Hacker News Reader

Comment by nradov | Hacker News Reader

Piloted aviation is still very much alive. US and Israeli 5th generation aircraft took minimal losses in the recent strikes on Iran despite some fairly capable defenses. Drone capabilities will continue to improve but for now the autonomous flight control software is incapable of complex, dynamic missions and remote piloting doesn't work in a hostile EW environment. We'll increasingly see manned/unmanned teaming with the drones pushing forward while the manned aircraft trail behind, but close enough to exercise tight control.

View on HN

Missions in Ukraine Russia achive same results for 1000 times cheaper. Real war nowadays is cheap and mass produced.

As an example, Russia hits with drones a specific parts of the bridge using mesh network of ER resistant drones . Ukraine is sending drones for 2000 miles deep into Russian territory. F-35 plus payload is not capable of that .

What is the point of sending f-35 if Ukraine can send 5 cheap rockets? And deliver 2-3 tones of payload over the most sophisticated air protection in the world ?

Those cheap drones and missiles are only effective against relatively soft, static targets. As I already explained above, manned aircraft are still the only platforms capable of executing critical missions in complex, dynamic environments. Maybe that will change in a few years but not today.

Ukraine and Russia are both second-rate powers making do with what they can manage because they're too poor to afford anything better. The systems that sort of work in Eastern Europe likely won't be effective in a major conflict between the USA and China around the First Island Chain. (Let's hope we don't have to find out for sure.)

Ukraine is already using drones that can autonomously identify and seek out even moving targets, without any operator required during the terminal phase.

Drones with that sort of capability started appearing on the battlefield more than a year ago, and it has only been refined since.

Examples are the RAM-2X, the Helsing HX2, and whatever drones they use that automatically identify and seek out stationary aircraft on Russian airfields.

We've had this capability for years. We have had missiles that could identify a convoy, strike its front and back to block it, and then hit targets inside, all on their own.

The difference is that those missiles are expensive multi-million dollar munitions, while these drones are mass produced for less than $20k/unit and yet are still capable of taking out heavy armor.

Even cheaper if armor is the only goal.

Wrong on the first count (last I saw they were well below $200k a pop), and the second count comes with significant loss of anti-armor capability.

I'd be curious to learn what advanced self-guided missile can accurately strike targets just a measly 70km away for $200k, and what the supporting infrastructure and hardware costs to buy and run.

Also you're still not remotely competetive with drones that can be carried and operated by infantry at that price point. Who's going to do reconaissance so you even know where to strike before you fire that missile? A drone provides all of that in a package that'd still be less than 1/10th the cost.

Okay, now it's obvious you're just posting whatever to "win" a discussion without any familiarity with the subject. I suggest you start educating yourself by familiarising yourself with the Brimstone missiles, 1996 tech in service for over 20 years at this point.

Brimstone meets none of the criteria, not for self-guidance, nor for range (especially not when launched surface-to-surface). Plus you'd have to bring a launch platform within range of Russian air-defense/frontlines to even use it.

First - the munition you quoted does none of the things you indicated it might do a few posts ago, and second - your gasligting people for being 'uninformed' when you've literally just proven yourself wrong with you own quote?

there are quite some american defense strategists, that criticize the dependency on large contractors that have no interest in providing economical capabilities over large government contracts.

No, this is only true in the most limited sense; nobody has because the AI literally has not existed for that until recently. And it's hugely complicated by the fact that we don't know even where a convoy might be, or how to differentiate it from the myriad of other vehicles.

AI today cannot effectively distinguish a 'convoy' from other vehicles on the road.

Many vehicles may not have military markings - it's hard for a human to make the inference.

I'm pretty sure anti ship missiles have known to recognize ship types and steer to weak points for quite some time.

Yes, a hulking mass of steel out on an empty ocean is significantly easier to target than identifying traffic on a road, with occlusion, other traffic, hills, other vehicles etc. Radar alone enough for anti-ship, not for 'convoys' etc..

it covers 99% of the need for fraction of the costs and is way more scalable in manufacturing and operations. Nobody ain't sending a single F-35 into that environment, US won't allow that (we all know why). Plus US completely destroyed trust into its products globally, they can become worse than extremely expensive paperweight on a whim of a single senile sick man.

Lets be a bit clear - F-35 in Iran are also effectively used against static targets in most if not all the cases. School, intersections full of civilian traffic and some underground tunnel here and there or a parked truck, we've seen the videos its not like they are hiding them.

Era of hunt for expensive sophistication at all costs is coming to an end, no point if one can overwhelm any adversary including US by just sending one cheap wave after another, and it doesn't even take long. How long is the backlog for US patriot missiles? Plus Ukraine can do same type of missiles 80% cheaper soon.

This overwhelming already happened numerous times in recent months, US is just not bragging about it on fox news for obvious reasons.

>>manned aircraft are still the only platforms capable of executing critical missions in complex, dynamic environments.

Only if the mission is not against a peer adversary. Manned aircraft cannot bomb russian refineries. Manned aircraft cannot cross the frontline in Ukraine.

America is also a second rate power, just ask the Houthis and Iranians.

The Houthis have no airforce, no professional army and no navy and yet they control the red sea.

Who qualifies as a first-rate power, then? I'd say they're still one. It's just that fighting insurgents has always been difficult, even when your commander-in-chief isn't a dumbass.

No-one.

Its quite interesting to think how much power is more a perception by others than a reality when tested. Just think about how many powers appeared invincible and then were tested and collapsed or how many victories and empires were simply because opponents gave up early.

America isnt a world power because it forgot how to be one. Primary example is their complete lack of research on drones and missiles. Firstly even during a war, Ukraine has managed to create a drone force, and the USA hasnt even started. Second example, look at the build rate for defensive missiles aka THAAD and Patriots. Given the military budget is amazing how few are actually built. Thirdly the reason the USA is having troubles and is unable to support a ground invasion is the Osprey continues to be broken and a failure after 20 something years of being accepted into service. Last example, the USA does not have sufficient auxiliary ships to supply carrier groups at distance. THis is an open secret mentioned in many places. They always assumed a lot of friendly bases nearby, except they lost everything in the Gulf and have only Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean which simply isnt enuff. The later is a perfect example of no planning, no backup plan which is exactly what seniors at the Pentagon should have planned and advised about. Logistics win war and here we see the US is lame because it doesnt have enough of them.

Houthis do not control the Red Sea; they can harass some ships, and be a huge pain, but not control.

Not really though

Russia's S300/S400 can absolutely down everything the USA has including F22 and F35 - stealth is an 'advantage' not 'cloaking device'.

Rotary wing are 'dead' - because manpads and now drones, they are just not used. Any smart adversary can figure out the drones, as for now.

Iran is a poor country with challenging AA but even they downed like 30 predators (or equivalent). They have passive systems.

Russia doctrines is to have massive numbers of S300/400 which makes it takes weeks at minimum for US to get enough Air dominance to be able to fly, though, eventually they would be worn down as we have seen US standoff munitions are limited.

US used 30-50% of munitions against just Iran. Imagine Russia.

China has a lot of sneaky new toys up their sleeve as well - very long range capabilities for a lot of things, enough to 'deter' USN pretty hard.

Nobody doubts US would ultimately 'win' v Russia, but everything is up in the air right now.

FYI even Houthis downed US jets.

> Russia's S300/S400 can absolutely down everything the USA has including F22 and F35 - stealth is an 'advantage' not 'cloaking device'.

Iran has (had?) S300 and maybe S400 yet downed no F35s despite many months of them in their airspace. I'm not suggesting US stealth makes the planes invulnerable but the evidence we have so far does not support your statement.

I don't mean to be demeaning but this statement betrays the wrong model of how these systems operate.

These are not 'point systems' with 'A on B' capabilities aka 'it works on this but not that'.

They are networked systems that work in the context of a layered AA strategy along with many other parts.

A single S300 system outside the context of a layered strategy is useless and will be picked off quickly.

We have ballpark estimations for their capabilities, and S400, in proper defensive posture, will hold out against anything NATO has ... for a while.

(Not accounting for 'magic' unknown gear that either side has)

AA defence will have long range radar, AWACS, satellite, other point systems, all kinds of EW (electronic warfare), and defensive patrols of various kinds. And we're now seeing Chinese passive systems deployed in Iran as well.

If that layered defence is very effectively managed, then it becomes very hard to pin the various pieces down. SEED munitions are maybe 60 miles range, and S400 can see F35's at 50 miles, that's a 'very tight' standoff even in a theoretical situation. If an adversary has AWACS then they're not going to use their tracking radars so the F35 has nothing to launch at.

There are all sorts of things adversaries can do to spook NATO AWACS off, push them back, which shortens the distance at which sorties can take place.

If a nation has 'all the layers' and they have good leadership, training, and are nimble and know what they are doing, they can be effective.

If there is 'kink in the armour' or the defence is piecemeal, it can be picked apart.

Think of it like those Roman Phalanx: we can't just say 'they have a certain shaped shield' - it's everything together. Coordination, training, tactics makes them hard to penetrate, but incompetence, exposed flank, etc. and they will break.

Also, Patriot is more capable, but given 'apparent doctrine' of limited munitions, the West has badly depleted inventories. Russia is pumping out enormous volumes of supplies. All of that means they get used differently.

You moved the goalposts. You originally said S300/400 could down any US stealth plane. Now you are saying that S300/400 can down any US stealth plane in concert with many other capabilities.

I don't think it's a matter of moving goalposts but rather a matter of what's implied when talking about these AD systems. S400 and S300 are primarily designed to operate as an integral part of an AD networked components. Iran didn't have the integrated network of S300 or S400, and Russian prior offers to provide it were declined. We do not know S400 capabilites against the F-35 planes, but there is some evidence that they might be fairly effective. This was a concern when Turkey purchased an S400 system ("It is not possible to both fly the F-35 in space where the S-400 is significantly operable." - Mike Pompeo) - Washington cancelled the deal with Turkey because of concerns that its low frequency radar can track and analyze F-35 operations (there are multiple sources on that).

That’s false . Ukraine is hitting moving targets with middle strike every single day with ai that knows what to strike. More capable than any f-35 in that regards .

> Ukraine is sending drones for 2000 miles deep into Russian territory. F-35 plus payload is not capable of that .

Source on the drones actually flying that far? I would assume they're forward positioned.

https://united24media.com/war-in-ukraine/drones-reach-russia...

3000 km or around 1864 miles.

What is wild to me: That is more range than a state of the art Tomohawk cruise missile.

Also wild that if it can happen to Russia, it can happen to other countries.

Yes to hit something 1864 miles away you need to maneuver. Most likely it did > 2000 miles .

Russia and Ukraine are using what they can do though. That doesn't mean that a different Air Force couldn't work differently. The US has a lot more airplanes in the Air Force plus a lot more planes in the Navy. They could be used potentially. We don't know what would happen, but the generals in the US military still think the manned planes would have a powerful role and would change the situation in Ukraine.

> US and Israeli 5th generation aircraft took minimal losses in the recent strikes on Iran despite some fairly capable defenses.

It didn't win the Americans and the Israelis the war, to the contrary, it gave them (the Americans and the Israelis) the illusion that they could win it based on air power alone as a result of the Douhet doctrine.

> for now the autonomous flight control software is incapable of complex, dynamic missions

I give it 1-2y.

The US - Iran capability gap is orders of magnitude larger than the Ukraine - Russia gap.

Silly nonsense comment.

The US would absolutely not be sending manned helicopters into the same situations. Zero chance.

The US is failing to decisively win a war against a third world country. Ukraine is failing to decisively win (but gradually winning) a war against an adversary several multiples its size and economic strength.

I've never seen a helo anywhere near UA frontlines. Would be over in seconds.

There are multiple occasions when drones were hunting russian helicopters. Tough target to kill with one FPV drone.

It is not anywhere near a daily occurence. Beginning of the war or on the rs side, sure, but it's suicide for a rs helo to come into Ukrainian territory at this point.

Yes, but they're generally not right at the front.

It's not trivial to hit them with drones - but there so, so many these days, the density makes things dramatically hard. They are there waiting for movement of supplies.

They had them in the first months of the war but a lot got shot down.

Right...even Ukranians are now saying that they hope they won't be in a too disadvantageous position during the eventual negotiations. So that's where the war is at right now.

The USA is unable to support ground troops in either sphere be it Houthi territory or Iran.

The Osprey is dead, the mission it was built for was Iran, and today they are limited to 15 min from base missions, aka they are effectively retired.

Those new Littoral combat ships are decommissioned.

Russia has almost no tanks or armoured vehicles to deliver troops in Ukraine, and the USA is no different. It cant support troops on the ground in either area. Any troops dropped there would be abandoned in a very harsh terrain.

The US is more than capable of deploying and supporting a Marine Expeditionary Brigade in either Iran or Yemen. That it has not is a political decision.

The Russians also tell themselves the same.

That’s a red herring

Unfortunately this is one example where the only proof is actually being able to get the job done. Taking Venezuela isnt proof of anything or a judgement of capability. Today we have an actual test and so far, the USA has failed.

No, the US cannot deploy an expeditionary force of any size anywhere in (hostile) Yemen or Iran without it coming under fire relatively quickly. Light units without support or reinforcements will be overwhelmed in a matter of time.

Minor coastal incursions, sure. Tiny special forces operations, maybe.

There's nowhere for Marines to hunker down for any length of time.

There are so many things wrong with your post that either you're trolling or so wildly misinformed that it amounts to the same thing.

The US doesn't have ground troops fighting in Iran or Houthi territories (perhaps some SpecOps, but nothing public.)

The Osprey is not limited as you describe, and the US is purchasing follow on tilt-rotor aircraft.

What do the LCS have to do with anything about CASEVAC?

The Russians still have quite a lot of armor. They're reserving it from combat in Ukraine. The US has even more armor.

A few months back there was a F15 i think that went down, the cause is irrelevant and pilots ejected over Iran in the mountains. The rescue guys got them but they didnt use the Ospreys they used hercs and regular chopper.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_F-15E_rescu...

> Claimed as self-destroyed: 2 MC-130J Hercules[7] 4 MH-6 or AH-6 special operations helicopters[8

So the q is why not send in the Ospreys ? Because they are lame and out of commission.

THe US had a lot of equipment before the start, but NO Ospreys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%E2%80%93Boeing_V-22_Ospre...

> In January 2026, the V-22 was used in combat during the US intervention in Venezuela.[204]

Yes only used in V but not Iran. We all know V was a freebie.

https://www.defenseone.com/defense-systems/2025/04/ospreys-w...

So many grounding it shows they are not actually trusted when it really counts. Every year or two they are grounded, that doesnt inspire confidence and it shows today becuse when it counts they are not to be seen.

> What do the LCS have to do with anything about CASEVAC?

What does the L in LCS stand for ? THey should be the ones In Hormuz today.

Old-school piloted aviation is good for the first 3 months because you have missile stocks that you can launch from further away with basically 0 risk.

If you have to fight longer than that even US runs out of the expansive stuff and then drones win.

Ukraine is not Iran.

The very reason Trump and his drill sergeant in Pentagon refuse to commit boots on the ground is even they realize how it's going to be. ISR footage of American servicemen dying with no chance of rescue would be bad for ratings.

American aviation also lost the war.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com