5 ms·

This is slightly old news: TLDR: F-35 is too expensive to maintain and operate, therefore the USAF wants a 4.5Gen Fighter (non stealth, but with updated electr

This is slightly old news: TLDR: F-35 is too expensive to maintain and operate, therefore the USAF wants a 4.5Gen Fighter (non stealth, but with updated electronics) to replace the older F-16 that will be retired soon. This is similar to the strategy that the russians did with the unveiling of their 'Checkmate' light weight fighter last month. So the USAF wants more funds to build yet another fighter. (it has already a 6gen fighter in development). I feel it is going to be another waste of money. It wont be much better than an updated FA-18 or an F-15EX with more advanced electronics. The best thing it can do is to accelerate the development of the 6gen fighter, and mass produce a cheaper 'non-stealth' version of it as the cheaper version, but with the same electronics. The best way to do cost saving by scaling up production of the same internal components/avionics.

xvector 5y ago
Non-stealth fighters seem kind of pointless in this era. In any real mission won't a beyond-visual-range missile just shoot you out of the sky?
- croes 5y ago
  Fighters with on board pilots seem pointless. Mass beats intelligence
- albertopv 5y ago
  Not at all. Radars are advancing too and what today is a stealth fighter might not be in 10 years. If the fighter has poor handling characteristics it could be useless in much less time than predicted.
- blitzar 5y ago
  Not at all. Almost all of the bombs being dropped are against people armed with whatever rocks are laying around on the ground. Until a beyond-visual-range rock throwning champion emerges there is little risk to conventional, non-stealth, airframes.
- msh 5y ago
  Depends a lot on who you are fighting.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - adwww 5y ago
    And who else is fighting them, as over Syria.
  - wongarsu 5y ago
    And where you are fighting. A fighter to defend your own airspace has very different requirements from a strike aircraft that can take out enemy air defenses.
- throwawaybutwhy 5y ago
  An agile, uncrewed, cheap (kinda sorta), mass-produced fighter that can penetrate Chinese and Russian airspace? What's not to like?
  - ju-st 5y ago
    Cruise missiles already exist.
- Stranger43 5y ago
  Yes but modern beyond visual range missile might do the same to current stealth platforms so one could argue that fighter jets as a whole is becoming obsolete for a lot of the missions that defines the air force as a separate branch. Where you still want a pilot in the loop is in A-10 territory where the role is to fly low and slow and work directly with local infantry commanders, and this means sustaining some level of damage mostly from "primitive" optically tracked weapons rather then last-gen long range radar tracked missiles. I.E. what you want is an cheap to operate, replace and train for plane that can be deployed in large numbers from forward bases. a role currently filled by army operated drones who is extremely vulnerable to "electronic warfare" in a way that a piloted plane wont be.
rhizome 5y ago
It's a make-work project, designed to renew for. ever. The US spends more on defense than the next 10 countries combined, it's absolutely not necessary even on a technical level.
- StreamBright 5y ago
  Well those pesky contractors on the east coast have to make their living. I remember working in SF on a salary I thought was extremely good when a defence contractor firm approached me with a nearly 2x offer.
- dd36 5y ago
  I often wonder how much of that cost is the military’s social systems, which other countries expense outside of their military. Namely healthcare and retirement.
irjustin 5y ago
The real problem is government procurement program structures. There's an insane number of layers/middlemen who need to get their "fair share". Congress isn't measured in budget but measured in "rah rah factor" and military know this thusly feed into it. NASA during the shuttle era was no different. The shuttle was an absolutely terrible design of compromises given towards different military branches to gain funding. While painful, the best thing was Bush defunding the shuttle program and pushing it towards privatization. I'll be the first to admit, if SpaceX wasn't around, this would probably be a dubious move and no better than NASA contracting it directly (looking at you Starliner). Basically we want a "SpaceX of military fighter jets", which sadly can't exist.
laichzeit0 5y ago
Sounds like we need the SpaceX version of military hardware. If Elon Musk was even remotely interested in killing people I'm sure we could have it in 5 years.

xvector 5y ago

Non-stealth fighters seem kind of pointless in this era. In any real mission won't a beyond-visual-range missile just shoot you out of the sky?

croes 5y ago
Fighters with on board pilots seem pointless. Mass beats intelligence
albertopv 5y ago
Not at all. Radars are advancing too and what today is a stealth fighter might not be in 10 years. If the fighter has poor handling characteristics it could be useless in much less time than predicted.
blitzar 5y ago
Not at all. Almost all of the bombs being dropped are against people armed with whatever rocks are laying around on the ground. Until a beyond-visual-range rock throwning champion emerges there is little risk to conventional, non-stealth, airframes.
msh 5y ago
Depends a lot on who you are fighting.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- adwww 5y ago
  And who else is fighting them, as over Syria.
- wongarsu 5y ago
  And where you are fighting. A fighter to defend your own airspace has very different requirements from a strike aircraft that can take out enemy air defenses.
throwawaybutwhy 5y ago
An agile, uncrewed, cheap (kinda sorta), mass-produced fighter that can penetrate Chinese and Russian airspace? What's not to like?
- ju-st 5y ago
  Cruise missiles already exist.
Stranger43 5y ago
Yes but modern beyond visual range missile might do the same to current stealth platforms so one could argue that fighter jets as a whole is becoming obsolete for a lot of the missions that defines the air force as a separate branch. Where you still want a pilot in the loop is in A-10 territory where the role is to fly low and slow and work directly with local infantry commanders, and this means sustaining some level of damage mostly from "primitive" optically tracked weapons rather then last-gen long range radar tracked missiles. I.E. what you want is an cheap to operate, replace and train for plane that can be deployed in large numbers from forward bases. a role currently filled by army operated drones who is extremely vulnerable to "electronic warfare" in a way that a piloted plane wont be.

rhizome 5y ago

It's a make-work project, designed to renew for. ever. The US spends more on defense than the next 10 countries combined, it's absolutely not necessary even on a technical level.

StreamBright 5y ago
Well those pesky contractors on the east coast have to make their living. I remember working in SF on a salary I thought was extremely good when a defence contractor firm approached me with a nearly 2x offer.
dd36 5y ago
I often wonder how much of that cost is the military’s social systems, which other countries expense outside of their military. Namely healthcare and retirement.

irjustin 5y ago

The real problem is government procurement program structures. There's an insane number of layers/middlemen who need to get their "fair share". Congress isn't measured in budget but measured in "rah rah factor" and military know this thusly feed into it. NASA during the shuttle era was no different. The shuttle was an absolutely terrible design of compromises given towards different military branches to gain funding. While painful, the best thing was Bush defunding the shuttle program and pushing it towards privatization. I'll be the first to admit, if SpaceX wasn't around, this would probably be a dubious move and no better than NASA contracting it directly (looking at you Starliner). Basically we want a "SpaceX of military fighter jets", which sadly can't exist.

laichzeit0 5y ago

Sounds like we need the SpaceX version of military hardware. If Elon Musk was even remotely interested in killing people I'm sure we could have it in 5 years.