U.S. Air Force Requires Airmen to Praise F-35 | Hacker News Reader

U.S. Air Force Requires Airmen to Praise F-35

warisboring.com

32 pointsRachelF33 comments

I'm not sure about the other capabilities of the F-35, but judging a modern war plane based on its ability to dogfight is like judging a modern ship based on its ability to ram other ships.

Dogfighting just isn't going to happen anymore in a battlefield where smart munitions are relatively cheap, plentiful, smart, and getting smarter every year.

We are talking about skies that will soon be filled with extremely agile drones and missiles. In that environment, a manned fighter, that cannot pull high-G maneuvers (because the human pilot will pass out) cannot beat a supersonic missile or drone.

We should not build planes to perform well in dogfights in the style of the Korean and Vietnam war. Stealth or unmanned is the way to go.

Having said that, the Chinese long-term strategy of developing high performance drones to saturate the battlespace is probably the smartest idea of all. I don't think any stealth technology remains very "stealthy" for very long, in this era of software processing.

The arguments you are using are similar to those used to defend the century series; back then they argued that missiles had eliminated the need for agile fighters, but the Vietnam War's rules of engagement meant that agility was crucial. If one is to defend the F-35, it should be on the basis of its advanced strike capabilities, or other design considerations which were given priority.

Perhaps stealth, unmanned, and/or saturation are the best strategies; I am not sure whether anyone can predict what the outcome of an encounter between such asymmetrical adversaries will be in 15-25 years.

> back then they argued that missiles had eliminated the need for agile fighters, but the Vietnam War's rules of engagement meant that agility was crucial.

Please stop this. Vietnam era missiles were little more than firecrackers with IR seekers that flew into the sun. That's why pilots needed their guns, because guided missiles were so shitty at the time. Modern missiles are basically immune to passive countermeasures and have directed warheads, thrust vectoring etc. and would be the first choice of any fighter pilot interesting in staying alive.

Do any air to air missiles in the U.S. inventory offer thrust vectoring?

AIM-9X Sidewinder

Modern missiles aren't immune to rules of engagement which prohibit beyond-visual-range engagement.

The actual solution to this problem is to establish air superiority by sending in autonomous drones to down all aircraft and destroy all anti-aircraft munitions in a given region, and then send in human-flown craft for other work.

Yes, this entails robots being given the ability to kill humans.

No, this is not currently politically feasible in this country right now.

Really? It seems like there is relatively little objection in the US to the ongoing drone warfare across the middle east. That might mostly be due to ignorance. Unfortunately, the government likes to foster ignorance to prevent embarrassment and outrage, and it seems likely that the powers that be are emboldened to creep one step closer each year to fully autonomous weapon systems. Despite all the dangers and warnings, we're still slipping right into this trap due to inertia.

Yet modern missiles are lot more effective when shot from the rear quarter of the enemy. Any fighter pilot interested in staying alive still tries to get there.

All your points are well-made and I believe you are mostly correct. However, I wouldn't be so quick to entirely dismiss dogfighting as something that "just isn't going to happen anymore".

Nobody knows exactly what combat would look like with modern weapons between actual adversaries; which weapons would would be ineffective; which countermeasures would succeed. The possibility that two aircraft could get close enough that it would become a dogfight should always be accounted for.

Munitions could be expended to the point where no long-range missiles remain. An enemy aircraft could use terrain masking in mountainous terrain to get close; no radar can detect an aircraft through half a kilometer of rock. How about the effects of inclement weather? Or, perhaps, some F-35s are themselves using terrain masking on a ground-attack mission due to enemy SAM presence and are surprised by an enemy squadron.

The point is, there is always a way things can go wrong. Ignoring that gets people killed. That said, it has been accounted for in the F-35; the Distributed Aperture System along with off-boresight missiles could actually make the turning battle of a dogfight obsolete... until the F-35 expended all its missiles.

Of course a UAV could be much better than any manned aircraft in a dogfight; but battles aren't always picked, one must always be prepared for a battle to be forced under less than optimal circumstances.

What you're saying largely aligns with detailed analysis I've read on the subject:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/261173525/CSBA-Trends-in-Air-To-Ai...

People have been saying that literally since the 1950s when the very first guided missiles were developed. Then along comes reality in the form of a war and the people that believed it, get spanked by those that didn't.

Besides agility, speed and radar performance are also critical in missile attack and defense. F-22 can super cruise for that reason. The size of F-35 radar is a concern for performance. Given the past experience of F-15 vs Su-27, it is very hard to believe F-35 will be competitive 10 years from now besides the numbers.

The problem with the F35 is that the entire concept rests on a symmetric battlefield as opposed to the asymmetric threats that have been de rigeur since the end of Gulf War I. Not a "bad" airplane per se, but a paradoxically short sighted use of funds. It reminds me of the Crusader artillery project being pushed when I Was in the Army. We needed better rifles and high mobility systems more than more Napoleonic weaponry.

Judging war plane by it's ability of supersonic flight is stupid too. Most air to air missiles are way faster than most warplanes, and missiles have more capability to increase speed if R/D is poured into it.

Putting money in radar stealth beyond certain point is stupid too. IR is increasing range, that might be way more important in near future than radar, as it's passive. Also optical tracking and long wave radar with sophisticated signal processing are coming too.

Radio controlled drones are risky business as the connection can be hacked or jammed.

If IR jamming by lasers really hits off, then we are back to guns in dogfight.

Pulling high G maneuvers are BTW not very good indicator of turning ability. High G high speed turn might take ages compared to low speed medium G turn. Modern high power/weight ratio fighter planes still compete with modern missiles.

Weird but WWII era Mosquito with IR/optical sensors and autonomous flying looks like the future. It's cheap, low signature and can't be jammed/hacked. If you could hire pilots to fly these things cheaper than construct the chips needed, then it might come sooner than 2080. (I'm looking at you China..)

The F-15 is one of the most successful air superiority fighters in modern war history. It is not a dog fighter, its a huge aircraft with a lot of power and a high service ceiling. It got to be such a good air superiority fighter due to its ability detect and fire missiles at aircraft before they could. So I don't think the F-35 needs to dogfight, it just needs to be less detectable and a better detection system than its adversary.

I agree with the drones though, making cheaper drones and having a large quantity of them seems like a better strategy. A single plane can only carry so many missiles.

But the mission of the F35 is not air superiority, the RAF are using the Typhoon for that role, the US are using the F22. It will need to dogfight for self-defence when it's e.g. CAS mission gets interrupted by enemy aircraft, then it will be toast.

Well, an obvious step after putting all your eggs in one basket is to silence criticism of that basket. This is just one more reason why the Air Force's decision to reduce diversity in weapons systems is a bad idea. Not only do they become too big to fail, they become too big to criticize.

I can personally say that the F-35 is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful plane I've ever known in my life.

For anyone interested in the dynamics of the Air Force that explain the abysmal performance of the F-35, and why the F-16 can beat it in a dogfight despite being commissioned 40 years ago, look up John Boyd or read "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot who Changed the Art of War." The Air Force is structured to enable and shelter operational failures such as the F-35

Though I agree with you that all government agencies are political machines which have evolved to protect their bureaucrats; the F-35 was simply not designed to be a lightweight low-cost fighter. Comparing the F-35 to the F-16 is about as useful as comparing the F-105 to the F-86 (, which is to say not very informative).

Boyd thought that even the F-16 was overweight and over-sized (and he may have been correct).

> Boyd thought that even the F-16 was overweight and over-sized

... compared to what it could have been, and would have been, had he somehow completely gotten his way, sure. It was a disappointment to him, but it's still pretty good in energy–maneuverability theory terms.

And it's worth comparing the F-105 to the F-86 in dogfighting because dogfighting just keeps happening in wars, decades after it was predicted to cease.

Curious, what was the last time anyone scored with a cannon on a modern jet fighter vs another jet fighter?

Maybe one of the air-to-air kills in the Eritrea-Ethiopia war was cannon? idk...

I spoke to an RAAF test pilot a few weeks ago who confirmed the stories that this plane is an absolute lemon. It's trying to be too many things and failing at all of them.

I spoke to a USAF pilot and he said the F-35 is a decent plane, easy to fly, well equipped even thus no match for specialized fighters its decently good at everything.

Here's the problem though. None of your comment or these article bring any proof and is more of a click-bait than anything else. It's trendy to hit on them, that's all really.

Also, I did actually talk to that pilot and a few others from other aircrafts as its actually an easy thing to do in the US so easy to do/verify on your own for many of us:

since many HN readers are in the bay area, just visit the boats for SF's Fleet week - it's free, and there's always marine pilots of all kinds onboard (mainly heli, but also a few F-35, harrier and osprey pilots.

I concur. The F-35 is a decent aircraft performance wise. It might not be quite as agile as an F-16 in airshow configuration, but when carrying a combat load, the F-35 has the edge.

When it comes to the F-35 sensor package, its a huge leap beyond the F-16.

Not for the price. $1 trillion is a really step price tag for a "decent aircraft". As for the sensor package and stealth, I'm not entirely sure that suitable upgrades to the F-16 and F-18 series wouldn't have been a better option. Besides, for $1trillion, it should be possible to develop three or four different aircraft with specialist capabilities and use them together.

i agree, albeit by that rationale you'd better get a Rafale - its the same kind of plane as the F35, minus a few nice features but much cheaper. Which is exactly why the only nations getting an F35 are US allies not making their own aircrafts. others either:

-make their own (Eurofighters, SU35S, PAK, etc.)

-get get older planes (F15s in particular)

-French Rafales.

But the F-35 is still a big leap over his previous aircraft. I wonder what he doesn't like? Saying it's an "absolute lemon" is descriptive but not specifically informative.

I'm a RAAF engineer; there are some pilots that don't like it, but they're in the minority. They're typically the guys that aren't very open minded in general and are literally just making their opinions off low-quality journalism they see on Facebook, etc.

I've spoken to many other pilots and even the star-ranks that are in charge of the program, even dined with the CDF, and they're all firm believers in the jet's capabilities and would love to fly it for a living. I've also done quite a bit of research myself, and the jet's stealth, radar, EO/IR sensors, payload, range and EW capabilities are all top-class, with many being the best in the world.

If I were a knucklehead, I'd definitely trade a Hornet / Super Hornet / Growler for an F-35.

The USAF requires Airmen not to criticize USAF or Pentagon policy. If a 4-Star General publicly criticizes policy of the Petagon, it could end their career.

This post by David Axe is complete rubbish.

The comment on the blog seems about right so ill copy:

"Lets see David Axe the nonstop liar that wrote this used the words “commands”, “requires”. and “demands” when referring to the document in question. No where in the document cited are any of those things. This author constantly takes any accusation about F35 and exaggerates it to the ridicules level. He uses thinly sourced quotes and seems to have a vivid imagination. WiB should be embarrassed to have such a talent-less hack writing this drivel… do you guys even have an editor?"

A poorly-written nitpick about the choice of words used "seems about right" to you?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com