Air Force admits F-35 is program a failure

[Michchamp]

Link:

over 20 years of R&D, that lightweight replacement fighter got heavier and more expensive as the Air Force and lead contractor Lockheed Martin LMT packed it with more and more new technology.

Yes, we?re talking about the F-35. The 25-ton stealth warplane has become the very problem it was supposed to solve. And now America needs a new fighter to solve that F-35 problem, officials said.​

I've seen elsewhere that the amount of money spent on the program was around $1.5 TRILLION. I guess for the recipients of that money, whether the program succeeded or failed is immaterial, because they get to keep that money, and will not lose out on future defense contracts either because of it.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I don't think we'll design another. Just drones.

 

[Michchamp]

I don't think we'll design another. Just drones.

drone manufacturers would love that. they don't have as much clout as Lockheed does, and Lockheed builds manned planes.

I don't think drones are anywhere near being able to dogfight though. Just like self-driving cars, the technology is over-hyped. There's no way yet to get the sheer amounts of data processed and fed to drone pilots sitting remotely to allow them to react effectively. massive lag. And the cameras they look through were described as "looking at the world through a straw"

I read a couple books on drone warfare last year.

 

[Gulo Blue]

drone manufacturers would love that. they don't have as much clout as Lockheed does, and Lockheed builds manned planes.

I don't think drones are anywhere near being able to dogfight though. Just like self-driving cars, the technology is over-hyped. There's no way yet to get the sheer amounts of data processed and fed to drone pilots sitting remotely to allow them to react effectively. massive lag. And the cameras they look through were described as "looking at the world through a straw"

I read a couple books on drone warfare last year.

If it take 20 years to develop a fighter, that's a long time for drone development. It seems like by then they shouldn't have to dogfight people because they should be capable of maneuvers people can't do.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I read a couple books on drone warfare last year.

Any idea if they are going to get bigger or smaller?

 

[Michchamp]

Any idea if they are going to get bigger or smaller?

Both. bigger ones to drop bombs and fire missiles, which weigh a lot, and smaller for surveillance. But they're also making bigger ones for surveillance that can go up higher and stay in the air longer. bigger wingspan.

one of the books was pro-drone warfare and unquestioning of the rationale for it.

the other was skeptical of pretty much everything, up to and inclueing the War On Terror.

The latter was better written and had more evidence for claims and less assumptions. It described how dodgy the platforms were, some being unable to fly unless the weather was perfect. And easy to bring down. we can only use them against countries that down have anti-air missiles.

 

[Thumb]

I don't think drones are anywhere near being able to dogfight though.

Wont matter. The days of the dogfight are over, except in hollywood movies.

Most air-to-air engagements with current technology will happen beyond visual range.

The thing that drones can't do is close air support for ground troops, and our fleet of F-16's and A-10's is really getting old.

 

[sggatecl]

The thing that drones can't do is close air support for ground troops, and our fleet of F-16's and A-10's is really getting old.

I have no doubt our government will find the money for new ones.

 

[Michchamp]

Wont matter. The days of the dogfight are over, except in hollywood movies.

Most air-to-air engagements with current technology will happen beyond visual range.

The thing that drones can't do is close air support for ground troops, and our fleet of F-16's and A-10's is really getting old.

That's the same thing they said before Vietnam, and then the Air Force and Navy had to create a fighter school and figure out how to put guns back on all our jets. missiles didn't actually work as well as they claimed they would, and they couldn't shoot down Vietnamese planes fast enough

If history is any guide, I bet most of our highly-touted new military technology won't work like it's supposed to, and they'll still rely on bullets fired the old fashioned way. Given how corrupt and bloated our defense industry is, I bet that will be even more true in our next war.

I get the feeling both from reading news articles and my own experience with crappy new technology that we're reaching a plateau in advancement. Everything needs complicated software to run, and that software is poorly designed, buggy and doesn't tie into other software when updated. Things are no longer created to work well and last, but to need constant support, and have obsolescence baked in so you need to buy an entirely new one in a couple years.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I get the feeling both from reading news articles and my own experience with crappy new technology that we're reaching a plateau in advancement. Everything needs complicated software to run, and that software is poorly designed, buggy and doesn't tie into other software when updated. Things are no longer created to work well and last, but to need constant support, and have obsolescence baked in so you need to buy an entirely new one in a couple years.

I might add to this list that the complexity keeps it from getting developed in a reasonable amount of time or from ever rolling out. F-35 competition started in 97, 9 years before flying and 18 years before entering service.

On the other hand, there is so much complexity, I'm kind of surprised any of this stuff works at all.

I seem to remember a long time ago I read an article about the Marines next gun which would see around corners and fire two calibers of ammo, and the larger of the two was explosive and would contain a timing circuit so with a couple quick thumb clicks, milliseconds could be added or subtracted to the expected flight time before exploding. That way you could select the range to a corner of a building or a wall, aim to the side of it, add a couple of distance, and explode right next to anyone hiding behind the corner or wall.

It was long enough ago that if it ever saw much use it would be in movies by now.

 

[Gulo Blue]

The thing that drones can't do is close air support for ground troops, and our fleet of F-16's and A-10's is really getting old.

F-16 first flew 47 years ago. A-10 first flew 48 years ago.

I wanted to compare development times, but it doesn't seem to be an easy thing to compare. Models evolving out of previous models make it tough to say when a thing starts.

First flight to in service was 5 years for the F-16 and 4 years for the A-10, so that bit of development time was double for the F-35.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Things are no longer created to work well and last, but to need constant support, and have obsolescence baked in so you need to buy an entirely new one in a couple years.

This line got me thinking a little bit, because I don't think obsolescence is baked in to military and aerospace hardware. But it is with the rest of industry and that might be part of why military equipment is so expensive. It can't rely on modern manufacturing technology because modern manufacturing technology is optimized for disposable things.

You can't use typical automotive nuts and bolts on aerospace stuff. Typical cars as old as typical planes have corrosion everywhere, even inaccessible places shielded from the weather. It's a lot more expensive to design it the other way, not just because the manufacturing processes are more expensive, but there's a lot more design work requiring a higher level of expertise too. The more the two manufacturing philosophies and technology diverge, the less applicable industrial manufacturing technology progression is for aerospace applications.

 

[zyxt9]

https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2...ystems' F-16 AI,human pilot couldn't outmatch.

The reality is DARPA and the military recognize AI is already superior to humans. I was shocked by the results of this competition, was watching it daily. The AI did not suffer from human factors that allowed it to outperform everything else, whether that be excessive G loads or a willingness to take risks that resulted in the AI winning decisively. I was shocked because this was the 1st time this competition had been run. I figured whichever system won the AI competition would still be dominated by the human with more experience, thinking it would be about 3-5 years before AI was even with the humans and 5-8 for it to dominate. This system proved me wrong big time. They had to utilize a massive amount of dogfight data to achieve this so the AI could learn the best path to victory.

Granted this was all simulator driven and did not take into account many variables, but it still demonstrated the path forward for the military. Not having a human in the cockpit allows the manufacturers to remove existing constraints that limit G forces.

 

[zyxt9]

The imperative element is maintaining a Human In The Loop. The US military has always had that requirement, that a drone not be able to simply fire a missile at an assumed target without first having authorization that went through a human at some point in the sequencing. Unfortunately it is also understood that China and Russia do not yet feel it is necessary to maintain a HITL protocol.

IMHO this is a MUST for a new UN Treaty to be signed by all nations. HITL is imperative. It is the modern equivalent to nuclear treaties of the Cold War. Allowing for removal of HITL allows for computerized warfare that is apocalyptic. Of course, there is also the challenge of an insane Human being the one who is in the loop, so it really needs to start having a minimum 2-Human-factor system applied as is used for nukes.

While the point is understood that the AI is currently on servers and lag is an issue, these programs can be updated when planes are at their base and allowed to fly autonomously while in the air. They do not rely solely on cameras to see, they utilize radar the same as their human counterparts. Smaller, stealthier systems are definitely being looked at as well. The "wow" thing from the Chinese Olympics was the synced drones...yeah, that was a shot across the bow to our military, letting us know the Chinese government was able to sync a massive number of drones that would be undetectable. Those drones will simply take out our advanced warning systems allowing the follow up AI systems to attack without us knowing where they are located, in essence "without warning".

This stuff is no longer science fiction, it is actively being developed. The F-35 will be easily replaced by a system that performs VSTOL operations faster, easier, more fuel efficient, with increased stealth. The current modern military is already extremely outdated. Humans on the field of battle or in the skies will be completely replaced by the time kids in K are of enlistment age. The new Cold War is a war on computer tech, whether that be with Cyber Security, AI, or whatever is created next...but that all comes down to who has the best computer chips...which is why China is in Biden's crosshairs no differently than they were Trump's.

People were up in arms about Trump trying to cut ties with China, and Trump was an asshat in MANY ways, but the US has provided China many of the financial and technical means to compete with the US and he was right for cutting back on their syphoning of US money and tech, even if his stated reasons were stupid. Biden is following that same path, just being more diplomatic and using PC language...but China has shown itself to be a growing threat and we only have ourselves to blame. At this point everyone should strongly consider buying products not made in China or having parts from China (that part is trifficult...yes, I am a Bluey fan). No, I'm not saying Made In USA...I am simply saying anywhere NOT China. Taiwan, Mexico, Vietnam, India...anywhere NOT China. Cut their finances and they will not have resources to threaten peaceful regions like the South China Sea, Taiwan, and India...not to mention their well documented and condemned Muslim ethnic cleansing activities. So, no...this is not a pro-Trump commentary, it is not even a pro-USA commentary...it is purely an anti-China one.

 

[Gulo Blue]

So, no...this is not a pro-Trump commentary, it is not even a pro-USA commentary...it is purely an anti-China one.

Wasn't that the point of the TPP agreement Trump killed? To get other nations to present China with a unified front on trade?

 

[zyxt9]

This line got me thinking a little bit, because I don't think obsolescence is baked in to military and aerospace hardware. But it is with the rest of industry and that might be part of why military equipment is so expensive. It can't rely on modern manufacturing technology because modern manufacturing technology is optimized for disposable things.

You can't use typical automotive nuts and bolts on aerospace stuff. Typical cars as old as typical planes have corrosion everywhere, even inaccessible places shielded from the weather. It's a lot more expensive to design it the other way, not just because the manufacturing processes are more expensive, but there's a lot more design work requiring a higher level of expertise too. The more the two manufacturing philosophies and technology diverge, the less applicable industrial manufacturing technology progression is for aerospace applications.

I recently was reading a Quora thread that touched on this. The question was why do we continue building new aircraft carriers instead of simply taking ones out of mothballs. The resounding responses were about the manufacturing processes, and why we continue building tanks we do not need.

It is about not losing the knowledge of HOW to build them. With an aircraft carrier there are an astounding number of quirky little things that blueprints do not have on them. What is the best way to connect A to B when there is no easily understood way to connect them. Well, the "old guys" who built the old Forrestal class passed along techniques to the people who built the Nimitz and those "old guys" are passing down tricks of the trade to the newest Ford class builders (I used "old guys" in quotes because that was term used on the Quora thread...pretty sure everyone recognizes women were part of it, but the colloquial use of the term is understood).

They were saying the same goes with why we keep building tanks, so that we do not lose the knowledge of HOW to build these things.

They pointed out how after Apollo, NASA let go all the "old guys" and ended up having to try building the new rockets from scratch because they could not even reverse engineer the Apollo systems. There were too many of those individual "tricks of the trade" that did not show up on the blueprints. They had asked one of those "old guys" why and he said they were under such tight deadlines and working too many hours already to have time to properly document everything. Each Saturn V rocket was unique in that each had its own tricks applied here and there by individuals and multiply that by several hundred or even thousand of times and it becomes impossible to look at the old blueprints and actually build what was built. They had installed things even in the actual engines that were not on the blueprints that adjusted the flow rates so it actually did not blow up...but those were never documented nor is it understood how those little "do-dad, thingamajigs" fixed the issues that were problematic so they cannot even properly use those to make the proper adjustments.

It was a wonderful insight into these manufacturing processes of extremely complex systems...and how it really is the people on the front lines of manufacturing who make shit work as opposed to the engineers (usually junior ones fresh out of college) who draw up the blueprints, and why the saying "they don't build them as good as they used to" is a legit thing...because the knowledge of how to build those things has been lost over time.

 

[zyxt9]

Wasn't that the point of the TPP agreement Trump killed? To get other nations to present China with a unified front on trade?

Again, was not making this a political commentary about Trump in any way other than to say despite his extreme stupidity and asshat ways, he actually was right in trying to cut back on the amount of things bought from China and Biden recognizes the extreme caution we currently need to take regarding China. The point was more that whether one is on the Right or Left, this has proven to be a concern...so WE need to not make it a partisan thing and work together to greatly reduce if not eliminate the number of things we are buying from China until a future point in time when they are not using that money to potentially take over peaceful regions. They have followed their Sun Tzu Art of War manual well, we never should have given them trillions of US dollars. All those "old out of touch" people known as our parents and grandparents who warned that we should not have such heavy trade with China were 100% correct...but all the youngsters knew better. Well right up until China proved the youngsters to be simpleton naive fools.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I recently was reading a Quora thread that touched on this. The question was why do we continue building new aircraft carriers instead of simply taking ones out of mothballs. The resounding responses were about the manufacturing processes, and why we continue building tanks we do not need.

There are so many types of metal processed different ways and then ways to machine that metal and then ways to treat the finished product. It all impacts microfractures, grain sizes and boundaries, and residual stresses. The residual stresses and microfractures can impact chemical properties. It's insane.

There's an old red pigment in some religious documents where the red color is provided by gold nanoparticles. When particles are small enough, at the edges of the nanoparticle, the radius of curvature stresses the gold-gold chemical bonds that determine the wavelength of reflected light. Some monk had a way to process gold to achieve this without the tools we have today to characterize what was going on.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Again, was not making this a political commentary about Trump in any way

I don't think it was super partisan. One of those things supporting MC's feelings about the parties being the same. I think Clinton flipped on it, but I don't remember if she flipped from against to for or for to against.

 

[zyxt9]

There are so many types of metal processed different ways and then ways to machine that metal and then ways to treat the finished product. It all impacts microfractures, grain sizes and boundaries, and residual stresses. It's insane.

There's an old red pigment in some religious documents where the red color is provided by gold nanoparticles. Edges of the nanoparticle stress the gold-gold chemical bonds that determine the wavelength of reflected light. Some monk had a way to process gold to achieve this without the tools we have today to characterize what was going on.

I have also seen this issue with computer programming. Something needs changed but the existing algorithms lack any documentation about how and why it was written, and the way it was done is very confusing resulting in a complete redo being faster and easier than trying to adjust what is already there because somewhere a special tweek was done to make it work but it is no longer easily identified or understood. Sometimes the new code is faster/better, sometimes it is not, but it is what the new programmer was able to make work so you run with it.