U.S. military grounds F-35 Joint Strike Fighter after fire | Hacker News Reader

U.S. military grounds F-35 Joint Strike Fighter after fire

latimes.com

35 pointscl8ton52 comments

$1 Trillion dollars to build a plane to give the US (and it's allies) a greater edge over it's "opponents" militaries (in theory).

I try to avoid been an armchair general but you have to wonder what you could have done by giving NASA $400 billion (equivalent to 15 years of their current budget) and spending the other $600 billion evenly between education, infrastructure and investing in new businesses/re-training.

Sometimes I suffer species embarrassment.

In the state of nature, the smartest play is not to try and be Mark Zuckerberg. It's to beat up Mark Zuckerberg and take all his stuff. Nations live in a state of nature as to each other, and thus a strong defense is a necessity in order to avoid colonization.[1]

In any case, the trillion dollar price tag is amortized over 55 years. Over that time, at current levels of spending, we'll spend almost $8 trillion on education just at the federal level, almost a trillion on NASA, $44 trillion on social security, $42 trillion on Medicare, etc.

The F35 has been a bungled project, but it's not any basis for feeling "species embarrassment."

[1] Europeans didn't manage to colonize or otherwise subjugate India, Asia, the Americas, etc, because they were so much wealthier or more educated, but because they had vastly superior military technology.

Sounds great. Where is this "vastly superior" military technology you speak of? The only thing superior about the F-35 is the price tag.

We already have the hardware needed to repel every nation on Earth from our borders several times over. At some point it makes sense to look more closely at how we allocate our tax dollars.

> We already have the hardware needed to repel every nation on Earth from our borders several times over. At some point it makes sense to look more closely at how we allocate our tax dollars.

First, the mission of the U.S. military is not just to repel attackers from our own borders. We have, though NATO, made it our mission to do the same for the whole of Western Europe.

Second, I don't know where this idea comes from that we "have the hardware needed to repel every nation on Earth from our borders." Spending $200 billion per year does not mean you can effectively repel two countries that each spend $100 billion per year. There are diminishing returns. We push far along that curve because we're tremendously averse to loss of American life. We don't want to just be able to repel attackers, but do it with minimal U.S. casualties both to military and civilian personnel.

The goal isn't just to win a war against China or Russia. It's to win a war without losing a million Americans in the process. Or: ideally, have such an overwhelming advantage that people the world over start to think of war between major powers as a relic of the distant past, instead of the central aspect of international politics that it has always been.

Sorry, but there's no credible reason to think we will need this particular trillion-dollar aircraft to go to war against a hypothetical future version of China or Russia that spends the equivalent of $100 billion per year to attack us. A single ballistic-missile submarine is enough to deter that.

Perhaps it's time to give the "Department of Defense" a new name. It used to be called the "War Department," didn't it?

'noir_lord wasn't suggesting we spend the $1 trillion on a more effective project. He was questioning spending that money on the military versus education or NASA. These sorts of criticisms of U.S. military expenditures are based on an a-historical view of the world that ignores events before 1950. For hundreds of years before that, the European powers were constantly at war, culminating in WWII that left 60 million people dead. That sort of warfare is the rule. The peace of the last 60-odd years is the exception, and the exception has to a great extent been bankrolled by the American military.

Is the F-35 the best use of defense dollars? Probably not. But we spend under 4% of GDP on the military. Given the potential consequences of the loss of American military supremacy, that's not an unreasonable amount.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

-Dwight Eisenhower, 1961

I don't think its credulous to insinuate that we have not sacrificed decades worth of opportunities to grow societal and physical infrastructure at the altar of the very thing Ike was warning us about.

We can absolutely adequately defend ourselves and our allies with much less money.

These sorts of criticisms of U.S. military expenditures are based on an a-historical view of the world that ignores events before 1950.

Correct; specifically, before November 1, 1952. Every dime we've spent on defense since then has gone towards fighting a kind of war that's not ever going to happen again. Either that, or fighting an asymmetrical skirmish somewhere in hopes of changing someone's culture through the application of violence.

Again, there simply is no problem facing the US that projects like this are cost-effective at solving. (And that doesn't even get into the absurdity of a combat aircraft with a human pilot in 2014, much less the 2050+ amortization timeline of the F-35 project.) Build your Maginot Line on your own dime, kthxbye.

> Correct; specifically, before November 1, 1952. Every dime we've spent on defense since then has gone towards fighting a kind of war that's not ever going to happen again.

The hydrogen bomb does not render obsolete conventional warfare. See, e.g., all the wars nuclear powers have been involved in since 1952. War between nations is a dispute resolution mechanism of last-resort. A weapon that just leaves everyone on both sides dead is inapplicable to that end.

Take, for example, a hypothetical war over some limited resource (take your pick, they're all running out). Is anyone going to use nuclear weapons in such a war? No, but they're not going to handle everything through diplomacy either.

> And that doesn't even get into the absurdity of a combat aircraft with a human pilot in 2014, much less the 2050+ amortization timeline of the F-35 project.)

We have quite a few advances to make in communications technology and AI before human pilots are obsolete. As long as we need human operators, the wireless communications infrastructure is too fragile (susceptible to jamming, etc) to use in combat, and we're nowhere near fully autonomous combat aircraft.

> there's no credible reason to think we will need this particular trillion-dollar aircraft

> A single ballistic-missile submarine is enough

> the absurdity of a combat aircraft with a human pilot in 2014

I'm curious to know what are you basing those statements on.

You might ask the same question of the folks looking to spend $1T on a China-proof rock.

There hasn't been peace in the last 60-years for many non-Americans, specifically non-superpower adversaries.

That is because the American military is not a purely defensive construct, having been used far more offensively than defensively.

It seems to me that countries with powerful standing armies have not been been the parties to bet on in conflicts that fall outside of the niche in which that army was created. They either have sufficient excess of power to maintain that army in relation to the rest of their expenses, and so lack significant threats to test their armies against and see where they could improve in a manner clear enough to overcome the political interests of those who've tied themselves to that particular model of military force. Or, they don't - and the weight of funding the army drags down the education and wealth on which the creation of new technologies relies.

It happened to the British, it happened to the Chinese, it happened to the Russians, it happened to the Romans, it happened to the Egyptians. It's happened to almost every empire that has at some point enjoyed a large standing force and then had the context that made it make sense change.

What's important seems to be the industrial capacity to quickly create a military force, a culture that allows you to integrate the average man into the command structure, and a core of well trained professionals to head that structure.

But the idea that simply investing in the military will provide us with security is not one I'd subscribe to. It seems to me that, historically, they've been the parties to bet on only within the niche in which they evolved. Outside of that niche, it seems better to bet on the upstarts - those with a reasonable industrial capacity or the ability to acquire one, along with a desperate enough position to go for what works and sufficiently well educated people to see the next few steps.

I'd expect this effect only to become more pronounced as technology advances faster.

tl/dr: People find something that works, and stick with it until it fails - not until it becomes illogical. Funding something creates momentum for that thing in ideological and logistical terms, and military force is not entirely fungible. If you need to adapt to a challenge in a particular area, having funded something for a long time is not necessarily a Good Thing.

I don't think we want to colonize or otherwise subjugate anyone and our military is vastly larger than it needs to be to prevent others from subjugating us.

Correct - the strong military is a deterrant, and a political tool. It is partly why the US has been able to successfully bully countries in the past for favorable outcomes for its companies.

Assertions aren't facts, and your comment has plenty of the former with few of the latter. For example, "might is necessary to avoid colonization" is simply false--as in it's objectively, empirically not true. Two of your numbers, SS and Medicare, are at best disingenuous to bring up because of the nature of their funding and expenditure mechanisms.

In any case, the development cost is projected to be about 25% of the lifetime cost ($400 billion out of $1.45 trillion). Of the two items you listed that are comparable to a military expenditure, $400 bn is 5% of the education number and 40% of the NASA number--not trivial in either case.

>In the state of nature, the smartest play is not to try and be Mark Zuckerberg. It's to beat up Mark Zuckerberg and take all his stuff.

False. The smartest play is to not be relevant either to Mark Zuckerberg, or the criminals who steal his stuff.

You are justifying violence, aggression, and theft. This is not really a position I am surprised to see being upvoted, but I am rather disappointed that you haven't had any worthy challengers, either.

The fact of the matter is that the state of nature is utterly arbitrary, now. If we decide not to kill each other, we do not kill each other. We do not randomly kill anyone without actually deciding to do it; failing to acknowledge the culpability of killers, and those who prepare to do killing above all else, is why we have killers.

In an ideal, natural state, equilibrium will be attained, for that is the nature of the universe at large. It takes an obtuse intrusion of life to impede upon the natural entropy of the universe; decide to kill, and then kill, and you'll be doing something that does not happen anywhere else, provably, yet in the wider known universe. It is a unique and utterly self-perpetuating circumstance, murder. It cannot occur without life making the effort to proceed with the act.

And the fact of the matter is, trillions of dollars worth of decisions have been made, by a tragically small elite, in the name of the whole - to kill. This is the responsibility of everyone who allows those dollars to persist as currency in global communication; the fallacy of irresponsibility nevertheless allows for continued acts of overt destruction on the human species.

Decide not to kill, and you need not kill. For every $billion bomber, there could have been 1,000 solutions to the distrust and hatred between those who do not understand each other, sufficiently well enough, to acknowledge the commonality of life, shared. Put the bomber pilot in the middle of the village, and soon enough he'll be grateful for the company of those humans with whom he must drink tea, or perish.

The only reason that the American people have allowed their nation to be subjugated by murders, criminals, the provably insane, is that they (the American people) simply cannot take responsibility - for themselves, nor for others. The idea that American military power is a projection of the willingness to 'do good for others' is an utterly banal fallacy; American military might can only be projected when those who can stop it are driven into an apathy derived from near-total irresponsibility for the results: for the death, for the murder, for the total lack of justice, for the dire export of utter prejudice, and ultimately - hatred.

The budget was allocated on death. It was not spent on life. There are far more potent ways to deliver continued life by those, the living, here and now, than to predict future conflict 'is necessary and natural'. If you are alive today, you can solve this: learn the language of those you pretend not to hate.

"spending the other $600 billion evenly between education, infrastructure and investing in new businesses/re-training."

I have recently started to believe that most people get the casualty wrong between education/training and industrial advancement. If you want more engineers, spend money in a way that creates more engineering jobs, do not simply educate engineers for jobs that do not exist. If you create the jobs, people will change college majors or teach themselves. Industries will create apprenticeship programs to compensate for the undersupply, etc. I think the U.S. already spends more than enough money to provide enough book learning to meet the demands of industry. Spending more without creating the jobs would be a waste of money. (Note I am not arguing that spending the money on the F-35 was the best use of the money, just that spending money on more education is also not a good use of money).

I was an aerospace undergrad in Georgia Tech, which has a pretty close relationship with Lockheed-Martin by virtue of geography. My observation was that projects like the F-35 create lots of technology and create the monetary incentive for training lots of engineers. It's maybe not the most efficient way to do those things, but it's not like all that money is just thrown in a hole.

s/F-35/Mars Lander/

> If you create the jobs, people will change college majors or teach themselves. Industries will create apprenticeship programs to compensate for the undersupply, etc.

The dearth of plumbers, electricians, mechanics, welders, and other tradespeople in the US completely disagrees with this. These are very frequently high-paying jobs (even if you judge by the tech industry yardstick) and there simply aren't enough people to fill the jobs. Mike Rowe has been campaigning about this for years now, to try to get people back into the trade, and it's just not happening.

Do you have data to support this claim?

It would certainly depend on location, but BLS average salary data seems to point otherwise:

Plumbers $49K: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/plumbers-...

Electricians $49K: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/electrici...

Mechanics $36K: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/installation-maintenance-and-repair/a...

Welders $36K: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/production/welders-cutters-solderers-...

-VS-

Software Developer $93K: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/s...

Computer Programer $74K: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/c...

Most people don't move beyond where they live, so "creating jobs" is a highly localized event that requires targeted and planned injection of resources. And even so, these resources can and do disappear.

Personally I think reducing friction to moving elsewhere -- be it across state boundaries or across oceans -- should be prioritized. This would involve supporting/subsidizing public transportation infrastructure on a massive scale, which has benefits that are unrelated to increased personal mobility.

Supporting the the "creation of jobs" is ephemeral by nature -- the need for those jobs is not permanent, however the supporting transportation infrastructure has a far greater sense of permanence.

This is just hardware problem. The biggest risk is in the software. The potential for F-35 being the most expensive software project failure is still there.

Lockheed is still writing the code for Block 2B software that provides enough functionality for the initial operational capability (IOC). That might be ready 2016 if the software gets ready. This would enable F-35 to fly limited combat missions.

The real reason for F-35 is in the block 3F (full capability). Full sensor integration, augmented reality helmet, data fusion between radars and IR. Ability to share raw sensor data between fighters. It's incredibly complex systems with millions of lines of code and it's safety critical code. Without it, F-35 is failure.

Software Testing Problems Continue to Plague F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/aerospace/aviation/softw...

That might be ready 2016 if the software gets ready. This would enable F-35 to fly limited combat missions.

When will the F-35 fulfill a role that couldn't have been fulfilled more effectively by existing resources?

Depends what you consider its role to be. If its role is to provide work and income to its builders and suppliers, then it is already a massive success.

The US military was planning to fly 5 f35's across the Atlantic for the Farnborough airshow next week in an effort to shore up support for the UK purchase. They were originally supposed to be there by June 29th so this is another delay. Looks like they haven't made a final decision on the trip yet (not sure if I would want to be one of the pilots flying these things across the ocean, a trip that requires ~10 aerial refuelings)

[http://aviationweek.com/defense/pentagon-grounds-f-35-fleet-...]

There is a difference between combat radius and ferry range. The F-35B has a ferry range of about 900nm so to get from NAS Pax River to UK would only require 5 or 6 tankings in the air. This assumes the F-35Bs fly without external tanks.

Almost all long crossings over ocean require a divert point if the jets can't refuel in the air, or have a trapped fuel issue where they can't use fuel from one or more tanks.

Typically, fighters "top up" the tanks more than strictly needed, for additional margin if something goes wrong. It doesn't require 10 refuelings, just for range.

Another likely explanation is a delay in getting clearance to fly in the UK, largely due to the recent mishap. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/02/uk-lockheed-fighter...

> "Strict UK liability laws mean British authorities need additional information before granting flight clearances. If something went wrong, the individual officer who approved the flight could be sued personally, the sources said."

Edit: Corrected the point about extra refuelings.

Does it really take 10 in-flight refuelling? How's that possible?

Canada to Greenland to Iceland to UK is only about 1000 nm.

There was a comment elsewhere that they need to be within range of land at all times in case a refuelling fails.

They are flying from: Patuxent River Maryland to: Fairford England which has a direct flight path of ~5800kms. The range of the F35 is ~2200km plus they need to maintain emergency fuel reserves and might fly a less direct path to stay near land. They are taking 2 kc130 air tankers for the trip.

http://aviationweek.com/farnborough-2014/priming-jsfs-transa...

http://www.aircalculator.com/flightplan.php?from=BZZ&from_ai...

Whenever the F-35 is mentioned, I am reminded of this interview with the designer of the F-16 about the concepts behind the design of the F-35:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw

I'd be interested to know what other people think of http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-dia... , after watching that video. I am no expert on planes but, but the counter arguments made to Mr. Sprey's rant seem quite strong to me, and frankly quite viable, as a lot of what Mr. Sprey says suggests he is indeed stuck in a past age of avionics.

While I find Mr. Sprey hyperbolic, I think that article is not entirely valid. For example the claim "by and large most everyone agrees that the F-35 is as maneuverable as an F-16" is not remotely true.

If you want an opinion that seem better informed and is favorable to the f35 read this: http://manglermuldoon.blogspot.com/2012/05/f-35-development-...

Stuck in the past? Or stuck in reality where magical planes that do everything better than specialized planes can manage don't exist?

I honestly don't know. I don't see it as being that far fetched to have a single plane that can do what 2-3 30 yr-old planes were made to do, but again I don't know anything.

It's probably just me being crazy but I feel like for Mr. Sprey has ulterior motives and reasons beyond the ones he says for hating the F-35, like the fact that he seems to exclusively compare it to planes that he had a hand in creating, and like most people would, claims that his products are exclusively better. I'd say he is quite biased.

It can't hold enough fuel to maintain a position above a ground battle to support troops effectively.

Its heavy jump jets make it slow and unmaneuverable, making it a terrible fighter. They also destroy asphalt roads with their heat.

It's a terrible bomber because a) stealth dictates that it can't hold bombs on the underside of the wing and b) the payload space in the center of the aircraft is taken up by a massive jump jet.

This plane is the definition of "jack of all trades, master of none".

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-alli...

Planes aren't like computers where they can improve exponentially each year. There's hard limitations like how much energy you can extract from fuel, how much force you can get with air moving over a given control surface.

The F-35 will never come close to the ground-support capability of the A-10. It will never have the aerobatic ability of a plane a fraction of its weight like a MiG. It will never, ever have the ridiculous durability of an F-15.

At best it will be "adequate" in all roles, never excel. There's a lot of reason for outrage against the recent developments, and Mr. Sprey, like it or not, was responsible for some of the best planes in the world at the time they were released.

Now there's the F-22, which is ambitious but unremarkable, the F-117, basically useless, and now the F-35, a giant turkey of a plane that is possibly a decade away from being ready for combat.

For an example of programs gone awry, look at the Osprey. It's a "helicopter plane" which is not very good in either role.

Sprey didn't "design" the F-16. He was part of the group that proposed the Lightweight Fighter concept.

Harry J. Hillaker is the lead designer of the F-16.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article3269.html

Url changed from http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-35-is-a-disaster-2014-7, which points to this.

Submitters: please peruse the stories you submit for links to more original sources. HN prefers more original sources.

Was this because of the VTOL system or it's requirement?

If so, is VTOL really necessary for the Navy? I know they want smaller carriers but they should have modified the plane afterwards rather than potentially screw up the entire very important project by requiring this feature. The US Navy already has a huge fleet of super-carriers, there is no need for VTOL in my opinion.

Why can't this super expensive aircraft be remotely piloted or have a sophisticated autopilot to automatically land at one of many predetermined places in the event of an accident?

On my (amateur) level of reading about the selection of the F-35 it seems that the VTOL was a requirement put in by the Marines so that they wouldn't always have to rely on the Navy for operations. This is a tradition that goes back to the WWII and Guadalcanal, where some felt they could never again rely on another arm of service (long story). Others in the Marines basically feel that there mission is different enough to justify their smaller Wasp amphibious carriers (which require VTOL).

So what you have then are two contradictory requirements (which those in software will recognize as common when coming from above):

(1) Make a single common airframe that serves the Airforce, Navy and Marines.

(2) Make that airframe fit the particular requirements of each arm of the services.

The F-35 is relatively wide-bodied to accommodate the lift fan on the F-35B (the VTOL variant). This means that weight and size then impact the Airforce and Navy variants (the F-35A and C).

The Airforce get a slow, heavy fighter, the Navy get a thirsty lower-ranged aircraft and the Marines get a more expensive and fragile VTOL, but at the expense of everyone else.

There are three variants. F-35C is the Navy version, based on CATOBAR operations like other Navy aircraft. F-35A is the land based variant. F-35B is the VTOL variant which the USMC intends to replace their Harriers and which many nations without CATOBAR carriers intend to operate at sea.

VTOL was a Marine requirement, not Navy.

Indeed, and it isn't new either, having been introduced in 1971. It still remains a mainstay of their combined arms doctrine (apparently). It will continue to be demanded for a while, and for good reason.

Also a requirement of the Royal Navy and Italian Navy and any export target nations interested in maritime operations from smaller-than-supercarrier aircraft carriers like Singapore, Spain, Australia and Turkey.

Still possibly very stupid though.

This article specifically talks about the unruly requirements - https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-alli...

We need the same kind of innovation in the jet fighter sector as we're seeing by SpaceX in orbital launches.

The F-35 is a disaster because it was designed by committee and has ended up being good for nothing. The body is wide because it had to accommodate the vertical takeoff jet and nozzle and the wings had to be short. This makes it horrible for dog-fights, a fuel consumption pig, unable to loiter over an area, unable to provide close air support.

The fact that it's stealth is debatable too. There have been instances where low frequency radar has been repurposed to detect stealth aircraft like the F117 shot down over Serbia. Basically nothing can hide from L-band radar (1 to 2 Ghz).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw&feature=youtu.be

Pierre Sprey is the designer of the F16 and the A10.

The other side of the debate on Sprey's comments:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-dia...

Heh. They wrote $400 million again. I guess $400 billion simply sounds too unreasonable to escape any editors spider sense.

Maybe they are still in denial?

As a Canadian, I must say that the timing of this fire is exquisite because the government is due to release a decision on the acquisition of the F-35 within the next few weeks.

First of all, it's important to realize that the Canadian government is not looking to acquire the F-35 to fill a specific niche in their air force. They're looking for a single fighter that will fill all roles in the Canadian military, as the CF-18 has been doing. Operating a single model of fighter is considered cheaper.

While the F-35 is probably going to be a good Harrier replacement, Canada never has operated any Harriers. The biggest need for the Canadian military is all-weather, long-range patrol and interdiction. Canada has vast, unpopulated areas, especially in the arctic, and a slow (compared to competing fighters), single-engine plane with small control surfaces is totally unsuitable for this application. To make matters worse, the most likely threats in this application are Russian jets that are vastly superior to the F-35 in air-to-air combat. The potential safety offered by the F-35's stealth in combat pales when compared to the certain danger that will accompany everyday domestic patrols.

Almost the only compelling factor in favor of Canada acquiring the F-35 is it's stealth technology. However, that stealth tech is of questionable value. First, Canada routinely defends but rarely attacks. Second, the F-35's stealth is questionable. China and Russia, and numerous countries that buy hardware from them, likely have access to radar that can detect the F-35 easily [1]. Given that these planes will likely remain in service for two decades at the very least, the probability of them remaining stealthy for that long is very low.

If the F-35 is so unsuited for Canada's needs, why is it still the front-runner versus much cheaper competition? Well, that's the thing. Nobody really knows except the Canadian government, and they're not telling. We can only speculate that it's more due to pressure from the U.S. and the certain economic reprisals that will accompany backing out of the F-35 program. A lot of Canadian companies are currently working on the F-35 project, and they will almost certainly be cut off if Canada pulls out, which may cause some of them to go under.

The F-35 isn't so much a plane, as an industry unto itself. The question is, is the Canadian F-35 industry too big to be allowed to fail? The F-35's have been grounded again right when the government was expected to finally give them the green light. This probably only delays the inevitable, but one can always hope!

[1]http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/04/29/360578/us-stealth-j...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com