5 ms·

This article contains no new information, and could be accurately summarized "guy whose boss spent $1 trillion on the F-35 says the F-35 is a good idea." He al

This article contains no new information, and could be accurately summarized "guy whose boss spent $1 trillion on the F-35 says the F-35 is a good idea." He also calls it a supersonic fighter, which isn't true. The coatings cannot withstand sustained periods of supersonic flight.

nickff 5y ago
Most supersonic fighters can only do so for very short amounts of time. The F-22 is the only operational fighter with real sustained supersonic capabilities.
- tmccrary55 5y ago
  It's by Lockheed (like the F-22) and we spent crazy amounts of money on it, why the hell is the F-35 deficient here?
  - jghn 5y ago
    They're different planes with different optimizations being made. Airplanes are one giant set of tradeoffs.
    - toiletfuneral 5y ago
      Yeah, the f-35 is optimized to cost as much as possible (Edit typo)
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Not really. The main limiter for supercruise in the F-35 is sub-par stealth coatings that unlike the F-22's cannot handle the heat. Otherwise it could supercruise, maybe with some engine tweaks.
      - jghn 5y ago
        Things like cost, politics, etc are also part of the optimizations being made for these planes.
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        You can see it that way. It's really more politics than cost in this case though. From an engineering perspective local political optimization of a national project is what I would call ineptitude. But you can call it by another name.
        jghn 5y ago
        I don't disagree. But it is what it is, and part of how things get done these days for better or for worse.
    - ldh 5y ago
      That's absolutely true, and it definitely matters when you're designing something that will see productive use for the benefit of the people paying for it, but it's not obvious that that's the case here.
  - ldh 5y ago
    Hear me out...what if we could get both contracts?!
  - SyzygistSix 5y ago
    Because ideally all supercruise does is allow enemy planes to get closer to an F-35 firing solution faster.
- pton-throw 5y ago
  That's a little disingenuous. For other platforms, the constraint is fuel. Afterburner guzzles fuel. Only F-35 requires expensive and protracted maintenance after supersonic flight. Which is another area where F-35 is lacking: range. Without external fuel tanks it can't fight in the Pacific.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    There are actually four other operational aircraft that can reach supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners.
  - strictnein 5y ago
    > "Without external fuel tanks it can't fight in the Pacific" If only we had large floating aircraft bases and the plane also had versions that supported VTOL for even more expansive capabilities at sea.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      You do, but the closer they get to the target the greater the likelihood they have of getting sunk. The likelihood approaches 100% as the distance to the target is reduced.
  - skhr0680 5y ago
    By “in the Pacific” do you mean flying from US west? If things come to that, then the US is in deep trouble.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Not necessarily, the US has land bases in the pacific. If you're going to base your availability of air power, which is the main determinant of success given the American military doctrine, on having a secure and available carrier at all times, you may be putting yourself in a bind when anti-ship weapons start proliferating and you become forced to increase distance between those defenses and your carriers. It also puts a hell of a single point of failure.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  That is false. Maybe you mean "only operational US fighter". The difference between the F-18 and the F-35 is that while the F-18 might need extended maintenance after prolonged (read : more than a minute) supersonic flight, the F-35 may suffer catastrophic coating degradation that may be fatal in the same flight. As for other operational fighters, the Dassault Rafale can supercruise indefinitely the Gripen indefinitely at Mach 1.3, the Eurofighter indefinitely at Mach 1.8, the Sukhoi-35 can if outfitted with the AL-41F-1S (meaning, some operational Su-35s can supercruise indefinitely, but not all). The F-22 is far from the only one.
  - strictnein 5y ago
    Only operational stealth fighter
  - caycep 5y ago
    Amusingly enough, apparently the YF-16 prototype could do it, before they changed the design for the final F-16A spec....
  - nickff 5y ago
    None of those fighters can do super cruise for a useful amount of time with a combat load out.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      That is incorrect. They can all supercruise with an air-superiority loadout except possibly for the Gripen where we are not certain, for over 20 minutes.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > The F-22 is the only operational fighter with real sustained supersonic capabilities Can’t the Eurofighter Typhoon supercruise?
- lumost 5y ago
  "Supercruising" means flying supersonically for at least 20 minutes. In a fighter aircraft the salient requirement is often not the time that the plane can fly supersonically but the distance. The Mig-31 has a combat radius of 450 miles at Mach-2.35 and a top speed of Mach-2.85. If you need a fighter to fly 500 km and engage a target, why wait 25 minutes for a super-cruising mach-1 fighter when a Mach-2.3 craft without super cruise can get there in 10 minutes?
bsder 5y ago
> This article contains no new information Actually, it does for me: "Just imagine how the F-16 program would have been covered today when they were crashing an aircraft almost every two weeks during several years in the ’80s and ’90s (the F-35, by comparison, has only crashed 3 times in over a decade of flying)." I had no idea that an F-16 crashed roughly every two weeks while being debugged. I imagine I'm not the only one.
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  The F-16 (designed 1973/1974) has relaxed stability, which means if the stability augmentation system fails near a stall or abrupt maneuver, the plane is lost. So lots of crashes in testing are to be expected, though in hindsight they could have used an unmanned version to iron out the flight control bugs. During an initial taxi test it actually had a roll control problem, so had to be flown off and landed - that's pretty bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting... https://medium.com/@alexjun/interesting-aircraft-of-the-day-1-b8a64ed6fe57 https://medium.com/@alexjun/interesting-aircraft-of-the-day-... The F-5 was the first new jet fighter design (1955/1956) without a fatality in test, which is notable enough to often get mentioned. It was a Mach 2 airframe with initially Mach 1.3 engines, so not a toy, though it was the smallest possible design to use standard weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5
V_Terranova_Jr 5y ago
> This article contains no new information True. And also, the author is an operator, but not necessarily someone involved in the engineering or acquisition. Nonetheless (and I say this as someone who was severely soured by my involvement with the program), people get tribal as to whether the JSF (provides an unmatched capability) XOR (is the zenith of acquisition malpractice). It's not either/or; both are simultaneously true. No one in DoD R&D/acquisition fails to appreciate how expensive these things are and this realization is certainly driving long-term decision-making.

nickff 5y ago

Most supersonic fighters can only do so for very short amounts of time. The F-22 is the only operational fighter with real sustained supersonic capabilities.

tmccrary55 5y ago
It's by Lockheed (like the F-22) and we spent crazy amounts of money on it, why the hell is the F-35 deficient here?
- jghn 5y ago
  They're different planes with different optimizations being made. Airplanes are one giant set of tradeoffs.
  - toiletfuneral 5y ago
    Yeah, the f-35 is optimized to cost as much as possible (Edit typo)
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Not really. The main limiter for supercruise in the F-35 is sub-par stealth coatings that unlike the F-22's cannot handle the heat. Otherwise it could supercruise, maybe with some engine tweaks.
    - jghn 5y ago
      Things like cost, politics, etc are also part of the optimizations being made for these planes.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        You can see it that way. It's really more politics than cost in this case though. From an engineering perspective local political optimization of a national project is what I would call ineptitude. But you can call it by another name.
        jghn 5y ago
        I don't disagree. But it is what it is, and part of how things get done these days for better or for worse.
  - ldh 5y ago
    That's absolutely true, and it definitely matters when you're designing something that will see productive use for the benefit of the people paying for it, but it's not obvious that that's the case here.
- ldh 5y ago
  Hear me out...what if we could get both contracts?!
- SyzygistSix 5y ago
  Because ideally all supercruise does is allow enemy planes to get closer to an F-35 firing solution faster.
pton-throw 5y ago
That's a little disingenuous. For other platforms, the constraint is fuel. Afterburner guzzles fuel. Only F-35 requires expensive and protracted maintenance after supersonic flight. Which is another area where F-35 is lacking: range. Without external fuel tanks it can't fight in the Pacific.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  There are actually four other operational aircraft that can reach supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners.
- strictnein 5y ago
  > "Without external fuel tanks it can't fight in the Pacific" If only we had large floating aircraft bases and the plane also had versions that supported VTOL for even more expansive capabilities at sea.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    You do, but the closer they get to the target the greater the likelihood they have of getting sunk. The likelihood approaches 100% as the distance to the target is reduced.
- skhr0680 5y ago
  By “in the Pacific” do you mean flying from US west? If things come to that, then the US is in deep trouble.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Not necessarily, the US has land bases in the pacific. If you're going to base your availability of air power, which is the main determinant of success given the American military doctrine, on having a secure and available carrier at all times, you may be putting yourself in a bind when anti-ship weapons start proliferating and you become forced to increase distance between those defenses and your carriers. It also puts a hell of a single point of failure.
sudosysgen 5y ago
That is false. Maybe you mean "only operational US fighter". The difference between the F-18 and the F-35 is that while the F-18 might need extended maintenance after prolonged (read : more than a minute) supersonic flight, the F-35 may suffer catastrophic coating degradation that may be fatal in the same flight. As for other operational fighters, the Dassault Rafale can supercruise indefinitely the Gripen indefinitely at Mach 1.3, the Eurofighter indefinitely at Mach 1.8, the Sukhoi-35 can if outfitted with the AL-41F-1S (meaning, some operational Su-35s can supercruise indefinitely, but not all). The F-22 is far from the only one.
- strictnein 5y ago
  Only operational stealth fighter
- caycep 5y ago
  Amusingly enough, apparently the YF-16 prototype could do it, before they changed the design for the final F-16A spec....
- nickff 5y ago
  None of those fighters can do super cruise for a useful amount of time with a combat load out.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    That is incorrect. They can all supercruise with an air-superiority loadout except possibly for the Gripen where we are not certain, for over 20 minutes.
chrisseaton 5y ago
> The F-22 is the only operational fighter with real sustained supersonic capabilities Can’t the Eurofighter Typhoon supercruise?
lumost 5y ago
"Supercruising" means flying supersonically for at least 20 minutes. In a fighter aircraft the salient requirement is often not the time that the plane can fly supersonically but the distance. The Mig-31 has a combat radius of 450 miles at Mach-2.35 and a top speed of Mach-2.85. If you need a fighter to fly 500 km and engage a target, why wait 25 minutes for a super-cruising mach-1 fighter when a Mach-2.3 craft without super cruise can get there in 10 minutes?

bsder 5y ago

> This article contains no new information Actually, it does for me: "Just imagine how the F-16 program would have been covered today when they were crashing an aircraft almost every two weeks during several years in the ’80s and ’90s (the F-35, by comparison, has only crashed 3 times in over a decade of flying)." I had no idea that an F-16 crashed roughly every two weeks while being debugged. I imagine I'm not the only one.

redis_mlc 5y ago
The F-16 (designed 1973/1974) has relaxed stability, which means if the stability augmentation system fails near a stall or abrupt maneuver, the plane is lost. So lots of crashes in testing are to be expected, though in hindsight they could have used an unmanned version to iron out the flight control bugs. During an initial taxi test it actually had a roll control problem, so had to be flown off and landed - that's pretty bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting... https://medium.com/@alexjun/interesting-aircraft-of-the-day-1-b8a64ed6fe57 https://medium.com/@alexjun/interesting-aircraft-of-the-day-... The F-5 was the first new jet fighter design (1955/1956) without a fatality in test, which is notable enough to often get mentioned. It was a Mach 2 airframe with initially Mach 1.3 engines, so not a toy, though it was the smallest possible design to use standard weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5

V_Terranova_Jr 5y ago

> This article contains no new information True. And also, the author is an operator, but not necessarily someone involved in the engineering or acquisition. Nonetheless (and I say this as someone who was severely soured by my involvement with the program), people get tribal as to whether the JSF (provides an unmatched capability) XOR (is the zenith of acquisition malpractice). It's not either/or; both are simultaneously true. No one in DoD R&D/acquisition fails to appreciate how expensive these things are and this realization is certainly driving long-term decision-making.