Hacker News Reader

Comment by mangeletti | Hacker News Reader

I think the F-35 isn't real, that all the videos of it are CGI, and that all these reports are supposed to convince us that this money has been lost, all while the government is secretly using the entire F-35 budget to build a flock of flying drones, walking and talking robots, and rail guns for the next major war.

I have to believe such contrivances to avoid thinking about how my tax dollars are wasted.

View on HN

I have my picture taken next to an F-35 thanks to a friend who is an F-35 pilot. I can assure you that it's fake. Most likely made of paper mache. The helmet's pretty cool though.

The X-47B is pretty damn cool, makes one wonder with the rate of advancement they had why we would need to develop manned craft much longer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B

The US Navy has said the F-35 is probably that last manned fighter for them. The X-47B is done after the refuel testing so it makes one wonder what is the next test aircraft.

The Navy is already running a big competition for their carrier based unmanned vehicle (UCLASS)[1]. This competition is part of the reason why, I think, there have been regular press releases coming out from Boeing, Northop, et al. and the Navy regarding drone capabilities - carrier landings, mid-air refueling, etc.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_Carrier-Launched_Airbo...

No, the USN has said the F-35 will be the last manned "strike" aircraft for them. They are developing the F/Axx to replace the F-18, and this will definitely be manned.

Yes, I should have added strike fighter, but the F/Axx is listed as manned or unmanned. I have my doubts about the duality they think they are going to get. On the technical side the F-35 is replacing the F/A-18C while the F/Axx is replacing the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

The problem for the USN is that the F-35 isn't coming along fast enough, and the cost will make the airwing even smaller than currently deployed. I think they Navy would love to ditch the F-35, let the Marines suffer with the F-35B, and push on to F/Axx. Of course the really smart thing would be pushing UCLASS hard, but that would conflict with a lot of their ideas about piloted aircraft.

At this point, they might as well buy the newer F-18 until they can get a decision. It looks like Boeing needs orders or it will shutdown the line.

Considering we (and around the world) still fly jets from the 1970's and prior (although heavily updated) I'd say we have a handful of decades of human operation left.

To some extent however most of the changes since the 60's have been evolutionary rather than revolutionary, pilotless aircraft are revolutionary.

Even putting modern electronics into an ancient design like the Mig-21 produces a very capable aircraft (the Mig-21 Bison has held it's own against F16's and even F15C's) putting a pilotless control system into something like a modern F15 would create one hell of a fighter.

Inserting a "pilotless control system" into a previously manned fighter does nothing to improve its performance, and degrades it in many ways (i.e. situational awareness). Where unmanned systems do better is in size and weight since they don't have to carry all the gear to support a human. Although you can remove ejection seats, oxygen gear etc from a manned fighter, unmanned really needs to be designed from the ground up.

An RC F-15 exists and is used for training I believe (no link handy) however I think moving forward, it would be more reasonable to expect them to make an RC/autonomous F-35 or F-22 or comparable fifth generation fighter.

They'd certainly be the start platform but without the human in the cockpit you can do stuff you simply can't do now like push the G-envelope right out, modern planes are often computer limited to the G's to prevent injuring the pilot.

If you know you aren't going to exceed 9G you don't design the airframe for more than that, if you know the pilot is going to be a computer then you can push that out way more.

You can also make them much smaller (removing the human, his seat, the redundant controls, environmental control) and somewhat more stealthy.

Quite frankly they'd be terrifying as a weapons platform, they'd re-write the rules of air warfare and I suspect they'd be used a lot more than normal piloted planes because no risk of body bags on the evening news :|.

Interesting that you mention the bison upgrade. The U.S. defense establishment’s inability to iterate quickly with technology is becoming an increasing liability. More, cheaper planes, with specialized roles, that can be upgraded quickly with new technology is definitely the way to go. The JSF is a disaster waiting to happen. As the saying goes, ‘armchair generals study strategy, but professionals study logistics’ forgets the last part that only fools put all their eggs in one basket.

Agreed, also the Bison is interesting because the Russian's put their state of the art (which might not be the wests, I'm not sure) equipment into a plane that first flew 59 years ago and went into service 56 years ago.

That it turned out to be extremely capable is very interesting and compared to the stuff the west is building very cheap.

As I think Lenin said "Quantity has a quality all of it's own".

As a former F/A-18 pilot, I’m actually a huge fan of drones, but I’m also suspect of betting everything on them. It strikes me as having the same problem as the JSF: ‘all your eggs in one basket’. If one key flaw can be found with the JSF, a sneaky way to target it, the results would be catastrophic. The same applies to drones, if an adversary can figure out how to deny the comm links or compromise the system, the results would also be catastrophic.

Fighter aircraft are essentially missile trucks with targeting systems. The battle is being won or lost in the electromagnetic spectrum. In this battle, I’m of the mindset that we should have a mix of manned and un-manned missile truck drivers. There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com