10 ms·

I'm curious how the f35 has such an incredibly negative perception on hacker news. Any reception I see from more military minded communities are very positive [

by koube 4y ago

I'm curious how the f35 has such an incredibly negative perception on hacker news. Any reception I see from more military minded communities are very positive [0]. Countries that participated in the Eurofighter program are buying f35s. Ukraine has shown that cheaper previous generation fighters are relegated to pitch up lobbing missile tosses. Russia is afraid to use their modern fighters[1], and crucially, there's not that many of them since they don't scale well. Yet hacker news can only imagine nefarious reasons why militaries would want an f35. Maybe it's because the Canadian government watched a Tom Cruise movie and acted on it rather than listen to their military advisors. Maybe they wish to display fealty to the United States rather than have a functioning military. Do they even need a military? Does a country need a military? If you were to believe hacker news, it is impossible for someone to make a judgement that the f35 is a desirable plane. [0]: example I read two days ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/1062frs/the_bradley_seems_to_suffer_from_an_undeserved/j3efwnd/ https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/1062frs/the_bra... [1]: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/russia-holding-back-using-most-112104959.html https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/russia-holding-back-usin...

pyinstallwoes 4y ago
I wouldn't doubt that it's part of a "social media strategy" by your friendly ministry of clandestine institutions. Perception management, and marketing, it's the way of the future! At least, that's what they tell me.
gretch 4y ago
I'm sure everyone has their own reason, so I'll just speak for myself. I don't understand why we spend so much time and resource getting better at war when we (US citizen here) are already so extremely good at it. Atm, the US has 11 aircraft carriers, which is just shy of half in all of the world (not to mention many belong to our allies). We have crazy drones, missiles, submarines, nukes... How much better do you need to be at war? The truth is, if we wanted to light up some country or other, we could totally do it - the reasons we don't are ethical/economical/politcal, it's not because our war planes are not advanced enough. Instead, what if we invested the same set of resources on public school systems or water desalination technology? Just let the 11 aircraft carriers ride...
- reducesuffering 4y ago
  There is a very real risk coming up in a few years of China attempting to invade Taiwan. 250,000 people in Ukraine and Russia are killed or wounded because Russia was not deterred to invade. The difference in distance makes it difficult to project power in defense of Taiwan, without programs like these. China is making more progress than the US on closing the military differential.
- samuria 4y ago
  > the reasons we don't are ethical/economical/politcal The US's history with war is far from any of those reasons. Ethics is one of the least of politicians concern. The main reason why the US hasn't invaded a big country yet is because the world is divided in 2, and invasion would mean the end of the world. Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen (recent ones) would beg to differ on the US's very ethical wars.
- mc32 4y ago
  Because things don't stand still. If you don't continually try to improve, one, well, could end up in Russia's shoes. A has-been who is more bluff than bite. Of course they do have one tremendous bite up their sleeve --which of course no one in their right mind (including themselves) would want them to resort to. In order to stay ahead, you cannot afford to stagnate and feel like a fat cat.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- koube 4y ago
  Laptops from 2020 have been able to serve the needs of the vast majority of people. Laptops from 2015 even serve the needs of most. Why invent the m1 chip? Now imagine instead of a lesser product causing you to surf the web sightly slower, it instead causes your planes and pilots to be shot out of the sky. That is the reality that Russia and Ukraine are experiencing today. Plus, remember that the f35 is similarly priced and in some cases cheaper than 4.5 generation planes. It was designed from the start to scale well, or at least better than in the past.
- remarkEon 4y ago
m463 4y ago
My perception is that the f35 suffers the same problems as nuclear power. Great idea, great in production, but getting from idea to production is an overpriced, inefficient process that every engineer shakes his head at.
SAI_Peregrinus 4y ago
Many readers probably grew up during the (long) development of the F-35, and there were a LOT of problems (as is common for such complex projects). Unlike private projects, a lot of those issues were publicized. And of course it went vastly over the original budget, when it was billed as the "low" option to pair with the "high" F-22 (similar to the high/low F-15 & F/16 pair before).
rektide 4y ago
I have no idea what to do about it, but there's a huge bias for those with negative opinions to be more vocal about their opinions. I don't appreciate the original Nixon-ian context what-so-ever, but the idea of "the Silent Majority" seems ever more and more real, that the majority of those with anything to say are only there to throw shit & rake muck. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority Actually, I have one idea, which is to do some basic sentiment analysis and try to get some positive vs negative analysis of how people post, such that folks can start outright disregarding the negative forces.
justapassenger 4y ago
It’s because of initial headlines, from many years ago, about issues and cost. Even tho those aren’t valid arguments anymore, it’s hard to change perception.
beloch 4y ago
The F-35 is behind many older planes in traditional "fighter plane" metrics, like speed, manoeuvrability, etc.. It also didn't fare well in initial dog-fighting trials, mainly because it was a new plane whose envelope hadn't been explored going up against planes that pilots knew how to wring every last ounce of performance out of. The thing is, dog-fighting isn't really the F-35's main role. It's more useful in modern combat as a flying command and control outpost. That being said, Canada doesn't need 88 of these things. They're buying 88 because the government has convinced everyone that running more than one type of fighter is an expensive luxury that only top-tier militaries can afford, so they're going to use F-35's for everything right down to close air support. Everything. One plane. They're probably not even going to buy different F-35 variants and will just shoe-horn one variant into all roles. What they should be doing is looking at how to replace manned fighter planes with drones in as many roles as possible, and using F-35's only in the roles where they are clearly superior to unmanned alternatives. If they did that, they'd probably wind up with an assortment of different drones better suited to individual tasks and a much smaller number of F-35's. Telling the military what they need and spending more to do less are, however, longstanding traditions of both of Canada's ruling parties.
- koube 4y ago
  My understanding is that f35s shoots down other planes perfectly well, in modern plane to plane combat. Saying it can't dog fight is a bit like saying a knife is superior to a gun because the gun didn't cut as well. Of course a gun doesn't cut well, modern fighting is about shooting not cutting. In the same way the f35 overmatches most other planes in BVR fighting but not in flying really close up and shooting the enemy with a gun. You should also know that planes can shoot at things behind them. There's no need to point the nose of the f35 at things. Drones are a game changer but they do not replace planes. When's the last time you saw a Bayraktar video? They were effective in the initial chaos but once a front was solidified, jamming and AA were able to stop them. They need to be able to act autonomously or they'll just be jammed.
- clouddrover 4y ago
  > using F-35's only in the roles where they are clearly superior to unmanned alternatives The F-35 will eventually be flown in combination with unmanned aircraft. The loyal wingman concept will have F-35s and F-22s leading a wing of fighter drones: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/secret-competition-for-air-force-loyal-wingman-drone-coming-soon https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/secret-competition-for...
bee_rider 4y ago
I think they have a point — the jets are expensive, Canada would be better off spending the money on pandemic preparedness. We know this because they are obviously posting from 10 years ago when the f-35 was still having development trouble. Warn them about COVID!
poulpy123 4y ago
I'm usually the one defending the f35 (not here) because I know that the US have the will, technology and money to make the best plane and also that the metrics used to criticize the plane is not often very good (dogfight is not really useful in modern warfare). But also buying military equipment is not only a matter of choosing the better tool, but very much a political choice

by koube 4y ago

pyinstallwoes 4y ago

I wouldn't doubt that it's part of a "social media strategy" by your friendly ministry of clandestine institutions. Perception management, and marketing, it's the way of the future! At least, that's what they tell me.

gretch 4y ago

I'm sure everyone has their own reason, so I'll just speak for myself. I don't understand why we spend so much time and resource getting better at war when we (US citizen here) are already so extremely good at it. Atm, the US has 11 aircraft carriers, which is just shy of half in all of the world (not to mention many belong to our allies). We have crazy drones, missiles, submarines, nukes... How much better do you need to be at war? The truth is, if we wanted to light up some country or other, we could totally do it - the reasons we don't are ethical/economical/politcal, it's not because our war planes are not advanced enough. Instead, what if we invested the same set of resources on public school systems or water desalination technology? Just let the 11 aircraft carriers ride...

reducesuffering 4y ago
There is a very real risk coming up in a few years of China attempting to invade Taiwan. 250,000 people in Ukraine and Russia are killed or wounded because Russia was not deterred to invade. The difference in distance makes it difficult to project power in defense of Taiwan, without programs like these. China is making more progress than the US on closing the military differential.
samuria 4y ago
> the reasons we don't are ethical/economical/politcal The US's history with war is far from any of those reasons. Ethics is one of the least of politicians concern. The main reason why the US hasn't invaded a big country yet is because the world is divided in 2, and invasion would mean the end of the world. Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen (recent ones) would beg to differ on the US's very ethical wars.
mc32 4y ago
Because things don't stand still. If you don't continually try to improve, one, well, could end up in Russia's shoes. A has-been who is more bluff than bite. Of course they do have one tremendous bite up their sleeve --which of course no one in their right mind (including themselves) would want them to resort to. In order to stay ahead, you cannot afford to stagnate and feel like a fat cat.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
koube 4y ago
Laptops from 2020 have been able to serve the needs of the vast majority of people. Laptops from 2015 even serve the needs of most. Why invent the m1 chip? Now imagine instead of a lesser product causing you to surf the web sightly slower, it instead causes your planes and pilots to be shot out of the sky. That is the reality that Russia and Ukraine are experiencing today. Plus, remember that the f35 is similarly priced and in some cases cheaper than 4.5 generation planes. It was designed from the start to scale well, or at least better than in the past.
remarkEon 4y ago

m463 4y ago

My perception is that the f35 suffers the same problems as nuclear power. Great idea, great in production, but getting from idea to production is an overpriced, inefficient process that every engineer shakes his head at.

SAI_Peregrinus 4y ago

Many readers probably grew up during the (long) development of the F-35, and there were a LOT of problems (as is common for such complex projects). Unlike private projects, a lot of those issues were publicized. And of course it went vastly over the original budget, when it was billed as the "low" option to pair with the "high" F-22 (similar to the high/low F-15 & F/16 pair before).

rektide 4y ago

I have no idea what to do about it, but there's a huge bias for those with negative opinions to be more vocal about their opinions. I don't appreciate the original Nixon-ian context what-so-ever, but the idea of "the Silent Majority" seems ever more and more real, that the majority of those with anything to say are only there to throw shit & rake muck. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority Actually, I have one idea, which is to do some basic sentiment analysis and try to get some positive vs negative analysis of how people post, such that folks can start outright disregarding the negative forces.

justapassenger 4y ago

It’s because of initial headlines, from many years ago, about issues and cost. Even tho those aren’t valid arguments anymore, it’s hard to change perception.

beloch 4y ago

The F-35 is behind many older planes in traditional "fighter plane" metrics, like speed, manoeuvrability, etc.. It also didn't fare well in initial dog-fighting trials, mainly because it was a new plane whose envelope hadn't been explored going up against planes that pilots knew how to wring every last ounce of performance out of. The thing is, dog-fighting isn't really the F-35's main role. It's more useful in modern combat as a flying command and control outpost. That being said, Canada doesn't need 88 of these things. They're buying 88 because the government has convinced everyone that running more than one type of fighter is an expensive luxury that only top-tier militaries can afford, so they're going to use F-35's for everything right down to close air support. Everything. One plane. They're probably not even going to buy different F-35 variants and will just shoe-horn one variant into all roles. What they should be doing is looking at how to replace manned fighter planes with drones in as many roles as possible, and using F-35's only in the roles where they are clearly superior to unmanned alternatives. If they did that, they'd probably wind up with an assortment of different drones better suited to individual tasks and a much smaller number of F-35's. Telling the military what they need and spending more to do less are, however, longstanding traditions of both of Canada's ruling parties.

koube 4y ago
My understanding is that f35s shoots down other planes perfectly well, in modern plane to plane combat. Saying it can't dog fight is a bit like saying a knife is superior to a gun because the gun didn't cut as well. Of course a gun doesn't cut well, modern fighting is about shooting not cutting. In the same way the f35 overmatches most other planes in BVR fighting but not in flying really close up and shooting the enemy with a gun. You should also know that planes can shoot at things behind them. There's no need to point the nose of the f35 at things. Drones are a game changer but they do not replace planes. When's the last time you saw a Bayraktar video? They were effective in the initial chaos but once a front was solidified, jamming and AA were able to stop them. They need to be able to act autonomously or they'll just be jammed.
clouddrover 4y ago
> using F-35's only in the roles where they are clearly superior to unmanned alternatives The F-35 will eventually be flown in combination with unmanned aircraft. The loyal wingman concept will have F-35s and F-22s leading a wing of fighter drones: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/secret-competition-for-air-force-loyal-wingman-drone-coming-soon https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/secret-competition-for...

bee_rider 4y ago

I think they have a point — the jets are expensive, Canada would be better off spending the money on pandemic preparedness. We know this because they are obviously posting from 10 years ago when the f-35 was still having development trouble. Warn them about COVID!

poulpy123 4y ago

I'm usually the one defending the f35 (not here) because I know that the US have the will, technology and money to make the best plane and also that the metrics used to criticize the plane is not often very good (dogfight is not really useful in modern warfare). But also buying military equipment is not only a matter of choosing the better tool, but very much a political choice