
The Marines say the F-35 is now ready for combat - sangd
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/07/31/in-historic-announcement-marine-corps-declares-controversial-f-35-ready-for-combat/
======
alkonaut
Now if they ask me (wouldn't that be odd? "let's ask one of those guys on the
Internet...").

After the F-35 program is cut back from a couple of thousand to a few hundred
craft, and then completely cancelled, this is what I think should happen:

1) extensions and upgrades to old platforms. Aesa/irst and modern bvr for all
craft.

2) Make a new cheaper "4.5 gen" multirole platform with low operation costs,
and no silly budget-breaking features: no full Stealth, no jumpjet. Instead
just low radar cross section, supercruise, and lots of payload (f-35 can carry
very little because of stealth and jumpjet design constraints). Looking at the
Gripen, this should be possible at a fraction of the cost of an F-35.

3) tell the marines they can stop using jumpjets and use choppers or drones or
whatever. Jumpjets are a dead end.

4) Make a few more F-22's in case the ultra expensive air superiority is
needed.

~~~
nickpsecurity
Sounds like good ideas. No 3 in particular might save Marine's lives if they
get rid of the Osprey. There's a new counterargument: stop killing your own
people and get them to the battlefield instead.

~~~
engi_nerd
So you get rid of the Osprey. Congratulations, now you have a tactical gap
because you have no more medium transport capability. The CH-46 (the previous
medium lift helicopter for the USMC) is officially retired as of August 1,
2015. Now you need to develop a new aircraft. Even if you choose a civilian
aircraft and militarize it, you're looking at a decade where you have no
medium lift.

~~~
nickpsecurity
You assumed I'd do it instantly. That's a bad assumption and you came up with
the reasons yourself. It would take time.

~~~
engi_nerd
Well, you seemed so...cavalier about it.

~~~
nickpsecurity
I do have an odd way of speaking sometimes. Nothing gets created in defense
sector without time. I guess I figured people would assume there'd be some
process to getting rid of them.

~~~
engi_nerd
The Osprey, from what I have heard, seems to be doing _okay_ now. But, as you
referred to, it has a rough history. Have you read "The Dream Machine: The
Untold History of the Notorious V-22 Osprey" by Richard Whittle? I read
through it, and found no glaring technical errors (though my experience with a
V-22 involves climbing inside one, once, to look at home someone did something
I needed to replicate on something else, and a quick test flight in a V-22
simulator years ago as part of a "hey come work here we are really cool"
career fair I attended). It's competently written and talks about the issues
the V-22 encountered in detail.

~~~
nickpsecurity
Sounds interesting but I'll probably not have the time to spare. The radical
nature of the craft means it would definitely have issues. That was going to
be true from the get go. Other commenter implied the things that came before
it were much worse and if true then it's necessary evil.

Cool that you got to get in one, though.

~~~
engi_nerd
Interestingly enough, while I was in the sim, another person was flying and
managed to put the aircraft into vortex ring state -- the exact cause of a
real-world V-22 crash. That person crashed in the sim, too. The flight
controls won't stop you from doing so. But the aircraft does detect flight
conditions where it's likely to happen and warns "SINK RATE, SINK RATE" over
the crew's headsets. So then it's the pilot's responsibility to knock it off.

~~~
nickpsecurity
That's a trip. I'm glad they at least have a warning. Probably is the reason
the accident rate isn't higher.

------
mmaunder
The F-15 Eagle entered service in 1976 (first flew in 72) and will be in
service up until 2025. That's 49 years. Considering the cost and assuming it
works out, 30 years for procurement for the F-35 seems reasonable.

The SR71's top speed was just over mach 3. The F-15 can reach mach 2.5. The
Mig-25's top speed is mach 2.8 but was clocked by the USA over Israel at Mach
3.2 (Yeah, the SR71 ain't all that). Mig 31's top speed is mach 2.83.

The F-22's top speed is Mach 2.25.

The F-35 is a measly mach 1.6. I think this shift in priorities is revealing
and goes beyond a mere obsession with supermaneuverability. The USA is now
able to project force around the World, so the need for a fighter that can get
somewhere at very high speed is not what it used to be. Now we need a fighter
than can be invisible, be great at surveillance and jamming and if it gets
into trouble must be able to completely out maneuver the enemy. So slow,
smart, invisible and highly maneuverable is what we got.

I watched the F-22 do a Herbst maneuver today at the Seafair in Seattle which
is impossible without thrust vectoring. It's an amazing and weird sight. While
the new breed of fighters have taken a lot of flak, I wouldn't want to get
into a dogfight with one of them while flying a fighter that has traditional
control surfaces that need stable airflow when they're able to fly below stall
speed at crazy angles of attack and use thrust vectoring to change direction
with zero airflow over their control surfaces.

~~~
na85
Slow and maneuverable doesn't win air combat. The Japanese found that out the
hard way.

Ask any combat pilot and they will tell you Speed Is Life. The faster aircraft
dictates the terms of the engagement.

Also the F-35's stealth capabilities have been compromised.

Edit: down voters please check your understanding of air combat. You can't
fight what you can't catch

~~~
mmaunder
And running away is not what these aircraft are designed to do. With higher
airspeed you lose maneuverability. Speed is life refers to any aircraft and
the ability to trade speed for altitude. This should get you started on why
the trend is to build slower lighter more manueverable airfraft...

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93maneuverabili...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93maneuverability_theory)

------
dpflan
According to the history of the development:

    
    
      The original F-35 was designed to meet Marine Corps demands   
      for a supersonic, short takeoff/vertical landing plane.   
      That vertical landing requirement dictated an extremely   
      wide, 50-inch fan blowing straight down for lift and sucking 
      air through a huge intake door on top of the fuselage
      directly behind the pilot. That, in turn, led to an
      unusually fat fuselage that is so high it completely 
      obstructs the rear of the canopy.
    
      Subsequently, when the Air Force and the Navy were enticed 
      into joining the F-35 program — supposedly to benefit from 
      the “savings” of a large 2,500 unit tri-service buy (savings 
      that quickly turned into huge cost overruns) — they both 
      had to accept the fat fuselage and lack of rearward 
      visibility of the Marine Corps version. [1.]
    

So, perhaps it meets their specifications and use cases, but not the other
organizations'.

Source:

[1.] [https://medium.com/war-is-boring/everything-wrong-with-
the-f...](https://medium.com/war-is-boring/everything-wrong-with-
the-f-35-3b62e8b3b432)

[2.] Many HN submissions with discussions:
[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=f-35&sort=byPopularity&prefix&...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=f-35&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story)

~~~
digi_owl
Never mind the whole NATO pileup...

------
nickpsecurity
David Axe has a great, thorough writeup on how F-35 became the worst, most
expensive, plane in our arsenal and will probably just get our pilots killed.

[https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-
alli...](https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-allies-got-
stuck-with-the-worlds-worst-new-warplane-5c95d45f86a5)

I was extra mad that they're moving to get rid of the A-10's in favor of this
garbage. Originally learned about them with the A-10 Tank Killer games on PC.
Later read how they shredded the opponents' vehicles in one campaign after
another, even recent ones, despite being highly exposed to enemy fire. They're
beasts. And that's just one example of something that does its job more
effectively and at better cost than F-35... which is also being decommissioned
to support F-35 program. There's quite a few more that each could've been
updated with less money than F-35 took.

~~~
engi_nerd
David Axe exhibits poor engineering understanding of the aircraft, which
results in him interpreting the reports that he reads in ways that are simply
not supported by the source material. As someone with detailed knowledge of
the program, I consider his reporting to be misguided at best and potentially
malicious at worst. At the very least I wish he would consult someone with
flight test experience as he writes.

~~~
nickpsecurity
Actually, the test pilots tell him it's such a poor design that they lost to
F-16's in the mock battles:

[http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a16248/test-
pilot-f...](http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a16248/test-
pilot-f35-cant-dogfight/)

Rather than denying it, Lockheed's response was that it was intended for "long
range" dominance. Axe's claim was that it would fire off its payload and be
destroyed in dogfights by any planes that survived. The pilot's remarks and
Lockheed's support that this is true... even if they have their older planes.
;)

Far as long-range, there's concerns even if we take Lockheed's word their
stealth is great. Their word hasn't been reliable so far but let's pretend it
is. That leaves two problems: engine being picked up by upgraded infrared
sensors on next-gen aircraft; fact that tests showing long-range dominance
were done with weapons it doesn't even have and still aren't in the program.
Both mean it might not perform as well as expected with one being straight-up
deceptive.

So, the evidence in dogfights, Lockheed's response, and their cooked tests
show this plane is worthless. Upgrading proven designs that are each great at
their respective missions would've been a better investment. Far as aircraft
engineering, I haven't met one engineer that in private will endorse F-35 or
existing VTOL aircraft. They all mock both while praising their choice of
prior aircraft.

F-15's, A-10's, and F-18 Super Hornets get my vote for upgrade dollars. That's
air, ground, and multi-mission. Maybe try to make the F-22 cheaper while
they're at it. Improve some drones or human, recon craft. Throw in
improvements on an ECM craft. All adds up for most bang for buck. Collective
capability would rival a bunch of F-35's. Military with with the F-35's.
Should've chosen Option A.

~~~
perfTerm
As a layman reading about this plane for years and years and years it almost
seems like the military would have had better results stacking the 400 billion
dollars up in 5inch stacks and strapping it to the soldiers as body armour at
this point.

They're doing some cool stuff though, the military. The new railguns and laser
systems the Navys building are pretty neat and will probably end up having
some civilian benefits in the future.

This unfortunately feels like a huge sinkhole which won't produce any tangible
benefit for the military or civilians.

~~~
informatimago
My theory is that the money is actually siphoned out to black projects.

~~~
nickpsecurity
It could and they almost certainly do. Probably a combo of projects and
profit. We have no way to test that, though, for this program. I'll note that
black projects already have a way to get tons of money without much
accountability: SAP's, USAP's, and waived USAP's.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_access_program](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_access_program)

I know in the 90's that Aviation Week reported that they spend around $100
million a day on these with a House committee admitted they review only 5-10%
of them. So, plenty of money slushing around to who knows what. Every now and
then we get details such as NSA's exploit development and subversion program
costing around $212 million a year.

~~~
engi_nerd
Not all SAPs are black. Some are publicly acknowledged.

~~~
nickpsecurity
I forgot to add that I learned quite a bit from SAP security thanks to Uncle
Sam publishing it:

[http://www.dss.mil/documents/odaa/nispom2006-5220.pdf](http://www.dss.mil/documents/odaa/nispom2006-5220.pdf)

It's not the end all but it was a nice start to organizational security. Just
had to... de-bureaucratize it into something a person could comprehend lol.
Then worked from there based on expert writings in each subfield, spy vs spy
literature, and what worked for organized crime dodging LEO's. And that's how
one learns real security. :)

------
yellowapple
If the money spent on this failure of a flying machine went to NASA's budget
instead, we'd probably have a Mars colony by now.

~~~
robbrown451
Other than being kind of cool, what would be the advantage of a Mars colony
again?

~~~
fit2rule
We could get away from all the crazy wars that people are starting here on
Earth.

------
TwoBit
Ready for combat? Against who?

~~~
robotresearcher
Preferably nobody at all. That's the strategy. Outrageous air superiority
means nobody wants to fight. Fighting the US conventionally means you lose all
your shit in 48 hours.

~~~
Intermernet
Seems like a flawed strategy. The US already has outrageous air superiority
and people still want to fight them.

And these conflicts tend to go on for _much_ longer than 48 hrs.

Someone should really tell "the enemy" that they're doing it wrong. They were
meant to give up years ago!

~~~
curiousjorge
Maybe this was like a Reagan era military spending play. Outspend your enemies
so that they will go bankrupt trying to copy you.

------
protomyth
_While the F-35B has now reached what’s called its “initial operational
capability,” the plane’s development is not complete. There are still updates
to the software that need to be implemented._

Did the "fire the gun" software get installed or is it still a to-do item?

~~~
toyg
We'll get to that once it's finished applying 345476 Windows updates. Only 10
reboots to go...

~~~
protomyth
Sadly, I'm actually being quite serious[1]. The update from last year gave a
likely 2019 which was later corrected to 2017. I doubt it made it to 2015.

1)
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11319455/F-35-stealth-
jet-will-not-be-able-to-fire-its-guns-until-2019.html)

~~~
nickpsecurity
Wow. It can't even use its gun right. Mindblowing.

Meanwhile outside Pentagon, university teams from across the country with
limited budgets are building robots that drive, fly, make stuff, and so on
with little to no human intervention.

~~~
engi_nerd
The gun has been tested on the ground both in and out of the plane. The
software that would enable full use of the gun was delayed at program office
request. It was decided that using missiles and bombs was more relevant and
important.

I get that you don't like the plane but your arguments do not reflect facts.

~~~
protomyth
My argument is the gun software is not the ready which you have confirmed.
Also, for a CAS platform the pathetic 220 rounds is really going to be a
problem.

[http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/08/pentagon-f-35-gun-will-
fir...](http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/08/pentagon-f-35-gun-will-fire-
in-2017/)

~~~
engi_nerd
Yup, there's no denying the software is not ready. As I pointed out, the gun
is still being tested.

And let's be clear about that 220 rounds -- that's only on the F-35A. The
number is less for the other two variants (180) which have to carry the gun
externally in a pod. So that is even worse!

------
swasheck
now ship them to enemies of the us as a trojan horse.

~~~
nickpsecurity
Add a subtly-flawed, long-range, detection system and yours is the best use
for it I've seen. Reminds me of the Dijkstra quote on System/360 design
issues:

"I characterized the Russian decision to build a bit-compatible copy of the
IBM 360 as the greatest American victory in the Cold War."

------
PaulHoule
Yeah, if the marine opens the cockpit a crack and fires a handgun at the
enemy.

~~~
engi_nerd
Not to justify this asinine comment, but the cockpit of an F-35 opens
_forward_ , so the force of the air passing over it would prevent it from
opening.
[http://www.vtol.org/images/dmGallery/SourceImage/fig%203%20-...](http://www.vtol.org/images/dmGallery/SourceImage/fig%203%20-%2011P00468_067_LoRes.jpg)

------
CamperBob2
You seem to have a dog in the fight. Anything to disclose?

~~~
enraged_camel
You got downvoted but I agree with you. Reading engi_nerd's comments in this
thread, one can't help but notice that he rigorously defends the F-35 and
questions the credibility of anyone (e.g. David Axle) who points out major
flaws in the plane's design. Even if he's not a paid shill, I would bet money
that he's involved in the military-industrial complex somehow.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Yup, and comments in other threads.

>I currently work as an aircraft telemetry and instrumentation engineer,

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9907687](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9907687)

~~~
dang
You guys are out of line. You should be grateful that someone with
professional expertise is here talking about what they know, not attempting to
smear them.

Groundless insinuations of shillage and dishonesty are not ok here. They
poison the discourse, and you owe greater respect to your fellow HNers. Please
don't do this again.

All: please flag such comments when you see them in HN threads.

engi_nerd likes the F-35, lots of other people don't, that's fine. Have at it
with arguments, not cheap shots.

~~~
nickpsecurity
I agree and this is how I've looked at the situation. The result of focusing
on his points led to useful information on the subject which included spotting
unreliability in popular sources and filtering down to real, risk areas on
F-35 side. An example is below. Best to always focus on the what rather than
the who with exception being people that want me to take their word for
something. Guard goes way up.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9985044](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9985044)

~~~
engi_nerd
Yeah, I'm not big on "appeal to authority" (obviously, as it's a logical
fallacy). Don't take my word on any of this. I've tried to link to sources
where appropriate. Read them at your leisure, and see what you think.

------
escaped_hn
I would hope so. The government paid 1.5 trillion for it.

~~~
engi_nerd
Please stop repeating this misconception. To date, less than $100 billion
(that's one hundred thousand millions) USD has been spent on the program.
Total cost of research and development is $54.9 billion, the rest is the cost
of acquiring the aircraft that have been purchased thus far.

The cost to acquire 2,443 aircraft (the currently planned production run) is
$257.2 billion in 2012 USD. Operations costs for the next 55 years are
projected to be either $597.8 billion USD (if you believe CAPE) or $535.8
billion USD (if you believe the JSF Program Office).

Both of those organizations have projected the total cost of the program and
have said either $1016.5 billion (CAPE) or $859.0 billion (JPO).

All data taken from this document [http://defense-update.com/files/member/JPO-
SAR-14.PDF](http://defense-update.com/files/member/JPO-SAR-14.PDF), which is
an official extraction from a much longer and more involved report, which you
can view here: [http://breakingdefense.com/wp-
content/uploads/sites/3/2014/0...](http://breakingdefense.com/wp-
content/uploads/sites/3/2014/04/F-35-2013-SAR.pdf)

~~~
tim333
From 2012: "The government now projects that the total cost to develop, buy
and operate the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be $1.51
trillion over the next 50-plus years, according to a Pentagon document
obtained by Reuters"

Dunno if it's true but it's still mentioned in the Wikipedia article.

~~~
nostrademons
"The government is projected to pay $1.51T over the next 50-plus years" is a
very different statement from "The government paid $1.5T for it."

------
douche
Well, this got flagkilled off the front-page quickly...

