4 ms·
The test of a combat aircraft is in combat. Nobody will give a fuck what the programme cost or that it couldn’t do X if it gives you a decisive advantage in war
by hyko 6y ago
The test of a combat aircraft is in combat. Nobody will give a fuck what the programme cost or that it couldn’t do X if it gives you a decisive advantage in war.
It’s fashionable to hate on the F-35, but let’s face it: if the allies have to establish air superiority somewhere in the world, they will be using F-35s to do so, and I’m not aware that anyone has the platform to stop them.
- jbob2000 6y agoEmpires fall from within. Yes, nobody will stop the US with military, and nobody would try because that's not how you win. You don't need a big military to crush the fragile supply chain that a plane like this demands.
- hyko 6y agoI don’t really understand this line of reasoning; it’s not like the person bearing the most rudimentary weapons is at an advantage? What’s the plan, lose in aerial combat but win in a fist fight? Who says it has a fragile supply chain anyway? It certainly has a complex one, but then so do things like nuclear weapons and nobody is clamouring to abandon them on that basis. Protecting that chain and the logistics around it is a staple of military operations. It’s not like someone is going to surprise them by going after supply chains.
- rurounijones 6y agoI think the point is that if you want to harm a nation you have various avenues of attack of which overt military action is only one. If the US is unbeatable militarily then you, as a poorer advesary, don't try to match it, you use one of the other avenues like causing political de-stabilisation for example, interfere with elections maybe. Therefore is the military persuing "perfect" at high expense instead of "good enough" at a lower expense which would still be good enough to fulfil its requirements.
- inglor_cz 6y agoMy question would be: if you buy N drones for price of one F-35, do you get better military value for your money or not? At the very least, N drones can't be destroyed at once (unless stored really carelessly) and can be individually specialized in a way that provides wider spectrum of capabilities. A massive bonus: pilotless aircraft can perform manoeuvres unsurvivable for humans, and the ability to maneuver was always a strong point in the air.
- jazzyjackson 6y agoWhen I go looking for a source I see a lot of "may be" and "soon will" but I've heard one capability of the F-35 is to command drones without connection to base stations, since radio relays can become (lets say) unreliable in open war. There are also offensive capabilities against enemy drones, remember when Iran landed a US drone by hacking it? Whose to say that any drones in the vicinity of an F-35 aren't captured mid-flight and turned against their own team? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incid...
- inglor_cz 6y agoThe radio troubles that you mention is probably the main reason why the US military is so interested in Starlink. Few potential opponents have the capability to destroy Starlink, or even jam it thoroughly.
- greedo 6y agoStarlink has nothing to do with C3I. And it can easily be jammed, as any frequency can.
- hef19898 6y agoThese drones themselves are rather expensive, and you need large numbers of them. Also, smaller drones would tend to be expendable one-use things. But sill that's what most concepts call for today. These concepts do need refinement, so, especially on the cost side. An for continued use in a conventional conflict.