F-35: What The Pilots Say

Re:F-35: What The Pilots Say by poof131 on Wednesday March 27, 2019 @11:28PM (#19508962)

I've posted about this a couple times here in the past (though misspelled Tucano), and saw exactly what you are talking about in Iraq.[1] This article and the F-35 make me sad. It's the last of the samurai. For close air support in a low threat environment the Super Tucano and other aircraft are much better at the task and cheaper. For a high threat environment (i.e. China or Russia), expendable, stealthy drones acting as missile trucks are much better assuming somehow the war doesn't go nuclear and we don't lose in space and cyber first. The F-35 is too expensive and epitomizes the trajectory of the battle ship, where more and more money is put into defense of the platform, and it eventually succumbs to cheaper threats. I think the Future of War delves into this concept well.[2] The F-35 is probably more boondoggle then defense.

1. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=super%20tacano&sort=byPopulari...

2. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/470769.The_Future_of_War

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:F-35: What The Pilots Say by imtringued on Thursday March 28, 2019 @07:07AM (#19511007)

>expendable, stealthy drones acting as missile trucks

The 70s called and want their cruise missiles back.

The type of weapon you're describing already exist and are widely used. They are commonly launched by missile destroyers, submarines or large bomber aircraft behind the front lines. You still need a manned fighter at the front lines to find targets to shoot at.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:F-35: What The Pilots Say by poof131 on Thursday March 28, 2019 @10:05AM (#19512274)

“Find targets to shoot at.” The man is hardly involved at all. It’s a battle of sensors. It’s a battle over the electromagnetic spectrum and the man in the loop in the aircraft isn’t the critical part. Unless, you lose the battle of the EM spectrum and can’t communicate with a drone. Then a man in the loop could be critical but you’ve probably already lost at that point and would be better off with the “cruise missiles” you deride using ground mapping to find the way to the area and AI for specific target selection. I’m talking more about what aircraft are these days in BVR air-to-air: missile trucks, carrying AAMRAM, which is the real weapon. I’ve flown against F-22s, seen their weaknesses, and wouldn’t base our defense strategy on planes that have become too expensive compared to missiles.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:F-35: What The Pilots Say by rbanffy on Thursday March 28, 2019 @11:06AM (#19512883)

Sure, but one pilot assigning targets to dozens of drones that are just outside the enemy controlled area waiting for instructions can go a long way towards making the pilot extremely effective.

That pilot can also be replaced by, say, 200 kilograms of extra sensors and communication equipment and two or three people in a container in the nearest airbase.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:F-35: What The Pilots Say by JohnBooty on Thursday March 28, 2019 @08:22AM (#19511449)

> manned fighter at the front lines

Why a manned fighter? Why not remotely-human-piloted drones?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:F-35: What The Pilots Say by banku_brougham on Thursday March 28, 2019 @01:47AM (#19509595)

Good stuff, the US is seriously on some Maginot Line crap. I sadly realize there will indeed be another great war, innovation in manned flight will not play a role in the outcome, and what we now denigrate may become in hindsight the pinacle of technological civilization.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:F-35: What The Pilots Say by UweSchmidt on Thursday March 28, 2019 @03:51AM (#19510179)

It's going to be cyber war and no one is prepared. Here is an example how it may look like:

https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2018/07/what-cyber-war-w...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:F-35: What The Pilots Say by cabalamat on Thursday March 28, 2019 @07:00AM (#19510980)

> cyber war

What proportion of chips used in American computers come from the far east?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:F-35: What The Pilots Say by A2017U1 on Thursday March 28, 2019 @03:44AM (#19510148)

> For a high threat environment (i.e. China or Russia)

In what fantasy world does anyone actually posit it not devolving quickly into nuclear war with these nations?

We've had MAD for half a century and yet today so many people seem to spruik this idea that conventional direct warfare is possible between nuclear armed states. It's simply not going to happen.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:F-35: What The Pilots Say by avar on Thursday March 28, 2019 @04:57AM (#19510452)

The exact same sorts of scenario as occurred in the Korean War & Vietnam. I.e. a proxy-war using non-nuclear assets between the great powers. Where do you think the North Vietnamese were getting MIGs from?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:F-35: What The Pilots Say by kyboren on Thursday March 28, 2019 @07:14AM (#19511033)

Not only were China, USSR, and North Korea supplying MiGs, they were training pilots, providing logistical support, manning AAA batteries, and in the case of the North Korea, flying combat missions [1].

The point isn't necessarily to be able to wage a conventional war against Russia or China. Other countries, like Iran or Syria, potentially have access to the same weapons systems.

[1]: "Spartans in Darkness: American SIGINT and the Indochina War, 1945-1975", pp. 261-263. https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/70/documents/news-features/decla...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:F-35: What The Pilots Say by philwelch on Thursday March 28, 2019 @02:54PM (#19515323)

It's only not going to happen because there's a conventional deterrent backing up the nuclear deterrent.

Suppose Russia invades Poland. With a conventional deterrent, NATO can deploy ground and air forces to a defensive front and hold Russia to a stalemate. Eventually it would escalate to a nuclear exchange, but only through a stepwise process. Most importantly, this is why Russia doesn't invade Poland.

Without a conventional deterrent, Russian tanks could reach Brussels and the only countermeasure would be a nuclear first strike against Russia. That wouldn't happen. Which means there's no reason for Russia not to invade every non-nuclear-armed country it wants to. Which means every single country in the vicinity of Russia is going to want their own nuclear deterrent, because that will be the only effective defense.

(Also, missile defense is getting good enough that MAD might not survive the 21st century, and then we'll feel silly for not having any other military options.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:F-35: What The Pilots Say by _Codemonkeyism on Thursday March 28, 2019 @04:55AM (#19510447)

India and Pakistan have been there I think - and lately came close again, though both sides recognized the thin line.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:F-35: What The Pilots Say by kakwa_ on Thursday March 28, 2019 @02:30PM (#19515128)

And also, both sides don't exactly follow MAD:

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

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

Basically, it's not "I can glass your whole country" but more "I can nuke a few of your main cities, you will survive but it will hurt".

Mostly, only the USA and Russia can follow MAD, the other nuclear powers with a few hundreds warheads, follow Minimal Deterrence.

[ Parent | on HN ]