<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>demallien</author><text>&amp;quot;easily destroyed by much cheaper drones&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;To a certain extent, this has been true for more than two decades.  I used to work as a radar engineer for the RAAF, and every time we went on exercises against US forces (both teams flying F 18s, but with different missile payloads, we had AIM9s, the Americans had AMRAAM), we would see our aircraft swatted from the sky before we could even get the bogeys on weapons-system radar.  Talk about dog-fighting maneuverability and visibility is just ridiculous - if you&amp;#x27;re using those characteristics, you&amp;#x27;ve already lost the battle. In the control room we used to joke that the USN could have sent P51s equipped with AMRAAMs and AWACS support and they would still win.&lt;p&gt;Modern fighter aircraft need to:&lt;p&gt;a) not be seen
 b) be fast (time to target is still important!)
 c) carry a decent payload of weapons.&lt;p&gt;Ideally target selection should be provided by AWACS, and missile-sensors provide the final kill guidance, allowing the fighter (AKA missile-launch platform) to remain stealthy.  In the absence of AWACS, the fighter will need to carry it&amp;#x27;s own sensor suite.&lt;p&gt;Modern air warfare is all about sensors, ECM and stealth.  The airframe is almost inconsequential.</text><parent_chain><item><author>conformal</author><text>the F-35 is one of the largest wastes of government money that is publicly known. by the time the aircraft has all the bugs ironed out, it will have cost USD 1 tln and be easily destroyed by much cheaper drones. the entire contract should be converted into drone development, which will actually pay dividends.&lt;p&gt;trying to argue that we need the F-35 or that it will provide any kind of strategic military value is absurd.</text></item><item><author>dkhenry</author><text>I understand the point the article is trying to make, but its not realistic. Having worked with the Navy for a few years I know that the biggest use of airplanes is not air to air combat ( which is what this article is complaining about ) It is air to land bombing. So why are we complaining about making an air force that serves our needs rather then one that might be useful for some other task.&lt;p&gt;As a note he says this will be the &amp;quot;new mainstay of the air force&amp;quot; however we still have the F-22 as our air superiority fighter which is still believed to be better then anything out there, and indeed in their simulation the only limitation to the F-22 was there were too few of them. So this isn&amp;#x27;t really about America losing air superiority its about a few analysts not taking into account the entire mission of the three branches of the military. Maybe this plane doesn&amp;#x27;t stack up well against the F-16 or F-22, but It sure beats the Harrier and the F-18.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane</title><url>https://medium.com/war-is-boring/5c95d45f86a5</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>mparr4</author><text>&amp;gt; the entire contract should be converted into drone development, which will actually pay dividends&lt;p&gt;...or, maybe, education?</text><parent_chain><item><author>conformal</author><text>the F-35 is one of the largest wastes of government money that is publicly known. by the time the aircraft has all the bugs ironed out, it will have cost USD 1 tln and be easily destroyed by much cheaper drones. the entire contract should be converted into drone development, which will actually pay dividends.&lt;p&gt;trying to argue that we need the F-35 or that it will provide any kind of strategic military value is absurd.</text></item><item><author>dkhenry</author><text>I understand the point the article is trying to make, but its not realistic. Having worked with the Navy for a few years I know that the biggest use of airplanes is not air to air combat ( which is what this article is complaining about ) It is air to land bombing. So why are we complaining about making an air force that serves our needs rather then one that might be useful for some other task.&lt;p&gt;As a note he says this will be the &amp;quot;new mainstay of the air force&amp;quot; however we still have the F-22 as our air superiority fighter which is still believed to be better then anything out there, and indeed in their simulation the only limitation to the F-22 was there were too few of them. So this isn&amp;#x27;t really about America losing air superiority its about a few analysts not taking into account the entire mission of the three branches of the military. Maybe this plane doesn&amp;#x27;t stack up well against the F-16 or F-22, but It sure beats the Harrier and the F-18.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane</title><url>https://medium.com/war-is-boring/5c95d45f86a5</url></story>