The Pentagon will have to live with limits on F-35’s supersonic flights (2020) | Hacker News Reader

The Pentagon will have to live with limits on F-35’s supersonic flights (2020)

defensenews.com

28 pointscurt1576 comments

WONTFIX.

See F35-13174 "Add timeout for supersonic flight at high altitude" for details.

Interesting that they called out the materials problem, and specifically the duration of research time necessary to develop and test new materials. I currently work for a company specifically targeted at shortening R&D cycles for materials companies.

It's an interesting AI application - materials data tends to be small, and sparse, because each data point is expensive to generate. But you have the benefit of physical properties being bounded in the real world, where we already know certain relationships. So you need a way to inject ground truth into your model(s) so that you aren't trying to have your model re-learn the boiling point of water.

Supersonic cruise was an explicit design requirement for the F35, and it has been achieved using materials developed in the 1990s for the F22.

Your problem set sounds super cool, and it would be nice if DOD had a functioning acquisition process that would allow people with interesting tech to out-compete companies whose boards are stacked with current and former public officials. But alas, that's not the world we live in.

The sad thing is, there are probably dozens of proto Kelly Johnson's out there. But they've made defense industries so intolerable that none of them work there.

I don't think supersonic cruise was a requirement. F35 has to use afterburners to get supersonic.

Drag increases significantly as the speed approaches Mach 1.0 (which is why commercial airliners stay below about Mach 0.8), but decreases significantly after that. So, just because a plane needs afterburners to attain supersonic speed doesn't mean it needs them to remain in supersonic flight.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Qualitiv...

Is it the case that the nature of projects in the defence industry is such that companies are prone to consolidation into a few large contractors? In the case of pharma, given the length of time and billions needed to go from drug discovery to market means that only large companies can effectively do R&D. Is it similar for defence i.e., long development times mean only a few large companies can effectively compete? Or is the creation of oligopolies that don't allow for competition a very conscious aspect of government defence policy?

It's extremely easy for the government to accidentally create monopoly suppliers.

If Amazon signs a 5 year contract to get all their delivery trucks from Ford, GM isn't going to go out of business; and when they're re-negotiating the contract in 5 years time there'll still be a vibrant competitive market.

But if you make tanks or jet fighters or railroad rails, you might only have one customer. And if your only customer signs a 5 year deal with someone else, you're out of business.

Most of the consolidation has happened though because of ever more expensive weapons programs. A B52 is a lot dumber than an F35 and costs way less.

Similar trends took place in commercial aviation. There aren’t successful entrants into this market despite a lot of state backing, because it is now very hard and expensive to create an aircraft that matches the performance and efficiency of the latest models of Boeing and Airbus.

F22 also has a limit on how long the RAM rubber can hold, and relies on constant RAM inspections, and repairs.

F35, as an aircraft created more than a decade later, is supposed to have a much better RAMs.

Oh that AI application sounds fantastic for symbolic-regression brute-forcing with the algo I'm getting ready to publish. It has no minimum amount of data. It can solve relationships with a single data point if it's exact enough.

Citrine?

Yep

Nice, I’d love to know what the day to day is like. They responded to my data engineering application with “We do not currently support the state you live in (Louisiana) for remote work”

I am surprised to hear that living in Louisiana was a barrier - we have remote workers in a large number of states. Not sure if we are still hiring in Data Engineering, but it probably wouldn't hurt to reach out and reapply if this was pre/early-COVID. It's a good company to work for - excellent learning / growth culture and a lot of very smart people who don't have cookie cutter software backgrounds.

I can try and ping my contact there again- my email is my HN name at gmail. I did express my willingness to eventually relocate as well. I think I did put in a re-app for DS recently.

How did things come to where they are? My understanding is that the requirements of the SVTOL B variant were the cause of the lion's share of this plane's woes?

However there's also conflicting review from pilots - many who seem to love the plane (unless they are mandated to give glowing reviews to the press?).

> However there's also conflicting review from pilots - many who seem to love the plane

I imagine it's a bit like the Neo Geo home console in back in the 1990s. If I were spending my own money, I would happily buy both a Genesis and a SNES, and still have money left over. But that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the heck out of the Neo Geo that my rich uncle had bought for himself.

it's a highly politicized plane unfortunately. as an interested layman, I've read persuasive arguments that the plane is DOA, an utter failure. I've also read just as persuasive arguments that the plane is a technological masterpiece with a few inconsequential setbacks of a type that should be expected with such a groundbreaking machine. it's hard for me to tell where the truth lies. I don't know if it's like a self-driving car that occasionally waits way too long at stop signs or the kind that occasionally plows into children for no reason.

The recent criticism against the F35 was started by Adam Smith, Democratic Representative from Washington state, where Boeing has a huge presence and is a big donor.

The chief of staff of the Air Force referred to the F35 as a Ferrari that you don't want to drive all the time. To me that reads that you can't use/waste the F35 in non-peer enemy conflicts since it's far too good of a plane for such situations, and that Congress should pony up more money to the armed forces so they can build a modern but less capable plane.

That's not a compliment. The F22 was supposed to be the Ferrari you don't want to drive all the time, and the F35 was supposed to be the inexpensive, less capable plane you use against non-peer enemies. In asking for funds to develop a new plane to fill that role, there is an implicit admission that the F-35 has failed to fill that role for which it was designed.

Now there is rumors of the "F-36 Kingsnake" circulating about a sort of cheap "F-16++" fighter being needed.

The F-15EX's existence is also kind of an admission that the F-22/F-35 combo didn't quite meet desired expectations too.

The F-22 pretty much met expectations, however the operating costs are high (as expected) and the production line was shut down so it's impossible to build more. Meanwhile the old F-15s used for missions like homeland defense are literally falling apart so some sort of replacement was mandatory. The F-15 production line is still active so that became the only practical option.

From a capability perspective, the F-22 seems clearly superior to its predecessor the F-15, so definitely successful there.

But wasn't the original goal to eventually wholesale replace the F-15 (the air superiority variants at least)? That clearly isn't going to happen.

Much like how the F-35 was supposed to replace the F-16 and F/A-18, but seems like that's not going to happen the way things are going.

The program which produced the F-22 started back in 1981 and the original intent was to wholesale replace the F-15. But it got caught in a procurement death spiral of escalating unit costs which caused repeated quantity reductions. Eventually the Obama administration cancelled all future purchases in 2011 in order to save money for the F-35 program and the wars in the Middle East. At this point it's effectively impossible to restart F-22 production as the supply chain for critical components has disappeared.

That was certainly an interesting thing for him to say. My read is that the maintenance requirements of stealth aircraft are unavoidably high.

The impression I get is that it's usefulness heavily depends on the parameters of engagement, and how useful you see the plane as being hinges on what type of engagement you see as the most likely.

One of the criticisms is that the plane is too expensive to use against non-peers. What I'm reading between the lines is that all of this technology is designed to counter advanced enemies. There's no reason to use an F-35 in somewhere like Iraq because they don't even really have the means to combat F-22s. There's no point in expensive, fancy stealth fighters if your enemy lacks the ability to detect and counter much simpler planes.

That leaves the technologically advanced foes. The pivotal question there becomes "how well does the stealth work?", and the answer probably heavily depends on where the combat takes place. If we're fighting a proxy war in a third world country, the F-35 probably makes a lot of sense. Even if our foes have detection capabilities, they would need to get them deployed and make sure we don't destroy them. It also presumes that our advanced foe is willing to show their hand and give their detection hardware to the proxy country, giving up a future advantage.

This thing just doesn't seem capable of dogfighting, so a sheer technological advantage is a must in order for it to be successful. Otherwise it will have to be deployed with planes that can dogfight, ruining the stealth advantage. The open ended question is "Do we have a technological advantage, and can we maintain it?". Everyone's perception of the plane is flavored by their answer to that question.

I think we need to remember that there are two major perspectives for evaluating something like this: comparing it to what it was supposed to be and comparing it to what came before. Undoubtedly the F-35, simply by virtue of being developed later, has a lot of lessons learned and new technology baked into it that certainly will scratch an itch for some people. However the major problems which were the impetus for the F-35's development largely remain unaddressed so there's certainly a large group that didn't get what they were looking for. Ironically, it might be perfectly accurate to describe it as simultaneously the smartest and stupidest modern fighter jet.

As a product designer, the F-35 strikes me as an object lesson in the oftentimes enormous difference between giving your client what they asked for, and giving your client what they want.

Both are essentially true.

The aircraft does its job quite well. That's why the pilots love it. While specific details are pretty tightly controlled, no, the military doesn't force pilots to lie. Enough of our allies have flown it or against it in Red Flag that we'd not be successful keeping it a secret if it were a lemon. Likewise our allies like us, but not enough to spend billions on junk.

But the program was somewhat of a disaster, and the sustainment costs continue to be high enough the air force is seriously considering shifting their future buys to upgraded versions of previous generation fighters. The joint acquisition was indeed a big part of the problem, with the 3 variants not having nearly as much commonality as hoped. So all the costs of the joint acquisition, with none of the benefits.

Basically everything the AF has published about procurement since, particularly Dr Roper's stuff, is very clearly "don't let something like the F-35 program happen ever again."

> our allies like us

Is this still true? Or is this, they like us like we like a dumb puppy making a fool of itself while not realizing everyone is laughing at it behind their polite hands?

It doesn’t even have to be ‘like’ that brings countries together - just a significantly better alternative to the USSR and PRC.

Flawed as the US is, for a super-power we don’t seem to rack up dead bodies in the millions as others have done. And if we do slaughter innocents, at least we make contrite noises about it a few decades later.

That's like deciding to marry a man because he doesn't beat you as often as other men. He is still a bad man.

I'd compare it to hanging around the school bully for protection, because the truly homicidal students won't stop at stuffing you in a locker like he does.

Could America be better? Of course. Are they better than the alternatives, like spending dramatically more on defense or hoping China plays nice? Mostly to absolutely, depending on who's discussing it.

I remember reading case studies in college about the failures of the B1 bomber procurement process. Unclear if any lessons were learned decades later.

The B1 was a mess, and it got turned into a political football by Reagan. Carter canceled it for two reasons: first, the USSR upgraded the radars on their intercepters in a way that made the "nap of the earth" bombing mission suicidal, and second, he know about the B2 program. Reagan was briefed on the B2 and knew the B1 cancelation was the right decision, but decided to use it to portray himself as "tough" vs the USSR, making restarting the B1 program one of his big campaign promises.

Here's the AF's current thinking, all be it in a memo with let's say, unexpected formatting: https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/2020SAF/There_Is_No_S...

The tl;dr is the AF most definitely wants to dramatically change how these programs work, primarily around shorter timelines, less vendor locking, and the AF owning the system integration.

It is notable that several countries have held competitions to choose new fighter jets and the F-35 has generally won those competitions when it was an option. Countries like Belgium, Japan, South Korea, and Poland would be examples.

Is it really notable? 4/4 of those countries have US military stationed in them, and all of them are either defended by the US directly or as part of a mutual defense treaty.

Government procurement projects, especially international ones, aren't a great way to compare things on merit.

Take Belgium: Boeing and Saab didn't even bid. Boeing hinted that the program wasn't truly a "level playing field" - and then there were leaks that suggested the Belgian military promised NATO they'd purchase the F-35 years earlier and set the procurement process up to ensure the F-35 would come out on top.

I'd suspect politics, monetary incentives (not coarse bribes, but rather discounts, money for other programs, soft political support, and so on). And behind all that, "Can't get fired for buying IBM" syndrome[0].

[0] http://www.ipglossary.com/glossary/no-one-ever-got-fired-for...

I wonder if prestige is also a factor, being able to brag that you have the "latest and the greatest". It's also the only true stealth fighter available for sale. Well, the SU-57 is also being marketed for export too, but it's probably not going to have many takers in the West for political reasons, and it has it's own set of problems.

Otherwise, what is the F-35's competitors? Typhooon, Rafale, Gripen, Super Hornet, or some advanced Eagle variant? All good planes, and probably more appropriate for many air forces than the F-35, but they are all 4+ generation planes, not the latest new shiny toy that the F-35 is.

While a limitation, I don't really think this affects the platform much. It's not an air superiority fighter like the F-22, it's much more of an air "quarterback" to to speak. It flies up, sees the defense, sees the offense, tells the offense where to go and what to do, and in case of emergencies can defend itself if need be.

Supersonic flight also requires a lot more fuel and the internal fuel tanks on the F-35 also severely limit the amount of time the plane can sustain supersonic speeds. Obviously you want to have your cake and eat it too, you want a stealthy, extremely high speed, capable, and affordable platform, but that's not how the real world works. I imagine the operators would rather have F-35s in the air for longer periods of time to act as a force multiplier rather than have the jet be able to zoom around 10% faster for 30-40 seconds at a time.

> it's much more of an air "quarterback" to to speak

I thought that was AWACS? Why is an F designated plane not in a fighter role?

If we are going to stretch the analogy, AWACS could be the watcher on the stands, telling the coach the big picture plays. The quarterback is in the heat, calling tactics in the spur of moment.

Not sure if the analogy breaks down completely from here on.

AWACS do do that, however, in a conflict with a peer enemy AWACS would get shot down immediately since they're non-stealth sitting ducks.

The F-35 is definitely a multi role fighter. It just also has sophisticated enough electronics it can act as a sort of "mini AWACS" when useful. And it's a lot more likely to survive in a peer fight, while AWACS will be pushed back beyond standoff range.

> multi role fighter

From an outsiders perspective this has the feel of “it can be whatever you want it to be as long as you keep buying them”.

That's not an accurate view. Even within the US the competition between Boeing and LM is pretty intense. Our allies are not somehow being strong armed into buying the F-35. The allies not buying it are generally doing so because they like to use their spending to build domestic industry, like France, or because they simply don't have the budget for anything beyond a previous generation fighter.

Additionally, I believe supersonic flight in general leads to a decrease in stealth, even with supercruise. The structure itself heats up and becomes easier to detect in IR.

I think it is understood that carrier aircraft are intrinsically more limited in capabilities than land-based aircraft, it might just not be such a huge issue.

The F-35 isn't meant to be an observation platform, for which long endurance drones are a much better option, it's a strike fighter. It's supposed to be able to use its stealth to fly through defenses other planes couldn't and deal crippling blows behind those lines. However stealth isn't invisibility, those defensive radars may not be able to lock onto the F-35, but they can see that it's there and scramble fighters to intercept. A big advantage of the F-35's stealth and advanced electronic suite is that it can see enemies before they can see it, and can avoid engagements where it is at a disadvantage - but this relies on it having the speed to get out of dodge before the enemy can close the gap. With limits on speed, it takes longer to complete strike missions which increases the risk of intercept, and the ability to avoid those intercepts is potentially compromised.

HN is fascinated with bashing this aircraft.

The F35 is an employment program, not an aircraft.

Also forces adversaries to divert money into counter-F35 activates (or copying the f-35), and this is also a type of geopolitical weapon.

These are the worst broken windows. So much waste for so little gain.

Starwars worked really well.

We can't be losing talent to China/EU/Russia. So the bureaucracy feeds the bureaucracy.

Please do tell that to the pilots who are flying the F35.

Hmm, I feel like the trillion or so spent on this expensive military flex would be better used to solve homelessness.

The whole thing doesn't make much sense, what is this for ? Why are we still acting like we might need to fight Russia or something.

Even if you are imagining WW3 I reckon human pilots will be obsolete by then. A drone would be able to fly faster and react quicker

you haven't been keeping up then. Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, are all state actors with significant interests in knocking the United States off its pedestal. Specifically China and its recent posturing in the South China Sea. While I agree in principle that the F35 has largely been a waste of taxpayer money, to be ignorant of military threats to our nation is not the wisest strategy.

> threats to our nation

Is the South China Sea already part of the US?

You meant to say : our nations economic interests.

Of course. Has it ever been any different?

None of those nations are military threats to the United States in the sense that they can realistically threaten an invasion or takeover of the United States. Those nations are threats to various interests of ours and some pose economic threats to our position and interests. As the world enters into a new multi-polar reality we need to reassess our views of what a ‘threat’ is. The Pax Americana is coming to an end. Soon we as a nation will recognize that we longer have the resources to impose our will wherever we desire.

It's not only about US soil, it's also about allies like Japan, SK, Taiwan, Thailand, Philippines, Singapore. They'd all be threatened.

And why is it always described as US imposing it's will? Every Democratic govt on the planet shares mostly overlapping interests with every other Democracy. Most work together most of the time.

The Hague invasion act [0]

[0] https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be...

Pointing to one thing is lazy and does nothing to refute my claim.

Operation Gladio [0]

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

That sort of proves my point in that it was a plan backed by numerous friends. US goals align with most of the free world most of the time.

You seem to have it out for the US.

Perhaps you missed this sentence:

Those nations are threats to various interests of ours and some pose economic threats to our position and interests.

It’s not always described as the U.S. imposing it’s will. The U.S. seeks to impose it’s will often enough and has been successful enough that that using the hyperbole the U.S. imposing it’s will can be forgiven.

Tell me, which one of those countries realistically has the capacity to invade the United States ?

Which one is parking aircraft carriers off the coast of Florida ?

And it's vastly cheaper for these countries to impose their will via soft power. If anything making sure Americans have places to sleep will do more to ensure stability then posturing with overpriced jets.

They're not parking aircraft carriers off of Florida because we outnumber them 11 to 2. It would be pretty funny to see a single Chinese carrier parked in the Gulf, surrounded by 5 of our own though...

Military superiority is a bit like air. When you have plenty of it, it seems trivial, but without it, you're left gasping for a breath.

You know we got rid of a few of those aircraft carriers we could probably eliminate childhood poverty within 5 years or so. If you really think about it it's far easier to sow seeds of discontent in a population with so many poor. The sheer numbers of American poor, and those who feel abandoned is a security risk. They can be easily manipulated to destabilize the country.

And when I think about it I don't think America has an obligation to take care of every other country on Earth.

> You know we got rid of a few of those aircraft carriers we could probably eliminate childhood poverty within 5 years or so

Care to share your detailed plan?

I would prefer the 1 trillion being spent on more capable platforms. Make that .75 trillion for all I care.

If that's a new drone programme, jetpacks, Nanosuits, F32s, a BRRRT with lasers, I don't know. That's for others to decide.

But I strongly reject the idea that the US should be content with a few dozen F22, and scores of F15s. This is not a game you want to stagnate in. I believe it's precisely because of these advances, that there's nothing to be afraid of.

Your far more likely to end up homeless or unfed then to see the Russians invade.

I'm from LA, have you seen skid row ? We don't need to live in a society like this.

So perhaps this aircraft should be considered a "mini AWACS" alongside drone fleets such as is being developed by Boeing and RAAF instead of a "fighter" itself.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-02/loyal-wingman-first-f...

But that magic is all the result of avionics, which aren't inherently unique to the F-35. They could also be applied to the new-build F-15, including conformal antennas, which offers much better kinematic performance.

There's so much FUD dusted up literally every conversation about this program that it's unlikely any minds will be changed before the next peer conflict.

Expensive education, certainly. If you love the thing, stop reading, and we'll come back and have this discussion after the SCS conflict.

That said, those of us on Team Bash aren't doing this out of malice or . . whatever motivation I would have for "trash talking" a military program that indirectly pays my checks. Hell, I should be strapping on my little flouncy skirt right now and getting out the pom poms.

It's a fine development platform, and we're learning lots of stuff from the 35. It'll make a great bomb truck over whatever 'stan we need to blow up at the time.

Anyways, the thing can't fight.

(TL;DR: the plane is in a catch-22 of not having enough range when it carries enough weapons and not having enough weapons when it has enough range. Along with a bunch of other stuff, but that's the big one, and supercruise is a direct part of that)

* 1000 NM radius is not enough for SE Asia, at all, certainly not for a Hainan mission. Flying dirty (unstealthed), it flies low for terrain masking, and now it's lucky to get 500 NM.

* persnickety: pre-chilled fuel; exotic conditioned electricals; 30,000 dollar CPFH + regionally specific MDF for the active LO systems

* Can't stealth mount BRU-61, AARGM-ER/AGM-88G, AIM-260 JATM, JAGM-F, SPEAR 3, JSM, APKWS, AGM-183 ARRW, AGM-158C/D LRASM/JASSM-XR, SACM/CUDA/PEREGRINE, Hammer/Hatchet. Remember, if it has to fly dirty, it has to fly low, and now you're dealing with a 500nm range. The weapons fitment issue is probably the biggest source of FUD on this program, with lots of "it carries X Weapon" when really all they checked is that X fits inside of a NxNxN space.

* Can't supersonic launch missiles no supercruise. Subtract 30% from your missile range - a lot of rocket power to make a shock cone on the missile nose.

* 8 seconds (A), 16 seconds (B) and 43 seconds (C) over KPP requirement for missile sprint, during the run up to IOT&E and OPEVAL.

* 4 AMRAAMS internal, and let's be honest here, you need 3 to guarantee a kill in ECM environment. Take more than 4 and now you're flying "dirty", so you fly low, halving the combat radius if you're lucky. And don't forget, it doesn't have the speed to run once it empties its magazine, and from behind IRST will see its burner from 100k or more.

* APG-81, MADL, stealth coatings were pirated in the late aughts, compromised

I would add potential issues operating it from advanced airbases in a major conflict. This planes needs so much high tech ground gear to be at 100% capability, that I think it will have serious problems if air filed ops are actively threatened. And in theaters where air bases aren#t threatened by a near-peer enemy you don't need haf of the F-35s capabilities.

Using it to defend Europe against a Russian invasion is different, so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com