You may also make an adversary believe they have a much larger advantage then they do, inviting a conflict.
There is substantial debate as to whether the open development of projects such as the f-35 is beneficial or harmful compress to the secret development of things like the J-20. The congressional interrogations of Lockheed Likely help ensure that the f-35 works as advertised, but adversaries gain insight into the development timeline, problems, and more specs than they would have otherwise.
> The congressional interrogations of Lockheed Likely help ensure that the f-35 works as advertised
I am under the impression the f-35 will never deliver what was advertised since it was a sales effort based on fantasy physics. It probably is delivering the actual intended effect, which is transferring money from taxpayers to military contractors and job votes for certain senators.
Which makes you wonder, how badly are the secret fighter jet programs intended to compete with the F-35 or similar stealth planes actually going?
The MIG-25's capabilities were famously misinterpreted by western intelligence, resulting in the creation of the F-15 Eagle. Undoubtedly similar confusions resulted in the F-22 program through the 1980s.
> I am under the impression the f-35 will never deliver what was advertised since it was a sales effort based on fantasy physics.
It will deliver, though. Because the physics don't matter nearly as much - unless you are talking about radar signature physics. Aircraft today are mobile ordnance delivery platforms. Those Top Gun air to air stunts? Unlikely to happen. Supermaneuvarability stuff doesn't matter at all if you are getting hit before you even know the enemy is there. Or you might know, because one F35 has the radar on, only to get hit from a completely different aircraft that's getting the data link.
What does matter is getting in undetected (while coordinating with your peers), delivering your payload, getting back out. Or doing recon, etc.
I even worked with military simulators, and they themselves are segregated. The simpler ones use the "marketing" figures for secret stuff (the thing I specifically remember was range for air-to-air robots and turn capabilities etc), whereas some might use the real figures. I don't think even the most high fidelity simulators always use 100% accurate info, especially when it comes to radar stuff which is very very well guarded. Even though a lot of the code can be identical to the "flying code" for aircraft, there is still a lot of physical stuff that needs to be specifically modelled.
Given the actual harddisk size compared with advertised and how nutritional value and calories in supermarket foods are often misleading, it can be safe to say that the specification is hard to be believed.
To an extent. But weapon specifications often have pretty gigantic error bars on them.
After all, the range of a tank gun isn't just a question of how far it can send a shell - it's also a question of how well the gun can be aimed, how hard the shells have to hit when they arrive, and whether the 'effective' in 'effective range' means a 20% chance of a kill or a 90% chance.
By messing around with those definitions, the M1 Abrams tank has a range of anything from 2,500m to 4000m to 8000m. Pretty hard to sanity-check such a wide range of figures.
You may also make an adversary believe they have a much larger advantage then they do, inviting a conflict.
There is substantial debate as to whether the open development of projects such as the f-35 is beneficial or harmful compress to the secret development of things like the J-20. The congressional interrogations of Lockheed Likely help ensure that the f-35 works as advertised, but adversaries gain insight into the development timeline, problems, and more specs than they would have otherwise.
> The congressional interrogations of Lockheed Likely help ensure that the f-35 works as advertised
I am under the impression the f-35 will never deliver what was advertised since it was a sales effort based on fantasy physics. It probably is delivering the actual intended effect, which is transferring money from taxpayers to military contractors and job votes for certain senators.
Which makes you wonder, how badly are the secret fighter jet programs intended to compete with the F-35 or similar stealth planes actually going?
The MIG-25's capabilities were famously misinterpreted by western intelligence, resulting in the creation of the F-15 Eagle. Undoubtedly similar confusions resulted in the F-22 program through the 1980s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25#Wester...
> I am under the impression the f-35 will never deliver what was advertised since it was a sales effort based on fantasy physics.
It will deliver, though. Because the physics don't matter nearly as much - unless you are talking about radar signature physics. Aircraft today are mobile ordnance delivery platforms. Those Top Gun air to air stunts? Unlikely to happen. Supermaneuvarability stuff doesn't matter at all if you are getting hit before you even know the enemy is there. Or you might know, because one F35 has the radar on, only to get hit from a completely different aircraft that's getting the data link.
What does matter is getting in undetected (while coordinating with your peers), delivering your payload, getting back out. Or doing recon, etc.
3 replies →
Can you be more specific? What about the F35 was based on "fantasy physics"?
3 replies →
Yes, and published specs of weapons are likely to be misleading or outright lies for that reason
I even worked with military simulators, and they themselves are segregated. The simpler ones use the "marketing" figures for secret stuff (the thing I specifically remember was range for air-to-air robots and turn capabilities etc), whereas some might use the real figures. I don't think even the most high fidelity simulators always use 100% accurate info, especially when it comes to radar stuff which is very very well guarded. Even though a lot of the code can be identical to the "flying code" for aircraft, there is still a lot of physical stuff that needs to be specifically modelled.
Given the actual harddisk size compared with advertised and how nutritional value and calories in supermarket foods are often misleading, it can be safe to say that the specification is hard to be believed.
Not against anyone competent. If your opponents are taking a single photo leaked on Reddit at face value, then you're going to have an easy time.
You should always overstate your capabilities not understate them.
Rubbish. It depends on what you want to make your opponent do.
Or do both so that you are not predictable.
I'm sure the enemy rocket designers will look at whether your specs make sense given their own experience.
To an extent. But weapon specifications often have pretty gigantic error bars on them.
After all, the range of a tank gun isn't just a question of how far it can send a shell - it's also a question of how well the gun can be aimed, how hard the shells have to hit when they arrive, and whether the 'effective' in 'effective range' means a 20% chance of a kill or a 90% chance.
By messing around with those definitions, the M1 Abrams tank has a range of anything from 2,500m to 4000m to 8000m. Pretty hard to sanity-check such a wide range of figures.