12 ms·

The Marines say the F-35 is now ready for combat

35 points by sangd 11y ago

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- Skunkleton 11y ago
  This article also only has one comment. UNTIL NOW.
  - the-dude 11y ago
    This comment has only one comment. UNTIL NOW.
escaped_hn 11y ago
I would hope so. The government paid 1.5 trillion for it.
- api 11y ago
  The government paid 1.5 trillion for an employment program for upper income engineers and managers that happened to produce a fighter jet as a side effect.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    So what should the government have done about its rapidly aging aircraft fleet?
    - api 11y ago
      First of all, manned fighter planes are dinosaurs. No human being can possibly react as quickly as a drone. Secondly, there are existing designs that I'm sure could be refreshed for a lot less than $1.5 trillion dollars. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with them -- reboot them with new electronics, better materials, etc. They'd still be far better than what anyone but maybe the Russians or the Chinese have -- and they're probably also moving to drones quickly.
      - engi_nerd 11y ago
        Drones can be jammed and even stolen (Iran did this a few years ago). And those existing designs have had refreshes and continual improvements. Look at a Block 60 F-16 and compare it to the first F-16s. But those designs have little room for growth. Boeing has even tried to create a stealthy version of the F-15, but has found no buyers, because even that aircrafts capabilities do not compare favorably to the avionics present in the F-35.
      - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
        No country is even remotely close to totally supplanting its air force with drones entirely. You speak as of these things are happening at a greater pace than they are.
      - corndoge 11y ago
        >No human being can possibly react as quickly as a drone Who do you think is flying the drones?
        threeseed 11y ago
        Algorithms. You do know they exist for flying drones and likely for detecting, intercepting and destroying other objects in the sky ?
        throwaway2048 11y ago
        The USA does not fly combat drones that do "detecting, intercepting and destroying".
        alkonaut 11y ago
        You do realize that an F-16 mission is flown by 1 pilot, and a drone mission is flown by 3-5 staff? It's not just manned flight it's 3-5x more manned than conventional craft, just from the ground.
      - alkonaut 11y ago
        Manned planes will fly for several decades still, and even upcoming generations will most likely be optionslly manned rather than unmanned. The line will blur between manned and unmanned however. Today's "drones" have more pilots than the manned craft! Often 4-5 for even a short mission. There is no autonomous flying. Quickly reacting autonomous fighters is still sci-fi. The problem with the F-35 project is mostly that it somehow was decided to replace the Harrier. Replacing the F-15/16/18 isn't a problems. Replacing the harrier with the same craft is an engineering nightmare. Upgrading old platforms is done continuously, up to a point where an upgrade would be so expensive/radical that a new design is better. Sticking more electronics in an old plane isn't easy, the power and cooling requirements can require big redesigns, for example. The planes it replaces are certainly near the end of their lifespans and have been upgraded a lot over several decades. What they should have done is not make just one plane. A replacement for the F-15/16/18 would have been much easier.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      1. Start with a profile of what kind of missions are run and which planes do them best. 2. Identify any overlaps to spot consolidation opportunities that don't increase risk with "jack of all trades, master of nothing" results (eg F-35). 3. With or without consolidation, invest money in each plane that proved most effective in the field and simply upgrade it. Last test I saw with F-35's vs F-16's saw the F-16's win. So, apparently it wouldn't have taken many upgrades. ;) I'd upgrade our top interceptor (eg F-15/F-16), multi-mission (esp F-18 Super Hornet), anti-vehicle (esp A-10), recon (eg U-2 or drones), and ECM craft for starters. Those would be volume while we invest some into improving premium aircraft we use in lower volumes such as F-117, F-22, and B-2. I'd say this would be a nice start. At ten billion into each, it still wouldn't touch the F-35 program in expense despite offering way more in results.
      - engi_nerd 11y ago
        That was not a dog fighting test. It was a test of F-35 flight controls. The F-16 was only present to provide a visual reference to maneuver with respect to. This is the kind of misconception that arises from David Axe's failure to properly understand his sources.
        nickpsecurity 11y ago
        Ok. Let's assume your right, he's misreporting things, and work from there. I'm interested in your assessment of its dogfighting capabilities based on that test or others. 1. Can a F-35 pilot visually track whats around them as well as a pilot of F-16's or Russian/Chinese hardware? 2. Can the craft turn as well as a F-16 or Russian/Chinese current gen fighter? 3. Does the cannon fire reliably and with enough ammunition to do its jobs? If any of these is no, then Axe is on point in terms of his conclusions. He's wrong if they're all Yes's and you can back that with testing results.
        engi_nerd 11y ago
        My assessment of dogfighting capabilities would be my own personal assessment. That would not be worth sharing, because it's not backed up by testing. The government is conducting operational testing now, but all you'll see made public is encapsulated here: http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/dunford-mulls-f-35b-ioc-decision-4-bs-take-out-9-attackers/ http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/dunford-mulls-f-35b-ioc-d... More developmental testing will occur over the coming years. But I have nothing public to share with you. To answer your questions: 1) What do you mean by "visually track"? If you mean "with the good old Mark 1 Eyeball", no. The F-35 doesn't have the cockpit visibility of an F-16 or something like an Su-27/35. Now, if you mean, with avionics, then yes, far better. Check out this video on the EODAS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fm5vfGW5RY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fm5vfGW5RY Spotting things hundreds of miles away is very realizable with this system. 2) Can the craft turn as well as an F-16? Well, what kind of F-16? A clean F-16? That's going to be hard to beat even by a lot of combat UAVs. An F-16 with a usable combat load of bombs and A2A missiles? Yes, the F-35 has comparable maneuverability to this configuration of F-16, AND it carries all that ordnance and fuel internally, maintaining stealth. Check out the maneuverability section of this excellent resource for more info: https://comprehensiveinformation.wordpress.com/ https://comprehensiveinformation.wordpress.com/ 3) Does the cannon fire reliably and with enough ammunition to do its jobs? In ground tests, yes, it does well. The first in aircraft test was done last month (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1HJjcVIuJg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1HJjcVIuJg). It fired 10 rounds without problems. More testing to come in the future. Basically, he has an idea of the plane in his head -- like you seem to have -- and he's bending all the facts to this narrative. It's a thing that humans do. But all this reads very differently to someone who looks at this stuff every day.
    - bjourne 11y ago
      Why not replace it with drones? I thought the writing was on the wall for fighter jets and bombers and in 5-10 years they can operate autonomously just as well as your average pilot can fly them. Since there is no human in them, they can be smaller, fly faster and tolerate stronger G-forces. If a manned plane is shot down, the US public gets upset but if it is a drone, no one cares. Hell, even losing two dozen drones would hurt less than a single F-35. You seem to know a lot about aviation so I wonder why you don't think drones are a viable replacement?
      - engi_nerd 11y ago
        They are not as of this very moment a viable total replacement. A valuable supplement to manned aviation, yes, drones are already doing this. In a few decades, who is to say? I don't know enough to even hope to make a prediction. So these are problems that exist now: The data link between the drone operator and drone is a weak link. It can be intercepted, studied, and even broken. Again, the Iran RQ-170 incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incid... This is not an insurmountable problem, but it means that drones are not an end-all solution at this time. Drones are not cheap themselves. The X-47 program cost is over 800 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B Now most of that is R&D, and should the type be produced in significant numbers, expect costs per unit to be much much lower, but doing some rough figuring, I doubt that costs will ever be much below $20 million per copy. Simply based on the sensor packages that would be installed. Drones as they are now require more staffing (they can fly for long periods of time, and you need regular crew swaps). And they're not the sexiest things to operate (see: http://www.rt.com/usa/us-drone-pilots-exhausted-demoralized-512/ http://www.rt.com/usa/us-drone-pilots-exhausted-demoralized-...).
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  Please stop repeating this misconception. To date, less than $100 billion (that's one hundred thousand millions) USD has been spent on the program. Total cost of research and development is $54.9 billion, the rest is the cost of acquiring the aircraft that have been purchased thus far. The cost to acquire 2,443 aircraft (the currently planned production run) is $257.2 billion in 2012 USD. Operations costs for the next 55 years are projected to be either $597.8 billion USD (if you believe CAPE) or $535.8 billion USD (if you believe the JSF Program Office). Both of those organizations have projected the total cost of the program and have said either $1016.5 billion (CAPE) or $859.0 billion (JPO). All data taken from this document http://defense-update.com/files/member/JPO-SAR-14.PDF http://defense-update.com/files/member/JPO-SAR-14.PDF, which is an official extraction from a much longer and more involved report, which you can view here: http://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/04/F-35-2013-SAR.pdf http://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/0...
  - tim333 11y ago
    From 2012: "The government now projects that the total cost to develop, buy and operate the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be $1.51 trillion over the next 50-plus years, according to a Pentagon document obtained by Reuters" Dunno if it's true but it's still mentioned in the Wikipedia article.
    - engi_nerd 11y ago
      I pointed to the latest selected acquisition report, which is the definitive document regarding program costs. It is to be considered the authoritative source for cost data related to this program. It is more recent than the document referenced in the Wikipedia article.
    - nostrademons 11y ago
      "The government is projected to pay $1.51T over the next 50-plus years" is a very different statement from "The government paid $1.5T for it."
  - mikeyouse 11y ago
yellowapple 11y ago
If the money spent on this failure of a flying machine went to NASA's budget instead, we'd probably have a Mars colony by now.
- robbrown451 11y ago
  Other than being kind of cool, what would be the advantage of a Mars colony again?
  - fit2rule 11y ago
    We could get away from all the crazy wars that people are starting here on Earth.
  - foiboitoi 11y ago
    Colonizing Mars would advance our technology far enough to give us confidence to research forward into colonizing beyond our solar system. Which is arguably the next major important developmental steps as a species.
  - yellowapple 11y ago
    Let's see: * Another planet to live on if we mess up Earth sufficiently bad (though, if we can live on Mars, we can probably live on a pretty-fucked-up Earth) * Close proximity to the asteroid belt (which is already being examined for mining activity) * Arguably the least hostile to colonization among the planets * Has water ice, might have liquid water * Respect from Buzz Aldrin
dpflan 11y ago
According to the history of the development: The original F-35 was designed to meet Marine Corps demands for a supersonic, short takeoff/vertical landing plane. That vertical landing requirement dictated an extremely wide, 50-inch fan blowing straight down for lift and sucking air through a huge intake door on top of the fuselage directly behind the pilot. That, in turn, led to an unusually fat fuselage that is so high it completely obstructs the rear of the canopy. Subsequently, when the Air Force and the Navy were enticed into joining the F-35 program — supposedly to benefit from the “savings” of a large 2,500 unit tri-service buy (savings that quickly turned into huge cost overruns) — they both had to accept the fat fuselage and lack of rearward visibility of the Marine Corps version. [1.] So, perhaps it meets their specifications and use cases, but not the other organizations'. Source: [1.] https://medium.com/war-is-boring/everything-wrong-with-the-f-35-3b62e8b3b432 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/everything-wrong-with-the-f... [2.] Many HN submissions with discussions: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=f-35&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=f-35&sort=byPopularity&prefix&...
- digi_owl 11y ago
  Never mind the whole NATO pileup...
swasheck 11y ago
now ship them to enemies of the us as a trojan horse.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Add a subtly-flawed, long-range, detection system and yours is the best use for it I've seen. Reminds me of the Dijkstra quote on System/360 design issues: "I characterized the Russian decision to build a bit-compatible copy of the IBM 360 as the greatest American victory in the Cold War."
nickpsecurity 11y ago
David Axe has a great, thorough writeup on how F-35 became the worst, most expensive, plane in our arsenal and will probably just get our pilots killed. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-allies-got-stuck-with-the-worlds-worst-new-warplane-5c95d45f86a5 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-alli... I was extra mad that they're moving to get rid of the A-10's in favor of this garbage. Originally learned about them with the A-10 Tank Killer games on PC. Later read how they shredded the opponents' vehicles in one campaign after another, even recent ones, despite being highly exposed to enemy fire. They're beasts. And that's just one example of something that does its job more effectively and at better cost than F-35... which is also being decommissioned to support F-35 program. There's quite a few more that each could've been updated with less money than F-35 took.
- ethanbond 11y ago
  Which highly mechanized army are we fighting?
  - protomyth 11y ago
    The A-10 is an absolute beast against the people we are currently fighting. It also can hang around and provide cover for a much longer time than the F-35.
    - ethanbond 11y ago
      I don't know enough to have a solid opinion, but at a surface level I can see enormous value in the F35. The growing threat against western militaries are asymmetric threats, and the US's modus operandi for quite a while has been to empower the carrier strike groups to project power over wherever these threats may start heating up. If a carrier has to carry a bomber and two escorts and now an F35 can be 80% as good as each of those at their respective task but take up < 33% of the space, that seems valuable. How does this whole F35 thing pan out when logistics like that are taken into account?
      - 11y ago
PaulHoule 11y ago
Yeah, if the marine opens the cockpit a crack and fires a handgun at the enemy.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Lmao. Offense in depth leveraging Marine marksmanship.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  Not to justify this asinine comment, but the cockpit of an F-35 opens forward, so the force of the air passing over it would prevent it from opening. http://www.vtol.org/images/dmGallery/SourceImage/fig%203%20-%2011P00468_067_LoRes.jpg http://www.vtol.org/images/dmGallery/SourceImage/fig%203%20-...
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  Just need to add a port-hole...
protomyth 11y ago
While the F-35B has now reached what’s called its “initial operational capability,” the plane’s development is not complete. There are still updates to the software that need to be implemented. Did the "fire the gun" software get installed or is it still a to-do item?
- toyg 11y ago
  We'll get to that once it's finished applying 345476 Windows updates. Only 10 reboots to go...
  - protomyth 11y ago
    Sadly, I'm actually being quite serious[1]. The update from last year gave a likely 2019 which was later corrected to 2017. I doubt it made it to 2015. 1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11319455/F-35-stealth-jet-will-not-be-able-to-fire-its-guns-until-2019.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1...
    - PirateDave 11y ago
      This reminds me of an anecdote that a Marine officer once told me. He said that when the Air Force builds a new base, they're given a certain budget and they build every part of the base, gym, mess hall, rec facilities e.t.c. and use the entirety of the budget to make the base nice and comfortable for the airmen that are stationed there. Then, when the base is almost completed, and over schedule, the party in charge asks for more money, and more time because they still need to build the most important part of the base, the flight-line. I know this is most likely an embellishment, but being involved with government work in the past, it doesn't sound far off from the truth and felt it fit nicely in this situation.
      - plonh 11y ago
        Interestingly, this is the similar to how municipal services are funding. Authorities build out the police and internal government pork, and then cut the parks and schools projects and go to the pulic for tax increases.
alkonaut 11y ago
Now if they ask me (wouldn't that be odd? "let's ask one of those guys on the Internet..."). After the F-35 program is cut back from a couple of thousand to a few hundred craft, and then completely cancelled, this is what I think should happen: 1) extensions and upgrades to old platforms. Aesa/irst and modern bvr for all craft. 2) Make a new cheaper "4.5 gen" multirole platform with low operation costs, and no silly budget-breaking features: no full Stealth, no jumpjet. Instead just low radar cross section, supercruise, and lots of payload (f-35 can carry very little because of stealth and jumpjet design constraints). Looking at the Gripen, this should be possible at a fraction of the cost of an F-35. 3) tell the marines they can stop using jumpjets and use choppers or drones or whatever. Jumpjets are a dead end. 4) Make a few more F-22's in case the ultra expensive air superiority is needed.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Sounds like good ideas. No 3 in particular might save Marine's lives if they get rid of the Osprey. There's a new counterargument: stop killing your own people and get them to the battlefield instead.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    So you get rid of the Osprey. Congratulations, now you have a tactical gap because you have no more medium transport capability. The CH-46 (the previous medium lift helicopter for the USMC) is officially retired as of August 1, 2015. Now you need to develop a new aircraft. Even if you choose a civilian aircraft and militarize it, you're looking at a decade where you have no medium lift.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      You assumed I'd do it instantly. That's a bad assumption and you came up with the reasons yourself. It would take time.
      - engi_nerd 11y ago
douche 11y ago
Well, this got flagkilled off the front-page quickly...
CamperBob2 11y ago
You seem to have a dog in the fight. Anything to disclose?
- enraged_camel 11y ago
  You got downvoted but I agree with you. Reading engi_nerd's comments in this thread, one can't help but notice that he rigorously defends the F-35 and questions the credibility of anyone (e.g. David Axle) who points out major flaws in the plane's design. Even if he's not a paid shill, I would bet money that he's involved in the military-industrial complex somehow.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    Yup, and comments in other threads. >I currently work as an aircraft telemetry and instrumentation engineer, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9907687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9907687
    - engi_nerd 11y ago
      Correct. No denying this. But I'm not here to be a jerk or a shill. Just talking about things I have some experience with.
      - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        You've got a connection to the industry, and an apparent emotional response to F-35 criticism. (but who wants to about a subject which they are indifferent to? That's no fun.) For all we know your livelihood may depend in some way upon the F-35. I'm not saying you're always wrong, but I am going to naturally skeptical.
        engi_nerd 11y ago
        I have admitted my passion elsewhere in this thread. Is the population of HN not passionate about things? This is, from my years long lurking of the site (I have lurked here since at least 2009 that I can clearly remember) one of the places on the internet where passion can be shared in a responsible way. I do not seek to bash those who doubt the plane on a personal level. What I would hope is that I address their objections from fact. Now, if the facts support their arguments, then I would like to think that I would be the first to admit that. But if the facts are otherwise, then I hope I've done a good job of linking to and explaining public information. And this interaction has sort of confirmed why I am always hesitant to talk about what I do (aside from the obvious reasons why people in this industry are encouraged to not say much), because people see that and make some disparaging remarks. I am not thrilled.
TwoBit 11y ago
Ready for combat? Against who?
- robotresearcher 11y ago
  Preferably nobody at all. That's the strategy. Outrageous air superiority means nobody wants to fight. Fighting the US conventionally means you lose all your shit in 48 hours.
  - Intermernet 11y ago
    Seems like a flawed strategy. The US already has outrageous air superiority and people still want to fight them. And these conflicts tend to go on for much longer than 48 hrs. Someone should really tell "the enemy" that they're doing it wrong. They were meant to give up years ago!
    - curiousjorge 11y ago
      Maybe this was like a Reagan era military spending play. Outspend your enemies so that they will go bankrupt trying to copy you.
    - berntb 11y ago
      You did get the point I think, there is a lack of conventional wars the last few decades. Russia is doing the 1930s Hitler/Stalin thing of expansion, but avoiding "real" wars. And so on. (Yep, hellbanned.)
mmaunder 11y ago
The F-15 Eagle entered service in 1976 (first flew in 72) and will be in service up until 2025. That's 49 years. Considering the cost and assuming it works out, 30 years for procurement for the F-35 seems reasonable. The SR71's top speed was just over mach 3. The F-15 can reach mach 2.5. The Mig-25's top speed is mach 2.8 but was clocked by the USA over Israel at Mach 3.2 (Yeah, the SR71 ain't all that). Mig 31's top speed is mach 2.83. The F-22's top speed is Mach 2.25. The F-35 is a measly mach 1.6. I think this shift in priorities is revealing and goes beyond a mere obsession with supermaneuverability. The USA is now able to project force around the World, so the need for a fighter that can get somewhere at very high speed is not what it used to be. Now we need a fighter than can be invisible, be great at surveillance and jamming and if it gets into trouble must be able to completely out maneuver the enemy. So slow, smart, invisible and highly maneuverable is what we got. I watched the F-22 do a Herbst maneuver today at the Seafair in Seattle which is impossible without thrust vectoring. It's an amazing and weird sight. While the new breed of fighters have taken a lot of flak, I wouldn't want to get into a dogfight with one of them while flying a fighter that has traditional control surfaces that need stable airflow when they're able to fly below stall speed at crazy angles of attack and use thrust vectoring to change direction with zero airflow over their control surfaces.
- dingaling 11y ago
  No modern aircraft are 'invisible' in any area of the spectrum. In terms of radar cross-sections, low-RCS champions like the F-22 only have reduced returns in certain aspects and that only reduces the range at which they can be detected, it doesn't render them invisible^. In terms of imaging infra-red all modern aircraft glow like candles. Even the B-2, which has various nifty features such as contrail-suppression, is a big hot pancake against the sky and makes a lovely 'hole' against the cosmic radiation background, or TV signals... ^ source: a relation who in a former career often tracked F-117s. The radar detection range was indeed reduced by an order of magnitude but once detected they could be tracked. And when using mobile radars the 'red force' on exercises were often able to align their radars with the aspects of strongest signal return.
  - mmaunder 11y ago

35 points by sangd 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Skunkleton 11y ago
This article also only has one comment. UNTIL NOW.
- the-dude 11y ago
  This comment has only one comment. UNTIL NOW.

escaped_hn 11y ago

I would hope so. The government paid 1.5 trillion for it.

api 11y ago
The government paid 1.5 trillion for an employment program for upper income engineers and managers that happened to produce a fighter jet as a side effect.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  So what should the government have done about its rapidly aging aircraft fleet?
  - api 11y ago
    First of all, manned fighter planes are dinosaurs. No human being can possibly react as quickly as a drone. Secondly, there are existing designs that I'm sure could be refreshed for a lot less than $1.5 trillion dollars. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with them -- reboot them with new electronics, better materials, etc. They'd still be far better than what anyone but maybe the Russians or the Chinese have -- and they're probably also moving to drones quickly.
    - engi_nerd 11y ago
      Drones can be jammed and even stolen (Iran did this a few years ago). And those existing designs have had refreshes and continual improvements. Look at a Block 60 F-16 and compare it to the first F-16s. But those designs have little room for growth. Boeing has even tried to create a stealthy version of the F-15, but has found no buyers, because even that aircrafts capabilities do not compare favorably to the avionics present in the F-35.
    - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
      No country is even remotely close to totally supplanting its air force with drones entirely. You speak as of these things are happening at a greater pace than they are.
    - corndoge 11y ago
      >No human being can possibly react as quickly as a drone Who do you think is flying the drones?
      - threeseed 11y ago
        Algorithms. You do know they exist for flying drones and likely for detecting, intercepting and destroying other objects in the sky ?
        throwaway2048 11y ago
        The USA does not fly combat drones that do "detecting, intercepting and destroying".
        alkonaut 11y ago
        You do realize that an F-16 mission is flown by 1 pilot, and a drone mission is flown by 3-5 staff? It's not just manned flight it's 3-5x more manned than conventional craft, just from the ground.
    - alkonaut 11y ago
      Manned planes will fly for several decades still, and even upcoming generations will most likely be optionslly manned rather than unmanned. The line will blur between manned and unmanned however. Today's "drones" have more pilots than the manned craft! Often 4-5 for even a short mission. There is no autonomous flying. Quickly reacting autonomous fighters is still sci-fi. The problem with the F-35 project is mostly that it somehow was decided to replace the Harrier. Replacing the F-15/16/18 isn't a problems. Replacing the harrier with the same craft is an engineering nightmare. Upgrading old platforms is done continuously, up to a point where an upgrade would be so expensive/radical that a new design is better. Sticking more electronics in an old plane isn't easy, the power and cooling requirements can require big redesigns, for example. The planes it replaces are certainly near the end of their lifespans and have been upgraded a lot over several decades. What they should have done is not make just one plane. A replacement for the F-15/16/18 would have been much easier.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    1. Start with a profile of what kind of missions are run and which planes do them best. 2. Identify any overlaps to spot consolidation opportunities that don't increase risk with "jack of all trades, master of nothing" results (eg F-35). 3. With or without consolidation, invest money in each plane that proved most effective in the field and simply upgrade it. Last test I saw with F-35's vs F-16's saw the F-16's win. So, apparently it wouldn't have taken many upgrades. ;) I'd upgrade our top interceptor (eg F-15/F-16), multi-mission (esp F-18 Super Hornet), anti-vehicle (esp A-10), recon (eg U-2 or drones), and ECM craft for starters. Those would be volume while we invest some into improving premium aircraft we use in lower volumes such as F-117, F-22, and B-2. I'd say this would be a nice start. At ten billion into each, it still wouldn't touch the F-35 program in expense despite offering way more in results.
    - engi_nerd 11y ago
      That was not a dog fighting test. It was a test of F-35 flight controls. The F-16 was only present to provide a visual reference to maneuver with respect to. This is the kind of misconception that arises from David Axe's failure to properly understand his sources.
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        Ok. Let's assume your right, he's misreporting things, and work from there. I'm interested in your assessment of its dogfighting capabilities based on that test or others. 1. Can a F-35 pilot visually track whats around them as well as a pilot of F-16's or Russian/Chinese hardware? 2. Can the craft turn as well as a F-16 or Russian/Chinese current gen fighter? 3. Does the cannon fire reliably and with enough ammunition to do its jobs? If any of these is no, then Axe is on point in terms of his conclusions. He's wrong if they're all Yes's and you can back that with testing results.
        engi_nerd 11y ago
        My assessment of dogfighting capabilities would be my own personal assessment. That would not be worth sharing, because it's not backed up by testing. The government is conducting operational testing now, but all you'll see made public is encapsulated here: http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/dunford-mulls-f-35b-ioc-decision-4-bs-take-out-9-attackers/ http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/dunford-mulls-f-35b-ioc-d... More developmental testing will occur over the coming years. But I have nothing public to share with you. To answer your questions: 1) What do you mean by "visually track"? If you mean "with the good old Mark 1 Eyeball", no. The F-35 doesn't have the cockpit visibility of an F-16 or something like an Su-27/35. Now, if you mean, with avionics, then yes, far better. Check out this video on the EODAS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fm5vfGW5RY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fm5vfGW5RY Spotting things hundreds of miles away is very realizable with this system. 2) Can the craft turn as well as an F-16? Well, what kind of F-16? A clean F-16? That's going to be hard to beat even by a lot of combat UAVs. An F-16 with a usable combat load of bombs and A2A missiles? Yes, the F-35 has comparable maneuverability to this configuration of F-16, AND it carries all that ordnance and fuel internally, maintaining stealth. Check out the maneuverability section of this excellent resource for more info: https://comprehensiveinformation.wordpress.com/ https://comprehensiveinformation.wordpress.com/ 3) Does the cannon fire reliably and with enough ammunition to do its jobs? In ground tests, yes, it does well. The first in aircraft test was done last month (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1HJjcVIuJg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1HJjcVIuJg). It fired 10 rounds without problems. More testing to come in the future. Basically, he has an idea of the plane in his head -- like you seem to have -- and he's bending all the facts to this narrative. It's a thing that humans do. But all this reads very differently to someone who looks at this stuff every day.
  - bjourne 11y ago
    Why not replace it with drones? I thought the writing was on the wall for fighter jets and bombers and in 5-10 years they can operate autonomously just as well as your average pilot can fly them. Since there is no human in them, they can be smaller, fly faster and tolerate stronger G-forces. If a manned plane is shot down, the US public gets upset but if it is a drone, no one cares. Hell, even losing two dozen drones would hurt less than a single F-35. You seem to know a lot about aviation so I wonder why you don't think drones are a viable replacement?
    - engi_nerd 11y ago
      They are not as of this very moment a viable total replacement. A valuable supplement to manned aviation, yes, drones are already doing this. In a few decades, who is to say? I don't know enough to even hope to make a prediction. So these are problems that exist now: The data link between the drone operator and drone is a weak link. It can be intercepted, studied, and even broken. Again, the Iran RQ-170 incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incid... This is not an insurmountable problem, but it means that drones are not an end-all solution at this time. Drones are not cheap themselves. The X-47 program cost is over 800 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B Now most of that is R&D, and should the type be produced in significant numbers, expect costs per unit to be much much lower, but doing some rough figuring, I doubt that costs will ever be much below $20 million per copy. Simply based on the sensor packages that would be installed. Drones as they are now require more staffing (they can fly for long periods of time, and you need regular crew swaps). And they're not the sexiest things to operate (see: http://www.rt.com/usa/us-drone-pilots-exhausted-demoralized-512/ http://www.rt.com/usa/us-drone-pilots-exhausted-demoralized-...).
engi_nerd 11y ago
Please stop repeating this misconception. To date, less than $100 billion (that's one hundred thousand millions) USD has been spent on the program. Total cost of research and development is $54.9 billion, the rest is the cost of acquiring the aircraft that have been purchased thus far. The cost to acquire 2,443 aircraft (the currently planned production run) is $257.2 billion in 2012 USD. Operations costs for the next 55 years are projected to be either $597.8 billion USD (if you believe CAPE) or $535.8 billion USD (if you believe the JSF Program Office). Both of those organizations have projected the total cost of the program and have said either $1016.5 billion (CAPE) or $859.0 billion (JPO). All data taken from this document http://defense-update.com/files/member/JPO-SAR-14.PDF http://defense-update.com/files/member/JPO-SAR-14.PDF, which is an official extraction from a much longer and more involved report, which you can view here: http://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/04/F-35-2013-SAR.pdf http://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/0...
- tim333 11y ago
  From 2012: "The government now projects that the total cost to develop, buy and operate the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be $1.51 trillion over the next 50-plus years, according to a Pentagon document obtained by Reuters" Dunno if it's true but it's still mentioned in the Wikipedia article.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    I pointed to the latest selected acquisition report, which is the definitive document regarding program costs. It is to be considered the authoritative source for cost data related to this program. It is more recent than the document referenced in the Wikipedia article.
  - nostrademons 11y ago
    "The government is projected to pay $1.51T over the next 50-plus years" is a very different statement from "The government paid $1.5T for it."
- mikeyouse 11y ago

yellowapple 11y ago

If the money spent on this failure of a flying machine went to NASA's budget instead, we'd probably have a Mars colony by now.

robbrown451 11y ago
Other than being kind of cool, what would be the advantage of a Mars colony again?
- fit2rule 11y ago
  We could get away from all the crazy wars that people are starting here on Earth.
- foiboitoi 11y ago
  Colonizing Mars would advance our technology far enough to give us confidence to research forward into colonizing beyond our solar system. Which is arguably the next major important developmental steps as a species.
- yellowapple 11y ago
  Let's see: * Another planet to live on if we mess up Earth sufficiently bad (though, if we can live on Mars, we can probably live on a pretty-fucked-up Earth) * Close proximity to the asteroid belt (which is already being examined for mining activity) * Arguably the least hostile to colonization among the planets * Has water ice, might have liquid water * Respect from Buzz Aldrin

dpflan 11y ago

According to the history of the development: The original F-35 was designed to meet Marine Corps demands for a supersonic, short takeoff/vertical landing plane. That vertical landing requirement dictated an extremely wide, 50-inch fan blowing straight down for lift and sucking air through a huge intake door on top of the fuselage directly behind the pilot. That, in turn, led to an unusually fat fuselage that is so high it completely obstructs the rear of the canopy. Subsequently, when the Air Force and the Navy were enticed into joining the F-35 program — supposedly to benefit from the “savings” of a large 2,500 unit tri-service buy (savings that quickly turned into huge cost overruns) — they both had to accept the fat fuselage and lack of rearward visibility of the Marine Corps version. [1.] So, perhaps it meets their specifications and use cases, but not the other organizations'. Source: [1.] https://medium.com/war-is-boring/everything-wrong-with-the-f-35-3b62e8b3b432 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/everything-wrong-with-the-f... [2.] Many HN submissions with discussions: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=f-35&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=f-35&sort=byPopularity&prefix&...

digi_owl 11y ago
Never mind the whole NATO pileup...

swasheck 11y ago

now ship them to enemies of the us as a trojan horse.

nickpsecurity 11y ago
Add a subtly-flawed, long-range, detection system and yours is the best use for it I've seen. Reminds me of the Dijkstra quote on System/360 design issues: "I characterized the Russian decision to build a bit-compatible copy of the IBM 360 as the greatest American victory in the Cold War."

nickpsecurity 11y ago

David Axe has a great, thorough writeup on how F-35 became the worst, most expensive, plane in our arsenal and will probably just get our pilots killed. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-allies-got-stuck-with-the-worlds-worst-new-warplane-5c95d45f86a5 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-alli... I was extra mad that they're moving to get rid of the A-10's in favor of this garbage. Originally learned about them with the A-10 Tank Killer games on PC. Later read how they shredded the opponents' vehicles in one campaign after another, even recent ones, despite being highly exposed to enemy fire. They're beasts. And that's just one example of something that does its job more effectively and at better cost than F-35... which is also being decommissioned to support F-35 program. There's quite a few more that each could've been updated with less money than F-35 took.

ethanbond 11y ago
Which highly mechanized army are we fighting?
- protomyth 11y ago
  The A-10 is an absolute beast against the people we are currently fighting. It also can hang around and provide cover for a much longer time than the F-35.
  - ethanbond 11y ago
    I don't know enough to have a solid opinion, but at a surface level I can see enormous value in the F35. The growing threat against western militaries are asymmetric threats, and the US's modus operandi for quite a while has been to empower the carrier strike groups to project power over wherever these threats may start heating up. If a carrier has to carry a bomber and two escorts and now an F35 can be 80% as good as each of those at their respective task but take up < 33% of the space, that seems valuable. How does this whole F35 thing pan out when logistics like that are taken into account?
    - 11y ago

PaulHoule 11y ago

Yeah, if the marine opens the cockpit a crack and fires a handgun at the enemy.

nickpsecurity 11y ago
Lmao. Offense in depth leveraging Marine marksmanship.
engi_nerd 11y ago
Not to justify this asinine comment, but the cockpit of an F-35 opens forward, so the force of the air passing over it would prevent it from opening. http://www.vtol.org/images/dmGallery/SourceImage/fig%203%20-%2011P00468_067_LoRes.jpg http://www.vtol.org/images/dmGallery/SourceImage/fig%203%20-...
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
Just need to add a port-hole...

protomyth 11y ago

While the F-35B has now reached what’s called its “initial operational capability,” the plane’s development is not complete. There are still updates to the software that need to be implemented. Did the "fire the gun" software get installed or is it still a to-do item?

toyg 11y ago
We'll get to that once it's finished applying 345476 Windows updates. Only 10 reboots to go...
- protomyth 11y ago
  Sadly, I'm actually being quite serious[1]. The update from last year gave a likely 2019 which was later corrected to 2017. I doubt it made it to 2015. 1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11319455/F-35-stealth-jet-will-not-be-able-to-fire-its-guns-until-2019.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1...
  - PirateDave 11y ago
    This reminds me of an anecdote that a Marine officer once told me. He said that when the Air Force builds a new base, they're given a certain budget and they build every part of the base, gym, mess hall, rec facilities e.t.c. and use the entirety of the budget to make the base nice and comfortable for the airmen that are stationed there. Then, when the base is almost completed, and over schedule, the party in charge asks for more money, and more time because they still need to build the most important part of the base, the flight-line. I know this is most likely an embellishment, but being involved with government work in the past, it doesn't sound far off from the truth and felt it fit nicely in this situation.
    - plonh 11y ago
      Interestingly, this is the similar to how municipal services are funding. Authorities build out the police and internal government pork, and then cut the parks and schools projects and go to the pulic for tax increases.

alkonaut 11y ago

Now if they ask me (wouldn't that be odd? "let's ask one of those guys on the Internet..."). After the F-35 program is cut back from a couple of thousand to a few hundred craft, and then completely cancelled, this is what I think should happen: 1) extensions and upgrades to old platforms. Aesa/irst and modern bvr for all craft. 2) Make a new cheaper "4.5 gen" multirole platform with low operation costs, and no silly budget-breaking features: no full Stealth, no jumpjet. Instead just low radar cross section, supercruise, and lots of payload (f-35 can carry very little because of stealth and jumpjet design constraints). Looking at the Gripen, this should be possible at a fraction of the cost of an F-35. 3) tell the marines they can stop using jumpjets and use choppers or drones or whatever. Jumpjets are a dead end. 4) Make a few more F-22's in case the ultra expensive air superiority is needed.

nickpsecurity 11y ago
Sounds like good ideas. No 3 in particular might save Marine's lives if they get rid of the Osprey. There's a new counterargument: stop killing your own people and get them to the battlefield instead.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  So you get rid of the Osprey. Congratulations, now you have a tactical gap because you have no more medium transport capability. The CH-46 (the previous medium lift helicopter for the USMC) is officially retired as of August 1, 2015. Now you need to develop a new aircraft. Even if you choose a civilian aircraft and militarize it, you're looking at a decade where you have no medium lift.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    You assumed I'd do it instantly. That's a bad assumption and you came up with the reasons yourself. It would take time.
    - engi_nerd 11y ago

douche 11y ago

Well, this got flagkilled off the front-page quickly...

CamperBob2 11y ago

You seem to have a dog in the fight. Anything to disclose?

enraged_camel 11y ago
You got downvoted but I agree with you. Reading engi_nerd's comments in this thread, one can't help but notice that he rigorously defends the F-35 and questions the credibility of anyone (e.g. David Axle) who points out major flaws in the plane's design. Even if he's not a paid shill, I would bet money that he's involved in the military-industrial complex somehow.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  Yup, and comments in other threads. >I currently work as an aircraft telemetry and instrumentation engineer, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9907687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9907687
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    Correct. No denying this. But I'm not here to be a jerk or a shill. Just talking about things I have some experience with.
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      You've got a connection to the industry, and an apparent emotional response to F-35 criticism. (but who wants to about a subject which they are indifferent to? That's no fun.) For all we know your livelihood may depend in some way upon the F-35. I'm not saying you're always wrong, but I am going to naturally skeptical.
      - engi_nerd 11y ago
        I have admitted my passion elsewhere in this thread. Is the population of HN not passionate about things? This is, from my years long lurking of the site (I have lurked here since at least 2009 that I can clearly remember) one of the places on the internet where passion can be shared in a responsible way. I do not seek to bash those who doubt the plane on a personal level. What I would hope is that I address their objections from fact. Now, if the facts support their arguments, then I would like to think that I would be the first to admit that. But if the facts are otherwise, then I hope I've done a good job of linking to and explaining public information. And this interaction has sort of confirmed why I am always hesitant to talk about what I do (aside from the obvious reasons why people in this industry are encouraged to not say much), because people see that and make some disparaging remarks. I am not thrilled.

TwoBit 11y ago

Ready for combat? Against who?

robotresearcher 11y ago
Preferably nobody at all. That's the strategy. Outrageous air superiority means nobody wants to fight. Fighting the US conventionally means you lose all your shit in 48 hours.
- Intermernet 11y ago
  Seems like a flawed strategy. The US already has outrageous air superiority and people still want to fight them. And these conflicts tend to go on for much longer than 48 hrs. Someone should really tell "the enemy" that they're doing it wrong. They were meant to give up years ago!
  - curiousjorge 11y ago
    Maybe this was like a Reagan era military spending play. Outspend your enemies so that they will go bankrupt trying to copy you.
  - berntb 11y ago
    You did get the point I think, there is a lack of conventional wars the last few decades. Russia is doing the 1930s Hitler/Stalin thing of expansion, but avoiding "real" wars. And so on. (Yep, hellbanned.)

mmaunder 11y ago

The F-15 Eagle entered service in 1976 (first flew in 72) and will be in service up until 2025. That's 49 years. Considering the cost and assuming it works out, 30 years for procurement for the F-35 seems reasonable. The SR71's top speed was just over mach 3. The F-15 can reach mach 2.5. The Mig-25's top speed is mach 2.8 but was clocked by the USA over Israel at Mach 3.2 (Yeah, the SR71 ain't all that). Mig 31's top speed is mach 2.83. The F-22's top speed is Mach 2.25. The F-35 is a measly mach 1.6. I think this shift in priorities is revealing and goes beyond a mere obsession with supermaneuverability. The USA is now able to project force around the World, so the need for a fighter that can get somewhere at very high speed is not what it used to be. Now we need a fighter than can be invisible, be great at surveillance and jamming and if it gets into trouble must be able to completely out maneuver the enemy. So slow, smart, invisible and highly maneuverable is what we got. I watched the F-22 do a Herbst maneuver today at the Seafair in Seattle which is impossible without thrust vectoring. It's an amazing and weird sight. While the new breed of fighters have taken a lot of flak, I wouldn't want to get into a dogfight with one of them while flying a fighter that has traditional control surfaces that need stable airflow when they're able to fly below stall speed at crazy angles of attack and use thrust vectoring to change direction with zero airflow over their control surfaces.

dingaling 11y ago
No modern aircraft are 'invisible' in any area of the spectrum. In terms of radar cross-sections, low-RCS champions like the F-22 only have reduced returns in certain aspects and that only reduces the range at which they can be detected, it doesn't render them invisible^. In terms of imaging infra-red all modern aircraft glow like candles. Even the B-2, which has various nifty features such as contrail-suppression, is a big hot pancake against the sky and makes a lovely 'hole' against the cosmic radiation background, or TV signals... ^ source: a relation who in a former career often tracked F-117s. The radar detection range was indeed reduced by an order of magnitude but once detected they could be tracked. And when using mobile radars the 'red force' on exercises were often able to align their radars with the aspects of strongest signal return.
- mmaunder 11y ago