4 ms·

It's a great accomplishment, but it must also be stated that the FRP isn't for Block 4 F-35s, and multiple DoD staff have gone on the record that Block 4 will b

It's a great accomplishment, but it must also be stated that the FRP isn't for Block 4 F-35s, and multiple DoD staff have gone on the record that Block 4 will be a minimum for survivability, to clarify, that's "survivability" in high-threat environments. War thinky types divide the "battle space" into zones of danger, and stealth platforms justify their cost by being able to penetrate highest threat areas. It's an idea that hasn't really been tested yet, not really, not since 1993. Hopefully we never find out. Some of the Block 4 mods have been moved up, particularly the necessary avionics stuff, but some of the mods need rework for heat management and other deeper requirements.

froggit 3y ago
> War thinky types divide the "battle space" into zones of danger, and stealth platforms justify their cost by being able to penetrate highest threat areas. It's an idea that hasn't really been tested yet, not really, not since 1993. Not sure entirely how you mean, as "stealth" has been utilized multiple times since then. For example, using a stealth platform to penetrate high threat areas was tested over Yugoslavia in 1999 with the F-117. Stealth failed that test and it was confirmed that more than just low observability was needed (an issue addressed by the F-22 and F-35).
- MilStdJunkie 3y ago
  Full-featured stealth aircraft haven't been employed - so far as we know - in an offensive capacity inside a peer's air defense system, which is the "high threat" regime. The 1999 F-117 shootdown was accomplished with a 1961 S-125 (NATO SA-3 Goa) missile system, attack mass, some good tactics, and good old fashioned American overconfidence. 1961 vintage - even in 1999 - is definitely not a peer air defense. Current thought today is that - with enough stealth - you can enter even very highly defended zones. Speaking personally, I'm skeptical of stealth's utility against a peer power. Automation, very smart software, and cheap electronics will just be too dense, and the attacking platform is too expensive for the elevated level of risk. Some stealth is useful, to break locks . . but I think the ceiling of usefulness might be lower than we suspect. Whatever the real answer is, my own hope is that the powers-that-be will be capable of changing their minds in the face of accurate reports and analysis. "Being able to change your mind quickly" might be the best skill for a peacetime military to have. On that front, I'm not filled with confidence. This all smells a little bit like the precision bombing advocates of the interwar period (1920-1943). There are many who, to this day, maintain that the pre-1943 daylight precision bombing campaigns were effective in their stated mission, in spite of all findings to the contrary. Pre-1943 (before the H2X "Micky" radar groundmap bombsight) we were extraordinarily lucky if a bomb hit a point target (not helped at all by the near-fraudulent behavior of Norden and the NBoO), and even if it did, it didn't disable it, because factories are pretty tough and enormous. If we can't talk about something after seventy years, how likely are we to see truth of something happening right in front of our faces?
LargeTomato 3y ago
The idea of stealth is tested every day. When missions are planned the capability of the aircraft determines what missions is can fly. A stealth aircraft can factually fly closer to an enemy's AA system without being detected.
- MilStdJunkie 3y ago
  It is, and quite well. And it is effective. But to make the really deep investment cost effective, it needs to be in the ninety percentile effective, and where we're sitting, right now, in the EW and sensor environment we're currently in, it's likely to be less than that, as low as a 40%. You can see this in the mobilizations we've seen to date. We try to keep them away from China close EW coverage, for good reason. You'll note Israel hasn't mobed the F-35I variant against anyone besides Gaza[0]. Again, for good reason. Now, please let me be clear. If I am in the pilot seat, and I have a forty percent lower chance of being blown into flash-fried gibbets, I will be overjoyed. I will be blissful. The technologies are super cool, and, in spite of what could be called a rocky development path, they came out the other side with what looks like a usable platform, maybe even an excellent one. But, big picture, if I have a platform that costs a hundred times more[1], and it improves my rates from 5:1 to 9.2:1, taken on the whole . . that was not an optimal use of treasure and materiel. If it was flown out in 2009? Yeah, probably 20:1 exchange rates. It's not 2009 . . there's been a LOT of tech movement (hence the importance of Block 4). The bitch of it is, I'm not even complaining against stealth all that much. I'm mostly bitching about the program management, not measuring spares, not checking if a widget worked yet before signing it off. Cheap stealth can be had, especially nowadays. And when it goes below a much lower cost threshold, it's even worth it - look at the NSM, after all, cheap stealth is incredibly deadly on a cruise missile or anything that needs to get in the enemy's face, that needs to close the range. But I'll be surprised if the cost of the 35 turns out to be worth it, as cool as it might be. Eh, but who knows? Prominent defense talky talky type people have said that you're a fool for having opinions about the 35. So I'll just sit here being a fool, when it undoubtedly spanks the entire mainland PLAN/AF and we fly back home with geostrategic supremacy balanced on a whole squadron of fifty-foot erections. That would be grand - I would be a fool for any length of time to make that happen. [0] Maybe Beirut, maybe maybe Iraq, although in the second instance there's a question as to who they were actually shooting at. But Gaza for sure - third parties saw that one. None of those are even in the same continent as a peer competitor air defense. [1] Yes yes yes I know full rate production assuming 1000 units the flyaway cost per unit F35 is super duper ultra Costco cheap, 35m or whatever they're claiming now, but I'm talking "whole program" costs. Even using the Costco metaphor, buying the forty pound sack of tomatoes might be real cheap per tomato, but I'm only using two of those tomatoes - in the end I spend forty bucks for two tomatoes. I got some opinions about the whole concept of "flyaway cost", but that's another conversation.
maxglute 3y ago
Feels like celebrating someone for finishing the good draft of theirPhD dissertation after 17 years. Just glad it's kind of close to the end. The paper is pretty good, even if the field has changed dramatically and the thesis might not even be super relevant anymore.

froggit 3y ago

> War thinky types divide the "battle space" into zones of danger, and stealth platforms justify their cost by being able to penetrate highest threat areas. It's an idea that hasn't really been tested yet, not really, not since 1993. Not sure entirely how you mean, as "stealth" has been utilized multiple times since then. For example, using a stealth platform to penetrate high threat areas was tested over Yugoslavia in 1999 with the F-117. Stealth failed that test and it was confirmed that more than just low observability was needed (an issue addressed by the F-22 and F-35).

MilStdJunkie 3y ago
Full-featured stealth aircraft haven't been employed - so far as we know - in an offensive capacity inside a peer's air defense system, which is the "high threat" regime. The 1999 F-117 shootdown was accomplished with a 1961 S-125 (NATO SA-3 Goa) missile system, attack mass, some good tactics, and good old fashioned American overconfidence. 1961 vintage - even in 1999 - is definitely not a peer air defense. Current thought today is that - with enough stealth - you can enter even very highly defended zones. Speaking personally, I'm skeptical of stealth's utility against a peer power. Automation, very smart software, and cheap electronics will just be too dense, and the attacking platform is too expensive for the elevated level of risk. Some stealth is useful, to break locks . . but I think the ceiling of usefulness might be lower than we suspect. Whatever the real answer is, my own hope is that the powers-that-be will be capable of changing their minds in the face of accurate reports and analysis. "Being able to change your mind quickly" might be the best skill for a peacetime military to have. On that front, I'm not filled with confidence. This all smells a little bit like the precision bombing advocates of the interwar period (1920-1943). There are many who, to this day, maintain that the pre-1943 daylight precision bombing campaigns were effective in their stated mission, in spite of all findings to the contrary. Pre-1943 (before the H2X "Micky" radar groundmap bombsight) we were extraordinarily lucky if a bomb hit a point target (not helped at all by the near-fraudulent behavior of Norden and the NBoO), and even if it did, it didn't disable it, because factories are pretty tough and enormous. If we can't talk about something after seventy years, how likely are we to see truth of something happening right in front of our faces?

LargeTomato 3y ago

The idea of stealth is tested every day. When missions are planned the capability of the aircraft determines what missions is can fly. A stealth aircraft can factually fly closer to an enemy's AA system without being detected.

MilStdJunkie 3y ago
It is, and quite well. And it is effective. But to make the really deep investment cost effective, it needs to be in the ninety percentile effective, and where we're sitting, right now, in the EW and sensor environment we're currently in, it's likely to be less than that, as low as a 40%. You can see this in the mobilizations we've seen to date. We try to keep them away from China close EW coverage, for good reason. You'll note Israel hasn't mobed the F-35I variant against anyone besides Gaza[0]. Again, for good reason. Now, please let me be clear. If I am in the pilot seat, and I have a forty percent lower chance of being blown into flash-fried gibbets, I will be overjoyed. I will be blissful. The technologies are super cool, and, in spite of what could be called a rocky development path, they came out the other side with what looks like a usable platform, maybe even an excellent one. But, big picture, if I have a platform that costs a hundred times more[1], and it improves my rates from 5:1 to 9.2:1, taken on the whole . . that was not an optimal use of treasure and materiel. If it was flown out in 2009? Yeah, probably 20:1 exchange rates. It's not 2009 . . there's been a LOT of tech movement (hence the importance of Block 4). The bitch of it is, I'm not even complaining against stealth all that much. I'm mostly bitching about the program management, not measuring spares, not checking if a widget worked yet before signing it off. Cheap stealth can be had, especially nowadays. And when it goes below a much lower cost threshold, it's even worth it - look at the NSM, after all, cheap stealth is incredibly deadly on a cruise missile or anything that needs to get in the enemy's face, that needs to close the range. But I'll be surprised if the cost of the 35 turns out to be worth it, as cool as it might be. Eh, but who knows? Prominent defense talky talky type people have said that you're a fool for having opinions about the 35. So I'll just sit here being a fool, when it undoubtedly spanks the entire mainland PLAN/AF and we fly back home with geostrategic supremacy balanced on a whole squadron of fifty-foot erections. That would be grand - I would be a fool for any length of time to make that happen. [0] Maybe Beirut, maybe maybe Iraq, although in the second instance there's a question as to who they were actually shooting at. But Gaza for sure - third parties saw that one. None of those are even in the same continent as a peer competitor air defense. [1] Yes yes yes I know full rate production assuming 1000 units the flyaway cost per unit F35 is super duper ultra Costco cheap, 35m or whatever they're claiming now, but I'm talking "whole program" costs. Even using the Costco metaphor, buying the forty pound sack of tomatoes might be real cheap per tomato, but I'm only using two of those tomatoes - in the end I spend forty bucks for two tomatoes. I got some opinions about the whole concept of "flyaway cost", but that's another conversation.

maxglute 3y ago

Feels like celebrating someone for finishing the good draft of theirPhD dissertation after 17 years. Just glad it's kind of close to the end. The paper is pretty good, even if the field has changed dramatically and the thesis might not even be super relevant anymore.