this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
292 points (96.8% liked)

World News

39376 readers
2077 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Lockheed Martin UK’s chief, Paul Livingston, defended the F-35 stealth jet program after Elon Musk called it obsolete due to advances in unmanned drones.

Livingston emphasized the F-35’s unmatched capabilities, including stealth, battlefield data-sharing, and cost-efficiency by replacing multiple aircraft types.

While Musk labeled the program overly expensive and poorly designed, Livingston argued drones alone can’t match the F-35’s capabilities or defend against threats like China’s J20 jets.

Despite criticism over cost and reliability, the F-35 remains integral to NATO defenses, with widespread adoption across 19 nations, including the UK.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 10 points 12 hours ago

Every word out of elons mouth is complete and utter bs.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 15 hours ago

Elon thinks bcz he's rich the defense contractors can't get him? Michael Hastings got ended bcz he talked a little too much about a general.

[–] [email protected] 67 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The guy that can't deliver self driving cars wants to talk about self driving planes?

[–] sp3tr4l 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The cars were going to fly short distances too.

He said he was going to use monopropellant thrusters to make his cars fly.

Hopefully I do not need to point out the many reasons this is a very bad idea, if not functionally impossible.

He also said he was working on an electric aircraft at one point.

Other companies have actually made such things... not Musk though.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

if lithium battery fires were bad, i'm sure that firefighters are thrilled to see hydrazine fires, several hundreds of kg at a time, after random crashes. lmao. what the fuck was he thinking?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 day ago (2 children)

To be fair(TM) planes are a bit easier. Fewer obstacles up there and typically a lot of things broadcast that they are there. They were landing the Russian space shuttle by computer in the 80s.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No one was jamming the Russian space shuttle, or shooting missiles at it.

It’s one thing to have an autonomous landing program on an aircraft, it’s another thing entirely to have a program that can react to surface to air missiles, enemy jamming, and over the horizon air to air missiles.

Elon musk is an idiot if he thinks a drone can replace all of the capabilities of even an F22, let alone the F35, which is a multi-role aircraft capable of handling all of the above and more. The F35 can jam, do reconnaissance, network with friendly fighters to fire over the horizon missiles, and drop bombs that weigh 1000 times what a drone can carry. Was it a good use of tax dollars considering the budget overruns? Probably not. But can it be replaced by drone swarms? Hell no. The F35 is an unmatched weapons platform, that’s why nato countries have been buying them.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Oh yeah Elon is a wanker for sure. I just wanted to point out that though they seem similar the problem spaces are different

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

all from the power of one potato no less!

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

On one hand, unmanned airplanes (drones or remote controlled) will outfly anything with a human on board, because humans are generally the weakest part of the plane. No human = no cockpit or life support, no hatch, no windows, no ejection seats, etc. An equivalent drone plane will be lighter, more structurally sound, and can maneuver at g-forces that will kill a human pilot.

That's the hardware side of things, of course.

The software and information security is definitely not there yet... But I'm sure Elon thinks it'll be ready "next year" just like Full Self Driving...

[–] [email protected] 6 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

It's expensive, sure.

In some cases, it has no use. In a small Eastern European country, it makes more sense to buy drones, artillery and air defense. If the possible opponent is right next to you, an airfield hosting the F-35 would simply be smashed with ballistic missiles, leaving the fighter homeless. The same money in the form of other items would serve one better.

Far over the ocean, far in the rear - different things make sense. Projecting force quickly to a big distance or intredicting an opponent that does that - requires fighter jets.

For a country whose threat model involves supersonic bombers launching hypersonic missiles at its navy or shipping or coastline from beyond air defense range - that cannot be solved with today's drones, but can be solved with F-35: "intercept the bombers before they launch anything, destroy their airfields". Drones cannot currently stop a stealth fighter, or even stop an ordinary fighter: it will outrun them and possibly run circles around them.

Drones of the future? Could take any form. Maybe some day, the F-35 is indeed a mobile command post in the sky and drones do the hard job. But not currently.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

what a take

yeah this must be why south korea, japan, singapore, israel, finland, poland, romania and greece don't have, or procure, F-35

hardened hangars are a thing, and unlike magic drones, F-35s already exist

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (2 children)

That is also why Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia and several other countries aren't planning to get any. Easier to let others have fighters, based in safer locations. Always possible to bring them forward to local air fields.

South Korea doesn't have a rear area to rely on, even its capital is in artillery range from the north - it has no plan B except overcoming the opponent very fast (to decapitate a command chain, you need stealth strikes through their air defense).

Japan is an island far from the mainland - plenty of advance warning about an incoming ballistic payload. Poland has strategic depth like Ukraine. Greece doesn't have that kind of a neigbour, but otherwise would qualify. Since it has very articulated landscape, it must optimize its ability for naval and air operations, so it needs good planes.

Romania and Finland are the countries in your list that fit my categories and make me think - maybe there is some benefit to a country with small strategic depth in having a very expensive air force.

In case of Finland, they have a large GDP per capita (enough to sustain an expensive project) and want their airforce to survive in range of the St. Petersburg air defense district of Russia (relatively densely armed). I think that, given the options (Jas-39 Gripen vs. F-35), they decided that "we must have an air force" and "nothing but a stealth air force will last in predictable conditions".

In case of Romania, I keep wondering why they chose it. I think they simply added Ukraine to their strategic depth calculation and and concluded "we have plenty of strategic depth, there will be lots of advance warning if anyone comes at us over Ukraine".

As for hardened hangars, the last ones over here (Estonia) to have them were the Soviets/Russians. Forward-deployed allied planes spend their time in lightly built above-ground hangars. I have no doubt in the planners knowing the state of the art. They simply aren't that optimistic. There is every expectation that in case of war, planes cannot stay, but must temporarily retreat out of harm's way. But you are correct to mention hardened shelters for planes, they should exist. But if one wants to keep operating in range of SRBM-s and attack drones - hardened everything, not just hardened hangars. (Sweden for example decided it wouldn't have hardened everything, and designed a domestic fighter capable of flying off straight stretches of paved road.)

To summarize: if you foresee fighting in a phone booth, don't choose a longsword. :)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 46 minutes ago* (last edited 46 minutes ago)

Wrong, Czech republic signed contract for 24 F-35s almost a year ago.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago

in case of poland, you're forgetting about ballistic missiles stationed in belarus and kaliningrad. in case of japan and to some degree south korea, there are also possible adversary's naval assets

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Is he doing this just to stay relevant?

You know, no publicity is bad publicity (in both meanings).

Why not criticise hospitals, roads, electric transport, burgers, breathing when he's at it?

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 day ago (2 children)

he might be doing this because he has no idea what he's talking about

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 217 points 1 day ago (21 children)

Elon is such an idiot.

This is the same shit he pulled back when he pushed drones as a solution to all those kids trapped in a cave. They weren't even remotely viable, and when human beings rescued them, he called the leader of that successful operation a "pedo" for absolutely no reason other than his own childish idiocy.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

he called the leader of that successful operation a "pedo" for absolutely no reason other than his own childish idiocy.

Come on Muskrat call the CEO of Lockheed Martin a pedo

[–] [email protected] 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Normally I'm opposed to the MIC drone striking US citizens, but apparently there are some exceptions

[–] [email protected] 5 points 14 hours ago

Elon isn't a citizen I thought. More of a foreign combatant I'd say.

[–] [email protected] 71 points 1 day ago (1 children)

he called the leader of that successful operation a "pedo" for absolutely no reason other than his own childish idiocy.

I think it's darker than that. Their solution involved doping the kids so they were heavily sedated during transport. This was out of fear they would panic and threaten their own life and that of the person transporting them.

The dark part is how Musk's mind associated sedating a child to make them more docile with sexual assault.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

He tried the "have sex with me and I'll buy you a toy, but you can't tell anyone" routine with a worker and got caught. Now he knows those tactics don't work as well on adults.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 day ago

or like when he brained up hyperloop to prevent normal high speed trains development in california, but this one is too glaringly stupid and it's going against thing that already is proven to work, and with no equals

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] [email protected] 125 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

"Fifth columnist says top of the line weapons system that is already paid for and being fielded is actually fucking stupid and you should totally divest from it and pursue some vague futuretech solution."

It's all so tiresome.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 day ago

it's all "hey don't do the thing that works, instead give money to meeee"

[–] [email protected] 63 points 1 day ago

it's rich coming from dude whose brainchild is cybertruck to say that F-35 sucks

[–] [email protected] 68 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

Drones can be jammed. You cannot match a trained human pilot with an onboard AI pilot, as much as Mr Snake Oil would like you to believe. Imagine fighter jets with the piloting equivalent to the Tesla “FSD”.

Edit: here’s a paywall free mirror for the curious

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 day ago

overly expensive and poorly designed

Oh, like a flying cyber truck?

load more comments
view more: next ›