Hacker News Reader

Comment by doodlebugging | Hacker News Reader

This is the loudest fighter plane in our inventory. You can hear this thing coming at least a minute before it gets near you and for several minutes after depending on flight direction. I can tell from the sound which of our planes is passing near and this one, the first time I heard it, was clearly not one with which I was familiar. Beautiful plane but obviously a troubled build history.

With all the problems noted over the last few years I'm surprised that anyone wants it. The F-22 has had its problems and production was cut at a very low number (I think I read that they wanted to shift gears and go with the F-35). The complexity of these two planes could make them more of a liability in a conflict.

It makes more sense to me (as a taxpayer) to spend the defense dollar on things that can be built quickly and for minimal initial cost so that many can be built to replace those lost to attrition in conflict. They should also be purpose-built for specific missions just as we built planes in WW2. We have the technology and we don't need a fleet of flying super-computers that can't fight their way out of the battlespace. Planes are great support tools for infantry and armored units who actually win the wars by taking and holding territory from the enemy. They won't win wars by themselves. Sorry 'bout that, Air Force.

View on HN

> With all the problems noted over the last few years I'm surprised that anyone wants it

What makes you think anyone wants it?

Buyers of things like this don't buy because they want to, they buy because they're told to.

My friend at DMO (Defense Materials Organization) in Australia spent 2 years of his life on a huge team that recommended the Australian Defense Force don't buy any Abrams tanks for a whole bunch of very valid reasons.

Australia bought a bunch of them anyway, in direct contradiction to the organization who's very purpose it is to make these kinds of purchasing decisions.

It was Defence Materiel Organisation. "Materiel" being a specific term for military supplies, distinct from "material".

Australia's also committed to buying 72 - seventy two! - F35s, as part of the block buy program mentioned in the article. Sure, it arguably helps keep prices down, but the ongoing integration and support costs for foreign buyers pose a lot of challenges.

Yea, the suckers (or 'allies') in Asia and the Middle East that weren't even part of the "program" or development will buy these white elephants and subsidize the cost!

Well, how much of the money they spend on them came in the form of U.S. foreign aid in the first place?

Who are the suckers?

Japan for one. When it comes to national defense why would one let another country dictate the defensive posture? That is suicide.

Atleast Japan is trying to actually have a viable solution:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2016/01/28/japan-first-steal...

Japan isn't just buying F-35s, they are building them at Nagoya.

The UK kind of has to buy them because a carrier without aircraft looks a bit silly.

We have an aircraft carrier again?

It's actually a milk float

I'm curious, what were the reasons? What was the better alternative? I've read plenty about the shortcomings of the F35, but this is the first I've heard about shortcomings of the Abrams.

They're mind blowingly maintenance intensive. I forget the numbers, and I'm sure google will dig something up, but it was something like each Abrams must have 5-10 support vehicles, and requires a full engine rebuild every x hours (where x was shockingly small - like 100)

Believe it or not, the F-35 is built to save costs in the long term. It has a huge upfront cost because what they are trying to do hasn't really been done in a modern airforce. Parts standardization to kill off massive maintenance costs of fleets (which are astronomical) and making a JSF will different variants for different branches is also much cheaper.

The F-35 is buggy, because its unprecedented, I honestly don't think it gets a fair shake, and I wish people would look at the long term cost savings vs the short term boondoggle (and it is certainly that.) Fleet maintenance is astronomical, the F-35 is build to address that; if you spread costs out of 30 years, the plane doesn't look quite as expensive. Since the government doesn't use GAAP accounting, all costs are realized up front instead of being depreciated out.

I really don't buy your story about being able to hear the jet a minute before it hits you. By the time you hear a jet flying directly to your position you are either already dead, or the plane is just about to pass over you. In your instance it sounds like the plane was no zeroing in on your position, but was just incidentally passing by...which is entirely different.

>Believe it or not, the F-35 is built to save costs in the long term.

I don't believe it. Sure, that's how they sold it, and I understand the supply chain problems they want to avoid, but I don't believe a word of it.

Most anyone who heard an F35 and is posting publicly about it must have heard the plane in transit over land where they aren't permitted to cause sonic booms, and could have even been traveling very slowly.

>Believe it or not, the F-35 is built to save costs in the long term.

Any cost savings have been annihilated by hideous budget overruns. The F-35 will be a money-loser without exception.

All this is aside from the fact that saving money on something that doesn't fucking work is pretty asinine.

Can they fire the gun yet without crashing the system?

Can the pilots actually use the VR helmet without getting motion sickness?

Has a smaller helmet been made so that the pilot doesn't get stuck against the inside of the canopy trying to look over his/her shoulder?

Unbelievable. Fighter jet industry is only six or seven decades old at most. The navy on the other hand has been around for hundreds of years. What does the airforce think they can do the navy hasn't already tried?

The F-35 program is the biggest scam in history. The people in charge of it need to be put in jail.

>Believe it or not, the F-35 is built to save costs in the long term. It has a huge upfront cost because what they are trying to do hasn't really been done in a modern airforce.

coughSpaceShuttlecough

[okay this was glib, but there are some real parallels there, including trying to be all things to all people]

Aircraft that "can be built quickly and for minimal initial cost" don't exist. Modern fighter aircraft are complex, expensive machines. The engines alone are a significant portion of the cost. And if you think the F-35 has supercomputers, you're sorely mistaken. Even the F-22 has old, decade old CPUs.

The world has moved on since WW2, and the idea of cheap hordes of aircraft, or spinning up the Arsenal of Democracy to build them in wartime just won't fly.

Ask the Syrians how well their simple Mig-21s and Mig-23s did in the Bekka Valley in 1982 when they ran up against the Israeli's flying F-15s and F-16s. Turkey shoot doesn't even begin to describe it. If you bring a biplane to a modern dogfight, you'll end up a splat mark on the ground.

>And if you think the F-35 has supercomputers, you're sorely mistaken.

People don't realize this. Your smartphone is vastly more powerful than pretty much any single CPU found in the avionics of a fighter. If you really dig around old press releases you can figure out some of what these aircraft use, but I'd rather not specify. But, think about when the F-35 systems were largely designed: the period from 2000 to 2005.

The fighter avionics computer isn't running Java and 20 layers of poorly optimized cruft though.

Reading the article you would think it's the case though ;-)

(for those unfamiliar) With roughly even strength, Isreal destroyed 82 Syrian aircraft + 30 SAM batteries while suffering only 2 damaged aircraft (that flew home).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19#Batt...

Yeah, but if I bring a fleet of trucks launching SA-20s [1] or a fleet of Mig-21s (and drones) with advanced upgrades [2] functioning as missile trucks, who knows. You’re really battling the missiles and BVR targeting capabilities. The plane is increasingly a delivery platform and missiles are far cheaper then jets.

I agree with the parent in that a diversified set of aircraft focused on specific missions and more easily produced and upgraded with new tech is critical (no ones saying build bi-planes). And sure we can say 4th-gen beats 3rd-gen and now 5th-gen beats 4th-gen, unfortunately adversaries often don’t follow the script. F-35 seems to be more a danger to national security than a help.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile) [2] http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?121375-MiG-21-...

S-300s can't target an F-35 according to unclassified reports. It might be able to target them if they're hanging ordnance on their external pylons, but not if they're using internal carriage. S-400? Sure, those might be able to eventually. Depends on if their search radars can maintain a lock.

A fleet of Mig-21s, even upgraded, would be no match for F-35s. Even using Su-30s as a mini AWACs, the F-35s wouldn't be detected on radar. So the F-35s could wax the Sukhois, and then take on the blind Fishbeds with ease. It would be like what the F-22 pilots call it when they went up against 4th Gen fighters; clubbing baby seals.

Fishbeds are decent jets in terms of speed and agility, but they're not dogfighters; they have horrible visibilty, they bleed energy in turns (delta wings), and they have limited weapons carriage.

F-22 pilots are definitely clubbing baby seals when fighting 4th gen. I've been the baby seal. But I also call BS on the full invisibility people selling these platforms are trying to claim. If they are wrong (which I believe they are) and next generation missiles can track, we are in a bad spot.

I like the F-22 for Air-to-Air. I think the F-35 is probably okay, just not remotely worth the money. But I think our "all in" on a single do-it-all, super-expensive fighter-bomber is a huge risk and the wrong direction. We need a mix of assets. And unfortunately, the F-35 just eats up the whole budget so we can't afford anything else. It definitely shouldn't be doing CAS, and strike is probably best performed by other assets too. Trying to merge AF, Navy, and Marine planes into one super plane is bad for so many reasons.

The whole plan seems incapable of taking on serious adversaries and incredible overkill for insurgency operations. A no man's land of happy defense contractors and bad military strategy.

I agree with everything you wrote except for the strike part. The idea that the F-35 needs to be a mini F-22 is one I don't understand. It's designed to be a striker, to replace the F-16, the Harrier, and to help the CVW get a survivable striker with longer range than the Super Bug, and a bit of self-defense capability. Just as the F-16 isn't tasked very often with CAP, same with the F-35. I think the F-35 will excel at strike

That would be a pretty interesting fight. It looks like the 400mph rc jet engines cost about $4000. decent drone packages are around $1000. let's be crazy and say $100,000 per drone. around $104,000,000 per F-35.

i'm not sure how well an F-35 would stack up against 1040 400mph targets. the F-35 is much much quicker, but only has, what 200 bullets? something in that range.

Or, take it up a notch. blow $10,000,000 per drone. give them an air to air missile or two. that puts it at a much more reasonable 1 v 10. I get 10 shots, you get 4.

You're not wrong, but i think you're missing a classic military lesson, quantity has a quality all it's own.

While I happen to share the sentiment(re. the numbers game), how wise would be to deploy a massive amount of remote-controlled weaponry against a developed nation?

Well... I'm assuming the drones would be deployed by a developed nation as well. I know a few defense contractors, and they're decent guys, but i don't think they make really top notch stuff. In greedo's example, he's talking about all out war. I kinda suspect we would get the best and brightest to build software, sorta like the healthcare.gov rescue.

I do think a lot of low tech options are pretty viable, since we can only afford to make a few hundred F-35s. High wattage UV lasers shot at cockpits permanently blind pilots, high energy RF pointed at jets turn all those little wires into antennas, drones can just play tag because jets are so delicate. when the cost of loss is 100M, with equal resources (even fairly unequal!) you can try all sorts of crazy stuff, one win is a huge payoff.

I dunno. Playing armchair general is fun. I'll never be in a position to test my theorys. I also played a lot of zurg back in the day, so my opinion is probably kinda silly.

What is your point? No one should build expensive weapons because attacking them is so cheap? If anything, that strengthens the case for more expensive and sophisticated weapons. Canopy glass needs to block lasers, more RF shielding. Or you just think war is pointless, yay cool story bro.

Not sure any of that stuff would work to stop an F-35. You want something more like low frequency radar and S-400s.

Can only afford a few 100 F-35s? You know we're planning on buying over 2000?

If you think jets are so delicate, you haven't been paying attention to the mishap rate with drones. It's not like an RC model you're controlling within sight. You're operating them at ranges where lag is significant, where control links can be jammed, where GPS is easily spoofed, and where current performance is similar to a small Cessna.

How pray tell, is a small, cheap drone going to be able to carry a high power laser or "high energy RF" weapon (whatever that is) to the altitude that modern jets operate at? And if these "high energy RF" weapons are available, why wouldn't they be deployed on fighters, which can carry heavier weapons than drones, and have more surplus electrical capacity to power them?

It's easy to come up with armchair tactics when it's all Starcraft you're drawing upon. But the military doesn't work like that. Weapons take time to design, to implement, to refine. You can't just set your factories up to build UNIT X and ZERG!

Remote controlled? They'll be an autonomous swarm before the end of the decade:

http://defensetech.org/2016/01/04/u-s-navy-plans-to-fly-firs...

Still possibly susceptible to remote exploits.

So is the F-35. "Possibly susceptible" could apply to just about any modern piece of military equipment.

And self-driving cars...

I doubt that there will be more than some technology demonstrators in less than four years.

And everyone is forgetting that with small size comes small range and payload. Small range means your opponent has to get close to you, exposing themselves. The article has some huge assumptions, at least concerning attacking a naval ship (which is far easier than an aircraft that can outperform a drone). The idea that an Aegis cruiser is going to let a fishing boat launch a significant number of drones without getting perforated by its MK-45 is a non-starter.

A $5 bullet probably took down a $40 million F-117 Nighthawk over Serbia in the late 90s. You can always fill the sky with lead. No aircraft is impervious to the "quantity" argument. The F-35 would have a better chance at evading it and delivering its payload than a slow and low A-10 though.

The A-10 isn't a bomber.

The F-117 was shot down by a SA-2 SAM, not bullets. The SAM commander was smart, and the mission planners were not being smart and had the F-117s fly the same route repeatedly.

Additionally, the SAM locked on while the F-117 was coming off target, with the weapon bay doors open.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown

It's a Zerg rush, the darn things don't even need weapons. They can FOD the engine out. Enough strikes might damage the airframe critically. Send them each with a small capsule of Mercury and Gallium for extra fun.

I see what you did there... yea... mercury on aluminum frame is kind of a mean thing to do. ;)

Exactly, let's see if you can land it now.

Though, I understand much of it is composites so it might sound better than it actually works.

Show me a "cheap" drone that can cruise above 500mph at 20k feet...

Why does it need to go 500 mph? The F35 is going faster than that.

How about I just hoist 100,000 ball bearings into the air and drop them in front of the F35?

But if you're committed to the fast drone idea then get one. I think they're going about 450 mph now which ought to give you enough time to maneuver in front of the f35.

Most fighters don't cruise around on full AB; they cruise at lower throttle settings to conserve fuel.

So again, how are you going to get these 100k ball bearings up to 20k AGI? Your slow, cheap drones are just going to loiter up there and hope an F-35 flies into their web?

It's not like the air forces of the worlds would be ignorant of this "surprise" tactic. And the methodology of targeting an F-35 with a cascade of ball bearings is conveniently left out of your scenario.

>Most fighters don't cruise around on full AB; they cruise at lower throttle settings to conserve fuel.

Yeah, so, what's your point?

It's obviously not a well developed plan. Nevertheless, considering the costs of repair, sortie interval, loiter time, all of the other limits imposed by having so few very units of expensive aircraft opens them up to novel attacks. As to how to get the things to stay up there? Balloons are one way, large solar panel wings which could be jettisoned is another. Such a plan might not even have to work well, it might be enough to cause decision makers to keep the fighters grounded.

>How about I just hoist 100,000 ball bearings into the air and drop them in front of the F35?

Just what do you think a SAM is? There's a hell of a lot of volume in the atmosphere.

So my understanding is that you are proposing to build a swarm of cheap interceptors. But why would an F-35 even engage your swarm? It would fly around or over it and strike its target. If your cheap interceptors are incapable to impose a fight on opposing planes the net effect is that as if they don't even exist.

Because the drone swarm would completely surround the target. Think of them as mobile blitz balloons.

For them to surround the target they have to catch up with it first. Not gonna happen if the drones cannot exceed the speed and altitude of the airplane they want to intercept.

What makes you think they can keep up?

The F-35 is slower and less maneuverable than nearly any contemporary fighter aircraft.

It cannot avoid an engagement, nor press the attack.

Quit reading the press that loves to paint military spending as a waste. The F-35 isn't a dog, it may not be as fast as the fastest jets, or as maneuverable as the most agile, but it's not like it's a C-130...

It has stealth, so it can avoid an engagement if need be, or maneuver so the engagement is on more favorable terms. Try that with a 4th gen aircraft.

>The F-35 isn't a dog, it may not be as fast as the fastest jets, or as maneuverable as the most agile

Yes. It's slower, and less agile. Than other fighter aircraft.

It can't win a dogfight. Period.

>It has stealth, so it can avoid an engagement if need be, or maneuver so the engagement is on more favorable terms.

Which the Chinese will surely counter, since they stole the blueprints. That stealth is mostly worthless.

Glad you're so convinced that it can't win. Period. That is so comforting. Not all air combat is done in a dogfight. Most A2A kills in the last 30 years have been BVR shots. Which the F-35 will excel at.

And I'm glad you know the truth about stealth. It is useless you know. That's why the Russians, the Chinese and now the Germans are starting to build 5th Gen stealth aircraft. All to prop up the illusion that it's just a boondoggle, and "mostly worthless."

Back to reality. Stealth is very useful, that's why countries work tirelessly to find countermeasures. Some of these work to a degree, some have potential. Stealth isn't magic, it's just a useful tool; like jamming, like AWACs, like OPFOR training. But to deny its merits is just ignorant.

>Not all air combat is done in a dogfight.

You're right, almost none of it is.

>Most A2A kills in the last 30 years have been BVR shots. Which the F-35 will excel at.

Negative, Ghostrider. It still has to be able to catch its prey, which it's not fast enough to do. And faster aircraft can still prevent it from disengaging. Speed is life in air combat.

>And I'm glad you know the truth about stealth. It is useless you know. That's why the Russians, the Chinese and now the Germans are starting to build 5th Gen stealth aircraft. All to prop up the illusion that it's just a boondoggle, and "mostly worthless."

What are we, on reddit? You're purposely being snide and also purposely misinterpreting what I've written. Stealth itself, as a concept, is not worthless. The F-35's stealth technology has been compromised, therefore it is of little value against an adversary such as China or Russia.

>Back to reality. Stealth is very useful, that's why countries work tirelessly to find countermeasures. Some of these work to a degree, some have potential. Stealth isn't magic, it's just a useful tool; like jamming, like AWACs, like OPFOR training. But to deny its merits is just ignorant.

I'm now convinced you are trolling. Enjoy your evening.

> I'm now convinced you are trolling. Enjoy your evening.

I think @greedo self-outed with the "quit reading the press" comment... posturing some secret source of information more authorititive than the damning reports from test pilots, pentagon office of testing, etc... Lockheed's PR dept maybe.

LOL. Nice try. If you thought I was a sock puppet for LM, it would only take a few minutes of looking at my comment history.

> LOL. Nice try. If you thought I was a sock puppet for LM, it would only take a few minutes of looking at my comment history.

TROLOLOLOLL... your ploy to miss the point doesn't fool me :)

;) I wish I was paid by LM.

Thing is, everyone has an axe to grind with the F-35. Despite its shortcomings, its all we have in the pipeline, until the 6th gen fighters come online in a decade or so. Without something like the F-35 paired with the F-22, we have no chance of penetrating a modern IAD.

How am I misinterpreting what you've written. You said "stealth is mostly worthless" a statement that is factually incorrect. You also are speculating as to how much technology the Chinese have stolen, and how easily that technology is to integrate into their own airframes, and how easy to counteract with their AD technology.

The idea that the Chinese can just steal some autocad drawings and crank out competitive aircraft isn't realistic. They lack the experience in engine design and manufacturing for starters. Much of their military technology is either licensed from Russia, and then reverse engineered. Yet they still can't produce an engine even close to the PWF135.

And speed isn't life in air combat. Situational awareness is. And someone flying a POS MIG/Sukhoi will get slapped by a slower aircraft if the MIG is unable to detect, track and engage the F-35. Ask the Iraqi's how well they did running away to Iran? Ask them how their MIG-25s did against slower F-15s? Or ask the Syrians why they stopped flying Foxbats over Israel once the Israelis got the slower F-15. The reason is because top end speed isn't the be all and end all of fighter performance.

And thanks for the ad hominem at the end. Nice to know that you've run out of logic and facts for your arguments.

>The idea that the Chinese can just steal some autocad drawings and crank out competitive aircraft isn't realistic. They lack the experience in engine design and manufacturing for starters. Much of their military technology is either licensed from Russia, and then reverse engineered. Yet they still can't produce an engine even close to the PWF135.

Yeah those silly Chinks aren't smart enough. Huaaaah, America!

It's not a matter of smart enough. It's a matter of experience, institutional knowledge, workers skilled in the necessary tasks. The Chinese are plenty smart, despite your strawman.

Look how they're pursuing a carrier fleet. Are they trying to build a CVN immediately? Nope, they're taking incremental steps with a secondhand refurbished conventional carrier. Iterating towards a long term goal, because they know war isn't Starcraft.

It's why when they wanted to develop a modern 4th gen fighter, they partnered with the Israelis to leverage the Lavi designs that became the J10.

You can be snide and set up strawmen, or you can back up your statements with facts, not ill-informed opinions.

>It can't win a dogfight. Period.

The idea is to win before the dogfight.

And having the blueprints for a stealth plane is not the same thing as being able to counter it.

The problem is that this will never be entirely possible. So if your first and only option fails, you're screwed.

Not really, no. Dogfights don't happen one-on-one like in the movies. The air frame's flight performance is less important than other considerations.

You're still better off winning most of your battles BVR and relying on your wingman in a dogfight than going toe to toe in every battle.

People watch Top Gun too much and think everyone is zooming around the sky on their own, pulling dumbass maneuvers. Or they think that reading a Tom Clancy novel means they know how the military functions.

Are you a military fighter pilot?

I think you're forgetting that the f35 carries all its stores internally, and can reach that speed and pull those turns fully loaded. In order for an f16 to reach its top speed or pull 9g it has to be in a clean configuration, meaning just two sidewinders and no external fuel.

That is a completely different issue. I am not saying that F-35 is the greatest fighter plane in history. If it were there would not be so much controversy around it.

It's not a completely different issue. The F-35 can't do the things that the parent post suggested it could to avoid the cheaper interceptors, because it's too slow to avoid the engagement and too cumbersome to win a dogfight.

But that also goes the other way around. Your F-35 isn't getting you any kind of air superiority if my drones can drop bombs with impunity.

You try controlling 1K drones. Their command and control links would be jammed easily. And what's the flight time/range of one of these toys? And the ceiling on them? The idea that these would pose more of a threat than a flock of geese to a modern fighter is laughable.

And a $10M drone attempting to engage in A2A combat is called a target. Not a threat. Drones are a long ways away from engaging in A2A combat.

LtGen Riper disagrees [0]. The drones don't need complicated control links if they've got rudimentary autopilot functionality with a few extra routines that would not be out of place in air to air missiles. Take a page from the General's playbook and control the swarm's attack state with WWII style light signals, and then laugh at how long it takes Lockheed Martin to roll out a new multimillion dollar electronic warfare module for the F35 to jam visible light comms. As drones start to take on a larger role in warfare, we'll find ourselves back at where it all started - a war of economies. The country that can crank out the most ball bearings will win.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

Seriously, Wikipedia is not your friend. Cheap drones are not going to be carrying AMRAAM, or Sidewinders, or Python/Derby or whatever AAM you can find. They won't be carrying AESA radar to guide the missiles, or to even locate the target. It's not a matter of a few extra routines. It's AI, it's BVR, not "light signals." How are your "light comms" going to work at night, or in inclement weather, or even in broad daylight when you're fighting an opponent at 20K feet. Think you can see a spotlight in daytime at 20K?

Drones may take on a larger role in the future, if we decide to truly let them function autonomously. But the tech isn't there yet. And even if you create a magical swarm, it's range will be very small compared to a jet fighter.

> Seriously, Wikipedia is not your friend.

I wish you went on to back that statement, because I'm going to have to use context clues to guess that you've either failed at reading comprehension or basic abstract thought. The article discusses a well known example of the failure of an inflexible monolithic defense system faced with an enemy schooled in asymmetric warfare. The J-35 is to the naval fleet C2 net as the drone swarm is to the armada of small suicide boats.

> Cheap drones are not going to be carrying...

Solid rocket boosters and pointy nose cones? The drones are the missiles. As far as targeting, anti-tank missiles have had a great deal of success without fancy radar arrays - just object recognition in extremely noisy environments. I see no reason why that would be impossible for this application.

> How are your "light comms" going to work at night...

Better

> ...or in inclement weather...

Ask the Navy, they managed to make it work for a long time without computer aided signal processing.

> Think you can see a spotlight in daytime at 20K?

LOL, the Germans managed to get a range of 4KM (13K feet) in WWI, in broad daylight, with handheld light signals [0]. So yeah, I think you can see a spotlight in daylight from 20 thousand feet in the year 2016.

> ...if we decide to truly let them function autonomously...

When you say we, do you mean every nation? Because it will only take one to disrupt the whole game.

> ...it's range will be very small compared to a jet fighter.

What? If you want to park an aircraft on the other side of the Pacific, are you going to choose a fighter jet or a drone?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_optical_communicati...

They'd be autonomous, with instructions like "kill anything in the air that isn't a drone", so jamming their control signals wouldn't cause any major problems. Sure, they might not be able to get new orders (retreat, chase another target) but that's a problem for any plane, drone or not.

Flight time/range - if the wings are large enough drones can be powered by solar panels and run forever [1] but we can safely assume that combat drones will be heavier and be capable of high acceleration and maneuverability so they would probably be powered by battery packs charged before take-off. You might think that's a limitation but battery tech is improving to the point where this will be viable by the the next conflict.

You're thinking of them wrong. They're not meant to compete with $100m planes. They're so cheap that they could be used as cheap guided missiles. They only need to collide with the enemy plane to achieve the win condition. Considering how light and maneuverable they will be, that should be simple.

[1] - http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/solar-powered-drone...

Creating an autonomous AI that will "kill anything in the air that isn't a drone" is easy to type, not so easy to implement. First, the drone would have to detect its opponents. How? Is it going to carry radar? Carry IR sensors? Both of those cost money. Then it has to discriminate between a drone and an aircraft. How? Drones look like fighters/bombers/civilian airframes, tankers, helicopters, etc etc. Discrimination will be a huge problem.

Batteries don't have the energy density for powering high performance aircraft. They can't even power something along the lines of a Cessna 172. Assuming battery tech will take off is just handwaving.

What everyone seems to be espousing is already in place: SAMs. SAMs can be autonomous, have the performance and range to shoot down any aircraft. The current generation of Western and Russian SAMs are all excellent. The question is whether they'll be good enough to defeat stealth technology. The jury is still out on it.

The "supercomputer" claim is based on the F-35 having a multi-processor avionics system.

A good example of the "cheap" fighter is the Korean F/A-50. This jet has some of the Beyond Visual Range capability of the F-16, at 1/3 the cost. It doesn't have the range or the weapons capacity.

A well trained T-38/F-5 aggressor pilot can nail an F-16 or F-22 in a dogfight, within visual range. The Stealth F-35 will have the ability to engage an enemy aircraft without ever being detected, and that "minor" detail justifies the cost. In previous conflicts, once the opposing aircraft locate each other on radar, the adversaries would be forced into the merge, or risk being shot down at long range.

>Turkey shoot doesn't even begin to describe it. If you bring a biplane to a modern dogfight, you'll end up a splat mark on the ground.

Kind of unfair example, the Israelis had a lot of time to prepare for that battle. On top of that the Syrians knew they didn't stand a chance given their resources.

Given any situation you have to fit the resource to meet the need. The United States deploys the EMB 314 Super Tucano to great effect, which is a WW2 style fighter fitted with modern electronics. The F35 in the modern context simply doesn't make sense, as it's simply over engineered and doesn't fit current individual needs.

The F35 is supposed to eventually have some amazing capabilities, but CAS isn't one of them. It can't do CAS, and it will never be able to.

How is it unfair? The Syrians had plenty of time to prepare for the battle, they had Soviet weapons and advisors, their SAMs were excellent, they just got waxed by better planes, better command and control, better pilots. The F-15 and F-16, combined with the E-2 were so far better than the Mig-21bis and Mig-23 that the Syrians were flying, that the outcome was almost pre-determined once the Syrians started moving SA-6 units into the valley.

And the Super Tucano? WTH. The USAF accepted 20, temporarily, before transferring them to the Afghan AF. The USAF has no squadrons that utilize this airframe, and no intentions to. It has no survivability in a contested airspace at all.

> It has no survivability in a contested airspace at all.

Seeing as how the last time the USAF operated in seriously contested airspace was forty years ago, this is perhaps not as big a problem as it would seem.

The military needs to plan for the worst case scenarios, not the best. Ask the Ukrainians how it feels to be on the short end of the stick. The Russians are doing a bang up job with ECM/ECCM and denying them any airspace to fly in. The US doesn't need to plan on fighting tribesman in the Hindu Kush. Almost any aircraft can do that. It needs to plan to fight peers.

The Russian model is more like this in that they build an advanced model and then a 'monkey model' that is simpler and easy to mass produce quickly. The rationale being wars are either over very quickly or grind out over the long term. If the latter occurs they should theoretically be able to scale up faster then their opponent who is still producing their most advance machinery.

I read this in a great PDF doc a while back written by I think an ex Russian officer who talked about this and other strategies like their officer heavy army to allow quick expansion through bringing in civilians. I've not been able to find it again if anyone is familiar.

Sounds like the book might have been Inside the Soviet Army:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_the_Soviet_Army

http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/index.html

Yep, that is almost certainly the book in question. I have a hardback copy I bought through a used bookseller ages ago. It's a must-read if you're interested in these types of things.

That's the one. Thanks.

The F-35 is so expensive too few can be built and none will be risked in combat, and if they were lost in combat, they could not be replaced.

I have no idea what the next major conflict might look like, and nobody else does, either. (WW1 and WW2 both showed large swings in fortunes with even minor technological improvements.) But it's hard to see how the F-35 could play a role in it.

> I have no idea what the next major conflict might look like

Drones.

Yep, that's the Su35. They started with the Su27, overhauled everything to the point of absurdity, and then rolled back overly complicated features.

Now the RuAF has a fantastic multirole fighter that rivals the F35 but years before the F35 sees a combat debut.

It doesn't really matter how effective it is in combat. The project is a wealth transfer first, and a "job creator" second. The only foreign purchases will be either from countries that the US bullied into making some orders, or countries that receive "aid money" from the US, much of which is disbursed in the form of de facto gift cards for the military contractors who are too big to fail, and too friendly with well-connected people in the public sector.

Edit: See grecy's comment for a perfect example. They're a vehicle to siphon taxpayer dollars, not a vehicle to fight wars.

Reminds me of the super battleships built prior to WW2. Too expensive to risk in combat, and highly vulnerable to cheap stringbag airplanes.

I think the Brits have a military need as they need as the Navy's aircraft carriers can only take short takeoff aircraft, the Harrier is no more and they need something to stop the Argie's taking the Malvinas next time they're in the mood.

Most people don't realize that the bulk of U.S. foreign military aid is in the form of required purchases from U.S. defense industry companies. We don't give them money for military goods to spend how they like, we give them... F-35's, maybe.

(Although Israel, one of the very largest recipients of U.S. military aid, actually has an exemption to this rule, we actually give them cash they're allowed to spend on their own local military industry. I bet they don't buy any F-35s)

Partially correct, and partially wrong. Israel is allowed to spend around 27% of FMS on their equipment they manufacture; the remainder is to be spent of US equipment.

Oh, and the IAF has already contracted to buy the F-35...

Thanks for the correction. I thought it was more like 50%, but I think 27% is still 27% higher than anyone else, right?

And I'm surprised they're not smart enough to avoid the F-35, but I guess it's just OPM and keeps their benefactor happy.

In WWII pilot lives were cheap and planes were relatively simple to fly. To fly an F35 the investment in the pilot is huge. Add to that the fact that deaths on 'your own side' are no longer as acceptable as they were in the past during conflicts mean that many can't be built to replace those lost to attrition.

The more war goes 'remote control' the more this will cease to be an issue, and this is a dangerous trend precisely because it removes one of the last impediments to scaling up the export of war. As soon as the losses to own troops drop to near zero because all of it is done through robotic means all bets are off, and it does not even require a 'skynet' in order to achieve it. All it takes is some more telepresence and that's pretty much a solved problem at this stage. The difference is that in the air we now have this and for other branches it is still being worked on but within a decade or two we should see robotic infantry.

Telepresence works fine in the civilian world, where you don't have someone jamming your GPS and comm links. It fails dramatically when you're fighting someone with decent technology. Definitely not a "solved problem." Look at how the Iranians managed to capture an RQ-170...

If the US tries to fight a near-peer opponent like China or Russia, GPS will be jammed, satellites will be either blinded or destroyed, and both UHF and VHF comms will be either jammed or severely degraded. Just recently a US Army General was bitching about how advanced the Russians were with their ECM/ECCM in Ukraine. The Russians are extremely good at this.

> If the US tries to fight a near-peer opponent like China or Russia

If that would happen it would most likely be by proxy.

These sort of war machines aren't designed for economic parsimony. Their sole purpose is to dump tons of money into the MIC. Partly to line the pockets of the higher ups and partly to maintain the massive jobs program it has become. Defense superiority is really secondary or tertiary. The gold plated requirements list forces the sort of complexity that keeps the contract gravy train running. The real trick of managing a defense program like this is finding how much you can go over budget without getting cancelled.

> They should also be purpose-built for specific missions just as we built planes in WW2.

Even in WW2, all the major nations had aircraft that were multipurpose. Even the famous P-51 was built to be multipurpose. The difference between then and now is process/planning to build those aircraft hasn't kept up with their complexity. Also there's a lot more consideration of pilot safety and environmental extremes than the typical propeller fighter/bomber of WW2.

"They won't win wars by themselves. Sorry 'bout that, Air Force."

Aircraft (and aircraft carriers) were devastatingly effective in the WWII Pacific theatre. (Okay, this wasn't the Air Force, but I'm focusing on the aircraft part.)

It's true for both sides. Japan nearly destroyed the US's ability to contend at all in that theatre. The US turned the tide at Midway.

You're right they don't win wars "by themselves", but I think you're undervaluing their strategic value in wars fought on certain geographies.

"Planes are great support tools for infantry and armored units who actually win the wars by taking and holding territory from the enemy"

That's a pretty loaded perspective on the nature of war. Occupation of territory isn't necessarily the objective and it's a crude sort of "victory" which is not appropriate for many current conflicts.

Its engine is relatively tiny for its required power output. Being a turbofan, that thing has to be seriously noisy. Forget radar stealth if you can just use acoustic radars and sensors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com