5 ms·

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. Happen

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.

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.