Hacker News Reader

Comment by chinathrow | Hacker News Reader

Meanwhile new metal just does not cut it.

http://www.jqpublicblog.com/the-little-fighter-that-couldnt-...

Among the crippling problems highlighted in the DOT&E report:

- Software glitches disrupting enemy identification and weapon employment.

- A redesigned fuel tank that continues to demonstrate unacceptable vulnerability to explosion from lightning or enemy fire.

- Departures from controlled flight during high-speed maneuvering, a six-year-old problem that apparently will not be solved without sacrificing stealth or combat capability.

- Helmet issues fundamentally degrading pilot situational awareness.

- Engine problems so severe they’re limiting sortie rates, impeding the test schedule, and generating risky operational decisions.

- Nightmarish maintainability issues leading to over-reliance on contractor support.

View on HN

Given that humans are slow, expensive and heavy and increasingly a liability in most combat scenarios and the future of manned fighters does not look good since at this point any "new metal" called forth by active hostilities would be most likely automated and (relatively) disposable.

Unfortunately we seem to have lost our moral qualms about bombing civilians some time ago so any coming wars will look like skynet with flying murderbots killing based on policy decisions made far away by people who will never see their cousins body lying where the missiles blew it.

And if you think that's a bleak and hopeless view; just think how the Pakistanis, Afghans and Yemenis who've been living with that reality for a dozen years now; feel.

    > we seem to have lost our moral qualms about bombing
    > civilians some time ago

First UAVs (balloons, as it happens) used by the Austrians to bomb Venice in 1849. Just think how the Europeans, who've been living with that reality for ~150 years now feel. Unconstrained civilian massacre by aerial bombing had peaked in terms of shakey moral justification (Dresden?) even before the Americans dropped The Bomb and won the numbers game.

I think it might not be a fair comparison since Europe is now inundated with tourists and the Middle East countries mentioned are experiencing these scenarios right now.

OP was trying to suggest that the world has become more callous about civilian casualties, using drones as an example, and was wrong on both counts

One of the greatest benefits of visual mass media has been showing the general public that wars mean suffering on the other side. The enemy civilian and their suffering is humanised when you can picture them; when they're not just a byline. This is one of the reasons that the US military didn't let journalists have free reign in Iraq - they'd learned that lesson hard in Vietnam.

Given that the B-52's roots are in the bomber design of WWII, I don't wanna have the circumstances that make design of "new metal" an existential necessity.

I don't really know of too many sophisticated military weapons that don't require contractor support. The military doesn't really hire professional engineers. The involved enlisted serve as maintenance crew and understand basics and know how to read manuals and use tools, officers fly and command things. Even the vocational schools for the enlisted that learn to do the maintenance on such equipment are often taught by civilians. Engineering takes a lot of schooling which would be on the level of an officer, but officers are commanders. Officers are management, not usually individual contributors except for maybe in the medical field where nurses are officers.

When I was an engineering student I had several friends who were enlisted in the Air Force reserve while in college. They did pretty advanced electronics / avionics maintenance during their weekends and inevitable 3 month deployments in Afghanistan. When they graduated with electrical engineering degrees they stayed enlisted since it was less stress / more fun to work with the hardware than manage.

Just because someone is enlisted doesn't necessarily mean they aren't educated or specialized.

Adding to my sibling post, the USAF hires a ton of professional engineers. Many officers are engineers by education, though higher ranks are rarely engineers by trade. Many LTs and Captains do engineering work, but career progression is harder if they want to stay in it so they either switch or get out and continue as a contractor or civilian after 4-10 years. On the civilian side, there are many thousands of civilian engineers employed at the depots and other locations, but not as often at the operating locations.

In my experience, those officers may have engineering backgrounds but are not doing direct engineering work. They are usually project and program managers.

You will find the most civilian engineers at major ranges and test facilities. Places like Edwards AFB, White Sands Missile Range, Patuxent River NAS, China Lake, etc. The DoD employs tens of thousands of engineers at these and other sites.

Yeah, the Air Force wants all its officers to be "leaders of men" and not technicians. They really ought to bring back the warrant officer track for people with critical technical skills and no interest in management.

The world needs more of a "warrant officer track" in general, IMO.

What does this have to do with heavy bombers?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com