network than an independent platform. Think of those integrated sensors: Using them, a commander can deploy any other asset on the network against an enemy, alone or in combination - missiles from the ground or and electronic jamming from another plane, for example - it's not just the fight of the plane that happened to carry the sensor that detected the target. It's the difference between a standalone computer and a networked one. Third, think of effect of range in naval technology: Ships used to pull up alongside each other and sailors would fight hand-to-hand. Then sufficiently effective cannon were developed and ships fought each other from miles away; anyone still using boarding parties was sunk before they could get close enough; cannon maxed out at maybe a couple of dozen miles on battleships. Then naval air power was developed, aircraft carriers and planes, and their range was several hundred miles; ships relying on cannon never even saw their foes, they were just targets for the planes and coffins for their personnel (this famously happened at the Battle of Midway). The same thing is happening with fighter planes: Nobody will get close enough for dogfights; they usually won't even see the other plane. Evaluating modern planes based on dogfighting is, in this sense, like evaluating aircraft carriers based on boarding parties or cannon. [0] http://csbaonline.org/publications/2007/03/six-decades-of-guided-munitions-and-battle-networks-progress-and-prospects/ http://csbaonline.org/publications/2007/03/six-decades-of-gu... [1] People sometimes are shocked by this idea, but that is the goal of combat: To massacre your enemy before they know you are there. It's not a sporting event; you absolutely don't want a fair fight.
sandworm101 8y ago
The next 50 years? I give it maybe 30, starting from its first flight many years ago. Its replacement(s) are already being discussed. The f-35 is far from "new".
- brandonmenc 8y ago
  > Its replacement(s) are already being discussed. You realize this is how combat jet design works? The F-14, F-15, and F-16 all had first flights within two years of each other. F-18 flew four years after the F-16.
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    And do you realize that the 15/16/17/18 are so related that they were essentially all one procurement? Google "fighter mafia" for the story.
ahmadss 8y ago
Therein lies the issue, the assumption a) that we're stuck with JSF program for the next 50 years and therefore b) we need to fix the fighter... because we're stuck with it. Classic sunk cost fallacy. Yes, the $1.4 Trillion is an all-in capitalized cost for the cost of the program, but the click-baity article gets to the heart of the issue pretty quickly: that building a product for 3 different users / businesses that each have their own unique needs and requirements is a failure of a product development strategy. You can either throw money at the problem and attempt to fix the product, or come to the conclusion that it's unfixable, admit that you were wrong, come up with a better product strategy and roadmap, and start all over again.
- nradov 8y ago
  The sunk cost fallacy is irrelevant at this point. It's too late to start over. The existing fleet of legacy aircraft is literally falling apart and will have to be replaced with something. Building more fourth-generation aircraft would be a waste because they're simply to longer survivable. So they're stuck with making the F-35 work as the only remaining option.
  - hluska 8y ago
    > Building more fourth-generation aircraft would be a waste because they're simply to longer survivable. I don't agree. The Su-27, which is regarded as a genuine threat to 5th generation planes has been in service since the late 1970s. Modern F-16s have little in common with the first ones that saw service. Boeing has been putting money into F-15s and F/A-18s with stealth capability. Fourth generation aircraft are still survivable and they're still being developed on the field. There's even a school of thought that suggests that when your enemy is a bunch of dudes with death wishes and pick up trucks, lower tech is an advantage. In this kind of combat, the F-35 is at a particular disadvantage. Its cannon may not be able to achieve the accuracy needed for close air support, the helmets' signal clutter is such that an F-35 is actually a danger, and even more fun, not one model of the F-35 can carry more than 220 rounds of ammunition. In comparison, the A-10 carries about 1,100 rounds. In practice, this means that whereas an A-10 could make 10-20 attack passes, an F-35 will top out at 2-4... Point being, it might not be a very good remaining option and fourth gen aircraft are better in important ways. With some luck, the testing process will solve all of these problems, though some seem incurable.
toddh 8y ago
Isn't a tool for the last generation's war? Won't the future will be cheap as dirt drone swarms?
- nradov 8y ago
  Sure that will be the future. But not today. They need something now that can actually fly and fight while those drones are being developed. This isn't software. Lifecycles are measured in decades.
  - toddh 8y ago
    Who are we fighting today that our current inventory of fighters can't manage? Seems like there's sufficient grace period. It's like running cable instead of just developing 5g.
    - nradov 8y ago
      Simulations indicate that legacy 4th-generation fighters are very vulnerable to the latest anti-aircraft missile systems that Russia has started selling all over the world. This is happening right now, there's no grace period.
      - toddh 8y ago
        You're putting a lot of faith that handful of F-35s can survive ever advancing anti-aircraft technologies. Not a good strategy IMHO.

farseer 8y ago

1.4 trillion has not been spent yet! Only a fraction so far. Unless we fall for the sunk cost fallacy, there is still plenty of time to cut our losses.

dev_dull 8y ago
And do what? Create a new $1T bungled project?
- SllX 8y ago
  Reviving F-22 production for air superiority (and export to key allies like Japan) and starting a new program for a modern close-air support fighter might be a good start. I don't think the F-35 is a bad plane and does what it was designed to do very well, but it isn't the best tool for all the roles it is expected to fill.
colordrops 8y ago
Any sources on how much has been spent so far? I'm curious.
- adventured 8y ago
  We're between $100 and $200 billion into the program in total so far, including 20 years of R&D and the cost of manufactured planes. They've built 300+ planes so far. The total acquisition cost over 40 years is set at $406 billion for 2,456 F35s as of the latest estimate. $345 billion is the cost of just the planes. $162m per plane. You'll routinely see the media get just about every financial fact about the F35 wrong that they possibly can. For example, you'll see claims that they've already spent $400 billion on the program (with links to the GAO figures), when in fact the $400b is the planned total acquisition cost across its lifetime.
joering2 8y ago
That number makes sense. Even if much less was spent.. enough was spent that too many politicians, generals, lobbyist dip their fingers and they don't want to look incompetent. Don't count on them pulling the plug on this project; it has to come from Congress so that those I mentioned can blame lack of founds. Otherwise they will continue party with lights on as long as they can (on taxpayers dime, of course)

gesman 8y ago

>> The F-35 is being sold to the American people ... Can we get a refund?

bmiranda 8y ago

Although there are teething issues, for US allies the unit the F-35 is attractive due to a unit cost which is lower than any of its competitors (such as the Eurofighter Typhoon). For domestic use, the F-35B STOVL jet used by the Marines is a dramatic improvement in range and capabilities over the Harrier. The F-35A/C are less of an improvement, but I would by no means call them a failure. It's easy to criticize a program due to cost overruns and mismanagement, but that doesn't mean the end result is bad. At the very least it's a sunk cost now, so we'll just have to deal with it.

colordrops 8y ago
I don't even know how to respond to your comment without sounding flippant. 10 billion dollars for a questionable program would upset me, let alone 1.4 trillion. It's blindingly obvious that this is a result of graft. No one has made a clear case that the US is in any sort of danger if we don't upgrade our planes. Imagine if that 1.4 trillion went towards fighting global warming, cancer, or lack of health care. It's sick.
- bitL 8y ago
  As much as it sucks, military dominance matters a lot - it's likely better for the US to have the greatest conventional weapons than Russia/China/EU having them.
  - Pamar 8y ago
    EU citizen here: I sincerely doubt you (or anyone else) should worry about EU military supremacy now and for the foreseeable future.
    - bitL 8y ago
      Given the ongoing split between US and EU it's no longer inconceivable that in 20-50 years trans-atlantic relationship deteriorates to the point of open warfare, sadly. Unfortunately, the brightest (or at least prudent) people aren't ruling either continent any longer.

SteveNuts 8y ago

In theory, a unified platform for all three air support roles is a good idea, but I think it's becoming apparent that airframes are too complex of systems to make universal. I really hope they can overcome the issues because overall it should help with logistics and cost over the long term.

alkonaut 8y ago
Yes excellent idea to have a carrier and land based shared airframe, like the hornet did. But sharing it also with STOVL?? At what point did they pause to think “wow this will either make it 2/3 almost completely separate planes, or give it a lot of compromises in efficiency for the other roles, or add billions to the cost, or all of the above”?
jdietrich 8y ago
>I really hope they can overcome the issues because overall it should help with logistics and cost over the long term. That ship has already sailed. According to the program manager for the F-35, there is only 20-25% commonality between the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps variants. The F-35 has all of the downsides of a compromise design, but with almost none of the benefit. http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2016/March%202016/March%2014%202016/All-For-One-and-All-for-All.aspx http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2016/March%202016...

trophycase 8y ago

1.4 trillion is an absolute joke. Invest that in infrastructure or energy security and I am absolutely certain that you would obtain an order of magnitude better ROI than whatever sort of benefit (protective, preemptive, deterrent, or otherwise) you are getting from these planes. This is truly an unfathomable amount of money that I feel it's hard to understate. Edit: I'll admit the helmet cam seemed pretty cool but 600k feels like a lot.

colordrops 8y ago
s/understate/overstate/

wpdev_63 8y ago

Hilariously we spent all that money on R&D and then the chinese hacked the pentagon to stole the designs and made their copy plane for the fraction of the price. It says alot about the military industrial complex. We'll be at war with them soon enough so hopefully these will perform when the time comes.

jerkstate 8y ago
If they don't, we have the F-22 which is better anyways and nobody else has.
eljimmy 8y ago
> We'll be at war with them soon enough Ehh? War with China won't happen in this day and age. In bizzaro universe where you think it will, it's not going to be fought with F-35s...
doikor 8y ago
> We'll be at war with them soon enough Actual real live shooting war between China and USA is going to be a nuclear war so the performance of the planes in that scenario will be kinda useless. China has ballistic missiles with the range to hit any location of their choosing on main land USA and the tech to fit nuclear war heads onto those missiles.

knuththetruth 8y ago

It’s good to remember these kinds of corrupt disasters whenever someone says we can’t afford to pay for things like universal healthcare and free public universities in the US.

adventured 8y ago
Universal healthcare would cost approximately $4 trillion per year at today's per capita spending figures. You might get that down to $3.5 trillion if you hammer down costs in the system big time and ration care as all socialized systems do. The F35 will cost $20-$25 billion per year averaged. Several of the most liberal states in the US - including California, New York and Vermont - have all looked at doing universal healthcare. They all run away immediately when the cost estimates come back.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  I wonder what an investment of $20 billion a year in training additional doctors (and NPs and so on) would do to medical costs.
  - salawat 8y ago
    Not much. You're at the mercy of a capped number of practitioners getting sanctioned into practice a year. This creates artificial scarcity. Also, you still have the blatant consolidation of the medical industry into a gigantic monolithic hybrid of pharma, hospital, insurer, and artificially scarce doctor. The solution is not to pump more doctors into a system geared to extract multiple industries worth of profit. Instead, it should be investing in increasing the capability of individuals to provide and manage their own medical care. This means more accessible diagnostics tools, fewer barriers to entry in getting access to good medical literature. Investing in teaching people how to do research, and make medically relevant observations, or to at least be able to tell when "First Aid" stops, and more advanced facilities are needed. When "First Aid" can encompass using a small, affordable X-ray device cheap and easy enough to safely use in a residential home, THEN you start seeing healthcare costs plummet. Same goes with Pharma. We have an exceedingly low capability to create environments conducive to productive research per capita. The brain power that can crank on these types of things are artificially limited by the inability of many who may have the interest and time to get access to facilities to make meaningful observations and potential discoveries. Come up with acceptable test analogs. Document, enumerate, and simulate as much as possible so someone can pick up a protein, shove it into a tissue and see what interactions may happen. Make the information accessible, and start working on boiling it down into learnable paths where a person can get the 80%, but still drill down into the more specialized. Cheaper, more prolific research and education is the key. NOT letting the market sit on top the misery of the hurt and dying and demanding the toll be paid. Empower first. Optimize last.

Jerry2 8y ago

After reading this, I came across this article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17479508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17479508 I was genuinely shocked when I read some of these points. I still have hard time believing things like survivability after the ejection and the need to repaint after every flight.

joering2 8y ago
I actually did the same and upvote both articles. Here is THAT line: OVER A TRILLION DOLLARS. If the plane tries to TURN, it can crash.
- WJW 8y ago
  This is true of all planes.
maxerickson 8y ago
All fighters have ridiculous maintenance hours. Good ones are like 10 or 15 hours of maintenance per hour of flight. Using paint that needs to be reapplied all the time probably isn't a good idea, but it can also just be a choice to pay to hit the bleeding edge of capability (say a stickier paint gives the plane a higher signature). I'd also probably take that article with some salt. There's nothing preposterous about deciding to manage fuel temperature, something that article misconstrues a bit (I think by not understanding what they are doing).

bitL 8y ago

Maybe it's a disaster in the sense of Windows Vista being a disaster - without it there wouldn't have been Windows 7? So even if the current version is underwhelming, the production chain is set up and the next version will have all quirks ironed out...

rgbrenner 8y ago

The cost is incredibly high... but as I'm reading the article, it sounds like most of these issues would apply to any fighter we build _with these capabilities_. How much of this is just the cost of building these new capabilities? The capabilities described sound useful. And some of what we learn from it can be applied in the future to new planes. So is it a good idea to simply back off from the advanced software, and build a dumber plane just to save money? The f16 is 40 years old.. we're going to have these new planes around for a long time.

ChuckMcM 8y ago
That is correct, the article is written to support the narrative of 'National Disaster' rather than 'Stretch goals, slowly being reached by continued development.' What is left unspoken is that while the JSF is behind schedule and over budget, it has design specs that are currently unavailable to the "enemy" forces. So when the US builds and fields a new fighter (like the F-22 before it) it forces opposing forces to build a counter to it or some way to defeat it. In a "cold war" situation where nobody is actually shooting at each other and are just running simulations to see who would win if they did start shooting, it allows a larger economic nation to defeat the weaker economic nation by driving their economy into dirt. It also means that as long as a country is far enough ahead in that calculus it can make threats (implied or overt) that people who don't want to lose power will respect. The first F-35 squadron has reached operational status[1] and that means that war planners have to include the F-35's capabilities in their simulations. And if in those plans they find their own aircraft are now obsolete[2] then they will have to back down rather than "poke the bear" as the vernacular goes in order to avoid a conflict that would see them removed. The F-35 is an expensive weapons program. People want to "kill it" for different reasons. That is has encountered issues during its development are not good reasons, nor were they good reasons when they were used against the F-22 either. But the F-35 is not a 'disaster'. [1] https://www.f35.com/news/detail/first-operational-f-35a-squadron-receives-final-aircraft https://www.f35.com/news/detail/first-operational-f-35a-squa... [2] Obsolete means that in a fight all or most of their aircraft would be defeated when faced with an aircraft with the F-35's design capabilities.
maxerickson 8y ago
Yeah, a big part of the problem is that the military has blended R&D into their procurement programs. It's a recipe for every ambitious, failed research idea to look like a clusterfuck boondoggle.

flanker 8y ago

One size does not fit all, it would be a silver bullet, whenever F35 replaces legacy fighters. Maybe by that time the who theatre of war would change with swarms of drones.

everyone 8y ago

Alternatively, it could be viewed as one of the most successful US military projects ever. It has funneled X* amount of tax money to the military-industrial complex. Siphoning that money seems to have been the US militaries primary function for several decades. *Some giant number

everyone 8y ago
Actually, building a ridiculous plane is a much better way of achieving this than bombing innocent people.
- s3m4j 8y ago
  Why do you reduce the choices between "building useless piece of hardware" and "bombing innocent people" ? There are lots of choices here. Just a sample : less tax or invest more in health and education.
  - MBCook 8y ago
    But that wouldn’t help the military or military contractors.
  - everyone 8y ago
    The military industrial complex in the US is a self-perpetuating system that just so happens to have the influence and lobbying power to get the funding. It would have been great if some harmless or even beneficial industry had developed in this way, but that is not the case unfortunately. The US also has a burgeoning prison-industrial complex which also, unfortunately, results in bad consequences for innocent people. You can see these self-perpetuating systems all over the place in modern civilization. The mechanism by which they grow is the same one which causes management in large corporations to grow exponentially. The bureaucracy will grow to fill the resources available. In the case of these self-perpetuating systems, they can grow in lobbying power and influence and increase their available resources, which allows them to expand and gain even more lobbying power and influence, and so on. The core business could be military, or making fake vomit, it doesnt matter. ps. 'self-perpetuating system' is just a term I use to talk about these things. Maybe theres a widely accepted term I dont know. Also all this is just a product of my own reading and ruminations.

anovikov 8y ago

Thing is, any replacement will take 20-25 years to develop if started today, so better just build more of these and hope to win by numbers.

maxerickson 8y ago
Could order and receive Advanced Super Hornet a lot faster than that. Might not deserve the label "replacement", but it provides at least some of the same capabilities.
- anovikov 8y ago
  U.S. has a shitload of 4gen planes, more than needed. They aren't an answer to anything.

trocadero 8y ago

The article waves away the stealth benefits but that's the number one issue. If a low radar signature is important then everything else is irrelevant. And I think it is. It doesn't matter if a F-16 can out dog fight a F-35 because that's not how the engagement will play out. The F-35 will shoot down an F-16 before the F-16 knows it's there.

neom 8y ago

The problem I have with the article is that it doesn't actually ever talk about if the ideas are good or not. It points out that the MVP of the ideas need a lot of work, and talks at length of why they don't work. For example, he spends a lot of time talking about how maintenance on the F35 isn't the same as the F18, so people who maintain the engines will have to change how they work, and new types of people will have to be added. Most interesting part of the article for me was learning about passive detecting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VERA_passive_sensor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VERA_passive_sensor

digi_owl 8y ago
Interesting, though i believe the doctrine is that stealth aircrafts rely on a data link from a AWACS to guild them to the target, and only turn on their own radar when within weapon range, then only for as long as is required to confirm target and launch the missile (who invariably has its own radar these days). Not to say that there are a myriad of assumptions that go into making an stealth aircraft, as was demonstrated when apparently an F-117 was downed by a modified SAM site.

badrabbit 8y ago

The "elephant in the room" is the grand bet western nations (led by the US) are making by investing in advanced and sophisticated weapons. Historically, you did need good weapons and vehicles/horses/planes but there has always been a balancing effect caused by how much of them you have, how many troops can operate them and how well defended they are. Aircraft carriers are a good example,they compliment existing capability by acting as floating military bases that can take the battle to the enemy's homeland. But that's the thing,they compliment,they don't replace. Even if the F35 delivered as promised,is it better to have 10 F35 , 50 F18 or even better -- 1000+ armed drones? They're making Navy boats smarter and more powerful as well,requiring fewer sailors. I am not against smarter technology and advanced capabilities. But it just doesn't seem wise to replace man count and existing capabilities when the new tech hasn't been battle tested against a worthy adversary. I wouldn't want to rely on a few powerful counter measures,but rather a large number of "good enough" defensive and offensive technology. But that's why I called it "the elephant in the room",this could work and actually counter-act other future super powers. Or history would repeat itself and the opponents will win with sheer troop count and "good enough" weaponry. The US spends 20% of gdp on the military,yet it is quite obvious the greatest threat is internal strife and divisions typically exasperated by economical divisions. Not to mention, severe lack of physhical fitness for military-age men and women. Military leaders already consider this a national security threat. I have a feeling this might be one of the reasons they're relying on technology so much. They don't think they can mobilize and train enough soldiers in the event of yet another world war. It would be much easier to have them operate drones and wear head gear with HUD (just like in the games) that costs a fortune. They might just be playing to the nation's strength. But still,maybe if they spent 10% instead of 20% in defense (even russia and china don't spend close to 10%) ,and use that 10% for internal socio-economic stability and just maybe enact mandatory military service,that might be wiser than relying fully on technology that hasn't been battle tested against the intended scenario and adversary. Will economic strength and advanced weaponry be enough? Maybe,but many empires with all that and more have fallen for various reasons. Economy aside,the cancerous defense-contractor industry that is the cause behind why so much of the GDP goes into defense is one of chief internal security threats. The whole industry is structured around politics so that politicians in specific districts approve spending in exchange for jobs+economy in their district. Many articles and blogs on that specific issue(e.g.: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-tra...)

_bxg1 8y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Loss_aversion_and_th...

dang 8y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16869679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16869679

Waterluvian 8y ago

I'm thinking about the Eisenhower interstate system and maybe Americans just have to figure out how to make crumbling infrastructure a national security terror. There's clearly money. Let the military complex have it to build bridges instead of bombers. I'm also reminded by the amazing technology in the US carriers. They're floating disaster response bases. Again, find ways to funnel military money into repurposable technologies. It's palatable and it has value beyond killing power.

stillsut 8y ago

The F-35 is a weapons system designed to continue the US's ability to easily win a conventional war against a high 2nd tier state power in their own territory. What this might look like is the total rout in 1991 of Iraq, which had the fifth largest army in the world, and advanced surface-to-air defenses, defeated in large part by stealth technology. This fighter is basically stating to these threats: you are not going to be able to defeat or stalemate us at our own game. I know this isn't a popular sentiment around here but consider the difference in outcome between the 1990 invasion of Kuwait vs the 2013 invasion of Crimea: only in the one where we had absolute military superiority did the US - or "the UN" if you prefer - actually get a say in how it turned out. Who does this entail today? The big two are clearly North Korea and Iran. Stretching it, I'd add Taiwan, Ukraine and the Eastern bloc, India on the China border, Philippines, and Venezuela becoming some type of Cuba situation. Then there are proxy wars between major powers like Syria, which will likely continue to occur in the middle east and Africa for several decades. Even if we don't enter these fights, we'll be able to give our allies this plane. (Or maybe they'll turn down the most advanced plane ever built because the pilot helmet has issues in high humidity situations /sarc.) This isn't going to neutralize the other two main powers, it will continue to be an imperfect - maybe even useless - weapon against their anti-ship and surface-to-air capabilities. It can't defeat the 3rd world and it can't defeat a superpower. The question is: is the price worth what it can do (which is defeat 2nd tier powers / proxy adversaries for the next ~25 years)? Or is there something which can do that better?