11 ms·

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?
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    The easy way to do it is to just ask, "When have we been unable to destroy enemy vehicles or structures due to extra planes?" We did it in Iraq faster than ever with our current configuration of various, specialized aircraft. What you're mentioning can be done with F-18's and A-10's against most countries. The top opponents are investing in, again, aircraft specialized for certain types of missions that will dominate F-35 in any performance test. China's F-35 is already better than ours for instance. I'm not sure if they sent Lockheed a thanks for all the free R&D. ;)
    - threeseed 11y ago
      > China's F-35 is already better than ours for instance Where is the evidence for this ? Everything I've read about the J-31 has said that it isn't a match for the F-35 at all and actually isn't even a program yet (just a prototype has been built).
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        Might be true. There's little to draw on for either side of the argument. Original article I cited was the basis for my claim where it showed they had eliminated weaknesses in F-35 in their clone. That's already better for short-range. Whether it's better for long-range will depend on their detection and missile tech. Or how much of ours they stole and improved on.
        engi_nerd 11y ago
        Their only evidence was their own claims. Unsubstantiated in any public source. Please please stop taking "maybes" and speculation and presenting it as fact. That's what irks me about David Axe. I'm really confused, because I have read through some of your other commentary here on programming and security issues and you seem quite intelligent and solid there. So why spread so much FUD about something that's outside of your wheelhouse? You're certainly allowed and encouraged to ask questions, investigate, etc, but you're presenting yourself as an expert on this sort of thing when you aren't.
        nickpsecurity 11y ago
        I am operating outside my expertise: security and system engineering as you noted. Having to rely on third parties way more than I like. One seems to misrepresent the situation to push his personal success. You've illustrated this pretty well on F-16 case. Another systematically misrepresents the necessity/effectiveness of programs to rake in billions of dollars and has been caught in such schemes many times. Gets away with it because Congress has lots of votes/stock in defense and brass often get hired by them near retirement. I'm not liking my options haha. You have a point, though, in that my own bias against the wasteful program caused me to leverage sources without enough verification. I need to be more careful about that in near future. Thanks for calling me on it.
        engi_nerd 11y ago
        This is why I love HN. Good reasonable conversation on the internet. It's hard enough for me to find in real life. The internet, doubly so.
    - adventured 11y ago
      You couldn't be more wrong. China's F-35 clone isn't even an actual program at this point. It's half mock-up, half vaporware. There's zero evidence they have any battlefield ready capabilities in place, nor that they can mass produce their plane.
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        I hope that's true. Otherwise, it would mean our F-35 program was so thoroughly infiltrated and their engineers so much better that they got a passable prototype in record time. So, I really hope you're right and there's a decent chance you are.
        engi_nerd 11y ago
        Once I had a college professor who said, "Plagiarize, plagiarize, let nothing escape your eyes." He meant it! Copying assignments in his class was acceptable. But at the end of the semester, he would come by and talk to you and see what you really knew. If he found you lacking in understanding, you failed. You still had to know the material. Blind copying would get you to the final examination, but it wouldn't allow you to pass it. Any aircraft the Chinese make will presumably be put to some examination, some day. Will they be able to pass? Your guess is as good as anyone's.
        nickpsecurity 11y ago
        "Good artists create. Great artists steal." (Steve Jobs, inspired by Picasso) Put that to good use after a visiting some true innovators at Xerox Palo Alto. ;) Far as espionage, I lack the source on hand but one said what they got in a year from U.S. companies paid for their whole intelligence program in what they got on it.
    - plonh 11y ago
      Considering what happened in Iraq, maybe our definition of winning isn't well chosen.
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        Agree 100%. I'll add that maybe the goals aren't well-chosen, either.
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    The asymmetric threat should make the carrier extinct pretty soon, and this should have been taken into account even during the JSF project. The carrier is what the major battleship was in WW2: a basket for too many eggs.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      No need to speculate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 U.S. strategy and gear were totally defeated by an asymmetric response. Seems our tricks only win against 3rd world countries we hit. Add any brains, like we saw in Vietnam insurgency, to get a different scenario. That they then rigged it to make our failed strategy look good says even worse about our military leadership and outlook if we go against strong opposition in the future.
      - pinaceae 11y ago
        that thing has been debunked so often, it gets boring. motorcycle couriers operating at lightspeed, with no losses? etc etc etc.
        nickpsecurity 11y ago
        News to me. Where? Link?
        fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        The Zerg rush works. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/washington/12navy.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/washington/12navy.html?_r=... >that thing has been debunked so often... motorcycle couriers operating at lightspeed got a link?
        pinaceae 11y ago
        http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/n230b/til_a_war_game_was_conducted_in_2002_which http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/n230b/til_a_w... the original papers are to be found in mil resources.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    >How does this whole F35 thing pan out when logistics like that are taken into account? Pretty poorly given the long mission turnaround time and otherwise low projected availability/readiness.
- PaulHoule 11y ago
  The A-10 is built around an absolutely awesome cannon, but it is vulnerable to shoulder-fired missile launchers. I don't know how many of these ISIS has, but there are plenty of them out there in the world, and they are designed to be used by irregular forces.
  - douche 11y ago
    Any low-flying, slow ground-attack aircraft that is designed to strafe is going to be vulnerable to shoulder-mounted missiles. I would have more faith in the survivability of a flying tank like the A-10 (the thing is built with a titanium bathtub enclosing the pilot, redundant hydraulics, manual cable control backups, and the engines mounted in a configuration that somewhat confuses the thermal signature of the exhaust), which has demonstrated the ability to fly home after being shot full of more holes than swiss cheese, than in most other ground-attack craft. Helicopters, even a similarly over-armored model like the Russian Hind, don't have that kind of durability. Maybe we'll have close-air support drones eventually, but I would imagine a drone that has the flight characteristics to be a good gun-platform for strafing is still going to be vulnerable - this is flying in at altitudes where aimed small-arms fire can do damage.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    It's a risk. However, it worked in our last two conflicts where enemies had both those and surface-to-air.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Case in point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUXmqpRhTjQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUXmqpRhTjQ And against ISIL targets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn8R8ne9Pd0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn8R8ne9Pd0 That it can take tons of gunfire, counter missiles, rapidly disable targets (bombs/missiles), and selectively/cheaply do it (bullets) makes it ideal for current battles. Gotta imagine what beast would've come out of $1-5bil in improvements to that.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    That first video is terrible.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      Most of the A-10 videos were terrible despite how cool a video its capabilities could make. I went through half a dozen of them looking for good runs with avenger and bombs. That was the most "exciting" one that popped up. I should've posted footage of the PC game (A-10 Tank Killer) as it did it more justice lol.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
Sadaam's had trucks, tanks, and planes IIRC. Most Middle East targets don't operate entirely with shoes and camels. There's plenty of machinery to target. Remember, though, that these programs exist to put money back into Congressional districts more than anything else. That's why they do nothing about Pentagon being a financial sinkhole with broken accounting. So, they have to do upgrades, need a lot of money to move, and everyone wants a piece of it. Option A: invest small amounts to upgrade a few proven planes with their contractors and subcontractors; Option B: invest as much as a war into an unproven one with cash across many districts and capabilities a compromise across various branches. Option A is best for taxpayer but Option B is best those paid with taxes. Washington and Pentagon 101. ;)

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?
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  The easy way to do it is to just ask, "When have we been unable to destroy enemy vehicles or structures due to extra planes?" We did it in Iraq faster than ever with our current configuration of various, specialized aircraft. What you're mentioning can be done with F-18's and A-10's against most countries. The top opponents are investing in, again, aircraft specialized for certain types of missions that will dominate F-35 in any performance test. China's F-35 is already better than ours for instance. I'm not sure if they sent Lockheed a thanks for all the free R&D. ;)
  - threeseed 11y ago
    > China's F-35 is already better than ours for instance Where is the evidence for this ? Everything I've read about the J-31 has said that it isn't a match for the F-35 at all and actually isn't even a program yet (just a prototype has been built).
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      Might be true. There's little to draw on for either side of the argument. Original article I cited was the basis for my claim where it showed they had eliminated weaknesses in F-35 in their clone. That's already better for short-range. Whether it's better for long-range will depend on their detection and missile tech. Or how much of ours they stole and improved on.
      - engi_nerd 11y ago
        Their only evidence was their own claims. Unsubstantiated in any public source. Please please stop taking "maybes" and speculation and presenting it as fact. That's what irks me about David Axe. I'm really confused, because I have read through some of your other commentary here on programming and security issues and you seem quite intelligent and solid there. So why spread so much FUD about something that's outside of your wheelhouse? You're certainly allowed and encouraged to ask questions, investigate, etc, but you're presenting yourself as an expert on this sort of thing when you aren't.
        nickpsecurity 11y ago
        I am operating outside my expertise: security and system engineering as you noted. Having to rely on third parties way more than I like. One seems to misrepresent the situation to push his personal success. You've illustrated this pretty well on F-16 case. Another systematically misrepresents the necessity/effectiveness of programs to rake in billions of dollars and has been caught in such schemes many times. Gets away with it because Congress has lots of votes/stock in defense and brass often get hired by them near retirement. I'm not liking my options haha. You have a point, though, in that my own bias against the wasteful program caused me to leverage sources without enough verification. I need to be more careful about that in near future. Thanks for calling me on it.
        engi_nerd 11y ago
        This is why I love HN. Good reasonable conversation on the internet. It's hard enough for me to find in real life. The internet, doubly so.
  - adventured 11y ago
    You couldn't be more wrong. China's F-35 clone isn't even an actual program at this point. It's half mock-up, half vaporware. There's zero evidence they have any battlefield ready capabilities in place, nor that they can mass produce their plane.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      I hope that's true. Otherwise, it would mean our F-35 program was so thoroughly infiltrated and their engineers so much better that they got a passable prototype in record time. So, I really hope you're right and there's a decent chance you are.
      - engi_nerd 11y ago
        Once I had a college professor who said, "Plagiarize, plagiarize, let nothing escape your eyes." He meant it! Copying assignments in his class was acceptable. But at the end of the semester, he would come by and talk to you and see what you really knew. If he found you lacking in understanding, you failed. You still had to know the material. Blind copying would get you to the final examination, but it wouldn't allow you to pass it. Any aircraft the Chinese make will presumably be put to some examination, some day. Will they be able to pass? Your guess is as good as anyone's.
        nickpsecurity 11y ago
        "Good artists create. Great artists steal." (Steve Jobs, inspired by Picasso) Put that to good use after a visiting some true innovators at Xerox Palo Alto. ;) Far as espionage, I lack the source on hand but one said what they got in a year from U.S. companies paid for their whole intelligence program in what they got on it.
  - plonh 11y ago
    Considering what happened in Iraq, maybe our definition of winning isn't well chosen.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      Agree 100%. I'll add that maybe the goals aren't well-chosen, either.
- alkonaut 11y ago
  The asymmetric threat should make the carrier extinct pretty soon, and this should have been taken into account even during the JSF project. The carrier is what the major battleship was in WW2: a basket for too many eggs.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    No need to speculate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 U.S. strategy and gear were totally defeated by an asymmetric response. Seems our tricks only win against 3rd world countries we hit. Add any brains, like we saw in Vietnam insurgency, to get a different scenario. That they then rigged it to make our failed strategy look good says even worse about our military leadership and outlook if we go against strong opposition in the future.
    - pinaceae 11y ago
      that thing has been debunked so often, it gets boring. motorcycle couriers operating at lightspeed, with no losses? etc etc etc.
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        News to me. Where? Link?
      - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        The Zerg rush works. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/washington/12navy.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/washington/12navy.html?_r=... >that thing has been debunked so often... motorcycle couriers operating at lightspeed got a link?
        pinaceae 11y ago
        http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/n230b/til_a_war_game_was_conducted_in_2002_which http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/n230b/til_a_w... the original papers are to be found in mil resources.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  >How does this whole F35 thing pan out when logistics like that are taken into account? Pretty poorly given the long mission turnaround time and otherwise low projected availability/readiness.
PaulHoule 11y ago
The A-10 is built around an absolutely awesome cannon, but it is vulnerable to shoulder-fired missile launchers. I don't know how many of these ISIS has, but there are plenty of them out there in the world, and they are designed to be used by irregular forces.
- douche 11y ago
  Any low-flying, slow ground-attack aircraft that is designed to strafe is going to be vulnerable to shoulder-mounted missiles. I would have more faith in the survivability of a flying tank like the A-10 (the thing is built with a titanium bathtub enclosing the pilot, redundant hydraulics, manual cable control backups, and the engines mounted in a configuration that somewhat confuses the thermal signature of the exhaust), which has demonstrated the ability to fly home after being shot full of more holes than swiss cheese, than in most other ground-attack craft. Helicopters, even a similarly over-armored model like the Russian Hind, don't have that kind of durability. Maybe we'll have close-air support drones eventually, but I would imagine a drone that has the flight characteristics to be a good gun-platform for strafing is still going to be vulnerable - this is flying in at altitudes where aimed small-arms fire can do damage.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  It's a risk. However, it worked in our last two conflicts where enemies had both those and surface-to-air.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
Case in point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUXmqpRhTjQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUXmqpRhTjQ And against ISIL targets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn8R8ne9Pd0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn8R8ne9Pd0 That it can take tons of gunfire, counter missiles, rapidly disable targets (bombs/missiles), and selectively/cheaply do it (bullets) makes it ideal for current battles. Gotta imagine what beast would've come out of $1-5bil in improvements to that.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  That first video is terrible.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    Most of the A-10 videos were terrible despite how cool a video its capabilities could make. I went through half a dozen of them looking for good runs with avenger and bombs. That was the most "exciting" one that popped up. I should've posted footage of the PC game (A-10 Tank Killer) as it did it more justice lol.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

Sadaam's had trucks, tanks, and planes IIRC. Most Middle East targets don't operate entirely with shoes and camels. There's plenty of machinery to target. Remember, though, that these programs exist to put money back into Congressional districts more than anything else. That's why they do nothing about Pentagon being a financial sinkhole with broken accounting. So, they have to do upgrades, need a lot of money to move, and everyone wants a piece of it. Option A: invest small amounts to upgrade a few proven planes with their contractors and subcontractors; Option B: invest as much as a war into an unproven one with cash across many districts and capabilities a compromise across various branches. Option A is best for taxpayer but Option B is best those paid with taxes. Washington and Pentagon 101. ;)