undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjustsomehnguy4y ago0 comments

> developing a 2nd iteration of the f-22.

Because it is completely pointless. It is cheaper to saturate the sky with missile trucks (human or remote driven) and play reverse Space Invaders. Also morale hit if any of "Super Fighters" would be hit would be disastrous and magnitudes worse than F-117 loss.

0 comments

beerandt4y ago

Same reasoning would apply moreso to NGAD. And I'm suggesting in addition to, not instead of.

A second iteration wouldn't necessarily be a "super fighter", but a cheaper, relatively conservative improvement on the existing f-22 and a hedge against NGAD delays or failures.

An updated, lower maintenance stealth coating, a slightly scaled up airframe for additional fuel and range, and an updated communications suite (that's compatible with f-35's et al)... just that would be huge. As said, an fa-18ef update.

Since the tech is 30+ years old now, it's probably to our advantage to share at least some of it with our allies. Which spreads development costs and lowers $per/jet costs.

I don't know how you envision "missile trucks" working against, eg china, but humans on-board requires missile-defeating stealth, and cheap excludes the NGAD version.

And the morale argument is what? A reason to never build an awesome fighter jet again? Cool things worthy of national pride experiencing a failure will always hit morale. But a reboot of a 30 year old jet wouldn't be the prime candidate for that, anymore than people would currently think the new fa-18 is. It's an update of what will be a ~2 generation lag behind (publicly known) cutting edge.

justsomehnguyOP4y ago

> relatively conservative improvement on the existing f-22

F-22 is an air superiority fighter for the Cold War. It's a nice bird, sure, but it is... obsolete?

What tasks it can do _now_ what cannot be solved by a force of F-15/18 + F-35 with a complement of UAVs? The only one what comes to mind is a deep incursions into the enemy territory... which is realistically wouldn't be needed, because the only two countries what could require such operations by the time of such operations would required would already end the war or end the war by a nuclear fire.

> working against, eg china

Exactly like it's described. Bait at the front, trucks at 50-150km behind, local C2 and data aggregation in F-35s spread behind the front.

The difference between fighting a ragtags with AKs and a country with a sophisticated AA system is what you WANT to provoke AA so it would disclose its position and so you could react to it. Also it means you /will have/ a big amount of losses and of course you would prefer to lose UAVs or at most the type you have 3x in the inventory.

> A reason to never build an awesome fighter jet again?

Why not? Build it. But never let it fly where it can be actually shot down.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse