> "At over eighty million dollars per airframe, with Lockheed Martin delivering fewer than two hundred aircraft per year across all variants and all customers worldwide, there is no surge capacity waiting to be activated and no precedent for accelerating a program of this complexity on wartime timelines. When one side can produce weapons by the hundreds and thousands — missiles, loitering munitions, and one-way attack drones — while the other relies on small numbers of exquisite platforms, the advantage shifts toward the side with scale."
The article gets this wrong as well, the f35 can be built at scale, no other fighter aircraft is produced in such high numbers, its also significantly cheaper on a per airframe basis vs Gen 4 aircraft and its more advanced. This article is nonsense and the author doesn't know what they are talking about.
It says right in the article ~200 a year. The base scenario in recent war games, the US lost 270 aircraft total, of which 206 were USAF. Japan lost 112, Taiwan's air force effectively ceased to exist. Across iterations, Air Force losses ranged from 168 to 372(mostly on the ground)in a fight with China over Taiwan. Those are substantial losses but assuming all the losses were f35(they were not) even at current non wartime production rates the United States could replace that in a few years time.
Also the war games showed that when LRASM supplies were depleted, the f35 became the primary anti ship and strike asset as it was one of the few aircraft that could fulfill the role and survive.
January 2023. Specifically focused on an invasion of Taiwan. And the analysis report hardly mentions drones. Not saying it isn't useful info, but it is in essence not much more than an educated (but outdated) guess. Using terms like "showed that" is thus highly unwarranted.
> Those are substantial losses but assuming all the losses were f35(they were not) even at current non wartime production rates the United States could replace that in a few years time.
You make that sound as if it is not that much, even though the losses (were theorized to have) occurred within a matter of weeks. If anything, it strengthens the point that F-35 production is going to be inadequate in a longer-lasting conflict.
There are semi- and fully submersible variants on the way, that can stay underwater for prolonged periods of time! Sea Baby is growing into quite a few different things over the months.
The submersible drones are quite slow, and require significant support from external sensor platforms. They're useful for defending or denying constrained areas but they can't do much to protect a Chinese invasion fleet near Taiwan.
But it's a bit irrelevant because we couldn't produce enough pilots either -- the training pyramid means you can only graduate so many new pilots each year, capped by the number of instructors at each level.
There is a similar problem with drone pilots -- it took Ukraine and Russia years to scale up and get to the current level of skill. However, training drone controllers is cheaper because the aircraft cost nothing.
> There is a similar problem with drone pilots -- it took Ukraine and Russia years to scale up and get to the current level of skill. However, training drone controllers is cheaper because the aircraft cost nothing.
Unlikely that pilots would work for drones in a fight with China over the pacific, the jamming and electronic warfare environment would make remote piloting nearly impossible, which is why CCA efforts are looking at onboard AI piloted aircraft. Even in Ukraine the EW environment is so harsh that FPV drones have resorted to using physical fiber optic cable connections so the drones cant be jammed out of the sky.
Any sort of drone that has the range, speed(shaheds only go ~180 km/h), and survivability to last in or near Chinese airspace is going to be expensive and complicated.
I'm using pilots in the loosest sense, it wouldn't be FPV. Regardless, there is a significant skill requirement.
The lesson from Ukraine and Iran is that 180km/h is fine if you have enough of them. If you have a Jetson Nano and comms link on each one they could be a real PITA to intercept.
Toward the end of WW2, even though the US and UK were turning German cities into rubble, the manufacture of german planes was still so great that empty planes sat around in warehouses because they could not find pilots to fly them.
That is why autonomous drones are very promising, because for manned flight, you will run out of pilots long, long, long, before you run out of planes. I don't think it's ever happened, that a nation with a large air force ran out of planes before running out of pilots.
So complaining about manufacturing capacity of planes is a bit goofy. I'd worry about surge capacity of things that are not gated by human operators. And only in the context of a regional war of choice overseas, since we'd just nuke anyone who tried to invade us at home.
Once you understand these constraints, you can better interpret why US production is allocated the way it is.
More than any other non wartime fighter in recient history. and if war breaks out we can produce a lot more once we gear up factories - as every other war needed-
That's a non-answer. You're comparing it within its category when the point of contention is specifically and explicitly that its production can't match that of drones etc. In a broader sense the entire category of manned fighter jets can't scale to keep up with drone production.
Ukraine produces thousands of drones a day, including interceptor drones.
A valid question is how the investment in drone warfare is best balanced with that in traditional warfare, but that is besides the point of the difference in scaling production.
The pacific theater is a way different combat environment then Ukraine. The ranges involved and china's IADS is just a whole different beast. The cheap drones that we have been seeing in Ukraine and Iran are just not as useful in a war against china. Cheap drones don't have the range or survivability to penetrate china's airspace or hit moving targets(most go to fixed gps coordinates), this is a job for stand off munitions and manned stealth aircraft. There's no current UAV or CCA that exists that has the capabilities needed to replace manned aircraft for the majority of missions that would need to be flown. Wargaming shows that the b21 and f47 as well as stand off munitions are the workhorses. Although something like a Barracuda-500 seems very interesting but again its like 10x the cost of the drones being used in the Ukraine theater and its production lines are just now being set up.
If the headline of the article was that fighter jets are bad in general instead of just F-35, i suspect the convo would be very different.
But still, even if you assume that was what the author meant, its still a confusing article. The status quo already is that we dont just use fighter jets.
Yes, and surge requirements are generally quadruple of the normal runtime, but with lead-time. Still, no way we can train pilots at a rate of even 1 pilot every 1.5 days. And imagine the lead times on that!
I assume in this case they already had a bunch of firewall rules for PF and switching from OpenBSD -> FreeBSD is a much easier lift then going to linux because both the BSDs are using PF, although IIRC there are some differences between both implementations.
If you're nearby any moderately busy road it's not the engine what makes noise but the tires and then air going around the car. Engine/exhaust noise is a problem but easy to solve
> Engine/exhaust noise is a problem but easy to solve
It's easy from a technical standpoint but practically impossible from a human one. The vast majority of people simply don't notice or care that some large percentage of vehicles are intentionally modified to be louder than the legal maximum. Police won't enforce it, and most citizens barely register the noise as present, much less a problem.
Banning ICE vehicles altogether may very well be the only thing that actually gets the problem solved, since that actually has more momentum behind it than enforcement of existing noise regulations does.
I'm not sure "large percentage" is a statement I'd agree with, my searching skills are failing me, do you have any kind of source for that? I'd be shocked if it was over 5%...
I live near a medium-busy street. I haven't seen actual numbers but it wouldn't surprise me if at peak hours there are over 100 cars passing per minute.
If 5% of those are overly loud, that's an average of a very loud noise every 3 seconds, and most of them will take somewhere between 5 and 10 seconds to come and finally go away. If you don't think that's large, we have very different noise thresholds.
I guess "large" is subjective. 1-5% is the ballpark I have in my head based on experience, which qualifies as "large" to me when I get passed by thousands of cars a day.
The hard numbers I'm aware of are about motorcycles, which have much higher rates of illegal modifications than other vehicles. This source documents a bunch of other sources, with estimates ranging from 40-70%:
People that purposefully install loader than necessary pipes on their vehicles ought to be forced to stay awake by having a marching band play nonstop in their bedroom until the loud exhaust pipe is removed
Yep, there are plenty of ICE vehicles that are quite. A large number of cars/small trucks that are loud are designed that way because the roaring engine noise sells the car.
Yes and no at the same time. Tire noise is significant which is also a function of vehicle weight, speed, and tire design. You tend not to notice the tire noise as most of our interaction with cars is in places like parking lots where engine noise is much more pronounced.
Depends what we are talking about. In Europe, uber EV moped drivers are sooooo much nicer than the regular ones. Most of our interaction with cars are on side walks, along moving cars.
Umm each plane cost way less than 1.7 Billion. A F35A can be purchased for around $80 million. The 1.7 trillion figure is the cost of research
& development, purchasing about 1700 aircraft, and sustaining them for 57 years. So that includes fuel, spare parts, upgrades, pilots, etc, for almost 60 years.
To further elaborate on this, it’s something like a few tenths of total GDP over that period.
Now, depending on how you look at it, you can consider that either a huge number or eminently affordable - I think both are true - but I think it’s a reasonable price for the roles the aircraft is designed to fill over that period.
The cost of each product must include a host of costs that fall outside of the simple manufacturing cost of each. These costs are myriad: R&D, engineering, tooling, maintenance program development, documentation, testing, re-designing, etc, etc. Thus the only fair assessment of the cost of each aircraft must be calculated as COST_OF_PROGRAM / NUMBER_OF_AIRCRAFT.
This phenomenon has been discussed ad nauseum when pricing the development cost of a new pharmaceutical drug. ALL of a pharma's annual corporate research and development costs must be divided only by the number of new drugs that year. Only THAT accurately accounts for the actual cost of developing each drug, given the number of drug candidates that fail during gestation.
Military hardware is no different. Many bids on new contracts fall through. That expense is part of the cost of doing business w/ the military. In fact, if all of Lockheed's many expenditures (productive and unproductive) were divided by the number of its shipped products (w/ cost proportionate to sale price), the actual cost of each shipped product would be substantially higher than is reported. This is an age-old game played by every government contractor to hide the true extent of how much each of their products finally cost the taxpayers. (Not to mention the practice of hiding the high fraction of cost-plus contract overruns in that business.)
For a military, non WW2 plane, 1000 aircraft is a lot. The US government plans on buying around ~1700 F35 and US allies have orders for another ~1000 F35. Overtime I would expect the number of orders for f35 to keep going up.
China has built a couple HTR SMR[1] and is also currently building a PWR SMR[2]. And in the United States, Nuscale is looking to have the UAMPS project starting to supply energy in 2029[3].
Public health officials should tread carefully otherwise they risk alienating large segments of the population. Which would inturn be bad for public health.
Already happened. The resistance to a lot of the public policies in NA (both US/Canada) during the pandemic is directly due to instances of overreach such as this.
In Australia the government has largely lost control of the population. They tried to lock down hard and faced resistance but every time they try to crack down harder or enforce the rules more, they get bigger protests.
Now they have just given up entirely and even the most minor restrictions and requests are largely ignored.
Do you live in the same Australia that I'm living in? Because that's not what I've observed at all, at least in Victoria.
For better or worse, the vase majority of Australians have complied with whatever restrictions and mandates that governments have put in place. VIC and NSW, which have borne the brunt of cases and broadly mandated vaccination, have ~95% of people aged 16+ vaccinated. People have generally complied with lockdown restrictions and requirements to wear masks.
Despite the media attention they garner, the protests involve a small minority of people. Victoria didn't see any significant opposition to lockdowns until the later half of this year. Most people seem happy enough getting paid $700 a week to sit at home and play Xbox.
That said, I have noticed that increasingly people are not bothering with the more tedious requirements such as wearing masks and checking in. I wouldn't say anywhere close to "largely ignored" though. I get the impression (from people I know) that it's mostly due to fatigue and risk habituation, rather than alienation.
Australia _has_ had pretty good compliance but I don't think they have control anymore. I don't think any state has the power to pull another lockdown, it just wouldn't go down with the public. When I was in Melbourne last week, mask rules were frequently ignored, QR codes entirely ignored and the majority of non essential businesses did not check my vaccine proof. I also had business owners tell me how they hate the government forcing them to check the vaccine proofs.
Vic tried to pull tighter restrictions which resulted in mass protests and the PM saying something along the lines of "The people have had enough of restrictions", after that restrictions have been going away.
I love my 2017 Ford Focus RS! It has a touch screen but besides for that there's no lane assist, automatic breaking, or any other driver assists. I also love that it is a manual, however some people may not like that. Also they only made it from 2016 - 2018 and used ones are expensive. But check it out if you want a modern, fast, manual car with minimal digital none sense.
The article gets this wrong as well, the f35 can be built at scale, no other fighter aircraft is produced in such high numbers, its also significantly cheaper on a per airframe basis vs Gen 4 aircraft and its more advanced. This article is nonsense and the author doesn't know what they are talking about.
reply