54 ms·

How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane

239 points by pvilchez 13y ago

coldcode 13y ago
Having worked on the F16 at one point in my career it kicks the F35 is the ass every day and twice on Sunday. Plus you can buy 20 of them for every F35. It's all about money though, the F16 is too cheap to keep Lockheed in business no matter how much you upgrade it.
- dkhenry 13y ago
  I don't think this is to replace the F16. The F22 replaces them. How do you think the F35 compares to the F18 ?
  - antubbs 13y ago
    I don't believe this is accurate. The F-16 is the "low" part of the "high/low" multirole fighter strategy. For the air force, the "high" jet is the F-15. The F-22 is predominantly designed for air superiority, and thus is most directly a replacement for the F-15C. Whether it really even replaces the F-15C is questionable, since the quantity produced is extremely small compared to the overall legacy fighter fleet. The assumption is that gap will be filled by the F-35 and the F-16 will be replaced by the F-35.
    - dkhenry 13y ago
      I thought it was F-16 as the high fighter and the F-18 as the low fighter ?
      - zokier 13y ago
        Nope. F-16 and F-18 are of comparable class, F-18 being built for Navy requirements and F-16 for Air Force. IIRC they even evolved from a common program at one point. They separated as Navy and AF do not mix well, as is demonstrated by the JSF program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Fighter_program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Fighter_program
  - digitalengineer 13y ago
    Dutchman here. We're buying the F-35 'Flying Piano' to replace our F-16's...
- caycep 13y ago
  The F-16 design was too well done for its own good. Its history as a "no compromise" design (at least in the beginning, before Pentagon paper pushers got to it) from the "Fighter Mafia" is well known.
- runarb 13y ago
  Can you elaborate a little more on which aspects of the 40 year old F-16 design you think is better than the F-35? After looking on the Wikipedia page[0][1] it looks for me that the F-35 outperforms the F-16 in all aspects: |------------------------|-----------|----------| | | F-16 | F-35 | |------------------------|-----------|----------| | Maximum speed | Mach 1.2 | Mach 1.6 | | Combat radius | 550 km | 1 080 km | | Dry thrust | 76.3 kN | 125 kN | | Thrust w. afterburner | 127 kN | 191 kN | | First flight | 1974 | 2006 | |------------------------|-----------|----------| 0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_... 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_...
  - antubbs 13y ago
    Range, thrust, and power to weight are just a few performance parameters. It's somewhat more difficult to get accurate turn performance and acceleration information about the F-35. If I understand correctly (again, can't really find anything but conjecture for performance charts) while the F-35 has more sophisticated aerodynamic designs, the large cross-section looks to be a disadvantage in turn rates and acceleration (especially trans sonic).
    - greedo 13y ago
      This is contrary to what the test pilots and others bringing the aircraft to IOC have reported. Granted, test pilots work for the manufacturer and might be biased, but regular aviators who have flown the aircraft are confirming its excellent performance.
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    Those aren't necessarily 1:1. Note that the combat radius of the F16 includes 4x1,000lb bombs. Assuming the Falcon figure is for a fully-loaded plane, it wins on thrust-to-weight ratio. Rate of climb on the F35 is classified, so can't be compared.
  - 13y ago
- greedo 13y ago
  Current fly away costs estimates for the F-35 are in the neighborhood of 100-150M. Current fly away costs for Block 50+ F-16 are in the 100M range depending on electronics suite. It's been a long, long time since you could buy an F-16 for $5M. Also, the F-35 is more maneuverable than the current F-16s which have to hang a ton of armament on pylons, as well as drop tanks to get range equivalent to the F-35. And try flying any F-16 into S300 range. Now the criticisms of the F-35B (Marine STOVL variant) are semi-valid, and have affected some facets of the F-35A and F-35C. But other than cost overruns, the performance of the aircraft will be fine.
  - caycep 13y ago
    I think the F-16 over the years has suffered from mission creep, that has added weight and decreased performance. Then again, thinking about this, the USAF really plans on logistics, and most of the plans I've seen really focus on how plans can carrying something (usually bombs) to a place, from far away, and flying around enemy radar and other badness. They really need the equivalent of a fedex truck that can't be shot down.
    - greedo 13y ago
      Yes, the F-16's performance has suffered greatly as it's become more "multi-mission." Ironically, the philosophy for the F-15 was "not a pound for air to ground" yet both it and the F-14 (in its F-14D Bombcat config) turned out to be exceptional tactical bombers. The F-16 isn't bad, but because of the small wing has far less range than the Mudhen or the F-35.
  - zokier 13y ago
    > Current fly away costs for Block 50+ F-16 are in the 100M range depending on electronics suite. Any sources for this claim? The details on sales deals are scarce, but from what I gather Block50/52 models should be in the $40M range, or maybe even as low as $15M. The major exception being UAEs heavily modified Block60 which seem to go for significantly higher (in the $100M range).
    - 13y ago
dkhenry 13y ago
I understand the point the article is trying to make, but its not realistic. Having worked with the Navy for a few years I know that the biggest use of airplanes is not air to air combat ( which is what this article is complaining about ) It is air to land bombing. So why are we complaining about making an air force that serves our needs rather then one that might be useful for some other task. As a note he says this will be the "new mainstay of the air force" however we still have the F-22 as our air superiority fighter which is still believed to be better then anything out there, and indeed in their simulation the only limitation to the F-22 was there were too few of them. So this isn't really about America losing air superiority its about a few analysts not taking into account the entire mission of the three branches of the military. Maybe this plane doesn't stack up well against the F-16 or F-22, but It sure beats the Harrier and the F-18.
- Daniel_Newby 13y ago
  Won't the air to ground bombing mission be done mostly by drones? Manned aircraft will be increasingly reserved for special operations and dirty little wars, which is pretty much the Marines' job description. Also, the vertical takeoff capability will be mandatory for a hypothetical future war against a major power. Once the huge, lumbering aircraft carriers are sitting on the sea floor, they will be replaced by heavily armored battleships. In a major war, the only sea launched aircraft will be VTOLs.
  - antubbs 13y ago
    Gotta be careful about history; when the F-35 program started, drone-based warfare was pretty infantile. Drone payloads are still relatively light compared to heavily-laden fighter-bombers (or indeed outright bombers). This will likely evolve over time (the future bomber program requires both manned and unmanned capabilities in some proposals).
  - lmg643 13y ago
    Agree on drones and unmanned aircraft. Manned combat planes are going to be the cavalry of war in a few years (if not already) for the simple fact that a pilot cannot withstand the g-forces that an unmanned plane or missile can. US hasn't realized this yet because we are currently using our military might to pick on folks who are decades if not a century or more behind us technologically but would likely be a different story against a more up to date competitor.
kawera 13y ago
...currently an estimated $1 trillion to design, build and operate 2,400 copies... Am I the only one shocked that a country spend this much to make a weapon? Is there any decency left?
- Daniel_Newby 13y ago
  Over the 50 year projected life cycle of the F-35.
  - lucaspiller 13y ago
    So 20 Instagrams a year?
    - dodo53 13y ago
      Or supposedly most of the cost to end world hunger http://borgenproject.org/the-cost-to-end-world-hunger/ http://borgenproject.org/the-cost-to-end-world-hunger/
      - mpyne 13y ago
        World hunger isn't a simple resourcing problem, otherwise it already would be solved.
- goostavos 13y ago
  If you consider that the entirety of the Apollo programs, in which we developed machines to put us on the moon, cost $109 billion (in 2010 dollars), I would say.. yes. It's a little shocking that we've spent a trillion dollars on a plane.
ryoshu 13y ago
Why are we still building manned fighter planes?
- pliny 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incide...
  - munin 13y ago
    what?! that's an argument for more unmanned planes. imagine if the RQ-170 had been a manned spy plane and Iran had captured a human pilot.
    - VLM 13y ago
      LOL modern pilots are a little GPS focused and not as good at dead reckoning and pilotage as the olden days, and deserts are kind of featureless, but tricking a human into landing on the wrong side of the front lines is a pretty unlikely outcome.
    - andrewflnr 13y ago
      A manned plane probably wouldn't have been tricked.
      - tsotha 13y ago
        The drone may not have been tricked either. It may have simply crashed.
    - TsiCClawOfLight 13y ago
      A human pilot wouldn't have done this.
- VLM 13y ago
  Read about the early years of the F-4 and its gun pod. The wikipedia article is fairly good, although short. Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. The F-4 lesson was "everyone knew" that ever more expensive and technologically advanced munitions were the way to go, so no gun pod just drop missiles. (missiles are essentially somewhat dumb short range drones, although there's a lot of overlap in the categories...) Turned out to be a near disaster and they ended up bolting a human operated gun to the F-4. People actually died because of this design mistake. The USAF is in no hurry to kill a bunch more people with the same conceptual mistake. I am certain that the same scenario is about to play out with drones. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not with the USAF as the victims, but "in a decade or so" the same disaster will happen again. It is, after all, the same situation, so expecting a different outcome would be insanity.
crusso 13y ago
America’s newest stealth warplane and the planned mainstay of the future Air Force and the air arms of the Navy and Marine Corps, was no match for Chinese warplanes I'm sure that's in lots of papers in China today.
jkl32 13y ago
$1 trillion; this is why the US has no health care. Does anyone realistically believe you will go to war with China or Russia anymore? It's time to stop the charade of war, and help your own citizens instead.
- riggins 13y ago
  Does anyone realistically believe you will go to war with China or Russia anymore? Historically there have been military conflicts between superpowers. So I'd say its incumbent on those claiming we won't have wars to explain what's changed and why we won't have anymore major military conflicts.
  - jkl32 13y ago
    Globalization, trade, and the nuclear deterrent.
    - orf 13y ago
      The nuclear deterrent is the only valid point, and that's a shaky one.
      - riggins 13y ago
        The nuclear deterrent is the only valid point, and that's a shaky one. I agree with this. WRT global trade, I couldn't find the source, but I vaguely remember an article that pointed out that global trade made up a similar percentage of economic activity prior to WWI and was offered as a reason why there wouldn't be another global war. The other factor to consider is the consequence if you're wrong. You want to take the chance of another Hitler or Stalin coming to power and not being able to stop them?
        jacquesm 13y ago
        > You want to take the chance of another Hitler or Stalin coming to power and not being able to stop them? That presumes some foreknowledge about where that will happen. No part of the world is immune from a Hitler or Stalin coming to power, so for all you know he'll inherit those toys.
gilgoomesh 13y ago
Ultimately, this article has one point but makes it about ten times. The point is that the F-35 led to the U.S. losing the 2008 war game. All of the quotes (particularly from Australian military officials) are about the failed 2008 war game. It might seem like a valid point except that the war game deliberately crippled all the F-22s (the U.S. air superiority fighters) and instead pitched the F-35s (the U.S. jack-of-all trades jets) against Chinese air superiority fighters. It shouldn't be a surprise that a computer doesn't like that fight but it's a contrived and fairly silly situation since it's not really the F-35s job.
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  It's less academic for those of us in Australia, and that's why Australians are mentioned in the article. Australia is replacing its entire air superiority and assault capability with F35s and is contributing billions to the development program. We've already given up our bombers -- we were the last operators of F-111s. We can't buy F22s. I'm pretty sure we would (and so would the UK, Japan, Saudi Arabia and a number of other close allies), but the US Congress has banned their export. There is a constant undercurrent pushing for Australia to buy Russian fighters. They're cheap, they don't make design compromises we don't care about and you can actually get some, rather than seeing the delivery date receding like a desert horizon. And more to the point: our neighbours are buying them. In a confrontation, they'd win. Which rather defeats the point of buying billions of dollars of air superiority hardware, don't you think? Edit: Funnily enough, Lockheed has advertising spread throughout Canberra, our national capital. I mean everywhere. Especially in the airport, it's like a giant Lockheed showroom. I get the sense that they are feeling spooked.
  - cdash 13y ago
    This is stupid because you don't even know why the engagement was lost. It wasn't because the f-35 was outmatched but because they ran out of missiles in the fight which meant they could not defend their tankers and so they ran out of fuel. Numbers matter, you can't expect to send up an f-35 with a limited amount of missiles against a force much larger than yours because thats exactly what is going to happen. You will eventually run out of missiles. On the other hand, you can buy cheaper fighters and more of them, but are your cheaper fighters better than the other teams cheaper fighters. I don't know, one thing I do know is Australia is not going to ever have an air force comparable to China in the future.
ryusage 13y ago
To be honest, I'm surprised they haven't started switching to air-to-air drones yet. They seem to be using them for everything else these days.
- antubbs 13y ago
  This is more conjecture, but I don't think this is so much a capability problem (they're already mounting stingers on drones; larger models with large electronic sensor platforms/radar and sidewinder/amraams are just a matter of time). The problem remains rules of engagement, which are currently easier to verify/enforce with a human in the seat.
- greedo 13y ago
  You won't see A2A drones for at least another decade. In a non-contested environment, dropping Hellfire missiles is easy from a slow moving drone like a Predator. But this won't occur against a peer enemy. It's too easy to shoot them down. As to A2A, there are far too many obstacles for this happening soon. Plus, there's the whole notion that in a conflict against a peer opponent, that we'll somehow be able to manage the command and control of drones; that the opponent won't be able to disrupt our satcoms and other control channels. This notion is a bit naive. There will be a place for a man in the cockpit for quite a while.
  - ryusage 13y ago
    Those are great points. I hadn't considered the ability to jam signals at all. That seems like a pretty huge challenge to overcome actually.
    - sirkneeland 13y ago
      You could plug some serious AI into the drone so it can engage without a connection back to home base. Video game AI is getting pretty good. Just pray it doesn't go all Rise of the Machines on us...
- VLM 13y ago
  A short range, relatively dumb, more or less autonomous "air-to-air drone" is also called a missile. We already have human piloted aircraft carrying and launching what amounts to air-to-air drones. Essentially a modern fighter is a flying aircraft carrier which carries a load of short range drones. There are some interesting optimization problems where the shorter the range, generally the faster and more maneuverable and effective the weapon is. I think a 500 mile range air-to-air cruise missile would be pretty ineffective and easy to avoid compared to a modern short range missile.
chiph 13y ago
The USAF intends to replace the A-10 with this turkey, and it's an awful idea. A-10: holds 1350 rounds of 30mm ammo. F-35: holds 180 rounds of smaller 25mm ammo internally, plus 220 rounds externally A-10: 1.8 hour loiter time. F-35: Not listed, but as a high subsonic (stall speed) fighter, it's going to be shorter A-10: Has titanium armor protecting the pilot & critical systems. F-35: Already overweight, no chance of any armor. A-10: Can be field repaired. F-35: Because of stealth requirements, only the simplest of damage can be repaired in the field. And then there's the price... [Edit: Added stall speed qualification]
- caycep 13y ago
  Agreed...compromised designs will be compromised designs. The A-10 was made to work with the grunts in the mud. The F-35... Of note, I think it was Pierre Sprey's (quoted in this article) baby.
  - greedo 13y ago
    Sprey was part of the fighter mafia pushing the LWF concept. I don't think he had any role in the A-10.
    - masklinn 13y ago
      Pierre Sprey is the one who wrote the A-X detailed specifications. Saying that the A-10 was his baby is not wrong, if the A-10 has a father it's Sprey.
      - greedo 13y ago
        You're correct, I was confusing Sprey with Boyd.
    - chiph 13y ago
      If you haven't read it yet, Robert Coram's book "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War" is good. He pissed off a lot of people, but he was right. Which is criminal behavior in the Pentagon. Speaking of which, watch "The Pentagon Wars" sometime. Has Cary Elwes and Kelsey Grammer in it. It's all about the M-2 Bradley. "What it needs is a turret on it!" Col. Burton sacrificed his career to make the Bradley less of a danger to the troops it was designed to protect.
caycep 13y ago
Honestly, for those who really know the battles within the Pentagon about the design and procurement of equipment, it's no surprise. Too much design-by-committee, and mission creep from difference parts of different services who want a piece of the funding pie. When the program is billed as "one plane for all 3 services," you know there's trouble brewing on the horizon. It's telling that a lot of the quotes from this article comes from former members of the "fighter mafia" that pushed for focused designs from small groups done in "stealth" before the committees with their "mission creep" hit the design process. The F-16 and A-10, as a result, were widely hailed as revolutionary designs for the roles they were meant for (although in hindsight they followed the obvious path for air superiority and close air support aircraft). The F/A-18 was not quite as capable, but was nevertheless able to benefit from the design knowledge gained by these programs. The managers/designers of the F-16 and A-10 programs include Chuck Spinney and Pierre Sprey, both heavily quoted here. John Boyd was one of the major figures, and is probably one of the most hated men in the Pentagon, but has since passed away. The F-35 is succeeding brilliantly in its mission, though, which is to funnel taxpayer money to a nice fat cross section of the military-industrial complex.
- VLM 13y ago
  Here is the startup lesson of the story. You can draw numerous analogies between the development and "success" of the space shuttle, and the F-35 program. Identical management style means identical results, more or less. Its going to cost a lot more than planned, satisfy no one, kill a bunch of the good guys, take a lot longer to develop, cost more to operate. This is the "startup lesson" of this story and why its on "Hacker News". You wanna screw up your startup, go ahead, do it just like the STS or the F-35 did and have a committee promise everything to everyone.
- RougeFemme 13y ago
  "The F-35 is succeeding brilliantly in its mission, though, which is to funnel taxpayer money to a nice fat cross section of the military-industrial complex." And in one of its secondary missions, which is to generate hundreds of thousands of votes for many Reps. and Senators, spread across many Congressional districts and states - and both parties.
protomyth 13y ago
You pretty much knew it was having some serious problems when the US Navy started talking about long term F-18 upgrades. They are currently testing conformal tanks (like the F-15 has). It seemed like the F-22 folks were solving their problems while the F-35 has been doing press. Looking at it from the now, we probably should have built the full F-22 order and scrapped the F-35 for something far cheaper. I still think a successor to the A-10 and an evolved F-18 would have been better paths. Perhaps we also shouldn't award both contracts to the same company.
- caycep 13y ago
  Or at least put some program in place to "upgrade" the 1990's electronics in the F-22, and make it several orders of magnitude cheaper...
  - protomyth 13y ago
    If they had actually built the full run, it would have been cheaper. I would expect updated electronics over the life of the F-22 just as the F-15 and F-16 have been upgraded. Although they have done some pretty impressive things with those 1990's electronics. Embedded systems are a very different bird.
gadders 13y ago
I'm surprised at the criticism the harrier gets in the article. They're popular in the UK and appeared to perform pretty well in the Falklands, for instance.
- newbie12 13y ago
  It is a UK developed plane and did do well in the Falklands-- a testament to the skill of British pilots as much as anything. In the U.S., one third of our Harrier fleet has crashed, here's the article cited in the parent: http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6722 http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6722
  - gadders 13y ago
    So why are they killing US Marines and not British RAF?
    - zokier 13y ago
      There has been plenty of British Harriers crashing too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harrier_Jump_Jet_family_losses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harrier_Jump_Jet_family...
- tsotha 13y ago
  There's a lot wrong with the harrier, though. It's pretty complicated and expensive to maintain, it doesn't have very good range, and it's safety record isn't great (though I admit the F-35B's is yet to be seen).
sschueller 13y ago
"Lockheed’s F-117 stealth fighter was developed in a breakneck 30 months by a close-knit team of 50 engineers led by an experienced fighter designer named Alan Brown and overseen by seven government employees." vs. "The F-35, by contrast, is being designed by some 6,000 engineers led by a rotating contingent of short-tenure managers, with no fewer than 2,000 government workers providing oversight."
- antubbs 13y ago
  To their credit, the F-117 also wasn't a multirole fighter, was built in low quantities, wasn't planned for export uses, and was relatively quickly retired. It's a one-trick pony designed to sneak in, drop a precision bomb, and get out.
  - masklinn 13y ago
    > the F-117 also wasn't a multirole fighter, was built in low quantities [...] It's a one-trick pony designed to sneak in, drop a precision bomb, and get out. These are all good things, though. It's a focused airframe absolutely excellent at what it does. Much like the A10 really. > and was relatively quickly retired Beg pardon? The F-117 reached operational capability in 1983 and was retired in 2008 (the original plan was 2011, it was retired earlier to free money to buy F22s). And they've flown as recently as 2010 around Nellis.
    - mgoeppner 13y ago
      25 years is a short lifespan for a military aircraft -- Most military aircraft have been in service between 30 and 50 years.
      - jessaustin 13y ago
        The Predator will probably make it to 25, but most models of the other drones that will dominate the wars of the future will have far shorter periods of military service.
      - 13y ago
VLM 13y ago
Nobody mentioned the Osprey yet? The F-35 might suck, but at least its not an Osprey. The wikipedia article fails in being a bit too neutral PoV. Only people who are being paid to say the Osprey is great, or ordered by their CO to say its great, say its great, everyone else says it sucks. Except maybe our enemies, because using the Osprey has proven to be a reasonably effective way to kill american military personnel and waste enormous amounts of money. I think this is one fail in the article. Yes the F-35 kinda sucks when it's given other planes jobs, compared to how well planes designed to do one specific job do at that one specific task. How about comparing it to something even worse? Then it still sucks, but its not quite the worst case, even if its still the most expensive of the bad situations.
brudgers 13y ago
I am not saying that the JSF is a good plane, or that VSTOL is a good thing. But the claims of the article are all resting on this: "In the scenario, 72 Chinese jets patrolled the Taiwan Strait. Just 26 American warplanes — the survivors of a second missile barrage targeting their airfields — were able to intercept them, including 10 twin-engine F-22 stealth fighters that quickly fired off all their missiles" To summarize this scenario: () Successful Chinese first strike. () 72 Chinese aircraft. () Operating at short range () With initiative versus () 10 F22 () 16 F35 () Operating at long range () Without initiative Fastest with mostest trumps technology - e.g. the US didn't prevent the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the Tigers didn't stop the Shermans in 1944 [or less famously in North Africa a year earlier]. In assessing the probability of the scenario, my questions: () how many allied drones? () where is the Navy? () when did the straight of Taiwan stop being a nuclear tipping point?
- VLM 13y ago
  A simpler question is why did all the cruise missiles targeting airfields work over Taiwan, but apparently none worked over China? Hidden assumption of cyber warfare or ?
  - greedo 13y ago
    China is using SRBMs and MRBMs to target/attack Taiwan and Okinawa. While Aegis and Patriot have some ability to intercept them, they'll be overwhelmed by sheer numbers.
- bicknergseng 13y ago
  >when did the straight of Taiwan stop being a nuclear tipping point? This is always what bothers me about any discussion of the modern US military. It seems like every "war game" or scenario is half baked, where US forces go head to head against a similarly artificial Chinese or Iranian or PRNK force. The winner of the scenario wins the war, and peace is restored to the universe. So 1: What is the scenario where two nuclear powers engage each other directly that does not end in nuclear war? 2: What non-nuclear nation has the capability to engage the US in conventional warfare after a flurry of cruise missiles and drone strikes? A lot of good an air force will do Iran if it's destroyed on the tarmac.
losethos 13y ago
TempleOS is divine intellect on display. God says... C:\TAD\Text\WEALTH.TXT f the town was probably let to the burghers, in the same manner as it had been to other farmers, for a term of years only. In process of time, however, it seems to have become the general practice to grant it to them in fee, that is for ever, reserving a rent certain, never afterwards to be augmented. The payment having thus become perpetual, the exemptions, in return, for which it was made, naturally became perpetual too. Those exemptions, therefore, ceased to be personal, and could not afterwards ---------- fiercest parts secrecies vices speaks bade dwellest sides entangle status to_infinity_and_beyond pricks inward Argentina students Estonia reposes encouraging precedeth quickness vaster hare glowed prior blasphemous Charity fall To youre_welcome young You_can_count_on_that Newsletter continually senator's INDIRECT apportioned gate find book disregard End demandest vocal coming heresies
ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
200 million USD per strike fighter vs. under 17 million per Reaper. No wonder we are broke.
- tsotha 13y ago
  A Reaper has no air to air capability whatsoever and a tiny payload. You're comparing apples and oranges.
  - ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
    Because there has been so much air-to-air combat in the past 40 years?
    - tsotha 13y ago
      Which means nothing in terms of the future. With cheap guided weapons air superiority is more critical than it's ever been.
ergest 13y ago
John Boyd fought for years to build single-purpose fighters, but the idea of one, all-purpose warplane is just too seductive. (See John Boyd's biography by Robert Coram)
- sirkneeland 13y ago
  It's the Windows 8||Ubuntu Unity of warplanes!
bediger4000 13y ago
I think this article glosses over the general "fossilization" of aerospace/defence corporations in the USA, and Lock/Mart in particular. Before merging, Lockheed and Martin both had the reputation of being really hidebound. From experience, Martin was exceptionally married to processes and procedures and tradition. If you look at other things that LockMart has (like the Littoral Combat Ship, http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/01/littoral-combat-ship/ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/01/littoral-combat-ship...) you can see that LockMart has general engineering problems. General engineering troubles seems to plague LockMart.
- mikeash 13y ago
  I worked for them very briefly a few years ago, as part of a complex (but apparently normal for government stuff) scheme to have me do contract programming work for NIH. After experiencing their internal procedures and management, I don't see how this company can make a sandwich, let alone a fighter jet. My experience started off with a two-hour meeting discussing retirement benefits and health insurance, when I was a temporary part-time employee who got neither, and went downhill from there.
jasonwatkinspdx 13y ago
"It could be that China doesn’t know how to build a working lift fan and that’s why they left it off, Aboulafia said. But for a country that has unveiled two different radar-evading stealth warplane prototypes in just the last two years, that seems unlikely. It’s more plausible that China could build a lift fan-equipped plane and has chosen not to." The major difference is in posture. The US military wants to be able to project power globally. That means fighting from carriers or allied bases of varying quality half way around the world. The Chinese only care about their borders and regional power projection. VSTOL doesn't gain them anything since they'll never be that distant from their own bases. This is the same reason why the Chinese haven't put much into carriers, but have a ton of ballistic missile ships.
- spartango 13y ago
  Actually, the Chinese have had a serious problem designing and building quality jet engines for fighter aircraft. The two prototype "stealth" aircraft they've demonstrated (J-31 and J-20) use Russian AL-31 engines pulled from Su-27s, because the native WS-10 engines fail to pass muster consistently. Indeed, the same is true of the J-15 (an Su-33 clone), which is currently the only carrier-capable aircraft they've flown. Fewer than 16 of these aircraft have been built. Its use of the AL-31F makes the J-15 hard to produce, but also severely limits its payload/range. For reference, over 500 of the mainstay F/A-18E/F Super Hornets have been built, and ~1500 of the previous models (A-D) were produced. The Russians are none too pleased about Chinese repurposing and reverse engineering of their aircraft (particularly for engines), and have stopped selling Su-27s and many aircraft parts to the Chinese over IP disputes. The lack of Chinese airpower and carrier operations isn't a product of posturing or strategic differences. They've invested a huge amount of money retrofitting the Admiral Kuznetsov (now Liaoning), are building a second one, and are training pilots for carrier ops with foreign trainers. The Chinese air capabilities are instead hampered primarily by a lack of engine technology and production capability. Never mind the lift-fans.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 13y ago
    That's an interesting point. I didn't know the domestic Chinese turbine industry was so limited. Do you know why? Chinese industry certainly is capable of high tolerance machining, and they're literally the best at the world in complex assembly, so I'd have to guess they're behind on the design or materials side. The Liaoning is a bit of a weird duck. It provides air cover and anti-submarine capabilities to naval formations, but it's not capable of projecting power into a region via strike missions the way US carrier groups do. It fits within the posture I described. But also it seems like it may just be a boondogle to satisfy some admirals that want to be one of the nations that has a "carrier".
jasonwatkinspdx 13y ago
My prediction of how this will end up playing out: We'll waste money on the JSF, but thankfully won't ever put it into a real combat threat. The Defense Dept will pretend everything was a grand success while moving to UCAV's with haste. I think it's clear Navy decision makers came to this view long ago. They tried to pull out of the JSF program but Robert Gates smacked them back in line. Meanwhile they're pushing the X-47 development program as fast as they can.
stcredzero 13y ago
One of the biggest factors is pilot training. To put things in perspective, there are instances where US pilots in 4th gen aircraft have gotten simulated missile locks and gunsight pippers on Su-30MKIs and F-22s -- which even have thrust vectoring! You have to have the right equipment, but even great equipment in the hands of bad/inexperienced pilots will result in poor outcomes. I've read that some think the F-35 is problematic in this regard as well. It will be more expensive to maintain pilot training in these planes, and this will result in less US pilot training. EDIT: Also, the F-35 seems to be putting all of its eggs in the "stealth basket." It can't loiter like an A-10 for ground support. It can't turn with the F-15, F-16, or F-18 for the air superiority role. It's all about getting in undetected, and firing high-tech missiles. If something goes wrong with that, the pilots are stuck with a less dependable and less capable aircraft.
- TsiCClawOfLight 13y ago
  This really reminds of the F-4 disaster, doesn't it?
  - greedo 13y ago
    I wouldn't consider one of the best fighter programs we've seen a "disaster." Perhaps you're confusing it with the F-111 (TFX) program?
    - stcredzero 13y ago
      There were considerable challenges to overcome in Vietnam having to do with disadvantages in maneuverability, lack of guns, and missile reliability.
      - greedo 13y ago
        The Phantom was designed to be a fleet interceptor, not a dogfighter. Once it was pressed into the role of providing air superiority over Vietnam, it had troubles due to restrictive rules of engagement, a poor missile in the AIM7, and yes, a lack of guns. The Navy also suffered from a lack of ACM training that they rectified with the TOPGUN program. But to put all of these problems at the foot of the Phantom is missing the forest for the trees. And once changes were implemented in these areas, the Phantom went on to excel as an aircraft in the USN, the AF, and the airforces and navies of many other countries. If you look at the entire lifespan of the Phantom, its obvious that it was an overwhelming success.
neurotech1 13y ago
This article is very biased. The F-35 is being compared to a clean (no external stores) F-16, not a F-16 with same combat radius and weapons as internally carried on the F-35. The F-35 also has significantly better avionics than the F-16C Block 50. For a more balanced opinion go to http://www.f-16.net http://www.f-16.net
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
thelucky41 13y ago
>even older Russian and Chinese jets that can fly faster and farther and maneuver better Dogfighting is obsolete as homing missiles fly faster, farther, and are more maneuverable than the plane carrying them. Air superiority belongs to the plane with the more sophisticated radar and stealth that is flying at a higher altitude. Flying faster also aids intercepting incoming aircraft or escaping interception attempts.
brownbat 13y ago
> The jack-of-all-trades JSF has become the master of none. I feel like I've read this same article about the Shuttle and one of the Army vehicles, maybe the M2 Bradley.
jotm 13y ago
Indeed, why not make 5 different planes for different purposes instead of one that does everything... I mean, it's not like they're also building an aircraft carrier that can launch ballistic missiles, cruise at 50 knots, go up rivers and also submerge... or are they :-)?
- jessaustin 13y ago
  Don't give them any ideas...
beloch 13y ago
Some U.S. allies are almost certainly going to bail out of the F-35 program. Spiraling costs, the ideology requiring VSTOL, and some bizarrely secretive aspects of the JSF project are conspiring to kill the F-35 as a viable option for countries like Canada. A surprising thing is that countries taking part in development are not permitted complete access to program data. The U.S., despite making use of other nations expertise in the development and manufacturing of the F-35,is trying to keep some aspects classified from the nations who are supposed to buy the plane! Some Canadian pundits have (not seriously) called for the F-35 to be ditched and the Avro Arrow resurrected. The Arrow was developed in the 50's as an interceptor and, other than being significantly faster than the F-35 is probably inferior for Canada's requirements. It was designed in the freakin' 50's! It really is amazing that Canada went from manufacturing other country's WWII propeller plane designs to building prototype's faster than today's state-of-the-art F-35 in just a little over a decade. The fact that the F-35 is significantly slower than a 55 year old jet really shines light on how compromised its design is. There are many rumors surrounding the cancellation of the Avro Arrow since it was probably superior to any other interceptor of its time, and one that refuses to die is that the U.S. was pressuring Canada to drop the program since Boeing, Lockheed, etc. felt threatened by Avro. Avro was basically destroyed by the cancellation of the Arrow, and guess where Avro engineers wound up! I mention all this because Canada, despite being a perpetually self-doubting nation, has significant aerospace and weapon expertise. Canada also has some pretty unique design requirements not met by any existing fighters. The budget to build fighters locally may not ultimately exist, but if the Canadian government decides to compromise to cut costs, the F-35 is a horrendous option. It doesn't meet Canadian requirements, isn't on time, is getting more expensive every day, and the U.S. is trying to treat them like turn-key installations rather than selling planes. Why should the U.S. care? Every nation that bails on the JSF program will raise costs for those that remain. Once one nation leaves, a domino effect will likely ensue. Based on this article, I can't say that's necessarily bad!
- bch 13y ago
  "Ottawa officially scraps F-35 purchase as audit pegs costs at $45-billion" http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-officially-scraps-f-35-purchase-as-audit-pegs-costs-at-45-billion/article6260601/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-official...
dools 13y ago
If the VSTOL capabilities are only required to launch the aircraft in a really narrow set of circumstances (ie. from a ship with a helipad rather than a landing strip) why don't they have a detachable booster model? I'm imagining something that sits on top of the aircraft and provides the vertical thrust during take-off then detaches as the plane blasts off horizontally, leaving the booster free to lower itself onto the next plane for take-off and so on until the fleet has been dispatched and it can land itself on the platform. Instead of the capability to land, all you'd need is to build the planes so they could be ditched in the sea close by and this thing could go pick them up. In other words just have a detachable VSTOL module instead of having to integrate it into the plane.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  That's not a detachable VSTOL module, its a detachable vertical/short take off module plus a much more expensive and complicated airframe designed to be regularly handle water landings without complications. Of course, even if "ditch it in a convenient large body of water" was a suitable substitute for vertical/short landing capability for carrier-based aviation, it wouldn't provide the same benefits for, e.g., improvised land-based airfields. So, this would be less capable -- and probably more expensive -- than just building a VSTOL aircraft to start with.
  - dools 13y ago
    plus a much more expensive and complicated airframe designed to be regularly handle water landings without complications. Even if you could slow the thing down enough to deploy a parachute ... if the results of building VSTOL into the plane are so disastrous then surely it's worth exploring other options to be able to deploy fighters from boats without needing an carrier with a full airstrip on it. it wouldn't provide the same benefits for, e.g., improvised land-based airfields. Right, so from what I read just now (about the harrier at least) it doesn't have those advantages anyway because the vertical thrust ruins the landscape and kicks up dirt which clogs the engines ... perhaps that's fixed by the thruster fan of the F-35? But the point is that the main reason they wanted this capability is so they didn't need carrier support to have their own aircraft, not so they could land in random spots on land, right?
6d0debc071 13y ago
I wonder whether the article is applying a lot of thought to an issue that won't really matter very much in a decade or so. Fighters, as a delivery/sensor platform need to be manoeuvrable to not get hit. It's economics - people are expensive to train, sensors are expensive, and so you need an expensive system that you can reuse to ensure a good ROI. Couple this with the increasing effectiveness of ground based missile defences and it's questionable whether you can plausibly hope to penetrate an airspace defended with a next generation, automated, system anyway. Whether investing that sort of money in the aircraft is going to give you something survivable. I don't believe it's ever been tried against a current gen system, and I'm aware that operating in areas with previous-generation air-defence systems has been incredibly risky already. However. -chews her lip- If you don't have a lot of money sunk into your delivery platform - and if your sensors are out of harms way - then the survivability of the remaining components of the system, the bit that just has to get your missile, or whatever, into the area becomes a non-issue. To an extent the original cruise missiles were the answer to just that question with respect to the Soviet Union: How do you penetrate a well defended airspace without losing an unacceptably high investment? Consequently, I wonder whether air dominance, in the mid to long term, is going to be increasingly determined by the quality of your missiles. By extremely long range missile systems interacting with very powerful, networked, sensors (that might be, for example, based on drones far beyond the active area.) Under that sort of interpretation, you won't have a fighter. At its logical extreme, you'll have a cruise missile that can go to the operational area in a reasonable timeframe and has a very fast second or third stage to do the final closing with the target. You can make your cruise missile go faster than any fighter could, because the airframe is a throw away, and because you don't have to hold any fuel back to get back to base, and because it will be vastly lighter, and because you don't have to worry about any squishy human riding in it. That seems, to me, like the logical extension of the see first shoot first doctrine that the F-22 and 35 were based upon, the logical extension of drones as a low-cost delivery method, and the logical extension of the need to penetrate increasingly well defended airspaces. If that is how things go, the quality of the aircraft you have becomes largely irrelevant. They'd never get close enough to the action to need great performance.
adventured 13y ago
It's my opinion that the JSF will be quickly replaced - hopefully domestically, but definitely globally - by air superiority drones and bombing drones. The very rapid pace of development and much lower cost guarantees that outcome. It'll happen in the next decade. If the US doesn't invest in order to lead that charge, we'll be embarrassed by other countries that will. Even if there's an argument to be made in favor of pilots in planes, countries will rapidly turn to drone technology because it's cheaper. It appears likely to take another decade to get the JSF program where it should already be. By that time it'll be a trivial matter to swarm these planes out of the sky with drones that cost 5% to 10% as much per plane. Even a limited country such as Iran is going to be able to take down the F-35 by throwing multiple drones at it.
choarham 13y ago
so... how about that well funded school system we enjoy here in the US?
smegel 13y ago
Come on, planes are only part of the equation. Weapons, radar, air-to-air refueling, C4I, logistics, aircraft carriers...they will all make a big difference. The idea that a war is going to come down to a single F-35 vs a Sukhoi without any other support factors is a bit fanciful. The F-35 is looking a bit expensive for what you get though.
sirkneeland 13y ago
I read this and think "man, these guys are going to be great at running healthcare"
alexeisadeski3 13y ago
Modern fighter aircraft need to: a) not be seen b) be fast (time to target is still important!) c) carry a decent payload of weapons. Ideally target selection should be provided by AWACS, and missile-sensors provide the final kill guidance, allowing the fighter (AKA missile-launch platform) to remain stealthy. In the absence of AWACS, the fighter will need to carry it's own sensor suite. Modern air warfare is all about sensors, ECM and stealth. The airframe is almost inconsequential. (This comment is copy+pasted from demallien's comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6213619 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6213619 )
InclinedPlane 13y ago
It's tradition. Some of the biggest turds in fighter-plane history have come out of big, bloated "one-size-fits-all" development programs (like the F-111). And interestingly a lot of the most capable and long-lived combat aircraft have come about through rogue programs and fly offs trying to remedy the problems of being saddled with planes that just didn't work well. The F-16, A-10, F-14, etc.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
w_t_payne 13y ago
Well, the days of manned warplanes are fast running out anyway. UCAVs are the future, baby.

239 points by pvilchez 13y ago

Having worked on the F16 at one point in my career it kicks the F35 is the ass every day and twice on Sunday. Plus you can buy 20 of them for every F35. It's all about money though, the F16 is too cheap to keep Lockheed in business no matter how much you upgrade it.

dkhenry 13y ago
I don't think this is to replace the F16. The F22 replaces them. How do you think the F35 compares to the F18 ?
- antubbs 13y ago
  I don't believe this is accurate. The F-16 is the "low" part of the "high/low" multirole fighter strategy. For the air force, the "high" jet is the F-15. The F-22 is predominantly designed for air superiority, and thus is most directly a replacement for the F-15C. Whether it really even replaces the F-15C is questionable, since the quantity produced is extremely small compared to the overall legacy fighter fleet. The assumption is that gap will be filled by the F-35 and the F-16 will be replaced by the F-35.
  - dkhenry 13y ago
    I thought it was F-16 as the high fighter and the F-18 as the low fighter ?
    - zokier 13y ago
      Nope. F-16 and F-18 are of comparable class, F-18 being built for Navy requirements and F-16 for Air Force. IIRC they even evolved from a common program at one point. They separated as Navy and AF do not mix well, as is demonstrated by the JSF program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Fighter_program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Fighter_program
- digitalengineer 13y ago
  Dutchman here. We're buying the F-35 'Flying Piano' to replace our F-16's...
caycep 13y ago
The F-16 design was too well done for its own good. Its history as a "no compromise" design (at least in the beginning, before Pentagon paper pushers got to it) from the "Fighter Mafia" is well known.
runarb 13y ago
Can you elaborate a little more on which aspects of the 40 year old F-16 design you think is better than the F-35? After looking on the Wikipedia page[0][1] it looks for me that the F-35 outperforms the F-16 in all aspects: |------------------------|-----------|----------| | | F-16 | F-35 | |------------------------|-----------|----------| | Maximum speed | Mach 1.2 | Mach 1.6 | | Combat radius | 550 km | 1 080 km | | Dry thrust | 76.3 kN | 125 kN | | Thrust w. afterburner | 127 kN | 191 kN | | First flight | 1974 | 2006 | |------------------------|-----------|----------| 0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_... 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_...
- antubbs 13y ago
  Range, thrust, and power to weight are just a few performance parameters. It's somewhat more difficult to get accurate turn performance and acceleration information about the F-35. If I understand correctly (again, can't really find anything but conjecture for performance charts) while the F-35 has more sophisticated aerodynamic designs, the large cross-section looks to be a disadvantage in turn rates and acceleration (especially trans sonic).
  - greedo 13y ago
    This is contrary to what the test pilots and others bringing the aircraft to IOC have reported. Granted, test pilots work for the manufacturer and might be biased, but regular aviators who have flown the aircraft are confirming its excellent performance.
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  Those aren't necessarily 1:1. Note that the combat radius of the F16 includes 4x1,000lb bombs. Assuming the Falcon figure is for a fully-loaded plane, it wins on thrust-to-weight ratio. Rate of climb on the F35 is classified, so can't be compared.
- 13y ago
greedo 13y ago
Current fly away costs estimates for the F-35 are in the neighborhood of 100-150M. Current fly away costs for Block 50+ F-16 are in the 100M range depending on electronics suite. It's been a long, long time since you could buy an F-16 for $5M. Also, the F-35 is more maneuverable than the current F-16s which have to hang a ton of armament on pylons, as well as drop tanks to get range equivalent to the F-35. And try flying any F-16 into S300 range. Now the criticisms of the F-35B (Marine STOVL variant) are semi-valid, and have affected some facets of the F-35A and F-35C. But other than cost overruns, the performance of the aircraft will be fine.
- caycep 13y ago
  I think the F-16 over the years has suffered from mission creep, that has added weight and decreased performance. Then again, thinking about this, the USAF really plans on logistics, and most of the plans I've seen really focus on how plans can carrying something (usually bombs) to a place, from far away, and flying around enemy radar and other badness. They really need the equivalent of a fedex truck that can't be shot down.
  - greedo 13y ago
    Yes, the F-16's performance has suffered greatly as it's become more "multi-mission." Ironically, the philosophy for the F-15 was "not a pound for air to ground" yet both it and the F-14 (in its F-14D Bombcat config) turned out to be exceptional tactical bombers. The F-16 isn't bad, but because of the small wing has far less range than the Mudhen or the F-35.
- zokier 13y ago
  > Current fly away costs for Block 50+ F-16 are in the 100M range depending on electronics suite. Any sources for this claim? The details on sales deals are scarce, but from what I gather Block50/52 models should be in the $40M range, or maybe even as low as $15M. The major exception being UAEs heavily modified Block60 which seem to go for significantly higher (in the $100M range).
  - 13y ago

dkhenry 13y ago

I understand the point the article is trying to make, but its not realistic. Having worked with the Navy for a few years I know that the biggest use of airplanes is not air to air combat ( which is what this article is complaining about ) It is air to land bombing. So why are we complaining about making an air force that serves our needs rather then one that might be useful for some other task. As a note he says this will be the "new mainstay of the air force" however we still have the F-22 as our air superiority fighter which is still believed to be better then anything out there, and indeed in their simulation the only limitation to the F-22 was there were too few of them. So this isn't really about America losing air superiority its about a few analysts not taking into account the entire mission of the three branches of the military. Maybe this plane doesn't stack up well against the F-16 or F-22, but It sure beats the Harrier and the F-18.

Daniel_Newby 13y ago
Won't the air to ground bombing mission be done mostly by drones? Manned aircraft will be increasingly reserved for special operations and dirty little wars, which is pretty much the Marines' job description. Also, the vertical takeoff capability will be mandatory for a hypothetical future war against a major power. Once the huge, lumbering aircraft carriers are sitting on the sea floor, they will be replaced by heavily armored battleships. In a major war, the only sea launched aircraft will be VTOLs.
- antubbs 13y ago
  Gotta be careful about history; when the F-35 program started, drone-based warfare was pretty infantile. Drone payloads are still relatively light compared to heavily-laden fighter-bombers (or indeed outright bombers). This will likely evolve over time (the future bomber program requires both manned and unmanned capabilities in some proposals).
- lmg643 13y ago
  Agree on drones and unmanned aircraft. Manned combat planes are going to be the cavalry of war in a few years (if not already) for the simple fact that a pilot cannot withstand the g-forces that an unmanned plane or missile can. US hasn't realized this yet because we are currently using our military might to pick on folks who are decades if not a century or more behind us technologically but would likely be a different story against a more up to date competitor.

kawera 13y ago

...currently an estimated $1 trillion to design, build and operate 2,400 copies... Am I the only one shocked that a country spend this much to make a weapon? Is there any decency left?

Daniel_Newby 13y ago
Over the 50 year projected life cycle of the F-35.
- lucaspiller 13y ago
  So 20 Instagrams a year?
  - dodo53 13y ago
    Or supposedly most of the cost to end world hunger http://borgenproject.org/the-cost-to-end-world-hunger/ http://borgenproject.org/the-cost-to-end-world-hunger/
    - mpyne 13y ago
      World hunger isn't a simple resourcing problem, otherwise it already would be solved.
goostavos 13y ago
If you consider that the entirety of the Apollo programs, in which we developed machines to put us on the moon, cost $109 billion (in 2010 dollars), I would say.. yes. It's a little shocking that we've spent a trillion dollars on a plane.

ryoshu 13y ago

Why are we still building manned fighter planes?

pliny 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incide...
- munin 13y ago
  what?! that's an argument for more unmanned planes. imagine if the RQ-170 had been a manned spy plane and Iran had captured a human pilot.
  - VLM 13y ago
    LOL modern pilots are a little GPS focused and not as good at dead reckoning and pilotage as the olden days, and deserts are kind of featureless, but tricking a human into landing on the wrong side of the front lines is a pretty unlikely outcome.
  - andrewflnr 13y ago
    A manned plane probably wouldn't have been tricked.
    - tsotha 13y ago
      The drone may not have been tricked either. It may have simply crashed.
  - TsiCClawOfLight 13y ago
    A human pilot wouldn't have done this.
VLM 13y ago
Read about the early years of the F-4 and its gun pod. The wikipedia article is fairly good, although short. Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. The F-4 lesson was "everyone knew" that ever more expensive and technologically advanced munitions were the way to go, so no gun pod just drop missiles. (missiles are essentially somewhat dumb short range drones, although there's a lot of overlap in the categories...) Turned out to be a near disaster and they ended up bolting a human operated gun to the F-4. People actually died because of this design mistake. The USAF is in no hurry to kill a bunch more people with the same conceptual mistake. I am certain that the same scenario is about to play out with drones. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not with the USAF as the victims, but "in a decade or so" the same disaster will happen again. It is, after all, the same situation, so expecting a different outcome would be insanity.

crusso 13y ago

America’s newest stealth warplane and the planned mainstay of the future Air Force and the air arms of the Navy and Marine Corps, was no match for Chinese warplanes I'm sure that's in lots of papers in China today.

jkl32 13y ago

$1 trillion; this is why the US has no health care. Does anyone realistically believe you will go to war with China or Russia anymore? It's time to stop the charade of war, and help your own citizens instead.

riggins 13y ago
Does anyone realistically believe you will go to war with China or Russia anymore? Historically there have been military conflicts between superpowers. So I'd say its incumbent on those claiming we won't have wars to explain what's changed and why we won't have anymore major military conflicts.
- jkl32 13y ago
  Globalization, trade, and the nuclear deterrent.
  - orf 13y ago
    The nuclear deterrent is the only valid point, and that's a shaky one.
    - riggins 13y ago
      The nuclear deterrent is the only valid point, and that's a shaky one. I agree with this. WRT global trade, I couldn't find the source, but I vaguely remember an article that pointed out that global trade made up a similar percentage of economic activity prior to WWI and was offered as a reason why there wouldn't be another global war. The other factor to consider is the consequence if you're wrong. You want to take the chance of another Hitler or Stalin coming to power and not being able to stop them?
      - jacquesm 13y ago
        > You want to take the chance of another Hitler or Stalin coming to power and not being able to stop them? That presumes some foreknowledge about where that will happen. No part of the world is immune from a Hitler or Stalin coming to power, so for all you know he'll inherit those toys.

gilgoomesh 13y ago

Ultimately, this article has one point but makes it about ten times. The point is that the F-35 led to the U.S. losing the 2008 war game. All of the quotes (particularly from Australian military officials) are about the failed 2008 war game. It might seem like a valid point except that the war game deliberately crippled all the F-22s (the U.S. air superiority fighters) and instead pitched the F-35s (the U.S. jack-of-all trades jets) against Chinese air superiority fighters. It shouldn't be a surprise that a computer doesn't like that fight but it's a contrived and fairly silly situation since it's not really the F-35s job.

jacques_chester 13y ago
It's less academic for those of us in Australia, and that's why Australians are mentioned in the article. Australia is replacing its entire air superiority and assault capability with F35s and is contributing billions to the development program. We've already given up our bombers -- we were the last operators of F-111s. We can't buy F22s. I'm pretty sure we would (and so would the UK, Japan, Saudi Arabia and a number of other close allies), but the US Congress has banned their export. There is a constant undercurrent pushing for Australia to buy Russian fighters. They're cheap, they don't make design compromises we don't care about and you can actually get some, rather than seeing the delivery date receding like a desert horizon. And more to the point: our neighbours are buying them. In a confrontation, they'd win. Which rather defeats the point of buying billions of dollars of air superiority hardware, don't you think? Edit: Funnily enough, Lockheed has advertising spread throughout Canberra, our national capital. I mean everywhere. Especially in the airport, it's like a giant Lockheed showroom. I get the sense that they are feeling spooked.
- cdash 13y ago
  This is stupid because you don't even know why the engagement was lost. It wasn't because the f-35 was outmatched but because they ran out of missiles in the fight which meant they could not defend their tankers and so they ran out of fuel. Numbers matter, you can't expect to send up an f-35 with a limited amount of missiles against a force much larger than yours because thats exactly what is going to happen. You will eventually run out of missiles. On the other hand, you can buy cheaper fighters and more of them, but are your cheaper fighters better than the other teams cheaper fighters. I don't know, one thing I do know is Australia is not going to ever have an air force comparable to China in the future.

ryusage 13y ago

To be honest, I'm surprised they haven't started switching to air-to-air drones yet. They seem to be using them for everything else these days.

antubbs 13y ago
This is more conjecture, but I don't think this is so much a capability problem (they're already mounting stingers on drones; larger models with large electronic sensor platforms/radar and sidewinder/amraams are just a matter of time). The problem remains rules of engagement, which are currently easier to verify/enforce with a human in the seat.
greedo 13y ago
You won't see A2A drones for at least another decade. In a non-contested environment, dropping Hellfire missiles is easy from a slow moving drone like a Predator. But this won't occur against a peer enemy. It's too easy to shoot them down. As to A2A, there are far too many obstacles for this happening soon. Plus, there's the whole notion that in a conflict against a peer opponent, that we'll somehow be able to manage the command and control of drones; that the opponent won't be able to disrupt our satcoms and other control channels. This notion is a bit naive. There will be a place for a man in the cockpit for quite a while.
- ryusage 13y ago
  Those are great points. I hadn't considered the ability to jam signals at all. That seems like a pretty huge challenge to overcome actually.
  - sirkneeland 13y ago
    You could plug some serious AI into the drone so it can engage without a connection back to home base. Video game AI is getting pretty good. Just pray it doesn't go all Rise of the Machines on us...
VLM 13y ago
A short range, relatively dumb, more or less autonomous "air-to-air drone" is also called a missile. We already have human piloted aircraft carrying and launching what amounts to air-to-air drones. Essentially a modern fighter is a flying aircraft carrier which carries a load of short range drones. There are some interesting optimization problems where the shorter the range, generally the faster and more maneuverable and effective the weapon is. I think a 500 mile range air-to-air cruise missile would be pretty ineffective and easy to avoid compared to a modern short range missile.

chiph 13y ago

The USAF intends to replace the A-10 with this turkey, and it's an awful idea. A-10: holds 1350 rounds of 30mm ammo. F-35: holds 180 rounds of smaller 25mm ammo internally, plus 220 rounds externally A-10: 1.8 hour loiter time. F-35: Not listed, but as a high subsonic (stall speed) fighter, it's going to be shorter A-10: Has titanium armor protecting the pilot & critical systems. F-35: Already overweight, no chance of any armor. A-10: Can be field repaired. F-35: Because of stealth requirements, only the simplest of damage can be repaired in the field. And then there's the price... [Edit: Added stall speed qualification]

caycep 13y ago
Agreed...compromised designs will be compromised designs. The A-10 was made to work with the grunts in the mud. The F-35... Of note, I think it was Pierre Sprey's (quoted in this article) baby.
- greedo 13y ago
  Sprey was part of the fighter mafia pushing the LWF concept. I don't think he had any role in the A-10.
  - masklinn 13y ago
    Pierre Sprey is the one who wrote the A-X detailed specifications. Saying that the A-10 was his baby is not wrong, if the A-10 has a father it's Sprey.
    - greedo 13y ago
      You're correct, I was confusing Sprey with Boyd.
  - chiph 13y ago
    If you haven't read it yet, Robert Coram's book "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War" is good. He pissed off a lot of people, but he was right. Which is criminal behavior in the Pentagon. Speaking of which, watch "The Pentagon Wars" sometime. Has Cary Elwes and Kelsey Grammer in it. It's all about the M-2 Bradley. "What it needs is a turret on it!" Col. Burton sacrificed his career to make the Bradley less of a danger to the troops it was designed to protect.

caycep 13y ago

Honestly, for those who really know the battles within the Pentagon about the design and procurement of equipment, it's no surprise. Too much design-by-committee, and mission creep from difference parts of different services who want a piece of the funding pie. When the program is billed as "one plane for all 3 services," you know there's trouble brewing on the horizon. It's telling that a lot of the quotes from this article comes from former members of the "fighter mafia" that pushed for focused designs from small groups done in "stealth" before the committees with their "mission creep" hit the design process. The F-16 and A-10, as a result, were widely hailed as revolutionary designs for the roles they were meant for (although in hindsight they followed the obvious path for air superiority and close air support aircraft). The F/A-18 was not quite as capable, but was nevertheless able to benefit from the design knowledge gained by these programs. The managers/designers of the F-16 and A-10 programs include Chuck Spinney and Pierre Sprey, both heavily quoted here. John Boyd was one of the major figures, and is probably one of the most hated men in the Pentagon, but has since passed away. The F-35 is succeeding brilliantly in its mission, though, which is to funnel taxpayer money to a nice fat cross section of the military-industrial complex.

VLM 13y ago
Here is the startup lesson of the story. You can draw numerous analogies between the development and "success" of the space shuttle, and the F-35 program. Identical management style means identical results, more or less. Its going to cost a lot more than planned, satisfy no one, kill a bunch of the good guys, take a lot longer to develop, cost more to operate. This is the "startup lesson" of this story and why its on "Hacker News". You wanna screw up your startup, go ahead, do it just like the STS or the F-35 did and have a committee promise everything to everyone.
RougeFemme 13y ago
"The F-35 is succeeding brilliantly in its mission, though, which is to funnel taxpayer money to a nice fat cross section of the military-industrial complex." And in one of its secondary missions, which is to generate hundreds of thousands of votes for many Reps. and Senators, spread across many Congressional districts and states - and both parties.

protomyth 13y ago

You pretty much knew it was having some serious problems when the US Navy started talking about long term F-18 upgrades. They are currently testing conformal tanks (like the F-15 has). It seemed like the F-22 folks were solving their problems while the F-35 has been doing press. Looking at it from the now, we probably should have built the full F-22 order and scrapped the F-35 for something far cheaper. I still think a successor to the A-10 and an evolved F-18 would have been better paths. Perhaps we also shouldn't award both contracts to the same company.

caycep 13y ago
Or at least put some program in place to "upgrade" the 1990's electronics in the F-22, and make it several orders of magnitude cheaper...
- protomyth 13y ago
  If they had actually built the full run, it would have been cheaper. I would expect updated electronics over the life of the F-22 just as the F-15 and F-16 have been upgraded. Although they have done some pretty impressive things with those 1990's electronics. Embedded systems are a very different bird.

gadders 13y ago

I'm surprised at the criticism the harrier gets in the article. They're popular in the UK and appeared to perform pretty well in the Falklands, for instance.

newbie12 13y ago
It is a UK developed plane and did do well in the Falklands-- a testament to the skill of British pilots as much as anything. In the U.S., one third of our Harrier fleet has crashed, here's the article cited in the parent: http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6722 http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6722
- gadders 13y ago
  So why are they killing US Marines and not British RAF?
  - zokier 13y ago
    There has been plenty of British Harriers crashing too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harrier_Jump_Jet_family_losses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harrier_Jump_Jet_family...
tsotha 13y ago
There's a lot wrong with the harrier, though. It's pretty complicated and expensive to maintain, it doesn't have very good range, and it's safety record isn't great (though I admit the F-35B's is yet to be seen).

sschueller 13y ago

"Lockheed’s F-117 stealth fighter was developed in a breakneck 30 months by a close-knit team of 50 engineers led by an experienced fighter designer named Alan Brown and overseen by seven government employees." vs. "The F-35, by contrast, is being designed by some 6,000 engineers led by a rotating contingent of short-tenure managers, with no fewer than 2,000 government workers providing oversight."

antubbs 13y ago
To their credit, the F-117 also wasn't a multirole fighter, was built in low quantities, wasn't planned for export uses, and was relatively quickly retired. It's a one-trick pony designed to sneak in, drop a precision bomb, and get out.
- masklinn 13y ago
  > the F-117 also wasn't a multirole fighter, was built in low quantities [...] It's a one-trick pony designed to sneak in, drop a precision bomb, and get out. These are all good things, though. It's a focused airframe absolutely excellent at what it does. Much like the A10 really. > and was relatively quickly retired Beg pardon? The F-117 reached operational capability in 1983 and was retired in 2008 (the original plan was 2011, it was retired earlier to free money to buy F22s). And they've flown as recently as 2010 around Nellis.
  - mgoeppner 13y ago
    25 years is a short lifespan for a military aircraft -- Most military aircraft have been in service between 30 and 50 years.
    - jessaustin 13y ago
      The Predator will probably make it to 25, but most models of the other drones that will dominate the wars of the future will have far shorter periods of military service.
    - 13y ago

VLM 13y ago

Nobody mentioned the Osprey yet? The F-35 might suck, but at least its not an Osprey. The wikipedia article fails in being a bit too neutral PoV. Only people who are being paid to say the Osprey is great, or ordered by their CO to say its great, say its great, everyone else says it sucks. Except maybe our enemies, because using the Osprey has proven to be a reasonably effective way to kill american military personnel and waste enormous amounts of money. I think this is one fail in the article. Yes the F-35 kinda sucks when it's given other planes jobs, compared to how well planes designed to do one specific job do at that one specific task. How about comparing it to something even worse? Then it still sucks, but its not quite the worst case, even if its still the most expensive of the bad situations.

brudgers 13y ago

I am not saying that the JSF is a good plane, or that VSTOL is a good thing. But the claims of the article are all resting on this: "In the scenario, 72 Chinese jets patrolled the Taiwan Strait. Just 26 American warplanes — the survivors of a second missile barrage targeting their airfields — were able to intercept them, including 10 twin-engine F-22 stealth fighters that quickly fired off all their missiles" To summarize this scenario: () Successful Chinese first strike. () 72 Chinese aircraft. () Operating at short range () With initiative versus () 10 F22 () 16 F35 () Operating at long range () Without initiative Fastest with mostest trumps technology - e.g. the US didn't prevent the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the Tigers didn't stop the Shermans in 1944 [or less famously in North Africa a year earlier]. In assessing the probability of the scenario, my questions: () how many allied drones? () where is the Navy? () when did the straight of Taiwan stop being a nuclear tipping point?

VLM 13y ago
A simpler question is why did all the cruise missiles targeting airfields work over Taiwan, but apparently none worked over China? Hidden assumption of cyber warfare or ?
- greedo 13y ago
  China is using SRBMs and MRBMs to target/attack Taiwan and Okinawa. While Aegis and Patriot have some ability to intercept them, they'll be overwhelmed by sheer numbers.
bicknergseng 13y ago
>when did the straight of Taiwan stop being a nuclear tipping point? This is always what bothers me about any discussion of the modern US military. It seems like every "war game" or scenario is half baked, where US forces go head to head against a similarly artificial Chinese or Iranian or PRNK force. The winner of the scenario wins the war, and peace is restored to the universe. So 1: What is the scenario where two nuclear powers engage each other directly that does not end in nuclear war? 2: What non-nuclear nation has the capability to engage the US in conventional warfare after a flurry of cruise missiles and drone strikes? A lot of good an air force will do Iran if it's destroyed on the tarmac.

losethos 13y ago

TempleOS is divine intellect on display. God says... C:\TAD\Text\WEALTH.TXT f the town was probably let to the burghers, in the same manner as it had been to other farmers, for a term of years only. In process of time, however, it seems to have become the general practice to grant it to them in fee, that is for ever, reserving a rent certain, never afterwards to be augmented. The payment having thus become perpetual, the exemptions, in return, for which it was made, naturally became perpetual too. Those exemptions, therefore, ceased to be personal, and could not afterwards ---------- fiercest parts secrecies vices speaks bade dwellest sides entangle status to_infinity_and_beyond pricks inward Argentina students Estonia reposes encouraging precedeth quickness vaster hare glowed prior blasphemous Charity fall To youre_welcome young You_can_count_on_that Newsletter continually senator's INDIRECT apportioned gate find book disregard End demandest vocal coming heresies

ChikkaChiChi 13y ago

200 million USD per strike fighter vs. under 17 million per Reaper. No wonder we are broke.

tsotha 13y ago
A Reaper has no air to air capability whatsoever and a tiny payload. You're comparing apples and oranges.
- ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
  Because there has been so much air-to-air combat in the past 40 years?
  - tsotha 13y ago
    Which means nothing in terms of the future. With cheap guided weapons air superiority is more critical than it's ever been.

ergest 13y ago

John Boyd fought for years to build single-purpose fighters, but the idea of one, all-purpose warplane is just too seductive. (See John Boyd's biography by Robert Coram)

sirkneeland 13y ago
It's the Windows 8||Ubuntu Unity of warplanes!

bediger4000 13y ago

I think this article glosses over the general "fossilization" of aerospace/defence corporations in the USA, and Lock/Mart in particular. Before merging, Lockheed and Martin both had the reputation of being really hidebound. From experience, Martin was exceptionally married to processes and procedures and tradition. If you look at other things that LockMart has (like the Littoral Combat Ship, http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/01/littoral-combat-ship/ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/01/littoral-combat-ship...) you can see that LockMart has general engineering problems. General engineering troubles seems to plague LockMart.

mikeash 13y ago
I worked for them very briefly a few years ago, as part of a complex (but apparently normal for government stuff) scheme to have me do contract programming work for NIH. After experiencing their internal procedures and management, I don't see how this company can make a sandwich, let alone a fighter jet. My experience started off with a two-hour meeting discussing retirement benefits and health insurance, when I was a temporary part-time employee who got neither, and went downhill from there.

jasonwatkinspdx 13y ago

"It could be that China doesn’t know how to build a working lift fan and that’s why they left it off, Aboulafia said. But for a country that has unveiled two different radar-evading stealth warplane prototypes in just the last two years, that seems unlikely. It’s more plausible that China could build a lift fan-equipped plane and has chosen not to." The major difference is in posture. The US military wants to be able to project power globally. That means fighting from carriers or allied bases of varying quality half way around the world. The Chinese only care about their borders and regional power projection. VSTOL doesn't gain them anything since they'll never be that distant from their own bases. This is the same reason why the Chinese haven't put much into carriers, but have a ton of ballistic missile ships.

spartango 13y ago
Actually, the Chinese have had a serious problem designing and building quality jet engines for fighter aircraft. The two prototype "stealth" aircraft they've demonstrated (J-31 and J-20) use Russian AL-31 engines pulled from Su-27s, because the native WS-10 engines fail to pass muster consistently. Indeed, the same is true of the J-15 (an Su-33 clone), which is currently the only carrier-capable aircraft they've flown. Fewer than 16 of these aircraft have been built. Its use of the AL-31F makes the J-15 hard to produce, but also severely limits its payload/range. For reference, over 500 of the mainstay F/A-18E/F Super Hornets have been built, and ~1500 of the previous models (A-D) were produced. The Russians are none too pleased about Chinese repurposing and reverse engineering of their aircraft (particularly for engines), and have stopped selling Su-27s and many aircraft parts to the Chinese over IP disputes. The lack of Chinese airpower and carrier operations isn't a product of posturing or strategic differences. They've invested a huge amount of money retrofitting the Admiral Kuznetsov (now Liaoning), are building a second one, and are training pilots for carrier ops with foreign trainers. The Chinese air capabilities are instead hampered primarily by a lack of engine technology and production capability. Never mind the lift-fans.
- jasonwatkinspdx 13y ago
  That's an interesting point. I didn't know the domestic Chinese turbine industry was so limited. Do you know why? Chinese industry certainly is capable of high tolerance machining, and they're literally the best at the world in complex assembly, so I'd have to guess they're behind on the design or materials side. The Liaoning is a bit of a weird duck. It provides air cover and anti-submarine capabilities to naval formations, but it's not capable of projecting power into a region via strike missions the way US carrier groups do. It fits within the posture I described. But also it seems like it may just be a boondogle to satisfy some admirals that want to be one of the nations that has a "carrier".

jasonwatkinspdx 13y ago

My prediction of how this will end up playing out: We'll waste money on the JSF, but thankfully won't ever put it into a real combat threat. The Defense Dept will pretend everything was a grand success while moving to UCAV's with haste. I think it's clear Navy decision makers came to this view long ago. They tried to pull out of the JSF program but Robert Gates smacked them back in line. Meanwhile they're pushing the X-47 development program as fast as they can.

stcredzero 13y ago

One of the biggest factors is pilot training. To put things in perspective, there are instances where US pilots in 4th gen aircraft have gotten simulated missile locks and gunsight pippers on Su-30MKIs and F-22s -- which even have thrust vectoring! You have to have the right equipment, but even great equipment in the hands of bad/inexperienced pilots will result in poor outcomes. I've read that some think the F-35 is problematic in this regard as well. It will be more expensive to maintain pilot training in these planes, and this will result in less US pilot training. EDIT: Also, the F-35 seems to be putting all of its eggs in the "stealth basket." It can't loiter like an A-10 for ground support. It can't turn with the F-15, F-16, or F-18 for the air superiority role. It's all about getting in undetected, and firing high-tech missiles. If something goes wrong with that, the pilots are stuck with a less dependable and less capable aircraft.

TsiCClawOfLight 13y ago
This really reminds of the F-4 disaster, doesn't it?
- greedo 13y ago
  I wouldn't consider one of the best fighter programs we've seen a "disaster." Perhaps you're confusing it with the F-111 (TFX) program?
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    There were considerable challenges to overcome in Vietnam having to do with disadvantages in maneuverability, lack of guns, and missile reliability.
    - greedo 13y ago
      The Phantom was designed to be a fleet interceptor, not a dogfighter. Once it was pressed into the role of providing air superiority over Vietnam, it had troubles due to restrictive rules of engagement, a poor missile in the AIM7, and yes, a lack of guns. The Navy also suffered from a lack of ACM training that they rectified with the TOPGUN program. But to put all of these problems at the foot of the Phantom is missing the forest for the trees. And once changes were implemented in these areas, the Phantom went on to excel as an aircraft in the USN, the AF, and the airforces and navies of many other countries. If you look at the entire lifespan of the Phantom, its obvious that it was an overwhelming success.

neurotech1 13y ago

This article is very biased. The F-35 is being compared to a clean (no external stores) F-16, not a F-16 with same combat radius and weapons as internally carried on the F-35. The F-35 also has significantly better avionics than the F-16C Block 50. For a more balanced opinion go to http://www.f-16.net http://www.f-16.net

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

thelucky41 13y ago

>even older Russian and Chinese jets that can fly faster and farther and maneuver better Dogfighting is obsolete as homing missiles fly faster, farther, and are more maneuverable than the plane carrying them. Air superiority belongs to the plane with the more sophisticated radar and stealth that is flying at a higher altitude. Flying faster also aids intercepting incoming aircraft or escaping interception attempts.

brownbat 13y ago

> The jack-of-all-trades JSF has become the master of none. I feel like I've read this same article about the Shuttle and one of the Army vehicles, maybe the M2 Bradley.

jotm 13y ago

Indeed, why not make 5 different planes for different purposes instead of one that does everything... I mean, it's not like they're also building an aircraft carrier that can launch ballistic missiles, cruise at 50 knots, go up rivers and also submerge... or are they :-)?

jessaustin 13y ago
Don't give them any ideas...

beloch 13y ago

Some U.S. allies are almost certainly going to bail out of the F-35 program. Spiraling costs, the ideology requiring VSTOL, and some bizarrely secretive aspects of the JSF project are conspiring to kill the F-35 as a viable option for countries like Canada. A surprising thing is that countries taking part in development are not permitted complete access to program data. The U.S., despite making use of other nations expertise in the development and manufacturing of the F-35,is trying to keep some aspects classified from the nations who are supposed to buy the plane! Some Canadian pundits have (not seriously) called for the F-35 to be ditched and the Avro Arrow resurrected. The Arrow was developed in the 50's as an interceptor and, other than being significantly faster than the F-35 is probably inferior for Canada's requirements. It was designed in the freakin' 50's! It really is amazing that Canada went from manufacturing other country's WWII propeller plane designs to building prototype's faster than today's state-of-the-art F-35 in just a little over a decade. The fact that the F-35 is significantly slower than a 55 year old jet really shines light on how compromised its design is. There are many rumors surrounding the cancellation of the Avro Arrow since it was probably superior to any other interceptor of its time, and one that refuses to die is that the U.S. was pressuring Canada to drop the program since Boeing, Lockheed, etc. felt threatened by Avro. Avro was basically destroyed by the cancellation of the Arrow, and guess where Avro engineers wound up! I mention all this because Canada, despite being a perpetually self-doubting nation, has significant aerospace and weapon expertise. Canada also has some pretty unique design requirements not met by any existing fighters. The budget to build fighters locally may not ultimately exist, but if the Canadian government decides to compromise to cut costs, the F-35 is a horrendous option. It doesn't meet Canadian requirements, isn't on time, is getting more expensive every day, and the U.S. is trying to treat them like turn-key installations rather than selling planes. Why should the U.S. care? Every nation that bails on the JSF program will raise costs for those that remain. Once one nation leaves, a domino effect will likely ensue. Based on this article, I can't say that's necessarily bad!

bch 13y ago
"Ottawa officially scraps F-35 purchase as audit pegs costs at $45-billion" http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-officially-scraps-f-35-purchase-as-audit-pegs-costs-at-45-billion/article6260601/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-official...

dools 13y ago

If the VSTOL capabilities are only required to launch the aircraft in a really narrow set of circumstances (ie. from a ship with a helipad rather than a landing strip) why don't they have a detachable booster model? I'm imagining something that sits on top of the aircraft and provides the vertical thrust during take-off then detaches as the plane blasts off horizontally, leaving the booster free to lower itself onto the next plane for take-off and so on until the fleet has been dispatched and it can land itself on the platform. Instead of the capability to land, all you'd need is to build the planes so they could be ditched in the sea close by and this thing could go pick them up. In other words just have a detachable VSTOL module instead of having to integrate it into the plane.

dragonwriter 13y ago
That's not a detachable VSTOL module, its a detachable vertical/short take off module plus a much more expensive and complicated airframe designed to be regularly handle water landings without complications. Of course, even if "ditch it in a convenient large body of water" was a suitable substitute for vertical/short landing capability for carrier-based aviation, it wouldn't provide the same benefits for, e.g., improvised land-based airfields. So, this would be less capable -- and probably more expensive -- than just building a VSTOL aircraft to start with.
- dools 13y ago
  plus a much more expensive and complicated airframe designed to be regularly handle water landings without complications. Even if you could slow the thing down enough to deploy a parachute ... if the results of building VSTOL into the plane are so disastrous then surely it's worth exploring other options to be able to deploy fighters from boats without needing an carrier with a full airstrip on it. it wouldn't provide the same benefits for, e.g., improvised land-based airfields. Right, so from what I read just now (about the harrier at least) it doesn't have those advantages anyway because the vertical thrust ruins the landscape and kicks up dirt which clogs the engines ... perhaps that's fixed by the thruster fan of the F-35? But the point is that the main reason they wanted this capability is so they didn't need carrier support to have their own aircraft, not so they could land in random spots on land, right?

6d0debc071 13y ago

I wonder whether the article is applying a lot of thought to an issue that won't really matter very much in a decade or so. Fighters, as a delivery/sensor platform need to be manoeuvrable to not get hit. It's economics - people are expensive to train, sensors are expensive, and so you need an expensive system that you can reuse to ensure a good ROI. Couple this with the increasing effectiveness of ground based missile defences and it's questionable whether you can plausibly hope to penetrate an airspace defended with a next generation, automated, system anyway. Whether investing that sort of money in the aircraft is going to give you something survivable. I don't believe it's ever been tried against a current gen system, and I'm aware that operating in areas with previous-generation air-defence systems has been incredibly risky already. However. -chews her lip- If you don't have a lot of money sunk into your delivery platform - and if your sensors are out of harms way - then the survivability of the remaining components of the system, the bit that just has to get your missile, or whatever, into the area becomes a non-issue. To an extent the original cruise missiles were the answer to just that question with respect to the Soviet Union: How do you penetrate a well defended airspace without losing an unacceptably high investment? Consequently, I wonder whether air dominance, in the mid to long term, is going to be increasingly determined by the quality of your missiles. By extremely long range missile systems interacting with very powerful, networked, sensors (that might be, for example, based on drones far beyond the active area.) Under that sort of interpretation, you won't have a fighter. At its logical extreme, you'll have a cruise missile that can go to the operational area in a reasonable timeframe and has a very fast second or third stage to do the final closing with the target. You can make your cruise missile go faster than any fighter could, because the airframe is a throw away, and because you don't have to hold any fuel back to get back to base, and because it will be vastly lighter, and because you don't have to worry about any squishy human riding in it. That seems, to me, like the logical extension of the see first shoot first doctrine that the F-22 and 35 were based upon, the logical extension of drones as a low-cost delivery method, and the logical extension of the need to penetrate increasingly well defended airspaces. If that is how things go, the quality of the aircraft you have becomes largely irrelevant. They'd never get close enough to the action to need great performance.

adventured 13y ago

It's my opinion that the JSF will be quickly replaced - hopefully domestically, but definitely globally - by air superiority drones and bombing drones. The very rapid pace of development and much lower cost guarantees that outcome. It'll happen in the next decade. If the US doesn't invest in order to lead that charge, we'll be embarrassed by other countries that will. Even if there's an argument to be made in favor of pilots in planes, countries will rapidly turn to drone technology because it's cheaper. It appears likely to take another decade to get the JSF program where it should already be. By that time it'll be a trivial matter to swarm these planes out of the sky with drones that cost 5% to 10% as much per plane. Even a limited country such as Iran is going to be able to take down the F-35 by throwing multiple drones at it.

choarham 13y ago

so... how about that well funded school system we enjoy here in the US?

smegel 13y ago

Come on, planes are only part of the equation. Weapons, radar, air-to-air refueling, C4I, logistics, aircraft carriers...they will all make a big difference. The idea that a war is going to come down to a single F-35 vs a Sukhoi without any other support factors is a bit fanciful. The F-35 is looking a bit expensive for what you get though.

sirkneeland 13y ago

I read this and think "man, these guys are going to be great at running healthcare"

alexeisadeski3 13y ago

Modern fighter aircraft need to: a) not be seen b) be fast (time to target is still important!) c) carry a decent payload of weapons. Ideally target selection should be provided by AWACS, and missile-sensors provide the final kill guidance, allowing the fighter (AKA missile-launch platform) to remain stealthy. In the absence of AWACS, the fighter will need to carry it's own sensor suite. Modern air warfare is all about sensors, ECM and stealth. The airframe is almost inconsequential. (This comment is copy+pasted from demallien's comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6213619 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6213619 )

InclinedPlane 13y ago

It's tradition. Some of the biggest turds in fighter-plane history have come out of big, bloated "one-size-fits-all" development programs (like the F-111). And interestingly a lot of the most capable and long-lived combat aircraft have come about through rogue programs and fly offs trying to remedy the problems of being saddled with planes that just didn't work well. The F-16, A-10, F-14, etc.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

w_t_payne 13y ago

Well, the days of manned warplanes are fast running out anyway. UCAVs are the future, baby.